Prove your improvement with "QuickSee" - Anyone interested in sharing this device?

Hello,
I think that device “QuickSee” is the ultimate tool
to prove your vision improvement to the world.
I would love to test it and use it throughout the vision journey
and also show the eye improvement progress to the world.

I like that it works completely on its own. No other person is involved.
No calibration needed. (ok just the setup of the PD)
The only way to fake the results would be using contact lenses,
but this is not difficult to prove, that you do not wear them.

The results of QuickSee should convince everybody, right?
It is not absolutely precise, but really good.
(accuracy <=0.25 for 60-70% , <=0.5 for 80-90%)

Now my problem is, it is damn expensive like over 7000 EUR.

This is why I want to ask here:
Who is interested in sharing that device and lives also in Germany?

We could do meetings in Germany and measure our eyes with that device
and also share the results to the world.

I think this would convince a lot of people and push the vision improvement to the mainstream.

By the way, I think with this device a lot of eyes will be destroyed.
Easy measuring means easy prescriptions and the poor people will fall into the optometry trap.

https://www.sussex-vision.co.uk/PlenOptika-QuickSee-Portable-Wavefront-Autorefractor-UK

You could also get print outs of autorefractor results from the same optometrist office. :thinking:

Or for that kind of money, get axial length checks?

2 Likes

Seven thousand euros? In what universe is such a device worth that?

1 Like

Yes but are there auto refractors which do not require a person to do the test on the other side of the device? This would be a factor for sceptism. And I dont know are they calibration-free? If not, people could say the calibration was maniulated to fake the results.

Axial length checks would be even more money wasting for a service. Better have a product for this amount of money.

Professional devices are all expensive and this one is quite new and fancy.

You sound like a marketer :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

1 Like

“Yes but are there auto refractors which do not require a person to do the test on the other side of the device?”

How many times would how many people have to visit that person before it would cost anywhere near 7,000 euros?

I think these auto refractor tests are for free in the glasses shops, but of course they expect to sell you glasses in return.

A much cheaper device is one from https://www.eyeque.com/
It’s got its quirks but it works pretty well for me.

2 Likes

And to be honest, I think that having a licensed professional on the other end of an autorefractor works in our favour rather than against us. No one would doubt measurements if a doctor’s (or better yet, several doctors) name is on the paper. But a device that’s fully automatic will not convince the skeptics, you might as well put your own cm measurements.

Plus we don’t really need to prove anything with regards to refraction change, it’s obvious, we could get proofs anytime we go to an optometrist. Reduction in axial length on the other hand… That would be a valuable proof.

1 Like

At that point you’re arguing with people whose opinion honestly is irrelevant. If a pro level autorefractor at an optometrist doesn’t do it for them, they’re just trolling.

I don’t quite see a strong reason to spend $7000 on this thing. There are also various other devices like EyeQue and such … not that people really care. I haven’t ever been asked for autorefractor results as proof for endmyopia working. Though maybe that’s because we’re just an outlier sort of experiment group.

On the other hand I always appreciate new ideas for data and testing, so for that, :+1:

3 Likes

Hm EyeQue is interesting. Of course the necessary interaction is a factor for sceptism, but for self measurement and to show some friends your success it will be enough. I wonder how accurate it measures.
Are there other similar devices which anyone can recommend?

Sorry, you’re not going to please and convince everyone. Those who don’t believe enough evidence will find more counter evidence. In this case, it goes at a cost of never restoring eyesight naturally, though.

You’ll never going to find an argument-free evidence, that’s impossible. Some degree of belief will exist anyway. I’d focus on documenting my journey as much as I can also taking into account other needs in our life. And not trying to please hyper-scepticism and paranoia.

I ordered the EyeQue VisionCheck. Hopefully it is not trash. Stay tuned :slight_smile:

3 Likes

I’ve been taking daily measurements using the vision check for the last two years. After a few weeks, the results should get more consistent but even then, the measurements will vary because the eye changes throughout the day. I think a good thing about the device is that it’s objective and it would be really hard to fool yourself with it that your vision is improving if it’s not.

3 Likes

I received the Eyeque Visioncheck yesterday. 1 week waiting for amazon payments, 1 week waiting for shipping through US and to Germany.
First impression: The measuring process is somehow strange, exhausting and could cause headaches, because of the one-eye-only looking. I thought of sending it back.

But with more measurements I noticed how to use it better. It is helpful to move your eye between the 2 line holes to figure out the right limit of the red, green and yellow blocks.
You need to find that position of the eye, which gives you a good yellow color.

So the last four results are almost the same. The 6. result is from today. The 1-5 from yesterday.
I have checked them with snellen at 6 meters and my test lens kit.

Except of the sphere numbers, which overprescribe 0.25 diopters, the measurement is very good. All the cylinder numbers are exact. It would be quite difficult to find out the cylinder numbers only with a test lens kit, so Im happy to have now my exact astigmatism data.

About the sphere 0.25 overprescription:
UPDATE: I found out, if you answer “yes” to the question “Do you use a screen protector?”,
then it will overprescribe 0,25 sphere. If you answer “no” then it will not overprescribe.
I have tried with and without a screen protector. Results were exact the same. So a screen protector could be completely irrelevant (depends maybe on type), but that question will definetly lead to a sphere overprescription, if you say “yes”.

So it is a great device and I will also use it as a “proof device” for my youtube channel.

So @jetpad thank you very much for mentioning it!

BTW I use it with Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge

For me this device is much better than cm measurements, which is for me the hardest measurement method.


1 Like

For me, it seems like it is slightly under prescribing me by 0.25 diopters for both spherical and cylinder. I wear contacts 99% of the time and I consistently take my measurements early in the morning before I put my contacts in. So I think my eyes are probably at peak acuity for the day. I’m pretty sure that if I took the measurements at the end of the day, it would probably be prescribing me a bit higher.

It does take a. while to get used to how it works and I feel like I’m still getting better at using it even after a couple years. I turn off the sound and always close the eye that I’m not using. My process is to figure out what is the outside edge of the circle and then push the red bar towards out of the circle until is just begins to peek out past the green and then move the red bar back by one press so hopefully it is peeking out by the same amount on both sides.

1 Like

Check this out:
I wanted to check the eyes of my brother and did not understand why VisionCheck does not show them.
Later I found this out:
If you activate “Vision Test Results” in Settings, then
I had to discover that “hidden” button by scrolling down:

Then I understood the Vision Test Results-log must be deleted, if a new person wants to check the eyes. So I had to chat with the EyeQue staff on the website and ask them to delete the log in my account.

So these are 2 bad things about VisionCheck:
-you need to ask the staff to delete the log in your account, you can not delete it by yourself.
-if one day EyeQue company is closed, the device will be useless without the online access.

Update: the 3rd bad thing is:
The usage makes your ciliary muscle to contract very strong, because you look through VisionCheck only about 8cm to the phone screen.
You will notice the worse vision after 1 test immediately.
So you should better do distance active focus after 1 test to relax your ciliary muscle again. I think they needed to design the 8cm length of the device so people with high myopia (up to -10) can use it too.

EyeQue’s software is definitely one of the weaker parts of their system. I didn’t realized they had the option to show the Vision Test Results in the app. I’d been going to the website this whole time to get that information. Also, I wish they didn’t round the results to the nearest 0.25 diopter for the individual tests. I’ve made that suggestion several times to them but they disagree.

And although I haven’t tried this yet, if you want to share the VisionCheck with a family member, you should have the family member create their own account on their own phone but use the same serial number for the single device. That should keep your test results separate.

1 Like

I think they round because, otherwise there would be diopter values, which are in between the 0.25 steps and no lens manufacturer produces a 0.12 lens. People need only the “simple” numbers to order their glasses.

But you are right. For vision improvement that would be very interesting, maybe it would slowly show the improvement progress. You would not need to test after 3-4 months, you could see a little progress every month.

Ok it worked. I have created another account with the same serial.

But I wonder, why is there a 1-year EyeQue Account subscription? What will happen after that year is over? Will I need to pay for the next year, to be able to still use the device? That would really suck and probably then it would be wise to use only one account, that one which you have paid for.