31 replies to this topic

[TheChosen]

Something I've meant to ask for a long time. Amateur astronomers care a lot about the optical quality of the telescopes – these forums are full of threads analyzing Strehl ratios and all that. Something I don't know is already asked in the title. What rough percentage of population has the optics of the eyes up to the par with the good telescopes?

 

Of course, some people have imperfect vision and presumably others have excellent eyes. Anecdotes aside, I'd be interested in some statistical data, if there is any. I'm not an ophthalmologist so don't have any idea.

 

Thanks for any answers.

As you specifically said 'anecdotes aside' , enjoy this link

 

https://www.telescop...ics.net/eye.htm

 

It is amazing that many times people will argue (a lot) over eyepiece/telescope minute details without realizing they are using two completely different set of eyes to gauge their 'first hand' experience. All the more the necessity to try stuff yourself.

[TOMDEY]

As you specifically said 'anecdotes aside' , enjoy this link

 

https://www.telescop...ics.net/eye.htm

 

It is amazing that many times people will argue (a lot) over eyepiece/telescope minute details without realizing they are using two completely different set of eyes to gauge their 'first hand' experience. All the more the necessity to try stuff yourself.

Yes! We're each and every one of us, are assigned exactly one robotic body, through which we experience the outside universe. I've got this one and assume that others have substantially similar ones. each with our own strengths and weaknesses. My obsessive propensity it to want to experience as many elective ostensible beneficials as possible, despite down-side risks. One benefit of that mania is to learn what it's like first hand; the other is to be able to report that to others. Here are (on topic - astronomy eye/scope) observations of my experiments, in order of (my personal) elective execution →

 

>cataracts removal and prosthetic implanted lenses - profoundly successful improvement in acuity, clarity, reduced scatter, comfort, presence, astigmatism, color, brightness. That benefit has held for ten years. On the negative side of the ledger, one's focus accommodation becomes identically zero (diopter) because the focusing muscles are detached from the bio lens(es) and not attached to the implanted one(s). This is one of the most common, most effective, (and most needed) procedures. Most often offered and availed in the geriatric later years. You'll pick up (as much as) a magnitude in sensitivity and a magnitude on life's enjoyment.

 

>posterior capsule ablation - laser procedure to remove that scattering membrane from the optical path - significantly successful improvement in clarity, reduced scatter.

 

>PRK - surgical procedure; laser correction of wavefront aberrations - including those not addressable by eyeglasses - very successful improvement in acuity, comfort, presence. Most patients report hyper-acuity sans glasses, 20/20 expected and achieved, 20/15 quite common. Mine landed on 20/12.5 and stable. Some (few) achieve an astonoishing 20/10. That (Snellen) acuity is rare enough that the optometrist calls in his associates to enjoy the achievement. Negative - some talk regrading increased scatter. PRK (vs Lasik) is reportedly more benign relative to that risk. In my case, the benefit far exceeds any negative. The corrections have held well for a decade and counting.

 

>vitrectomy - literally sucking out (virtually all of the) floaters and replacing the jelly with absolutely clear saline - profoundly successful improvement in clarity, reduced scatter, comfort, presence, color, brightness. Ability to use tiny exit pupil instruments without suffering floaters. That benefit has held for several years and counting.

 

>anterior capsule ablation - (as a laser ~touch up~ procedure). A diffractive thread has somehow presented in my left eye. The targeted procedure completely eliminated that and (as a bonus) also improved overall clarity, scatter, and brightness. Right eye examined and "looks fine".

 

So that's 2+2+2+2+1 = 9 corrective procedures  --- all providing improved vision, age 75 now and counting. It's obvious to me that my vision would be (averagely) terrible had I not gotten these electives done. The most distinctly ~absolutely needed~ ones were the cataracts and the left eye gargantuan floater. The bonus beneficials are abnormally great vision at this point in my finite life... acuity, clarity, electrically vibrant colors, comfort, good sensitivity, no need for glasses at the telescope... just for reading.    Tom

 

Closing anecdote → I can't help but notice that as twilight approaches and the stars start to come out... we naked eye looking for the first stars... I'm almost embarrassingly able to see and enjoy the first stars way before my companions. Sure, experience enters into it, but I think the implants, duly focused on "astronomical infinity" play an important part in that carnival trick. My eyes are blissfully stuck on perfect focus at infinity. So that geriatric fine-tuned debilitation is a great advantage to seeing the first stars announcing their presence. But it goes beyond that: ability to resolve naked eye doubles, count stars in the Pleiades, Ursa Minor, the Great Square... and even random little areas where we are otherwise ignorant of (not memorized) patterns there.

 

I'm glad I got my eyes fixed - and can share the experience with others.    Tom

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[columbidae]

For all that work on our human eyes, that cat seems to have a very enviable maximum pupil size.  How many galaxies are naked eye with those?

[TheChosen]

So that's 2+2+2+2+1 = 9 corrective procedures  --- all providing improved vision, age 75 now and counting. It's obvious to me that my vision would be (averagely) terrible had I not gotten these electives done. The most distinctly ~absolutely needed~ ones were the cataracts and the left eye gargantuan floater. The bonus beneficials are abnormally great vision at this point in my finite life... acuity, clarity, electrically vibrant colors, comfort, good sensitivity, no need for glasses at the telescope... just for reading.    Tom

 

I'm glad I got my eyes fixed - and can share the experience with others.    Tom

Wow, I had no idea there are so many 'upgrades' possible for our eyes. Thanks for sharing

[star acres]

Spotting, then tracking meteors is almost impossible with most telescopes. You would need some kind of defense-like automation to swing your telescope first to the meteor, and then whip across the sky. Wait a few minutes on a dark night. If you're trained on the sky, you'll see them.

[BobSoltys]

My difficulty getting Saturn centered in the eyepiece the last two mornings after being up till 11 p.m. and getting up at 0-dark-thirty (4:15 a.m.) two days in a row suggests fatigue can also be a factor. I remember my eyes feeling really tired years ago after being up before 6 a.m. for work and not getting home until after 8 p.m.

 

Got Saturn in the AT 8 x 50 finder, and an Agena 12mm ED eyepiece (which has a 60mm F.O.V.) on the AT80EDT Yesterday, but couldn't get it exactly centered in the finder or see it in the same eyepiece this morning.

 

No problems with Venus the last two nights or with Mars last night using the same finder, eyepiece, and scope.

 

As its cloudy today, so I'll get my usual eight hours of sleep and a nap, drink more water, then have a go again when the skies are clear next week.

 

To eliminate the back and neck factor hindering me from exactly centering it in the finder, I'm ordering an illuminated right angle finder scope. 

Edited by BobSoltys, 27 May 2023 - 10:11 AM.

[Supernova74]

It's a very interesting... and very sensitive topic. Our bodies degrade with time. Most eyes are optimally functional in early youth... pre-teen through early teen. Then focus accommodation, acuity, wavefront, transmittence, pupil, floaters, scatter, color discrimination, etc. etc. begin to take their toll. It's so gradually degenerative that we subconsciously adapt for years or decades... before finally admitting "I need glasses" or more. Experience usually peaks long after that, which is a shame and kinda ironic. By time we know how to look... we also wistfully recall how electric vivid was the world back when we were kids, thinking that would somehow last forever.

 

Thankfully, there are many things ~modern medicine~ can provide to forestall or even correct many of these geriatric issues. Eyeglass(es) is the most obvious one. Or contact lenses, implants, PRK, Lasik. Floaters and cataracts can be eliminated; some other damages can be repaired.

 

To your point - premium telescopes and eyepieces are indeed so good now that (under most circumstances) the astronomer's eyes are the weakest link in the chain. It's like the audiophile who insists that his premium sound system (which he can finally afford) produces undistorted output covering 10 Hz to 40 kHz at 0-200 dB... even though he suffers server tinnitus (from attending too many rock concerts).

 

Annual ~full service~ checkups.    Tom

Once upon a time i use to be a very keen audiophile and yes admittedly,yet another money pit trying to achieve the perfect sound which doesn’t exsist in the first place.however tho! if you can keep those resonance frequencies low as possible the sound can be improved some what and when folks say how good does your speaker stands sound or Hifi rack and are left lost in translation all confused.So in analogy terms the sound we all hear deteriorates over time and especially as we get older! Same as our vision while using optics and owning the best optics and telescope in the world is not going to change that.another analogy regarding the eyepieces we use and certain cables and components you decide to use with that amp or CD player!,same sound just a variation of that sound in more of a neutral tone or dynamics.like the eyepieces perhaps come across with better colour saturation,slightly improved contrast but nothing to write home about as our sight let’s us down with age,and obviously those sky conditions.

Edited by Supernova74, Yesterday, 08:10 AM.