Mildly nearsighted folks: do you notice any wavelength dependency to your focus? I find distant red objects to be relatively sharp when not wearing my glasses, while blue ones seem to get a lot more fuzzy. It's most noticeable for things like lighted store signs against a dark background, there's a strong blue halo making them hard to read while red stuff is a lot more readable.
Which is weird to me because I don't think glasses typically have any kind of achromatic correction going on (all of the A/B lens checks at the eye doctor used white light), and everything is well focused when I'm wearing them. Curious what the underlying physical effect is.
@azonenberg there are fewer blue-sensitive cones, and they are farther from the fovea. this reference doesn't say it, but i'm going to guess we preferentially focus on the colors where we have the best resolution
The density ratio is larger (in favor of non-blue) in the fovea, and outside of it there are still fewer blue ones.
The other part to it is that we infer edges and generally higher-resolution information about blue from other colors. ~Purely blue features (blue on black or yellow on white) are blurry for everyone. Ones that have sufficiently large red-green component have edges in blue inferred from red-green so should be roughly as sharp as red-green ones.
