Odd visual effed

wrote

Havent done that.

Then you need to get your ears tested, particularly when I
did say that I will be seeing a professional when that is possible.

The visual effect I am getting doesnt get a mention in any of the official cataract web sites.

 

Here is a rough idea of the visual effect I am getting.

http://www.opzap.com/eye.JPG

The diagonal is just as regular as the other two, just hard to draw in Paint.

The small isolated blob is what I get, its not a drawing error.

 

Mike Tyner wrote

Nope, someone else did.

I also said that it doesnt have the duffuse blob around the original either.

I have since posted an attempt to draw the effect I am getting.

None of the official cataract sites say that my symptoms are seen with cataracts.

It isnt really a starburst.

I never said that.

Fine.

Try explaining the physics of how a cataract can produce the effect I posted the picture
of and explain why I dont get that effect without the glasses and with a pinhole.

 

Mike Tyner wrote

Thats misleading too given that there are only 3 legs.

Nope, someone else did.

And dont get the blurring of the central section either.

Nope, its rather smaller than the central round LED and isnt round either.

That remains to be seen.

age are "cortical" cataracts that begin around the edges. Early on, these

Yes, but I dont have a ghost image and it isnt really glare either.

And none of the hits with cataracts mention those lines in just one quadrant either.

I'm not middle aged, I am 64.

I have never had any eye trauma what so ever. Never have even had a black eye.

I dont get the effect when the led is well focused without glasses, and
I dont get it with the glasses at the same distance from the LED either.

I'm not getting multiple images. That isolated blob is rather longer than
I drew it and the main difference from the other 3 is that it doesnt extend
to the LED itself.

I dont get that effect.

That doesnt happen either, the image moves around
smoothly as the pinhole itself is moved across the pupil.

I dont have ghost images.

I'm not either, essentially because there is no hint of any blurring at all.

Yeah, it smells more like a lens defect to me. The main problem
with that theory is that I dont get much effect when I move the head
significantly so the image is going thru a different part of the cornea.

The only effect I do get like that is when I tilt my head a long way
back so the image is thru the extreme bottom of the very big glasses
lenses. In that case the vertical and angled lines do mostly go away
or more strictly detatch from the central circle, but the horizontal one
is unaffected. That likely to just be an effect with the glasses lens,
plastic lenses which are quite thick at the edges at least 5mm.

Nope, its nothing like that. No blurring of the central blob
at all, the lines are much thicker than in that picture, and
there are more of them in just one quadrant too.

Tomorrow I should know, the appointment is 13:20
tomorrow. I'll post here when I know, someone may
follow the thread using groups.google later.

Got me interested now, I just cant work the physics out myself, except with a lens defect thats developed.

But that doesnt explain why I dont get it with no glasses or a pinhole or when the led is close
enough that I can focus it without glasses, and then look at it with glasses at that distance.

 

Rod Speed wrote

I've update the jpg, same url
http://www.opzap.com/eye.JPG

 

As soon as he said that it went away when he removed his glasses, that's
exactly what popped into my mind. What kind of gun will you use?

What is it that you put in the frames of glasses?

 

Nope, its just like the other 3 lines except that it doesnt extend to the LED.

Nothing like as wide as the LED, its a another streak.

Nope, its nothing like the shape of the source, its
another streak which doesnt connect to the LED itself.

Yes, they are better described as flares. Even if that isnt a commonly used term with eyes.

Nope, just expect some evidence of cloudiness in the cornea that is what a cataract is.

Cataracts are universally described as a clouding of the cornea.

And the physics of the symptoms described for cataracts fit well
with clouding of the cornea, even when that is initially rather minor.

Corse they do when you have turned your head to the extremes.

Have fun explaining why I dont get the effect without the glasses or with a pin hole.

Astigmatism is one obvious example, no clouding of the cornea.

There must be other examples of lens defects that dont involve any clouding of the lens.

 

Mike Tyner wrote

There are no multiple images, just two different types of flares/streaks,
one which doesnt connect to the image of the LED.

Nope, not when it doesnt involve any clouding.

Cataracts are universally described as a CLOUDING of the lens.

I have no evidence of any clouding what so ever, everything is very sharp.

 

wrote

Thats just hair splitting. I wasnt being specific about exactly where the defect
is. Its clearly a defect in the sense that you need glasses or contacts.

And wikipedia doesnt agree with you anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astigmatism_(eye)

Astigmatism is an optical defect in which vision is blurred due to the inability of
the optics of the eye to focus a point object into a sharp focused image on the
retina. This may be due to an irregular or toric curvature of the cornea or lens.

 

I see led's the same as you do. Mine started out as monocular
diplopia (double image with one eye) and quickly developed into
polyopia (many images). I have been diagnosed with cataracts and
Fuch's Corneal Dystrophy which are not advanced enough to treat. The
symptoms don't match up well with either of these conditions. I had
an orbscan done and my scan matched up with Keratoconus (cone shaped
cornea) which can cause my polyopia. Cure is a hard contact lens or
cornea replacement. In a few months my brain adapted to the distorted
images and I only see the problem when I look for it or I am tired and
the brain doesn't want to sort things out.

 

Thanks for that, I was hoping someone like you would show up.

I dont get that at all.

What do you mean by quickly, days, weeks or months ?

Even when driving at night wnere rhere are nol street lights ? Thats where I notice it most.

Just noticed that mine has drastically reduced for some reason. Thats a bit of a nuisance
in some ways because I am due to the see the optometrist in 3 hours and it wouldnt
be great if its gone away by then in some ways. On the other hand presumably the only
reason its changed is because the pressure in the eye has changed or something like that.

On the other hand, thats clearly a lot easier to fix if its something like that.

Basically the length of the legs/streaks has dropped significantly,
more than halved,and the isoated one has gone completely.

Going to be interesting to see what it turns out to be if it doesnt go away completely forever in the next couple of
hours.

 

For a week I had 2 sharply focused images, then they began to merge
and form more, but less sharply focused images.

At night car headlights are a large V. like your drawing except the
two legs are up. I also see a spider web around the lights which are
about twicw the height of the car.

My theoty is the brain adapts.

I have been to five doctors with five different answers to my vision.
Since all the multiple images go away when looking through a pinhole
the problem has to be a lensing issue, most likely cataracts or a
cornea problem. When it gets bad enough they might be able to sort it
out. How did you make out at the doctor?

 

Ray wrote

OK, I dont get anything like that bad an effect.

Just been out this morning for the yard sale run which starts
in the dark in winter, and didnt notice anything much visually,
but then I didnt go out of the streetlight lit area in the dark today.

When standing around talking to someone else waiting for the
first one to open today, I did notice that I do get some effect
with the long streetlights, but didnt think to check exactly what
the effect is, I will do that next time I get the chance. Not a
very dramatic effect, just noticably different with each eye.

In my case it doesnt look like thats the effect.

The room is very bright and sunny at the time I noticed the effect
was reduced and I notice that it went back to the one I posted the
jpg for an hour or so later when its nothing like as sunny, so it might
well be just the relative brightness of the room or something.

I'll see if I can find some pattern with that now that that has occurred to me.

OK, I have been considering trying an ophthalmogist, but havent
run into my neighbour who has just had two cataract operations
to ask him what he thinks of the ophthalmologists he has seen yet.

I cant see why the effect of clouding should go away with a pinhole.

Yeah, mine is just an odd effect, doesnt cause me any problems.

It was just an optometrist so far.

He did say that it is an early cataract, but I dont have much
confidence in him because of the other stuff I will list now.

When I asked him if the cataract was general or in only
part of the eye, he just waffled and said it was hard to see.

The main problem I have with what he said is that he
said that since the prescription for that eye is changing
quickly, its a cataract. But I took the opportunity to get
the prescriptions for the last two consulations at that place
and it turns out that while that eye has certainly seen the
prescription change, and I could see that myself when
doing the eye tests, its mad to claim that its changed
quickly when it was -3.5 in Jul-98, -4.5 in May-2007
and -5.0 now. Unfortunately I didnt get those older
prescriptions until after the he had moved on to the
next customer, I got them from the receptionist, so
I couldnt quiz him about that discrepancy.

In fact the other eye has changed more,
-4.25 in Jul-98, -5.0 in May-2007 and -4.0
now, tho the May-2007 value is suspicious,
is it normal to get worse and then better ?

Maybe he confused the eyes with the claim about it changing fast.

I might ring him up and ask him about it.

The other thing that makes him a real worry is that
he proclaimed that it just wasnt possible to read a
book while wearing my current single focus glasses.
I told him that while I do take the glasses off to read
at home, I usually dont do that when in a plane or
in the waiting room etc and read with the glasses on.

He then proclaimed again that it just wasnt possible
even when I rubbed his nose in the fact that I had
been doing that when he picked me up from the
waiting area at the start of the consultation.

Turns out that I deliberately got an intermediate prescription
in 98 because I spend the absolute vast bulk of my time
at a computer screen, and I sit much further back from the
monitor than most people do, 44" in fact, and got the
optometrist to optimise the single focus glasses for that
use which he did very effectively indeed. I didnt actually
get new lenses in 2007, because they hadnt changed that
much and I wasnt having any problem reading the monitor.

When he realised that I do have intermediate lenses,
he said that that is why I can read a book while wearing
them, but didnt apologise for stuffing up initially or anything.

And when I said that I wanted to continue with that approach
of optimising the glasses for the computer monitor, he just spent
some time doing some calculating and wrote the result on the card.

The first time I had got glasses optimised for the monitor,
I'm sure that that optometrist did confirm that he had got
the calculation right by getting me to read something at
the distance the monitor is used. This one didnt do that.
That may be because the prescription for the other eye
hasnt changed, and so that sort of check isnt necessary.

The other thing I noticed myself after the consultation
is that I do get a much better result with the flare when
using the glasses backward, which isnt surprising given
the prescription values above.

I havent actually ordered any new glasses yet, mainly
because I wasnt too impressed with that particular
individual and at the time I did consider that if the
prescription was changing fast, it might make sense
to wait till things stabilise etc. I've been using the
current prescripton for 12 years now.

And since then I have decided to try the dirt cheap online
glasses now that I have the prescription. Not risking much
at $8 a pair, or even $15 for more expensive cheap ones.

Both the previous optometrists are no longer available.
One moved across the country, not clear why, and the
other one is on sick leave for months after an operation
in hospital at the start of the year. The receptionist
wouldnt say what the problem was, even when I pressed
her on that, not clear if she wasnt told or has been told
to not say what the problem is. Sounds like cancer to me,
cant think of anything else thats likely to get that result,
but then I'm no doctor.

So, all in all, not clear whats going on.

Main plus is that its just a very minor nuisance, makes me
wonder what is going on and I dont even see anything if
I cover the led on the front of the TV except when driving
at night in areas with no street lights.

Might well see an ophthalmologist, just because it would
be silly to take a chance in case the optometrist is a dud.

My parents, now dead, were always keen on using an
ophthalmologist instead of an optometrist, just because
they are medically qualified and your sight is important.
Due to the way our national health care system works,
it would cost peanuts so it makes no sense ot not err
on the side of caution with the eyes.

 

It's irregular. The cataract is more dense in some places than others,
and the light rays don't all get bent the same amount. This is where
the "blur" comes from. The pinhole only allows light in one little
place, so it is clearly focused. When you saw the OD did they check
your vision with the pinhole device? Things should have gotten much
sharper if you have significant cataract.

Did he dilate your pupils and look inside with a bright light? I
thought that a cataract that has little effect on your vision was
visible under those conditions.

I'm guessing that is a fair change at your age. I don't know enough to
make any judgement, though.

That's very confusing. Your records should show (at least I *think*
that's how it works in the US) what your prescription was for distance,
and then the actual prescription for the glasses you got, which weren't
really for distance, according to what you've just said.

That drives me a little nuts, but I guess that the calculation is pretty
reliable, and the actual test isn't necessary. Still, my OD would
always test it if I asked. I felt better, even if it wasn't necessary.

That doesn't sound right to me. Cataracts normally get worse, although
it's pretty hard to predict. Your prescription will stabilize pretty
reliably after you have cataract surgery. I don't think you can predict
much about stabilization between now and then.

My personal preference is to start developing a relationship with your
ophthalmologist once you have a diagnosis of cataract. That's the
person who will actually be doing the surgery, presumably. There are
some questions to be resolved.

A second opinion on the cataract sounds like a good idea. I don't know
about the glasses. I see an ophthalmologist twice a year, and he has
made it very clear that he doesn't do refractions or prescribe glasses.
He gave me some suggestions about things to consider about seeing my
optometrist. I'll probably go see him at some point. I do not wear any
prescription lenses now, just OTC reading glasses. I've had cataract
surgery in both eyes, and got them set for distance. I'm happy with
that.

 

Dan Abel wrote

Are you sure ? I thought a cataract was due to it going cloudy ?

My optometrist has just told me that I am getting a cataract
because the prescription in that eye is changing quickly, even
tho there isnt any evidence that it is actually changing quickly.

If the light wasnt getting bent the same amount, wouldnt you
expect that with a short sighted eye, a cataract would reduce
the prescription needed, because without the cataract, a short
sighted eye is bending the light too much ?

Dunno, I thought that was due to the cloudyness ?

I thought the reason its focussed with a pinhole was just because a pinhole
does act as a lens ? Thats clearly the case with a primitive pinhole camera.

I cant understand the physics of that, or why things can ever get sharper
if the cataract is due to the optical system in your eye getting cloudy.

No, just looked inside with a bright light, without dilating with eye drops.

The previous one did use eye drops.

Yeah, thats the impression I had too and I think without
check back in the older posts that Mike said that too.

Yeah, particularly only one change in prescription in 12 years.

It sure is. The other possibility that I have since thought of is
that he may have decided that the prescription has changed
quickly because he didnt read my history card carefully enough
and he didnt notice that I had an intermediate prescription
deliberately, so he got the idea that it had changed quickly
because he was comparing a normal prescription with an
intermediate one, and didnt have the balls to admit that he
had stuffed up on the quick change claim once he realised
that, because telling me that I was developing a cataract
when there was no evidence to support that is no big deal
when I wouldnt complain about it not having developed further.

He did say that he couldnt predict when I might need an
eye operation for a cataract, it could be in a year or so
or it might stop developing and I might not ever need one.

Which is again a bit of a worry. Why should a cataract stop developing ?

Yeah, tho I would have thought that what you get
given, on a piece of paper, would be what the
lenses in the glasses was made to prescription wise.

The previous optometrist that moved out of town,
used to give you the prescription when you got
new glasses, without you having to ask for them.

I got the impression that I was getting what that
other operation gave you routinely, when I asked
the receptionist for the prescription and the old
ones this time.

Yeah, me too.

Yeah, tho it makes sense to me to do the check anyway,
if only to check that you havent stuffed the calculation up.

So you are saying that you also got intermediate lenses deliberately ?

Yeah, I cant understand the physics of cloudiness going away later.

Yeah, thats what I do with other medical professionals.

Not trivial tho, one GP that I was just deciding is a
pretty competant fellow has just retired. Not clear if
he is planning to do stuff part time in retirement or not,
its not even clear if he plans to stay in this town etc.

Thats something I will chase up with the neighbour
who has just had cataract surgery in both eyes.

Yeah, and since I can see an ophthalmologist
for peanuts it makes no sense not to do that.

Corse there are no guarantees that he knows his stuff either.

Pretty sure I did mention that I had a heart stent a couple
of years ago and because of that I see my GP regularly
now, every 6 months, partly to get new scripts and
partly to check that things arent getting worse again.

Since a blockage in a heart artery can also see blockages
in other arterys like in the legs, he routinely checks for a
pulse in my ankles. He cant ever find a pulse there, which
is a worry leg artery wise. When I said that to the cardiologist
who I also see annually, the cardiologist said that some people
dont have ankle pulses, the arterys are deeper not on the surface.
Forget the percentage he said, but it was something like 10%
He also said that the pulses on the top of my feet are fine.

It was a real worry when the GP didnt know that, and an
even bigger worry when I told him what the cardiologist
had said and that didnt appear to register with the GP.

I've also had some other worrys with him that
I think I told you about, the gout/arthritus line.

I also found out from my ambulance driver neighbour
that he had a reputation for being a heavy drinker
and he said himself that he was a heavy smoker
which is a bit of a worry with a doctory.

He has had a heart stent himself, and doesnt smoke
anymore, and rides a bike a lot so maybe he's just
another less than perfect person but an adequate
GP as long as I take care to get a second opinion
if he ever recommends some drastic surgery etc.

Yeah, specially since it costs peanuts and its just my time. I'm retired.

OK, the previous optometrist that I used did use an
ophthalmologist who did do the glasses prescriptions.

 

Mike Tyner wrote

None of the official sites mention cataracts that dont involve cloudiness.

But are they always described as cloudiness ?

Thats certainly what wikipedia says
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataract

Yes, but not cloudiness of the crystalline lens.

Yeah, looks like I had a brain fart there.

Certainly if I focus on something and have the led off to the side of what
I focus on, the light from the led is going thru a different part of the eye's
optical system, but I cant see those lines off the led in that situation.

So why do the lines go when the led is viewed thru a pinhole ?

I'm using the word cornea erroneously there.

Are you saying that everyone eventually ends up with visible cloudiness ?

I'm not even convinced that I have just lately developed a lens defect,
because the visual effect I am getting is greatly reduced when I use
the other lens in the glasses which has the prescription that the latest
prescription says I need for the eye which does get that visual effect.

That conflicts with the wikipedia and the official site descriptions
that universally say that cataracts involve clouding.

Not to establish that they are early cataracts it isnt.

That isnt multiple images, thats a distortion of the source.

Yes, it is with HIS description of astigmatism.

I cant reconcile that with the universal description of cataracts involving clouding;.

Yes, but that should mean that I dont get the visual effect with
the led on the front of the TV in the daytime. I do however.

I wouldnt either given that the official sites universally say that cataracts involved clouding.

Is the LED a bright enough light or do you mean an incandescent lamp ?

With the led I dont get any peripheral vision at all with the size pin
hole, with either eye, and I measured the pinhole with a vernier caliper.

Get the same result with a PAR 38 floodlight bulb about 7' from the eyes.

No visual effects with either eye.

I'd value your comments on the comments I made about the optometrist and cheap glasses in another post to Ray too.

 

I'm quite sure. It's the cloudiness that is irregular.

Cataract generally makes people more short sighted. I suspect that is
what he is talking about. Of course, if you were long sighted, then
your numbers would actually be better, although your vision would still
be worse overall, because of the clouding.

Whatever it is that it's doing, it makes you more short sighted, not
less.

Yes, it's the cloudiness that makes it blur, because the light rays no
longer focus correctly. There are other effects, like dimness and color
change.

Sometimes a pinhole functions as a lens, but not in this case. Your eye
already has a lens, so the pinhole is just restricting the light, to be
from a very narrow angle.

Perhaps I didn't state that correctly. "Sharper" means sharper than
without the pinhole. The cataract still deteriorates the image.

By "those conditions" I meant dilating your pupils. The first thing
that happens when he shines a bright light into your eyes is that your
pupils close up so he can't see inside. Any time an eye doctor wants to
see well inside my eyes they put dilating drops in. And the
ophthalmologist uses much more powerful drops than the optometrist.

That's pretty common advice. They really don't know.

I don't think they really know why it starts developing. Deterioration
due to age. So sometimes it slows down its development to the extent
that it never gets bad enough to warrant surgery. And then again,
sometimes it is developing slowly, and then speeds up.

I don't remember how it is done in the US, although I believe there is
enough information on the piece of paper to tell the story. I know
nothing about how it's done in Australia.

Could be another problem there. Maybe there was enough information, but
the receptionist didn't have enough knowledge to interpret it, and
didn't give you enough.

When I first got presbyopia, I got two pairs of glasses, one for
distance and one for reading. After my cataract surgery, my optometrist
said that OTC reading glasses would work fine, but I asked him to test
me specifically, since my two eyes were quite different.

Until you have the surgery, I don't believe it will go away. Very best
case would be no further progression. If you are asking about the
surgery, they basically stick a vacuum cleaner in your eye and suck out
the cataract, after dissolving it. It's physically removed.

Sounds like things are *way* different in Australia, then.

 

Dan Abel wrote

Thats not what any of the official sites and wikipedia says.

I doubt it. He appears to have got seriously confused because
the prescription of that particular eye hasnt changed fast at all
and is now just the same as the other eye. It lagged the other
eye until the latest eye exam.

Yes, but I have never been long sighted. I've always been
short sighted and got my first glasses when a teenager.

No evidence of any clouding, and I didnt see any sign of any clouding
when the optometrist was working out the latest prescription.

Thats the main reason I doubt the claim that I have a cataract,
even an early one. Not only dont I have even a hint of clouding,
the latest prescription is no worse than the 'good' eye has been
for 12 years now and the visual effect is mostly gone when I
use the spectacle lens for the 'good' eye with the one that
I am getting the visual effect with.

Its looking very like the visual effect is just what my eye produces
when the prescription is a -1.5 different from what it should be.

Yes. That was a comment on your 'more dense'

And I dont get either effect.

Surely it must also be acting as a lens when I'm viewing the LED with no glasses.

I dont get any deterioration of the image. When I am using the correct
external lens, like with the eye exam and determination of the prescription,
the eye chart is perfectly crisp and sharp, just like it is with the 'good' eye.

Thats why I say there is no evidence that the eye that is getting
the visual effect actually has a cataract at all, even an early one.

The most we have any evidence for is that when an external
lens thats -1.5 away from what the lens should be, I get those
3 lines in just one quadrant.

Surely the mostly likely explanation for that is that that eye has
always had a defect in the optical system that produces that visual
effect when the external lens is -1.5 different to what it should be.

Well, this one didnt use any drops at all.

Maybe that was just because he jumped to the erroneous conclusion
that the prescription for that eye had changed quickly so didnt bother.

If thats the case we dont actually have a shred of evidence
that I do have a cataract developing in that particular eye.

I think I will see an ophthalmologist and insist that he does dilate the
pupil if he doesnt do that on his own initiative and maybe even get
him to give me some photos of what he sees when he does that too.

I thought it had been well established that at least UV exposure is one of the main things that does produce them ?

Thats what wikipedia says
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataract#Causes

OK, havent seen much about that.

True. That should be resolvable when I ask the optometrist
why he decided that eye had changed quickly when the
numbers I have say nothing like that.

Yeah, I realise that. I was talking about whether it might go away by itself.

Yeah, tho I dont know how common that its, he was the only
ophthalmologist I can remember much about. I dont remember
much about the detail when I first started wearing glasses as
an early teenager. I assume that an ophthalmologist was used
because the parents always insisted that an ophthalmologist be used.

I dont even know if things have changed over time with ophthamologists
sometimes choosing to not do glasses prescriptions anymore. I havent
seen one for something like 25 years now.

 

Well, then, maybe I'm wrong.

What I meant was that the cataract is more dense in some places than in
other places. This is why the pinhole works. If you don't have a
cataract, or it is not central, then this is all irrelevant.

There are a whole lot of factors listed there. Most of them should be
avoided anyway. Advanced age, of course, is hard to avoid in any
reasonable way.

The analogy I've read on this group is to an egg. You can see through
the white of a raw egg. Once you fry it, you can't see through it
anymore. There's nothing you can do to change it back.

In the US, some do and some don't.

To summarize, it appears to me that you have learned that you have no
significant uncorrectable impairment to your vision. Your OD thinks
that you have a cataract, you don't. According to my limited
understanding, the criteria for cataract surgery is significant
impairment of vision due to the cataract. So cataract surgery is not in
your near future anyway.

 

Some don't but my ophthalmologist, the one who did my second cataract
does. My previous one who did my first cataract did not. He had an
optometrist in his office who did refractions for glasses and contact
lenses.