Foolproof the Endmyopia method

So I think one of the reason why Endmyopia not went mainstream already is that there are some points in the process where there is no exact way to do it, but we can just say that “yeah you should try that, or that, or whatever, wiggle your ears”. And it sort of works, but this way it easy to make mistakes and hard to believe that this process works, especially if someone is struggling with one of these points. I think there are three such process (not necessarily in order):

  1. Finding ActiveFocus
  2. Getting your first normalized / differential
  3. Measuring your visual acuity

1) Finding ActiveFocus
I think I don’t have tell too much about this. The most crucial and important aspect of the method, and we saw many example where people struggled with finding it, or found something but that made other problems or thought they found it, but later realized that they were doing something wrong (which resulted in backtracking or abandoning the method).
Unfortunately this is the hardest point to help with I think. Maybe we should start a topic with “How I found ActiveFocus?” (similar to the “How I found Endmyopia”) and maybe if enough people write how they did it some pattern start to emerge?

2) Getting your first normalized / differential
I don’t think it’s really that big problem, but as I see beginners struggles a lot with it, so I added. If someone has a friendly optometrist it’s as easy as possible and hopefully more and more of them will emerge. If you don’t have a friendly optometrist I think the best way is to just order 3-5 cheap glasses around your suspected “ideal” dioptre. Even if you make a mistake, most likely you will be able to use those as later differential / normalized. It would be a bit easier if we would have a foolproof visual acuity measurements, more on that in the following point.

3) Measuring your visual acuity
This is the point which started me thinking first because of several problems in the forum threads. Measuring something always add some error but those should average on the long run. The problem that all of the current methods are pretty subjective.
So for example you want to measure your weight. There are a lot of variable: what you wear, what you’ve eaten in the days before, how much you’ve drink, when was the last time you did a number 1 or 2, etc. BUT: if you say that you should always measure your weight after getting up, in your undies, after your did your morning number 1 or 2 and before you’ve eaten or drunk anything then you eliminated most of the variables. You just have to stick to these rules, hop on the scale and it will produce consistent measurements. You cannot “cheat” the system and there is no subjective aspect of getting the numbers (except for not seeing the numbers correctly because of myopia :smiley: )

But what we have for Endmyopia? First of all I presume we eliminate the obvious variables: so measuring in consistent lighting and with the same chart / fonts.
a) Snellen chart: it’s as subjective as it can get. Blur or not blur, can you really read the letters or you just memorized them, can you really see the letter clear, or you just adapted to blur, etc. It’s good to check your progress if you are improving, but almost useless to find out if something went wrong or not. Also cannot converted directly to dioptres, which makes it more imprecise and also not able to help in the previous point.
b) cm measurement: it converts to dioptre which is good, but otherwise it has similar problems. It’s not useful for low myopia because of the too big distance, and it’s not useful for high myopia because too small change result in too big dioptre change. It’s gives more stable result in the middle range, but even there you can easily cheat the system in both way: “yeah, that’s totally clear” (but it’s not) vs. “I’m not sure if that’s clear, so let’s take a smaller number” (but it was just loss of detail because of the distance, and not blur). And currently there is no rule to objectify it. We can only say that “measure the edge of blur”, but there is no way to determine if you are there or not.
I think a possible solution is instead of checking text we should develop some method which makes the edge of blur unequivocal. You should not have to judge, you either see something or not. I think it does not matter much if it can be converted to dioptre, because cm measurement is not that bad for that and it’s not that useful after the first normalized / differential.
Of course measuring anxial length sounds like a proper way for this, but it also should be easily accessable, at most with some DIY crafting.

Just an idea: something like how this optical trick works:

If you look close (with glasses) the right face should be neutral. If you remove glasses or go far away enough it will be the angry face on the right. Maybe we should measure the distance it changes? Maybe some more precise picture can be forged?


I really like your idea of an active focus thread, with lots of input on how people found it, and what is actually feels like to them. After only a short while on this journey, I am already inclined to say that a large part of it is neutral attention (no expectations) in a relaxed state. I would go as far as saying that it is not willing your eyes to see something, but simply allowing them to see something, again no expectations. I have already discovered that simply dropping my (permanently :frowning:) raised shoulders gives me clearer vision on the Snellen, as does straightening my back. Getting frustrated or berating yourself when you lose focus again is highly counterproductive, As in mindfulness meditation, gently bring your attention back to what you are paying attention to.
It is very possible that I may change my mind on this again as I follow this journey.


Agree. Lately I realized that I have much better (clearer, easier to achieve, etc.) active focus if I “tell” my eyes not that “make this more clear”, but that “I want to see more detail” or “I want to see that better”.
I also had awesome experiences with distance vision without glasses similarly: when I’m really relaxed, and the weather is nice and sunny, I stand at the back of our garden, take off my glasses and just stare into the field behind. I sort of “accept” what I see, and don’t want to make it clear or anything similar. But with just relaxing like this for a few minutes I start to get more details and see things I’m not normally. I don’t think this adds too much to the Endmyopia improvements, but it’s a really nice feeling :slight_smile: But if I try to go there and “OK now I will see more clear” then nothing really happens. So yes, the relaxation and no expectation and allowing your eyes to do what they need seems to be a crucial things to find and achieve active focus.


I noticed there was a black horizontal line on a postcard at home which i could not see before and with active focus it appeared, so perhaps something like this can be used for measuring the progress? Because there was a distinct transition between seeing the line and not seeing the line.


Hi David: thanks for the excellent list of points to consider. Suggestion: you use the word “AutoFocus” several times where I think you mean “Active Focus”. If so maybe you’d like to edit that out.


Thank you, I’ve fixed it.

Hi David, great idea this topic.
I think I still personally struggle with AF.

Concerning the measuring technique. I am OK with snellen chart indoors but to make my measurements consistent I measure brightness as well.

I was puzzled that one day I could read 20/20 and other day barely 20/30. The changing light conditions were playing with consistency of my measurements and were driving my mood down. I decided to measure the brightness together when I test my acuity. I found an Android app for this and using the ordinary light sensor in my smartphone. It is not calibrated but I presume it should give me consistent results and I now mainly try to test the eyes under the same light conditions. Anything below 100 LUX I consider low light, 150 – 300 good light I get most of the day, anything above 350 is very good light and I read very well.


Maybe this one help:

As for me, I ordered eyeque pvt for myself and am very pleased with the results (very close to my cm mesurements)

1 Like

Yes! hopefully that idea can be developed.

This is terrifying !!


This reminds me of the difficulty that blur adapted myopes might have with correctly reading faces for non-verbal communication. As a long term blur adapted myope, I have come to rely more on larger postural non-verbal signals than facial ones, and have become much more sensitive to the non-verbal aspects of spoken language, such as volume, tone, etc. The phenomenon of mirroring also provides a lot of information in face to face communication, and is easier to see than fine facial expressions. It is very likely that there are other perceptual sensitivities that compensate for lack of visual acuity. My hearing is pretty good, as is my sense of smell. When I was a teenager, already myopic, I was always the ‘nose’ of the family for smelling out if food had gone off or not.:nose: We see the extremes of this in blind people.


I found my first normalized by determining my cm measurement, running it through the diopter calculator. I got -2.75, then ordered -2.5s. That worked perfectly.

That leaves out my messy first step of having translated my -1.25 astigmatism to .-75 spherical correction. My first pair of reduced lenses were actually -3.25s, i.e. -2.5 + -.75 but those proved too strong. I could see 20/20 with them immediately.

I can’t read at an arm’s length, but the picture on the right is neutral there. If I look at the picture long, the text above it becomes more clear.

1 Like

I’ve experimented with some textures. Tried 1 pixel grid ( ), 1 pixel lines and text with different background color (full green and bit more reddish green and the opposite: full red and a bit more greenish red).

  • The 1 pixel lines looks so distorted when trying to check it, that it did more harm than good.
  • The different color text was not necessarily bad, bud did not felt more unequivocal than simply checking black text on white background.
  • 1 pixel grid is the most promising, there are some interesting patterns as you move (sort of like a decreasing circle of clear as you move back which then replaced by a distorted circle of clear), but is so painful to look at more than a few seconds, that I don’t think it usable.

So so far no success.