Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Distance vs Size mechanic.
#1
Curious how the eye reacts to different scenarios.

My current understanding is that the eye bends the lens when it needs to focus on things up close and flattens it when it needs to see things farther away.

But how does lets say reading 3 point font from 2 feet away compare to reading 15 point font 2 feet away? Does the lens contract the same amount or does it flatten for the 5 point font?

TL: DR - Is seeing something small the same as seeing something far away?
Reply
#2
Physically, size doesn't matter. Your eye focuses for distance, period.

Mentally, size does matter. When you attend consistently to smaller points, which is easier with smaller print, your eyes work better, all other things being equal.
Site Administrator

"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
Reply
#3
(04-07-2015, 12:29 PM)David Wrote: Physically, size doesn't matter.
That's not what she said.

...sorry, had to do it.
David Wrote:Mentally, size does matter. When you attend consistently to smaller points, which is easier with smaller print, your eyes work better, all other things being equal.

I know a lot of people put a lot of focus on 'text pushing'.

But for people who engage in lots of close work this seems to indicate it would be better to use larger fonts at farther distances?

TL: DR - Let's all use TV's as computer monitors and set them 5 ft away?
Reply
#4
(04-07-2015, 04:01 PM)wtfgod Wrote:
(04-07-2015, 12:29 PM)David Wrote: Physically, size doesn't matter.
That's not what she said.

...sorry, had to do it.
David Wrote:Mentally, size does matter. When you attend consistently to smaller points, which is easier with smaller print, your eyes work better, all other things being equal.

I know a lot of people put a lot of focus on 'text pushing'.

But for people who engage in lots of close work this seems to indicate it would be better to use larger fonts at farther distances?

TL: DR - Let's all use TV's as computer monitors and set them 5 ft away?

The larger a letter is, the easier it is to see while still maintaining a refractive error (or strain), close or far. That's why Bates spoke out so often against large print being used in schools, in books, by the elderly. The smaller the print, the more one must be relaxed and use the eyes with proper central fixation, shifting blinking, etc. I engage(d) in 8+ hours of close work a day, been for decades. Did not impact my improvement whatsoever. On the contrary, learning to use it properly and practicing with fine print very close to the eyes seemed to help very much. I do not mean 'print pushing,' or myopic defocus, or the such. That's not Bates. The eyes can be used almost indefinitely at the nearpoint if you use them in a proper and relaxed manner (in accordance with the principles of normal sight that Bates discovered and promoted). The muscles inside the eyes and attached to the outside have incredible fatigue-resistant fibers/properties, unlike any other skeletal muscles of the body. As such they can be used for incredible lengths, as long as that usage is not interfered with by mental strain and abnormal tensions. The larger the print, the easier to see while focusing improperly, and one may not even be aware of the abnormal tension and strain while doing so, until you go to look at something smaller.
Reply
#5
(04-08-2015, 03:50 AM)arocarty Wrote: The larger a letter is, the easier it is to see while still maintaining a refractive error (or strain), close or far. That's why Bates spoke out so often against large print being used in schools, in books, by the elderly. The smaller the print, the more one must be relaxed and use the eyes with proper central fixation, shifting blinking, etc. I engage(d) in 8+ hours of close work a day, been for decades. Did not impact my improvement whatsoever. On the contrary, learning to use it properly and practicing with fine print very close to the eyes seemed to help very much. I do not mean 'print pushing,' or myopic defocus, or the such. That's not Bates. The eyes can be used almost indefinitely at the nearpoint if you use them in a proper and relaxed manner (in accordance with the principles of normal sight that Bates discovered and promoted). The muscles inside the eyes and attached to the outside have incredible fatigue-resistant fibers/properties, unlike any other skeletal muscles of the body. As such they can be used for incredible lengths, as long as that usage is not interfered with by mental strain and abnormal tensions. The larger the print, the easier to see while focusing improperly, and one may not even be aware of the abnormal tension and strain while doing so, until you go to look at something smaller.

I see what you're saying...even though you are a bit crazy on the bates part, this isn't even the bates forum and bates certainly isn't the end-all, be-all of vision knowledge.

My point was rather that larger text at a farther distance may be superior to a smaller text at a closer distance. Distances being equal and your point would make good sense.
Reply
#6
(04-08-2015, 11:10 AM)wtfgod Wrote:
(04-08-2015, 03:50 AM)arocarty Wrote: The larger a letter is, the easier it is to see while still maintaining a refractive error (or strain), close or far. That's why Bates spoke out so often against large print being used in schools, in books, by the elderly. The smaller the print, the more one must be relaxed and use the eyes with proper central fixation, shifting blinking, etc. I engage(d) in 8+ hours of close work a day, been for decades. Did not impact my improvement whatsoever. On the contrary, learning to use it properly and practicing with fine print very close to the eyes seemed to help very much. I do not mean 'print pushing,' or myopic defocus, or the such. That's not Bates. The eyes can be used almost indefinitely at the nearpoint if you use them in a proper and relaxed manner (in accordance with the principles of normal sight that Bates discovered and promoted). The muscles inside the eyes and attached to the outside have incredible fatigue-resistant fibers/properties, unlike any other skeletal muscles of the body. As such they can be used for incredible lengths, as long as that usage is not interfered with by mental strain and abnormal tensions. The larger the print, the easier to see while focusing improperly, and one may not even be aware of the abnormal tension and strain while doing so, until you go to look at something smaller.

I see what you're saying...even though you are a bit crazy on the bates part, this isn't even the bates forum and bates certainly isn't the end-all, be-all of vision knowledge.

My point was rather that larger text at a farther distance may be superior to a smaller text at a closer distance. Distances being equal and your point would make good sense.

That first statement is odd, given the fact that this forum (David's approach to central fixation) is "based heavily"on the Bates method, if you read his intro, and this whole site is based primarily on the Bates method. If one is not here to learn Bates, share and support others in that endeavor, nobody's forcing them to stay here and listen to those who have had great success with it, are passionate about it and want to freely help others. Do you need help finding a vision site where you are more comfortable? Would be glad to help you with that.

Distance being equal, any change in lens structure is unlikely to change, as it is yolked to convergence, and convergence does not change for visual percepts at the same distance. (known as the AC/Convergence ratio, which is set at a young age and controlled by the lower brain) If you voluntarily cross or diverge your eyes, it will autonomously effect some change, but you'll be perceiving two separate images. That leaves a few things - our mental interpretation, and shape of the cornea and/or sclera/overall length of the eye. As you know, it was Bates' research, experimentation, and observation that the shape of the eye changed when the external muscles released abnormal tension, allowing the eye to refract to, or closer to, normal. Demonstrate the facts to yourself, if in doubt. Look at an object at a fixed distance, and slowly cross your eyes. Follow the image to the left, or right, and you'll notice it gets smaller, or larger if you then diverge, but does not change refraction in any significant way, making it clearer. I learned to to this while covering one eye, but the vergence action still happens, the eyes will cross involuntarily, it cannot be prevented. Accommodation does not change the fact that the image still falls short of the retina, if one has refractive error. The only way to improve that is to effect a change in the shape of the sclera, and/or shape of the cornea, and mental interpretation. That is what Bates is all about, and why this site is 'heavily based' on Bates.
Reply
#7
(04-09-2015, 04:11 AM)arocarty Wrote: That first statement is odd, given the fact that this forum (David's approach to central fixation) is "based heavily"on the Bates method, if you read his intro, and this whole site is based primarily on the Bates method. If one is not here to learn Bates, share and support others in that endeavor, nobody's forcing them to stay here and listen to those who have had great success with it, are passionate about it and want to freely help others. Do you need help finding a vision site where you are more comfortable? Would be glad to help you with that.

Pretty sure every vision improvement anything is based heavily on bates but talking about bates like he is the jesus christ of vision improvement and his book as the bible is what I would consider 'odd'.

If you are aware of any other active forums with similar focuses I would be more than happy to know.
Reply
#8
(04-07-2015, 04:01 PM)wtfgod Wrote:
(04-07-2015, 12:29 PM)David Wrote: Physically, size doesn't matter.
That's not what she said.

...sorry, had to do it.
David Wrote:Mentally, size does matter. When you attend consistently to smaller points, which is easier with smaller print, your eyes work better, all other things being equal.

I know a lot of people put a lot of focus on 'text pushing'.

But for people who engage in lots of close work this seems to indicate it would be better to use larger fonts at farther distances?

TL: DR - Let's all use TV's as computer monitors and set them 5 ft away?

I think larger fonts at farther distances so they still appear detailed yet blurry, is close to as good as it gets. That's why I like the far end of shopping store parking lots, sports bars flooded with TVs all around, casinos with lots of TVs that show constantly updated betting lines, etc. There's a food court mall where I can watch TVs from 100 feet away. I said close to as good as it gets because there's one drawback. The angle of the TV you're looking at in the distance is not as wide as up close. That's the one advantage pushing with a book has, it's like 20-30 degrees from left to right. A grid of TVs in the distance would be ideal. Why not one large TV in the distance like an outdoor movie theater? The print/detail would be too large.
Reply
#9
(04-09-2015, 06:34 AM)wtfgod Wrote:
(04-09-2015, 04:11 AM)arocarty Wrote: That first statement is odd, given the fact that this forum (David's approach to central fixation) is "based heavily"on the Bates method, if you read his intro, and this whole site is based primarily on the Bates method. If one is not here to learn Bates, share and support others in that endeavor, nobody's forcing them to stay here and listen to those who have had great success with it, are passionate about it and want to freely help others. Do you need help finding a vision site where you are more comfortable? Would be glad to help you with that.

Pretty sure every vision improvement anything is based heavily on bates but talking about bates like he is the jesus christ of vision improvement and his book as the bible is what I would consider 'odd'.

If you are aware of any other active forums with similar focuses I would be more than happy to know.

The focus of this site is to help educate people about the Bates method, and David's approach. People are here to learn about Bates and his techniques, and support one another in it. If you have no intentions to practice the methods promoted here, you can go elsewhere. Nobody is forcing anyone to stay. It would be difficult to suggest a place with a similar focus (e.g. Bates focus), as you would probably take this pet peeve along with you wherever you go.
Reply
#10
(04-09-2015, 04:11 AM)arocarty Wrote:
(04-08-2015, 11:10 AM)wtfgod Wrote:
(04-08-2015, 03:50 AM)arocarty Wrote: The larger a letter is, the easier it is to see while still maintaining a refractive error (or strain), close or far. That's why Bates spoke out so often against large print being used in schools, in books, by the elderly. The smaller the print, the more one must be relaxed and use the eyes with proper central fixation, shifting blinking, etc. I engage(d) in 8+ hours of close work a day, been for decades. Did not impact my improvement whatsoever. On the contrary, learning to use it properly and practicing with fine print very close to the eyes seemed to help very much. I do not mean 'print pushing,' or myopic defocus, or the such. That's not Bates. The eyes can be used almost indefinitely at the nearpoint if you use them in a proper and relaxed manner (in accordance with the principles of normal sight that Bates discovered and promoted). The muscles inside the eyes and attached to the outside have incredible fatigue-resistant fibers/properties, unlike any other skeletal muscles of the body. As such they can be used for incredible lengths, as long as that usage is not interfered with by mental strain and abnormal tensions. The larger the print, the easier to see while focusing improperly, and one may not even be aware of the abnormal tension and strain while doing so, until you go to look at something smaller.

I see what you're saying...even though you are a bit crazy on the bates part, this isn't even the bates forum and bates certainly isn't the end-all, be-all of vision knowledge.

My point was rather that larger text at a farther distance may be superior to a smaller text at a closer distance. Distances being equal and your point would make good sense.

That first statement is odd, given the fact that this forum (David's approach to central fixation) is "based heavily"on the Bates method, if you read his intro, and this whole site is based primarily on the Bates method. If one is not here to learn Bates, share and support others in that endeavor, nobody's forcing them to stay here and listen to those who have had great success with it, are passionate about it and want to freely help others. Do you need help finding a vision site where you are more comfortable? Would be glad to help you with that.

Distance being equal, any change in lens structure is unlikely to change, as it is yolked to convergence, and convergence does not change for visual percepts at the same distance. (known as the AC/Convergence ratio, which is set at a young age and controlled by the lower brain) If you voluntarily cross or diverge your eyes, it will autonomously effect some change, but you'll be perceiving two separate images. That leaves a few things - our mental interpretation, and shape of the cornea and/or sclera/overall length of the eye. As you know, it was Bates' research, experimentation, and observation that the shape of the eye changed when the external muscles released abnormal tension, allowing the eye to refract to, or closer to, normal. Demonstrate the facts to yourself, if in doubt. Look at an object at a fixed distance, and slowly cross your eyes. Follow the image to the left, or right, and you'll notice it gets smaller, or larger if you then diverge, but does not change refraction in any significant way, making it clearer. I learned to to this while covering one eye, but the vergence action still happens, the eyes will cross involuntarily, it cannot be prevented. Accommodation does not change the fact that the image still falls short of the retina, if one has refractive error. The only way to improve that is to effect a change in the shape of the sclera, and/or shape of the cornea, and mental interpretation. That is what Bates is all about, and why this site is 'heavily based' on Bates.

Very interesting post about the vision, eyes Arocarty! It proves Dr. Bates correct.

Those images seen when crossing, uncrossing the eyes; is the smaller images when crossing caused because it lands in the peripheral? Cause its no longer in the central area of the lens and retina? When crossing; eyes are setting to a new distance. Why, what causes the images to be smaller?

To understand the mechanics of this might help in the training, cure of people who have strabismus.
Reply

TEST YOUR VISION AT HOME!
- Free Eye Chart PDFs

  • 20 ft, 10 ft, and Near Vision Charts
  • Letters Calibrated to Correct Printed Size
Download Now