Has anyone tried the new Kodak Unique? My understanding is that it is a 100% back side PAL. It is customized on the corridor length according to B measurement. I was wondering how this compares to the Seiko Succeed.
Jeff:cheers:
Has anyone tried the new Kodak Unique? My understanding is that it is a 100% back side PAL. It is customized on the corridor length according to B measurement. I was wondering how this compares to the Seiko Succeed.
Jeff:cheers:
I consider the Unique to be slightly better , in my Rx, to the Physio. The GT2 is better by far than both for office work and near. I haven't tried the Seiko. The Unique is exceptional for someone who wants a Wow for distance viewing. The drawback is their crappy AR.
Last edited by rdcoach5; 07-26-2007 at 08:43 PM. Reason: additional thought
Which is funny. I mean you can have an engagement right with the World's biggest diamond, but if the band is gold plated instead of gold, the thing is still junk.Originally Posted by rdcoach5
RX Optical out of Tulsa, Oklahoma has a very good AR that I believe is better than Crizal Alize with Clear Guard. They will use their AR instead of Kodak's on the Kodak Unique. The only problem is the rep. told me you can't edge uncuts because they haven't found anything that will stick and hold the leap pads to the lens. I've never had any problems edging uncuts with Crizal Alize.
Jeff
I need to set the record straight on the Kodak AR that comes on the Unique lenses; My offices have done 99% non glare for the past 8 years and we are currently one of the largest users of the Unique lens in the US and the AR is AWESOME. We do over 100 pair per month and can only remember 1 defective coating, it crazed in less than 1 week. That is the only failure in over 1,000 pairs and almost 10 months of work. I helped launch the Crizal non glare as a rep. with Essilor and am very familiar with all the coatings on the market. The real key to quality non glare is adhesion, as long as it does not fall off; the client will have a positive experience. Scratching and cleaning are not really the issues and never have been; most coatings failed because of adhesion and everything else took the blame.
:cheers: Signetek is actually setting the industry standard on digitially surfaced products in all areas; service times, quality and an excellent product that is available in every material. I receive most product with non glare in 3 days! I have actually taken over 40 Ophthonix non-adapts to the Unique and have had a 99% success rate. The clients actually love the results of almost all the free-form lenses on the market. I have been utilizing free form full time for over 4 years and am glad I no longer had to have it made in Japan and wait 3 weeks for it.
Just be careful of the marketing claims of digital; IF POWER IS PREMOLDED IN THE BLANK, IT IS NOT CUSTOM MADE AND NOT AS ACCURATE AS A REAL CUSTOM LENS. Only a few products meet the true definition of a custom lens and none of them actually utilze high order to improve acuity as it relates the patient. It is a actually used to get an improved mold design.
Lets support the independents!
Craig
Craig,
I need to set the record straight on the Kodak AR that comes on the Unique lenses; My offices have done 99% non glare for the past 8 years and we are currently one of the largest users of the Unique lens in the US and the AR is AWESOME. We do over 100 pair per month and can only remember 1 defective coating, it crazed in less than 1 week. That is the only failure in over 1,000 pairs and almost 10 months of work. I helped launch the Crizal non glare as a rep. with Essilor and am very familiar with all the coatings on the market. The real key to quality non glare is adhesion, as long as it does not fall off; the client will have a positive experience. Scratching and cleaning are not really the issues and never have been; most coatings failed because of adhesion and everything else took the blame.
:cheers: Signetek is actually setting the industry standard on digitially surfaced products in all areas; service times, quality and an excellent product that is available in every material. I receive most product with non glare in 3 days! I have actually taken over 40 Ophthonix non-adapts to the Unique and have had a 99% success rate. The clients actually love the results of almost all the free-form lenses on the market. I have been utilizing free form full time for over 4 years and am glad I no longer had to have it made in Japan and wait 3 weeks for it.
Just be careful of the marketing claims of digital; IF POWER IS PREMOLDED IN THE BLANK, IT IS NOT CUSTOM MADE AND NOT AS ACCURATE AS A REAL CUSTOM LENS. Only a few products meet the true definition of a custom lens and none of them actually utilze high order to improve acuity as it relates the patient. It is a actually used to get an improved mold design.
Lets support the independents!
Craig
In your experience, which lenses are truly custom. Freeform/digital/wave technology are terms being used freely these days.
I'd like to see a side by side comparison of each lens and consider which are front, which are back, which are both (few), etc.
Thanks for your comments.
BTW, I still like the term Anti-Reflective lenses, rather than non-glare lenses. AR is another thread...:D
Diane
Anything worth doing is worth doing well.
The lenses with the most promise have all the power on the back of a sperical blank, this enables the base curve to match the frame it is going into and gives you the best optics and cosmetics possible. The designs that have power on the front and back have prism issues on higher add powers and in my opinion was a way to avoid patent issues with Seiko-Epson. I have used Pentax Perfas, Seiko Internal, Zeiss Individual, Sola One HD, Shamir Autograph, Kodak Unique, Essilor Physio 360 and Ophthonix free-from progressives in the past 4 years; the only ones that gave me problems was the Sola One HD and the Ophthonix Izon lens was a disaster. I have not done as many Physio's because I can't justify paying almost 2 times for the same technology and I try to support the independents.Craig,
In your experience, which lenses are truly custom. Freeform/digital/wave technology are terms being used freely these days.
I'd like to see a side by side comparison of each lens and consider which are front, which are back, which are both (few), etc.
Thanks for your comments.
BTW, I still like the term Anti-Reflective lenses, rather than non-glare lenses. AR is another thread...:D
Diane
DON'T BE MISLED BY THE WORD HIGH ORDER OR WAVEFRONT, IT IS ONLY USED TO PRODUCE BETTER MOLDS FOR TRADITIONALLY SURFACED PROGRESSIVES. IT IS NOT USED IN THE MANNER THEY ARE MARKETING IT TOWARDS. IT IS CONFUSING AND IN MY OPINION IS MARKETING 101 TO SELL OLD TECHNOLGY AT A PREMIEM PRICE.
I have not tried the Hoya ID, but strongly feel the Pentax, Seiko, Kodak, Shamir are amazing products for the money. I have taken clients and tried them in diferent free-form lenses and they loved them all except for the Opthonix and the Sola One HD.
ALL OPTICIANS SHOULD BE PROMOTING THIS TECHNOLOGY FOR ALL CLIENTS; EXCEPT THE ONES THAT DON'T WANT TO SEE BETTER. THE TECHNOLGY WORKS AND MUST BE GIVEN TO ALL CLIENTS.
My friends at Pech Optical carry all of the above brands and can point you in the right direction. They can be reached at 800-831-8342.
Best of Luck
Craig
Craig, I was talking about the Kodak clear not being as good a coating as crizal or even Toledo Optical's own coating called Acclaro. In fact, I would put up Acclaro against any of them. When Kodak ran their special about 7 months ago you had to usr the Kodak clear by Signet. It was harder to clean for everyone in our office who tried it. About 6 people. None of them crazed. Interestingly, and I don't know why exactly, Toledo Optical says the Kodak Clear applied by Toledo Optical now on Uniques will be as easy to clean and hard to scratch as any coating .Something to do with the base hard cote and the top cote hydrophobic .. By the way, I am now wearing the Unique As I write. I love the lens for any time not in the office.
I would like to use the Unique more because of the material availability (everything!), variable FH, small independent, etc.
However, I have had 2 Kodak cleAR coatings that were defective in my opinion, and I've only dispensed about 6 pair total. The coating didn't delaminate, or craze, but it was scratched bad by the pt. I consider that defective because I haven't seen that with Alize or even Interstate Optical's in-house AR. And Kodak cleAR cost more than even Alize.
Regarding the statement about not being able to edge the super hydrophilic AR. My thoughts are that the risk is too high on a lens that expensive anyway. Add to it the expense of the super AR, and I might as well let the lab take the risk.
Even though I don't care for Essilor; I do like the Alize because I can edge it without slipping. I Even have trouble w/ Teflon. And yes, I know all the tricks and use the little "no slip" pads. I can't tell that they help at all.
Craig: 1,000 pairs of Kodak cleAR in only 10 months. WOW! You must be doing over $2M/yr!
We use Optisafe pads by Phantom Research Labs, Inc. and we allmost have no misedged lenses SH AR lenses anymore, sometimes a high power over -8.00 or +6.00. You should try them.
I just ordered the pads from Phantom and I'm curious if they will really work on very slick AR.
Jeff
My Kodak rep told me today that the Unique is now available without AR. Supposedly they started this July 1st. While we haven't had horrible issues with the Kodak Clear, it hasn't stood up like the Alize. One of my opticians got a pair with the Clear on it and it's much more scratched up in 6mos time than her Alize's she's had well over a year.
My experience is similar- outstanding distance vision on the straight ahead and peripheral gaze, a real soft, easy to scratch and hard to clean AR, plus power Trivex with 2.5 to 3mm edges, +2.50DS on a +8.00 BC, an unknown corridor length- you get what they send you, and between April and June, about four clients who had serious near vision problems- all well seasoned PAL wearers.
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman
Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.
Can anyone clarify the differences between the features of all the various digital/freeform lenses on the market? Front/back surfacing, custom made vs better mold, etc. There seems to only be a couple of categories they can be lumped into depending on which patented technology they are using.
You have asked a very simple question. Unfortunately there is alot of information with newer traditional PAL molded lenses that is confussing to to individualized lenses.
You can have a number of design combinations using digital technology.
1-Front spherical with the individual design on the back surface
2-Some of the design on the front matched with some on the back. The Definity is one of the better known using a non-spherical front with a digitally surfaced back
3-Individually surfaced on the front and individually surfaced on the back with the front and back individualized surfaces designed to work together. Special manufacturing care is required to line up the first side surfaced correctly to match the second side surfaced.
4-Molded PAL design on the front with an digitally surfaced rear, not much different than a traditional lens surfacing other than using similar equipment that can produce a more individualized lens.
Read the marketing literature carefully and don't be fooled by some of spin.
Find someone who you know understands these technologies and can explain them to you. My company ICE-TECH only uses digital surfacing and has been producing individual lenses for over two years.
Isn't Kodak being sued over this design?
I was told by my rep. that seiko sold the rights for 100% back side design to shamir to use and now they are suing Kodak.
Jeff:hammer:
My understanding is Seiko sold the rights to Signet and Shamir.
Zeiss claims to have the patent and is suing Signet (Kodak Unique.)
NOT TRUE, my guess is this was a Shamir Rep. Correct or not?
NOT TRUE it is a very complex issue and I am limited as to the information I can release.
Consider the facts, the patent for backside PAL individual technology that is being referred to in this post is not related to a specific design but rather the ability to offer a PAL design on the back side of a lens while keeping the front side spherical.
My company ICE-TECH was the first in the US that I am aware of to obtain access to this patent license, so I am familiar with the issues. We have a license to produce these backside PALs under a US patent covering this technology. It is the same patent license that covers the Seiko products. Again this patent issue is about the location of the design not the actual lens design.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks