How many cm is close-up?

Dear fellow members,

I wonder how would you define a close-up vision? I vaguely remember Jake mentioning it once with specific amount of cm, but I dont remember exactly.

As much as I try to limit my close-up vision when at home, sometimes I need to take my notebook and do some research/work. I do wear my reading glasses in front of my lenses. My notebook is about 45-55 cm away from my eyes and I do consider that as a close-up, so I do wear reading glasses over my contact lenses. Wearing reading glasses over my contact lenses gives me a nice challenge.

I have a desktop computer at work and I use 2 monitors. One of them is like 60-65 cm away and the other one would be like 70 cm away. When I have reading glasses over my contact lenses, my vision is very poor. My eyes are challenged in quite a heavy way to the point it is even frustrating that Im thinking perhaps my computer at work is not a close-up vision at all as it is quite far away from my eyes already?

Any thoughts???


In this case, both are close-up. Personally, I use the next-weaker reduction compared to desktop when I have to use a notebook for a long time. That keeps the blur challenge reasonable on both. :nerd_face:

I’m not so sure if close-up is only about centimeters, so there might be no limit of how many centimeters makes something near work-like. First, you should have a correction that gives you a decent blur horizon for the near work distance. After that, it looks like ingredients for straining/unnatural vision are things like:

  • static distance
  • indoor lighting
  • long duration

Please keep in mind that I don’t know this for certain… but in theory, even a cinema would behave more like close-up than distance. :movie_camera: :face_with_monocle: After all, we use stronger glasses to look at the cinema screen, and then all in all the eye might see it more like a computer screen than a natural outdoor scene.

Anyway, if you use two screens at different distances regularly and for hours at a time, it might pay off to get a pair of glasses for each that gives you a good blur horizon. (I suspect that I got a set-back earlier in my journey because I wasn’t careful enough with that.)

1 Like

Both should be within close up, in my opinion.

I’d push the notebook to a 65-70cms distance, too, and wear differentials fit for that distance which is then the distance of all 3 screens.
I’d define a position that is the minimum distance to keep from the screen - e.g. 60cms for the start (or simply arm’s length) if that gives comfort all day with differentials (no strain, no overcorrection), and would push the screen away by an additional 5cms or my chair back by 5cms when I’m ready for some blur challenge.
Continuously increasing the time / distance up to about 80-90cms if space around the desk allows (should allow).
When that feels good all day any day, I’d get my next differentials and start the process again.
The lower the diopter, the bigger the close-up bubble is (cm measurement for zero diopter should be around 8 metres)
But for practical reasons there is little point in watching 11pt text on a notebook screen from 150cms…

This confuses me. The cited danger is that close-up causes ciliary spasm. But if the screen is at (or beyond) blur horizon, there is no accommodation, and so there can be no ciliary spasm …?

The other possible factor is that for a screen that’s physically close, the eyes have to converge, which may itself be a form of strain. Plus you’re probably not looking through optical centre of glasses, which is another potential issue.

By that argument, cinema screen might be even “closer” than computer screen… differentials put computer screen at blur horizon. Your stronger glasses might well bring the cinema screen closer than that.

I think I’ve seen somewhere on the blog that one of Jake’s issues with screens (and possible “close-up” more generally) is the fixed nature of the distance to the object. Cinema screen (except 3D, I suppose) might therefore also be a problem because it is a fixed focal distance. It was possibly in the context of why it’s okay to wear normalised indoors, even when things you look at could be quite close. The argument is that it’s fine because you don’t spend long looking at a fixed distance.

To me, “close up” is any distance that requires ciliary muscle accommodation to see clearly. Since the key to reversal is to limit ciliary use and to use active focus (accommodate further than the relaxed eye sees), I find it more useful to think in those terms. For a given distance (say, phone or pc screen), do you need to accommodate closer than the relaxed point? That is “closeup” and is counter to reversing myopia. Do you need to accommodate further than your relaxed eyes see? (we call that active focus) If yes, that helps to reduce myopia, even for a phone at 20cm away (I know this from personal experience)

Glasses, contacts, etc are merely tools to adjust where that relaxed distance is when combined with your eye’s current calibration (we call that calibration myopia, hyperopia, etc depending on how far you see when your eyes are relaxed and not assisted by glasses, or contacts).

For example, I choose to stare at a PC screen all day as part of my job. I choose a glasses prescription that places the relaxed focus distance just short of the screen. I then active focus to make up the difference. This is thus not “closeup” focusing. If, instead I wore my driving glasses, my eyes would need to accommodate about 1.25 diopters to put the screen in focus, I consider that thus close up (focusing).

It is important to realize absolute distance does not matter. It’s how far away you see relaxed vs whatever you want to see that matters.

Using the above principals, despite 6-8 hours of phone and pc usage per day (absolute distance closeup), I have dropped my baseline prescription by over 2 diopters in 15 months. Endmyopia works, but only if you have lots of active focus time and minimize close up accommodation, IMO.


Could u please define a “relaxed point?” Just please give me a guideline as to how to recognise if my pc or notebook is or is not in my close-up range. Thanks!

I find my “relaxed point”’the maximum distance I see sharp without using active focus.

Since for me active focus requires effort to use it (it’s not automatic) I have found it easy to back off of something like my phone until it is no longer sharp. At that point if I active focus i can make it sharp, but the distance I last saw sharp without that clearing is my relaxed distance.

I call it the relaxed distance because my eyes are relaxed, no ciliary pulling focus towards me, no active focus pushing it out. This is the state the automatic calibration if the eye attempts to achieve over years.

This is why we got myopic, our eyes were stressed attempting to accommodate closer than the relaxed distance all the time, so over time the eye recalibrated to make that viewing distance relaxed. Then we got glasses to see far away again, making the eye stressed attempting to look closer all the time, repeating the process over and over again.

All endmyopia is doing is harnessing that autocalibration, just in the opposite direction, by stressing the eye with pushing out accommodation. The key is identifying and controlling (via glasses) the relaxed distance so you spend lots of time active focusing, stressing the eye and thus autocalibrating it back out of myopia.

1 Like

Ok so my monitor at work is about 60 cm away and i see it even a bit blury when looking at it with normalised - therefore i dont use differentials as then i would not see my monitor at all, it would be just too blury.

If i come closer, like 50 cm, this is where the blur horizon border starts. But for me to sit ergonomically, i sit 60 cm away and see it a bit blury even just with normalised.

Is it then ok for me to work with my PC and to have normalised only without adding reading glasses on the top of my contact lenses??

If the blur from your norms is hyperopic defocus (they are strong enough to bring the screen all the way up to your near point), that would definitely be bad. But there are various other things that could cause blur. (Poor quality screen / glasses, incorrect cylinder, …)

So I think you need to understand why screen is blurry with norms. “Therefore I don’t use diffs” implies that norms are only just strong enough to see the screen, which would mean they are too weak.

Are your contacts full-strength or normalised ? I can’t comment on how well glasses-over-contacts works. (Never tried it.)

1 Like

What is your 6m-Snellen result with the normalised you use for the monitor at 60 or 70 cms?
If they give you blur for the monitor, I can’t imagine they give you sharp vision on letters at real distance… (6 metres and above) …unless there’s something seriously wrong with the monitor…
What is your opto confirmed correction for distance if you have a recent one?

Actually my blur is caused by my norms being too weak. I have dropped quite recently but dont want to go back up. I just wanna do lots of AF for the blur caused by my norms to disappear.

I do improve quite fast, so i should get hang of it quite soon.

My blur is caused by normalised being probably too weak. But i like to challenge myself this way. My current normalised on 3m Snellen (i domt have the 6m) is 20/30, which is ok. It gives me a nice challenge. Even my monitor where the text is a bit blury (and it is a very small font) gives me a nice challenge - that is when looking at it with normalised.

I think i will pass on differentials for my work monitors for the time being as i have the blur challenge there even just with normalised.

At least i could also practise a bit of AF whilst working :smiley:

In my world and with my terminology, it looks like you are working on blur challenges on 3 focal planes:

  1. notebook distance that I’d call your “close-differentials” not a standard EM distance for blur challenge
  2. screen-monitor distance that most of us would call differentials
  3. real far distance that most of us call normalised

If you are working on the first 2 now, feel the challenge, use active focus and are improving, there is nothing wrong with it. But I believe:

  • soon you will be able to merge 1&2 simply because you won’t have challenge at all at 40-50cms
  • to hit the zero diopter you will need to start working on the real distance vision, too. (street signs, shop signs, boards or screens - e.g. live lecture for 50 to 300 people, sitting at the back of the room; reading license plates 5 cars ahead of you, etc) .
    And my assumption is that you don’t have 20/20 or 20/30 vision with your monitor glasses for real distance vision at the moment yet.

Having said that, if it was me, I’d still push the notebook away and use it at 60-70cms using the same glasses for the notebook and for the desktop monitor(s) for the same blur challenge


Bianca you are right and sometimes, I do push my notebook a bit further away to be around the same distance as my PC at my work. The trouble is that I might have reduced too quickly and have not accomodated to my new normalised fully just yet, therefore I sitll have some troubles at 50 cm.

I will try to measure the distance from my eyes to my PC tomorrow so that I can tell you the exact distance. I will have to do it in such a way that my colleagues dont notice it as otherwise they might think that I am off the planet :-).

Bianca just one more thing - i absolutely do active focus outside - that is my main thing. I focus on number plates, shop names, branches of trees that are even like 70 metres away.

I still do active focus when using computer as well. I have no choice but have to use a computer at work but at least i try to lessen the evil by doing AF.

And yes, i do have 20/30 with my normalised - my Snellen is also placed outside on my balcony, having a natural light.

I do strugle with a text written with font size 10 which is 50 cm away from me written with grey colour against a background that does not provide much contrast to the text. I see it a bit blury, therefore i use my normalised when working with my pc.

I measured my distance to the PC from my eyes and it is 62 - 65 cm. The font on my monitor is usually size 12 or even 10, so i guess no wonder i see it a bit blury.

Mischa, I’m afraid you lost me now. :see_no_evil:

So you have a notebook you use at 50cm distance - good natural lights. Your distance to blur without(!) glasses when looking at text on the notebook screen is ?cms, and you wear glasses (Glasses#1) with ? diopters for blur challenge when working on it.

You have desktop monitors at work, placed at 65-70 cms - not very good, artificial lights. Your distance to blur without(!) glasses when looking at text on the desktop monitor screen is 62-65cms, and you wear glasses (You wear Glasses#2 that are stronger than Glasses#1) with ? diopters for blur challenge when working on it. When you read Snellen at 3metres with Glasses#2 you can read up to 20/30. Clear and sharp? Or “just able to read”?
Have you tried reading Snellen at 3 metres without glasses? If yes, what was your result without glasses?

You go outdoors regularly for distance vision, you look at street signs and shop signs at 70metres with glasses (Glasses#3 - how strong?). How sharp is your vision then? I know it can’t be measured but what would you say? You also read license plates for AF training - at what distance do you manage to read them - assuming wearing Glasses#3 for that?

You also drive regularly, when you prefer to be overcorrected for safety (I fully support the idea of zero vision challenge during driving). For daytime and night time driving you use Glasses#4 (same glasses for both day and night) that gives you full clarity without having to work with AF all the time. How strong are they?

I marked what I’m missing for my understanding, and I’ll let you correct what I misunderstood in my summary…

I went through the topic and if I understand everything correctly, then:

  • The glasses she use as normalized gives her edge of blur at 50 cm
  • She can see 20/30 on 3m Snellen with that
  • Her computer screen is 62-64 cm away for comfortable position, which too blurry

My verdict is that she practically uses differentials as normalized. I’ve just checked, with good lightning and with a lot of struggle I also can see 20/30 line one 3m Snellen with my differentials.

Maybe the problem is that you misunderstand how you should check on Snellen. You should not use AF when checking on Snellen, you should just look at it and instantly read the line which you can. That’s your Snellen result. So no struggling, AFing and trying to clear up for minutes. Just look at it and check which line you can read.

I think your normalized is way-way low. It doesn’t help to live at blur, you won’t improve faster and constant blur is not needed for improvement. On the contrary, it can even be detrimental. Check this video from Jake:

What you use for normalized is a good differential glasses for you, just as you realized. Though it still seems to be a bit low for your computer, so either you need a bit stronger glasses for differentials, or just move your screen closer a bit if that’s possible. It’s not good if you always just look at blur. It strains your eye, it strains your visual cortex. You can develop blur adaptation, which is not good for your progress. You should be at the edge of blur for close-up. Not behind it.
Also you need a stronger normalized glasses. Again, for the same reasons: looking at blur won’t help. But being able to totally clear blur and achieve clarity do helps. So you need a normalized which gives you a bit of blur challenge. Not lot, and not even in close-up distance. I understand if you find it fun now to have a lot of blur challenge. But keep in mind that it’s not a few months journey. Most likely it will last for years. Do you really want to stare at blur for years? Every day, whole day, even on busy days, on bad days? Sooner or later you will get annoyed with this amount of blur. And then there is the risk that you just put on full glasses and forget the whole Endmyopia. And I think you don’t want that :slight_smile:
And again, you should see 20/30 - 20/50 on Snellen with your normalized indoor, with indirect lights and without any amount of AF. Just look at the Snellen and read what you can. That’s your Snellen measurement.


I got more or less to the same understanding. But when I measure cms from screen, I measure it without glasses.
If she sees clearly up to 65cms from the desktop monitor, she would need very little or no corrections to work at 65-70cms. (Basically you can get AF challenge on and off by posture)
If she sees clearly up to 65cms with the normalised only, and the monitor is at 70cms, then yes she has slightly undercorrected glasses for the desktop monitor giving her constant AF challenge all day (that may be just a bit too much at work non-stop for 7 or 8 hours)
And I agree, I would not call these glasses normalised yet.

But Mischa says she wears normalised for the desktop screen which are stronger than the differentials she wears for notebook at 50cms. Again, if 65cms with artificial lights is the blur horizon without glasses for her, I don’t understand the need for differentials for 50cms at home, where she says the natural lights are helping her. But she still has blur challenge with differential glasses on even at 50cms. So where does the blur start without any corrections?
Maybe it’s just me who is missing (or mixing up) something here?

1 Like

Actually i dont have blur challenge with 50 cm. At 50 cm i still see very sharp and beyond 50 cm this is where blur just starts. My notebook at home is like 40-50 away so for that i use differentials - reading glasses.

My pc at work is 65 cm away and the small fonts are blury.

U are right that my normalised are a bit too low. I really do have lots of blur and you are right, now when the fall is coming and the light is low, it is not funky anymore.

I will go up with my normalised. But how much shall i go up?

I will go for such level of prescription which allows me to see 20/30 indoors comfortably.

Thank u guys for your help!

I will really feel more comfortable when i increase my normalised a bit again.