www.ditl.org

Same here, hurts my eyes...

I can see an image of monroe, as if it was blurred and then someone photoshopped Al onto the pic.

Mikey wrote:Oh, you meant physically. Well, I have an astigmatism rather than any eyeball deformation, and I see Al with or without the glasses.

Huh? An astigmatism is a deformed eyeball, last I checked.

Interestingly, I never delved that deep even though I have the condition. I believe it is a syndrome of the musculature of the eye rather than of the eyeball itself.

Mikey wrote:Interestingly, I never delved that deep even though I have the condition. I believe it is a syndrome of the musculature of the eye rather than of the eyeball itself.

OK, here's what I've found:
Irregular astigmatism occurs from a defect (scar, etc.) in the cornea or lens. Regular astigmatism (the more common type, which can be corrected with eyeglasses) can be due to such a defect but more commonly to a toroid deformation in the lens or cornea itself, but not in the shape of the eyeball.

My earlier preconception was probably based on the fact that astigmatism, before it is corrected, generally leads to variation in the musculature of the eye resulting from unconscious compensation.

Mikey wrote:OK, here's what I've found:
Irregular astigmatism occurs from a defect (scar, etc.) in the cornea or lens. Regular astigmatism (the more common type, which can be corrected with eyeglasses) can be due to such a defect but more commonly to a toroid deformation in the lens or cornea itself, but not in the shape of the eyeball.

Huh. I always heard it summarised as the eyeball being the shape of a rugby ball. Speaking of which, what's your sphere? Can't be too bad given that you're not wearing glasses in your photos.

My optician did explain it as rugby ball shaped eyeballs.

Hrm. Well, admittedly I paraphrased that explanation from Wiki - the article was well cited, and they're usually pretty good about technical stuff, but there you have it. Conventional wisdom always had that deformation of the eyeball itself led to nearsightedness or farsightedness.

Anyway, those pics were taken before I was diagnosed with any vision problems. I only found out after my diabetes diagnosis about 5 years ago - I went to an opthalmologist for a retinal exam (diabetic need to check regularly for excessive vascularization in the retina) and had a refraction done at the same time. Chances are I had developed the astigmatism a good while before that, and my orbital muscles automatically began compensating unconsciously. I had noticed that some graphic titles on TV were a bit fuzzy, but not unreadable. Of course now they're a mess without my specs, because those same muscles are out of practice to compensate for the deficiency.

Update: er, the second pic under "Mods and Admins" shows me with the specs on.

Eh, point, although in my defence they look like normal sunglasses in that pic. And Zach doesn't look the least bit interested in proceedings.

Captain Seafort wrote:Eh, point, although in my defence they look like normal sunglasses in that pic. And Zach doesn't look the least bit interested in proceedings.

I get the Transitions lenses so I don't have to tote around a pair of prescription sunglasses in addition to my "regular" ones. And no, he wasn't - though he's considerably more interested in football games now than he was then... and considerably more interested in the cheerleaders than in the game.

Mikey wrote:I get the Transitions lenses so I don't have to tote around a pair of prescription sunglasses in addition to my "regular" ones.

I don't worry about prescriptions - I either carry a pair of clip-on sunglasses or wear a hat. I don't like the idea of a pair of glasses that might turn out the lights at the most inopportune moment. Driving out of a tunnel, for example.

And no, he wasn't - though he's considerably more interested in football games now than he was then... and considerably more interested in the cheerleaders than in the game.

How old is he now? Two? Three?

Captain Seafort wrote:I don't worry about prescriptions - I either carry a pair of clip-on sunglasses or wear a hat. I don't like the idea of a pair of glasses that might turn out the lights at the most inopportune moment. Driving out of a tunnel, for example.

I've found that I don't really have those sorts of problems - they don't darken in the car, because every car windshield made in the last two decades or more has some UV blocking built in. The only odd effect is if I'm standing half in shade, then they will become parti-colored. Besides, I have a narrow measurement temple to temple, and I find that Kenneth Cole frames fit me best, and they don't make any I've seen with matching clip-ons.

Captain Seafort wrote:How old is he now? Two? Three?

1-1/2. However, that's chronologically - I'm not sure exactly how that measures developmentally in terms of destructive forces of nature.

Lighthawk wrote:I've looked at this thing in every conceivable way I can think of, and all I ever see is Einstein. If others hadn't admitted to seeing Monroe I'd swear Ian was just screwing with our heads.

Well, it is only if I remove my glasses. It blurs into Marilyn then.

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:

Lighthawk wrote:I've looked at this thing in every conceivable way I can think of, and all I ever see is Einstein. If others hadn't admitted to seeing Monroe I'd swear Ian was just screwing with our heads.

Well, it is only if I remove my glasses. It blurs into Marilyn then.

That's the key, Lighthawk. Move away from your screen until the image becomes a blur.