I have amblyopia. Is this accurate?

lemmy.sdf.org/pictrs/image/66e0657f-22e7-4cc4-9…

submitted by lars

I have amblyopia. Is this accurate?

I have amblyopia—also known as lazy eye—which means I often see a bit of double vision—usually a sliver duplicated on the outside side of one of my eyes, even when I’m wearing contacts, and even though I don’t look like I have a lazy eye. My eyes definitely don’t work in concert and I’m told my 3D vision resembles what people see when they look at a postcard.

Finally, when I use binoculars, I use only one eyehole up to the non-lazy eye… So I’m wondering what exactly you normal people see out of binoculars? Is it like Looney Tunes?

Log in to comment

Hot Top New
BearOfaTime , edited

Until you get them adjusted, you can get this kind of view (sort of), especially when you first pick them up and are bringing them to your eyes.

Once situated correctly (with the rubber eye cups touching your face so the lenses are the same distance away), your brain merges the images just like wearing glasses.

You can get this effect if the binoculars haven't been adjusted to match your pupillary distance (how far apart your pupils are).

reply
76
wjrii

For film purposes though, it's an excellent way to keep the image filling most of the screen and to communicate the subtle contextual implications of the character's using binoculars rather than a telescope.

reply
74
BearOfaTime

Oh, for sure. I take no issue with its use in film to communicate what's happening.

reply
22
FuglyDuck

So… I don’t know about with amblyopia….

But binoculars have an adjustment that brings the view through the two scopes together. If you see two circles (or two overlapping circles), you should adjust it.

reply
14
MxM111

I do not see circles, I see one ellipse with horizontal large axis.

reply
9
Karyoplasma , edited

I had amblyopia as a kid because one of my eye muscles didn't develop properly, so there was an imbalance leading to a lazy eye. I had to get surgery to correct that, but it was past the time window when proper depth perception is developed (until about 7 years of age, got my surgery with 9). So yeah, my vision is kinda like yours.

Even with the lazy eye gone, I also only use my stronger eye to look through binoculars, dunno why. But I'm myopic in the right eye and hyperopic in the left, so maybe that has something to do with it.

reply
7
lars [OP]

My “lazy” eye now actually has better vision than the eye I actually use. The lazy eye is just for show.

I had surgery at like 5 years old and I’m told it helped at least as much as the eyepatches.

reply
3
RBWells

I don't have the lazy eye but damned if I can see through binoculars. I can't. The image just never resolves.

reply
3
db2

You're thinking of a monocular or telescope.

reply
-14
dustyData

I gather you have never actually used a binocular. In reality, a good binocular has a wide FOV that you barely notice a border on the peripheral vision. At worst, you see a single circle around your vision, not two overlapping circles, that's just Hollywood shorthand, not something that happens in real life.

reply
21
Chewmungus

So it’s one binocular and two binoculars? I always thought it was inherently plural.

reply
3
criitz

I always called them a pair of binoculars. Like pants

reply
8
dustyData , edited

It's a pair of binoculars, but it has always made me feel uneasy. It's a single device, composed of two oculars. It's technically called a “binocular telescope”, because there are monocular telescopes. But we just call them telescopes. Hence it wouldn't be wrong to call a pair of binoculars just a telescope, or *a* binocular. So all three ways are correct, I just guess language is weird like that.

reply
5
Chewmungus

Interesting, thanks for the added info! Kinda similar to one pant vs a pair of pants huh

reply
2