Pupil size test repeated (1 Viewer)

I used the 2005 Konica Minolta Z5 for the first time in many years to redo the photos of pupil size.

This time the room was not very dark and I was not dark adapted. Perhaps 2 minutes in a fairly dark room.

The results are surprising to me.

The horizontal pupil size is 5.8mm. and almost vertically 5.6mm.
Now the pupil does not appear to be perfectly round.

So approx 5.7mm in a not very dark room.

About ten years ago I got 5.9mm with round pupils in total darkness for 20 minutes.

The flash is now disturbing to me. Perhaps I did not reduce it enough, so I did not take many photos. But the photos are clear enough.

There are some 'official' sites that say 3mm for elderly eyes.
They clearly have not done enough testing with enough elderly subjects.

These measures are born out in practical use.
In severe light pollution equivalent to 2 or 3 full moons I clearly have benefit from 8.5x44 and 8x42 binoculars as far as subject brightness is concerned.
Clearly my pupils are larger than 5.2mm in actual use.

The scenes are definitely brighter than with an 8x32.

However, my main problems are tiredness in one eye, which leads to a doubling of vision. It is better if I just use the one eye that doesn't get tired.

Also possible slight cataracts that reduce resolution.

When I am well rested I still see quite well. But if my eyes are tired my eyesight is not so good.

As far as star images and restful eyes I prefer 8x32 binoculars at night as my eyes are somewhat strained with 8.5x44. For short observations the 8.5x44 is fine.

Regards,
B.

Binastro said:

I used the 2005 Konica Minolta Z5 for the first time in many years to redo the photos of pupil size.

This time the room was not very dark and I was not dark adapted. Perhaps 2 minutes in a fairly dark room.

The results are surprising to me.

The horizontal pupil size is 5.8mm. and almost vertically 5.6mm.
Now the pupil does not appear to be perfectly round.

So approx 5.7mm in a not very dark room.

About ten years ago I got 5.9mm with round pupils in total darkness for 20 minutes.

The flash is now disturbing to me. Perhaps I did not reduce it enough, so I did not take many photos. But the photos are clear enough.

There are some 'official' sites that say 3mm for elderly eyes.
They clearly have not done enough testing with enough elderly subjects.

These measures are born out in practical use.
In severe light pollution equivalent to 2 or 3 full moons I clearly have benefit from 8.5x44 and 8x42 binoculars as far as subject brightness is concerned.
Clearly my pupils are larger than 5.2mm in actual use.

The scenes are definitely brighter than with an 8x32.

However, my main problems are tiredness in one eye, which leads to a doubling of vision. It is better if I just use the one eye that doesn't get tired.

Also possible slight cataracts that reduce resolution.

When I am well rested I still see quite well. But if my eyes are tired my eyesight is not so good.

As far as star images and restful eyes I prefer 8x32 binoculars at night as my eyes are somewhat strained with 8.5x44. For short observations the 8.5x44 is fine.

Regards,
B.

Click to expand...

Hi B,
Taking pics of your eyes in a dark room is a direct method to measure the diam of your pupils, but I wouldn't like looking directly into the camera flash. Is there any other less intrusive but relatively precise method that one can use, besides using a simple ruler?
Peter

Ask your optician to measure your pupils the next time you go for a vision check-up. The lighting conditions may not be exactly as you would wish, although this can usually be adjusted, but it would give you extra accurate information.

Lee

Troubador said:

Ask your optician to measure your pupils the next time you go for a vision check-up. The lighting conditions may not be exactly as you would wish, although this can usually be adjusted, but it would give you extra accurate information.

Lee

Click to expand...

I did, and he used just a ruler, and obviously not in total darkness......There should be more accurate methods.

During a vision check, they usually dilate my pupils with eye drops. I'll ask them to measure afterward. I wonder though, if chemically dilated pupils equal fully dark adapted.

Foss said:

During a vision check, they usually dilate my pupils with eye drops. I'll ask them to measure afterward. I wonder though, if chemically dilated pupils equal fully dark adapted.

Click to expand...

An interesting discussion on this aspect on the CN:
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/208372-artificially-dilating-your-pupils/

Hi Peter,

I use an accurate Indian made stainless steel plate with different diameter holes from 1mm upwards.
Also an Imperial one.
Duratool Drill Gauge 1/16 to 1/2 by 64 THS.
Duratool Drill 'Gage' 1.0mm to 13.0mm.
The holes are accurate, at least as far as I can measure.

I just compare the view until I get the most accurate match.

In addition I use out of focus brightish stars to get a pretty accurate measure.

The Konica Minolta Z5 used to go to very low light flash levels close up. Perhaps it is faulty now or I didn't take enough time working with it.
The main thing is that the autofocus device is invisible, whereas all the other cameras I know have bright focus lights that are blinding close up.

Henry has good methods for pupil diameter measurement. I use variations of this.

Of the many graphs and plots on the internet, one of the best plots hundreds of subjects from very young to late nineties.
At all ages the spread of measurements is about two to one.
So simple graph lines plotting a false average are totally misleading.

I have had reports from astronomers and optical scientists of 3mm at age 70.

7.0mm at age 65.

6mm plus at age 65.

On T.V. and movies I have seen actors with 9mm pupils in low light. These are young actors.

Apparently those with 9mm pupils have poor eyesight.

The bigger problem for me is reduced eye adaptation in low light. It is slower and less extensive than when I was young.

I have about a 1.2 magnitude or 3x loss of faintest star visible compared to when I was 20 to 40s.

In addition I have other eye problems.

Regards,
B.

PeterPS said:

An interesting discussion on this aspect on the CN:
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/208372-artificially-dilating-your-pupils/

Click to expand...

Thanks Peter!