Review of all available reports comparing high-pass resolution perimetry (HRP) and conventional perimetry in normals and in subjects with different visual disorders reveals closely comparable aspects of sensitivity, specificity, and reliability. HRP shows important advantages concerning variability, test duration, and subject preferences. Drawbacks seem largely limited to somewhat loose renditions of visual field defects of small area and large depth. Otherwise HRP's novel format of graphic result presentation may be better suited to visual evaluation than conventional gray-scale maps with their lumping of thresholds and extensive interpolations. Several examples are provided of visual field defects due to various lesions throughout the visual system.