Slashdot Mirror

You may not want blue light.
https://www.allaboutvision.com...

Variable-focus lenses have been tried before, but not autofocus. A friend had a manually controlled pair from Superfocus and loved them. But Superfocus is no longer selling them. http://www.allaboutvision.com/... The mechanisms used may differ, but the function is similar. What's new here is the autofocus feature - look at a scene, and a sensor will measure the distance and use that information to focus the lens as your visual system would do if your organic lens still had its depth adaptation capability. That's cool and potentially useful. They claim 5.8 diopter focusing range, good enough to go from distance to reading. But their prototype lens is 8.4 mm (1/3 inch) thick and weighs 14.4 gm. So there's a way to go yet.

Toric contact lenses fix astigmatism...been around a while: http://www.allaboutvision.com/...

That's why I think lasik is pointless for me. Glasses work fine and can be changed when my vision _inevitably_ changes. Why have surgery to make permanent changes to my eyes for non-important reasons now? I'd leave surgery on my eyes for later when I really have to e.g. cataracts etc[1].

FWIW my glasses have protected my eyes from stuff on many cases. I don't find them a bother at all.

[1] Hopefully by then the technology for accommodating intra-ocular lenses would have improved. Current state of the tech is not that good IMO: http://www.allaboutvision.com/...

Or we would have auxiliary vision direct to our brains ;).

I also went with PRK, but the first two days it hurts like hell, it takes a few weeks until your eye-sight gets to normal, and on the right eye I had a halo for nearly a year. Doing it again I would opt for Lasek, which is supposedly not as painful.

My favorite is this one: http://www.geteyesmart.org/eyesmart/living/3-d-movies-glasses.cfm

Here's another: http://www.allaboutvision.com/parents/children-computer-vision-syndrome.htm#3dnews

And another: http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2011/05/26/study-parents-think-3d-hurts-kids-eyes.html

Thank you for inspiring me to research a little more than I had. Like you, I parent cautiously, but 3D once in a while doesn't make a blip on my threat radar. Happy parenting!

If you have differences in depth of field for your eyesight, particularly if you've had your eyes lasered into monovision

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. "Depth of field" is a photography tem referring to how much of a scene is in focus. A smaller aperture leads to a larger depth of field, and vice-versa. Are you referring to one eye being at a different focal length than the other? And if that's the case, you're going to be wearing corrective lenses bringing both eyes to the same focal length (or your eye doctor is incompetent).

No, I mean "depth of field", as in "everything in the 3D movie was in focus at the same time, which led to an uncomfortable viewing experience". The dumbass thing the cinematographer did was to do a 3D movie and computer generate it with everything in focus regardless of the virtual distance from the viewers forced perspective location within the scene.

Then you end up having problems seeing the 3D effect because theater 3D effects are generally achieved using either circular polarization ("Real3D") or horizontal vs. vertical polarization. This is because the polarization based 3D effect is achieved through forced perspective due to the eyes natural use of parallax to achieve binocular visions. This is also why you can't exceed 50% of the screen height for an apparent 3D projection.

And what do you mean by "lasered into monovision?" LASIK doesn't affect your stereoscopic vision at all, unless you poke one of your eyes out with the laser.

Yes, it does. Generally, if you start out with myopia due to curvature of your cornea, as you get older, you develop presbyopia as well as the lenses in your eye lose elasticity due to aging, and you end up with vision that is not normally correctible to perfect vision via LASIK. To combat this, and achieve the widest market possible for eye surgeries, a technique called monovision LASIK was developed, in which one eye is lasered for near vision and one eye lasered for far vision. The technique is similar to the use of bifocals, except it's per-eye. If your eyes are lasered into monovision, as in Monovision LASIK, as is described here: http://www.allaboutvision.com/visionsurgery/presbyopia_surgery.htm#monoLasik you end up still getting blurry in one eye parallax so your ability to judge distances doesn't end up damaged, you just end up with one eye being dominant for close vision, and the other eye dominant for distance visions. But it blows the hell out of your ability to see 3D in movie theaters using forced perspective techniques.

if your eyesight is bad enough you need correction in a movie theater in the first place, you are likely already carrying around a second pair of corrective lenses

Son, my eyes were 20/400 most of my life; extremely nearsighted. I couldn't focus farther than my elbow, but only had one pair of glasses. Sorry, but it sounds like you don't really have much of a clue what you're talking about.

Sounds like you never broke your glasses and had to drive some place to get them fixed. I've had a second pair available to me since third grade, and carry one in my car in case I'm out somewhere and my glasses get broken. Alternately, you've always had someone with you, or you take public transportation everywhere, but in either case, it's likely you have an old pair of glasses at home in a drawer "just in case", or you are not telling the truth about your level of myopia.

Sounds like you've been lucky so far.

http://www.allaboutvision.com/sunglasses/spf.htm

First but hardly the only hit on google.

Avatar was 162 minutes of pure torture for me since I wear eyeglasses. I had to use one hand to support the 3D glasses throughout the entire movie because my prescription glasses kept making it slip off.

In order to keep the two sets of glasses in focus I had to constantly adjust both of them. It was kinda like building an impromptu telescope by holding a lens in each hand.

Because my eyeglasses forced the 3D shutter to be much further away than it's supposed be, I kept seeing color distortions on the screen. I think this is because when one eye is supposed to be "blocked" by the 3D shutters, its peripheral vision is picking up an image through the other shutter.

I know I am not alone because half of the population wear eyeglasses.

If there was a good way for contact orientation to be maintained, bifocal contact lenses would be a reality already.

This isn't something I know much about, but googling seems to indicate that bifocal contact lenses do in fact exist:

http://www.allaboutvision.com/contacts/bifocals.htm
http://www.contactlenses.org/bifocal_contact_lenses.htm

I'm going to say some modified contacts to help soldiers kill people more efficiently. 'Cats eye' contact lenses to increase night vision (without those clumsy goggles and sensitivity to bright light...). IR contacts? That would be sweet.

Lenses similar to what you describe actually already exist:

http://www.allaboutvision.com/contacts/colors.htm

Light-filtering tints are a more recent development. These contact lenses are designed for sports use, because they enhance certain colors (such as optic yellow, the color of tennis balls and some softballs and golf balls), as a result of muting other colors. The result is that the ball stands out against the background and is easier to target. The lenses can also be used by spectators.

One type of light-filtering contact lens has been developed especially for golfers, so they can better distinguish between the various greens on a golf course. Amber-tinted ones have been worn by some professional baseball players, to help filter out the blue light that reduces their ability to see the baseball clearly. Other color contacts are being developed for trap-shooters, skiers and other sports enthusiasts.

That's a good point. The quality of the monitor can make a big difference. I would try to adjust the refresh rate of the monitor. The 'more expensive' monitors will have better options to adjust the physical properties of the monitor (refresh rate, contrast, brightness, etc) than the less expensive ones. I had a friend that would always change the rate from 60Hz (default) to 85Hz because the 60Hz setting gave him a headache. You can also try to turn down the brightness a bit. That being said, I've always use white text on a black background. I think it would work better if I use a different shade of white instead of Bright White, but I haven't really experimented. I think the studies point to black text on white as the best. I also found this article had a few good hints (some I already mentioned above). http://www.allaboutvision.com/cvs/irritated.htm My 2 cents...

Hmmm... I see them all the time. And I distinctly remember that several months ago (around 7-8 months ago) I used to see them so often it was annoying. I just started ignoring them, and now I don't even notice, except when I want to - then I see a lot of them.

It would be nice to have an eye doctor's opinion on this topic. But check this out: http://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/spotsfloats.htm (1st link on google for eye floaters) and particular intersting description at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floater

Actually, I seem to remember some research about how that exact type of thing is GOOD for the eyes. At least as good as exercising any other muscle. If you're repeatedly refocusing your eyeball to the near and far extent of ranges, you'd likely get pretty beefy eyebell muscles. Hmmmm... OKay- after a bit of googling, it looks like the jury is still out on whether its actually helpful or not... Interesting premise, though.

Except that what you say isn't true in my experience and it's an unsubstantiated claim. You may not have said that nearsightedness always gets worse but you strongly implied it (since all your friends fit in that category). Why don't you show where strain on the focusing muscles is what's responsible for nearsightedness?

Also, getting farsighted with age isn't normal. That process is called presbyopiahttp://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions /presbyopia.htm/. Basically, presbyopia is a hardening of the lens as we age that reduces the eye's focusing range. It has nothing to do with the eye itself changing shape. Of course, if you wish to imagine that using reading glasses now will save you from presbyopia when you get older then go on with it. Others know better.

I've done some research into complications of LASIK surgery as my father has had it done and I'm interested in getting it done myself. From what I can tell, problems are farily rare and are almost always correctable. When my father had his surgery done, there was a problem with his left eye. Since, he has been back twice and they paid for both surgeries. He now has perfect eyesight in both eyes. Don't get me wrong, safer is always better. But in all the searching I've found, all of the problems were due to a mistake on the surgeon, not faulty equipment. This is a very informative site I've found. http://www.allaboutvision.com/visionsurgery/lasik_ complication_1.htm

My optometrist said those things are called "floaters". They're perfectly natural (and usually harmless).

Link with more info

(You might think that a opthamologist, who has medical training, would be a better source than an optometrist. But it's my perception that optometrists actually do better with the little practical issues.)

Also note that a lot of people who don't need glasses for normal activities need them while they're sitting in from of a computer.

One mistake my optometrist did make was to recommend "task glasses" in place of my normal progressive lenses. These are glasses where the focus is optimized for your specific monitor setup. Possibly the right choice if you're a key-entry person or other person that never looks away from the screen. But if you stop to refer to books or write on paper, I think standard glasses arebetter.

Intacs are corneal implants that are removable (reversable), offering most of the benefits of LASIK without some of the risks.

I had LASEK done on July 9, 2004, at the NYC office of Diamond Vision. I've been considering getting laser surgery done since 1999; I've had glasses since I was 8 years old, and at that point I was making a fair bit of cash, so I started thinking about it. I had a few practical reasons for wanting the surgery, none of them to do with how I looked wearing glasses. My glasses were always expensive, since I bought nice frames and got the thin-glass "option"; I wear them pretty rigidly on my face, so they left a mark on the bridge of my nose; and glasses always got in the way of my sport-type activities (scuba, snowboarding), since I needed to buy custom or oversized gear to preserve my vision.

Anyway, I first heard about LASIK back in 1999, when I was living in Colorado and the procedure was still fairly new. At that point, it was practically a first-generation technology -- the VisX Star S2 was a big step in making LASIK less risky -- but I was still interested in it. Anyway, I got my eyes screened for free at a clinic there, and I was told I was an excellent middle-of-the-road candidate. To corroborate that assessment, I got my eyes screened at a second clinic, and they said the same thing: low astigmatism, stabilized vision, crappy eyes but still an excellent candidate for post-op improvement to 20/40 or 20/20. However, it was very expensive (the clinics quoted me $4000 - $5000 for both eyes, excluding post-op meds), so I held off.

Jump ahead to July 2004: I'm paying down my school bills quickly, my credit cards are paid off / current, and my girlfriend just started a new job, so blowing cash on a vacation somewhere isn't an option for a few months. Like you, I had some extra cash burning a hole in my pocket, and I hadn't forgotten about LASIK, so I decided to look into it again. My first round of research was a mixed bag: the doctors with the most experience (5000+ operations under their belt) charged a lot ($4000 - $5500), but the technology had improved a lot since 1999. VisX has received FDA approval of its 3rd generation LASIK laser, the VisX Star 4, as well as a complementary screening procedure called CustomVue, VisX's branded take on a more generic procedure known as Custom LASIK. Taken together, the LASIK procedure is more highly customized to your own eye's specifications, so the post-op risks (halos, night glare, starbursts, over/undercorrection) are reduced by an order of magnitude. Whereas in previous years, doctors could only measure to within 0.25 increments, the new tech allows them to do it in 0.01 increments. Good stuff.

Anyway, I decided to pull the trigger after a friend-of-a-friend told me he had it done at a place in NYC, by a doctor (Dr. Kornstein) with over 15,000 procedures under his belt, AND the procedure was covered by my vision insurance plan, TruVision, AND the price was far more affordable than I had found previously. The entire procedure cost me ~$2650: ~$2500 for the LASIK (for both eyes!), ~$100 in post-op medication, and ~$50 in cab fare between my apartment and the doctor's office for the surgery and first two post-op checkups. Here's the breakdown of what happened:

1) Two weeks before my surgery, I was given a free screening of my eyes. Nothing major was done, other than dilating my eyes, so driving wouldn't have been recommended afterwards (if I used a car in NYC, that is). After finding out I'm a good candidate for laser surgery, I decide to set up my appointment for July 9 @ 4:30pm. I'm told to schedule a pre-op exam for the week preceding the operation, and two post-op exams:

I had LASEK done on July 9, 2004, at the NYC office of Diamond Vision. I've been considering getting laser surgery done since 1999; I've had glasses since I was 8 years old, and at that point I was making a fair bit of cash, so I started thinking about it. I had a few practical reasons for wanting the surgery, none of them to do with how I looked wearing glasses. My glasses were always expensive, since I bought nice frames and got the thin-glass "option"; I wear them pretty rigidly on my face, so they left a mark on the bridge of my nose; and glasses always got in the way of my sport-type activities (scuba, snowboarding), since I needed to buy custom or oversized gear to preserve my vision.

Anyway, I first heard about LASIK back in 1999, when I was living in Colorado and the procedure was still fairly new. At that point, it was practically a first-generation technology -- the VisX Star S2 was a big step in making LASIK less risky -- but I was still interested in it. Anyway, I got my eyes screened for free at a clinic there, and I was told I was an excellent middle-of-the-road candidate. To corroborate that assessment, I got my eyes screened at a second clinic, and they said the same thing: low astigmatism, stabilized vision, crappy eyes but still an excellent candidate for post-op improvement to 20/40 or 20/20. However, it was very expensive (the clinics quoted me $4000 - $5000 for both eyes, excluding post-op meds), so I held off.

Jump ahead to July 2004: I'm paying down my school bills quickly, my credit cards are paid off / current, and my girlfriend just started a new job, so blowing cash on a vacation somewhere isn't an option for a few months. Like you, I had some extra cash burning a hole in my pocket, and I hadn't forgotten about LASIK, so I decided to look into it again. My first round of research was a mixed bag: the doctors with the most experience (5000+ operations under their belt) charged a lot ($4000 - $5500), but the technology had improved a lot since 1999. VisX has received FDA approval of its 3rd generation LASIK laser, the VisX Star 4, as well as a complementary screening procedure called CustomVue, VisX's branded take on a more generic procedure known as Custom LASIK. Taken together, the LASIK procedure is more highly customized to your own eye's specifications, so the post-op risks (halos, night glare, starbursts, over/undercorrection) are reduced by an order of magnitude. Whereas in previous years, doctors could only measure to within 0.25 increments, the new tech allows them to do it in 0.01 increments. Good stuff.

Anyway, I decided to pull the trigger after a friend-of-a-friend told me he had it done at a place in NYC, by a doctor (Dr. Kornstein) with over 15,000 procedures under his belt, AND the procedure was covered by my vision insurance plan, TruVision, AND the price was far more affordable than I had found previously. The entire procedure cost me ~$2650: ~$2500 for the LASIK (for both eyes!), ~$100 in post-op medication, and ~$50 in cab fare between my apartment and the doctor's office for the surgery and first two post-op checkups. Here's the breakdown of what happened:

1) Two weeks before my surgery, I was given a free screening of my eyes. Nothing major was done, other than dilating my eyes, so driving wouldn't have been recommended afterwards (if I used a car in NYC, that is). After finding out I'm a good candidate for laser surgery, I decide to set up my appointment for July 9 @ 4:30pm. I'm told to schedule a pre-op exam for the week preceding the operation, and two post-op exams:

I had LASEK done on July 9, 2004, at the NYC office of Diamond Vision. I've been considering getting laser surgery done since 1999; I've had glasses since I was 8 years old, and at that point I was making a fair bit of cash, so I started thinking about it. I had a few practical reasons for wanting the surgery, none of them to do with how I looked wearing glasses. My glasses were always expensive, since I bought nice frames and got the thin-glass "option"; I wear them pretty rigidly on my face, so they left a mark on the bridge of my nose; and glasses always got in the way of my sport-type activities (scuba, snowboarding), since I needed to buy custom or oversized gear to preserve my vision.

Anyway, I first heard about LASIK back in 1999, when I was living in Colorado and the procedure was still fairly new. At that point, it was practically a first-generation technology -- the VisX Star S2 was a big step in making LASIK less risky -- but I was still interested in it. Anyway, I got my eyes screened for free at a clinic there, and I was told I was an excellent middle-of-the-road candidate. To corroborate that assessment, I got my eyes screened at a second clinic, and they said the same thing: low astigmatism, stabilized vision, crappy eyes but still an excellent candidate for post-op improvement to 20/40 or 20/20. However, it was very expensive (the clinics quoted me $4000 - $5000 for both eyes, excluding post-op meds), so I held off.

Jump ahead to July 2004: I'm paying down my school bills quickly, my credit cards are paid off / current, and my girlfriend just started a new job, so blowing cash on a vacation somewhere isn't an option for a few months. Like you, I had some extra cash burning a hole in my pocket, and I hadn't forgotten about LASIK, so I decided to look into it again. My first round of research was a mixed bag: the doctors with the most experience (5000+ operations under their belt) charged a lot ($4000 - $5500), but the technology had improved a lot since 1999. VisX has received FDA approval of its 3rd generation LASIK laser, the VisX Star 4, as well as a complementary screening procedure called CustomVue, VisX's branded take on a more generic procedure known as Custom LASIK. Taken together, the LASIK procedure is more highly customized to your own eye's specifications, so the post-op risks (halos, night glare, starbursts, over/undercorrection) are reduced by an order of magnitude. Whereas in previous years, doctors could only measure to within 0.25 increments, the new tech allows them to do it in 0.01 increments. Good stuff.

Anyway, I decided to pull the trigger after a friend-of-a-friend told me he had it done at a place in NYC, by a doctor (Dr. Kornstein) with over 15,000 procedures under his belt, AND the procedure was covered by my vision insurance plan, TruVision, AND the price was far more affordable than I had found previously. The entire procedure cost me ~$2650: ~$2500 for the LASIK (for both eyes!), ~$100 in post-op medication, and ~$50 in cab fare between my apartment and the doctor's office for the surgery and first two post-op checkups. Here's the breakdown of what happened:

1) Two weeks before my surgery, I was given a free screening of my eyes. Nothing major was done, other than dilating my eyes, so driving wouldn't have been recommended afterwards (if I used a car in NYC, that is). After finding out I'm a good candidate for laser surgery, I decide to set up my appointment for July 9 @ 4:30pm. I'm told to schedule a pre-op exam for the week preceding the operation, and two post-op exams:

This is IMPORTANT, mod parent up! The parent is referring to a laser called intralase which completely eliminates the process of using a microkeratome to cut the flap, the part of the procedure that is by far the most prone to induce complications. The laser cuts the flap for the procedure by using thousands of ultrafast femtosecond pulses of light focused just below the surface of the cornea in a radial pattern. Depth and thickness of the flap can be controlled with exquisite precision and since nothing physically touches the intracorneal tissue, risk of infection is grealty reduced. While you're at it, since you're probable a technical guy, what with posting to slashdot and all, why not check out the laser itself? Manufacturers are all different with respect to the spot size of the laser pulses, the method which they use to track tiny eye movments and compensate for them, and the range of astig. and correction they are intended to treat. Also, see if they do customized ablations to reduce higher order abberations as well. If you're going to check out the doctor before you have the prcedure done WHY NOT CHECK OUT THE TECHNOLOGY TOO?!

First of all you have to consider there are basically 2 kinds of corrective eye surgery:

LASIK - that opens a flap of your cornea, zaps the cornea with the laser, and puts the flap back. Vision comes back instantly.

PRK - no flap needed, thus avoiding all problems related to it. The epithelium is removed, the cornea zapped, and a special protective contact lense is used for a couple days till epitheliums grows back again. Vision will not be 100% for about 2-3 weeks so it's done one eye each time.

PRK was the surgery of choice, but people got too much haze after surgery, and nobody knew why. LASIK was invented, and became a marketing dream. Fast recovery, no pain. It altered the structure of the cornea and some people when blind, cut the cornea nerves, eyes got dry, but so what ? Eye surgeons could earn thousands in a cirurgy that takes less than a minute, and could market it as being as simple as a hair cut. Easy to sell. Profit outweighs the risks.
Then recently they found out how to avoid haze in PRK (it seems that avoiding UV and taking vitamin C does the trick). So PRK is much safer than LASIK, but takes longer to recover.

Of course technology does import. I wouldn't take anything without wavefront with top-notch equipment. IANAD, but from what I saw the best equipments are the Visx S4 and the Ladarvision.

I suggest you read
http://www.asklasikdocs.com/cgi-local/forum/board. cgi
http://www.surgicaleyes.org/
http://www.allaboutvision.com/visionsurgery/prk.ht m

BTW, I am scheduled to have PRK in 2 weeks, in a Visx 4 + wavefront.

Recently my doctor told me about a new therapy as an alternative to lasik. Essentially special lenses reshape your cornea in your sleep. More information.

You probably have eyestrain because the muscles in your eye are constantly in a state of tension.

This means you're probably straining to focus on a screen that's not naturally in focus.

I would think you need reading glasses.

Here's a good link with a very good explanation:

http://www.allaboutvision.com/cvs/faqs.htm

Contacts recently got a -lot- easier to wear. The FDA approved a new breed of 30-day wear contacts earlier this year. Here's a bit of info. The new contacts let in a lot more oxygen than the older soft contacts, and have antibacterial properties to help prevent corneal infection.

I've been wearing these (PureVisions) for the last few months, and they're phenomenal. I put in new contacts on the first of each month, and most of the time I don't touch them until the first day of the next month. If they get a little uncomfortable (doesn't happen much), I might take them out and clean them, or leave them out overnight while I sleep. My optometrist examined me after a month of wearing these, and gave me the A-OK. I had some corneal pitting before from occasionally sleeping in my old (regular soft) contacts, and it was gone after a month of these. They dry out a lot less often than my old contacts, too.

Only real downside is that they aren't cheap...around $250 a year for contacts, mail-order, plus the eye appointment and (a very minimal amount of) cleaning fluid. OTOH, at $1500+ per eye for LASIK, that's not so bad after all.

I -was- thinking about LASIK or the like, but now I really don't even consider it an option. I have fifteen minutes of hassle a month in exchange for good night vision and no corneal scarring.

Geo

I've been wondering whether I should fork out the money for this one. Looks like an interesting alternative. The irritating thing is that there's no guarantee that it works, but then again, no product out there has one anyway.

You might want to check out this article too.

Anyway I'll be checking this one out.. if you're gonna get this, let me know too. Perhaps we can exchange some information about it.

In the realm of what's new since 2000, wavefront adaptive optics correction for LASIK is now commercially available: www.allaboutvision.com/waveprint/waveprint_lasik.h tm. There is also a new method of removing the corneal flap using femtosecond pulse lasers (thus, no blade involved), but results are essentially the same. Wavefront AO (aka "Super Vision") is yielding results that are typically 100% 20/20, and usually (80%+) 20/15. This is approaching the expected human vision diffraction limit (believed to be around 20/8).

About 8 months ago one of the local eye doctors started offering orthokeratology. I wanted to do this instead of lasik because I don't trust anything that has to do with cutting my eyes, the "oops, you know there is always a chance of something bad happening" factor bothers me. With orthokeratology, if you stop wearing the lenses, your eyes go back to how they were. This lets me have good vision with a minor inconvinience (less than wearing soft contacts) and give me the option of getting lasik when it is $50 an eye and there is no chance of anything bad happening.

My eyes started out at -6.5 / -5.5, which is at the far end for successful treatment. Important lesson, don't go from eyesight this bad to 20/20 in one step, use two different sets of lenses.

After about 6 weeks I had 20/20 20/25 without the lenses 20/15 with. Now I wear the lenses all day and night one day, leave them out the next. If I only wear them at night, after the second night I have 20/40.

I have no trouble working on computers all day, and I don't have to worry about losing a lens while rafting or diving. Getting dirt in my eye while biking though is a very interesting experience, one of the drawbacks of hard contact lenses.

Most nearsightedness and farsightedness is caused by the eye, and consequently the retina, not being in the correct shape.The image is formed either too far ahead or behind the retina.

I read the article but I didn't see any mention of how the beam would project on malformed retinas. If you are farsighted and you use this Microvision system, will the image appear to be deformed as well? Will it look like you are sitting too close to the movie theater screen?

Most nearsightedness and farsightedness is caused by the eye, and consequently the retina, not being in the correct shape.The image is formed either too far ahead or behind the retina.

I read the article but I didn't see any mention of how the beam would project on malformed retinas. If you are farsighted and you use this Microvision system, will the image appear to be deformed as well? Will it look like you are sitting too close to the movie theater screen?