4 ms·
From the article: I tried it out. Eight times. With eight different photographs. It measured me from a 61mm to 65mm PD. So call it accurate within ±4mm. How ba
by Spare_account 9y ago
From the article:
I tried it out. Eight times. With eight different photographs. It measured me from a 61mm to 65mm PD. So call it accurate within ±4mm. How bad can that be?
I'm no mathematician but shouldn't that be ±2mm? And if so, then the following paragraph (where he says that glasses should be within 2mm to be usable) confirms that this method would suffice?
- nickez 9y agoAlso from the article, his actual PD is 69mm...
- Spare_account 9y agoOK, I'll admit I didn't get that far. But that means the method was accurate ±8mm? Still not ±4mm... (Unless I don't understand the ± notation)
- maxerickson 9y ago1 face probably isn't enough to characterize the accuracy of the method.
- Spare_account 9y agoWell that kind of invalidates the entire article then! ;-)
- drdeadringer 9y agoI tried doing it myself as well and came up higher than what my reality was by a couple mm as you describe. I ended up calling up my optometrist and provided my correct number no problem.
- phonon 9y agoIt's a mistake :-) http://www.daniellivingston.com/2012/06/measuring-your-own-pupillary-distance.html?showComment=1379031016351#c8557027083848845892 http://www.daniellivingston.com/2012/06/measuring-your-own-p... AnonymousSeptember 12, 2013 at 1:02 PM It measured me from a 61mm to 65mm PD. So call it accurate within ±4mm. Uh, no... This is ±2mm (around a center value of 63) Daniel LivingstonSeptember 12, 2013 at 6:10 PM Oh yes that's true, I meant to explain it is inaccurate by up to 4mm.
- JustSomeNobody 9y agoDepends on your Rx, but 4mm can be quite the headache at the end of the day each day.