09-10-2017, 09:16 PM | #21 |
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Re: What if you replaced all cones with rods?
Long before Lasik was a thing, I had a friend with 20/5 vision. He could read a newspaper at 20'.
|
09-10-2017, 09:32 PM | #22 |
Untagged
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
|
Re: What if you replaced all cones with rods?
That's slightly better than the best possible assuming human sized pupils due to physics.
He was probably not seeing every letter clearly, but partly guessing based on rules of language.
__________________
Beware, poor communication skills. No offense intended. If offended, it just means that I failed my writing skill check. |
09-11-2017, 12:10 AM | #23 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: What if you replaced all cones with rods?
Max possible given human pupil size is around 20:10.
|
09-11-2017, 04:19 AM | #24 |
☣
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
|
Re: What if you replaced all cones with rods?
That's what Ted Williams had, which was considered a medical marvel when he had his military physical for WWII.
__________________
RyanW - Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats. |
09-11-2017, 07:54 AM | #25 |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: What if you replaced all cones with rods?
Let me add a recommendation: Animal Eyes, by Michael F. Land and Dan-Eric Nilsson (Oxford University Press). It was my single most valuable source for writing GURPS Powers: Enhanced Senses. If you want to write an actual book, you might as well read a systematic survey rather than going by the bits and pieces various of us happen to know and contribute.
__________________
Bill Stoddard I don't think we're in Oz any more. |
09-11-2017, 11:20 AM | #26 |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: What if you replaced all cones with rods?
My right eye is something better than 20:20. For years I thought my left eye needed correction because my vision is noticeably poorer there, and I always couldn't understand why I was always just waived on after eye tests because I felt certain that I must have failed the left eye portion by being unable to read lines that were fine for my right eye. Turns out my left eye is fine, but my right eye is closer to 20:15. I think this actually has a lot to do with my migraines.
Edit: I can read line 10 mostly on the Schelling chart with my right eye, which I think means that my vision there is between 20/15 and 20/10 but I am having trouble finding explanations for lines 9-11 online. Last edited by sir_pudding; 09-11-2017 at 11:49 AM. |
09-11-2017, 11:37 AM | #27 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: What if you replaced all cones with rods?
Quote:
__________________
Bill Stoddard I don't think we're in Oz any more. |
|
09-11-2017, 11:53 AM | #28 |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: What if you replaced all cones with rods?
20:200 (for humans) is legally blind, which might reasonably be a worse condition then either form of Bad Sight (Bad Sight plus a Minor Handicap quirk giving an additional -2 to near or far vision?) .
|
09-11-2017, 12:12 PM | #29 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: What if you replaced all cones with rods?
Quote:
In terms of actual effects, at a range of 1 yard, 20:20 vision has a resolution of 0.01" (about 1 pixel on a typical monitor). Having a resolution of merely 0.1" will not especially affect anything most animals care about, though for animals with binocular vision it does affect parallax detection (range uncertainty of a couple inches at a range of 1 yard). |
|
09-11-2017, 12:16 PM | #30 |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: What if you replaced all cones with rods?
|
Tags |
basic, science, vision |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|