Post some photos when they get back from the lab.
I recently had a -17.50 -6.25 x 017 -17.25-6.50 x 167 done on a bi-concave 1.6. He was beside himself when they came in they looked amazing. The other amazing part was social services paid for the whole lot. That's like getting blood from a stone.
I have this question:
The first thing I would think of would be a lenticular lens on the back surface.
On the front surface, could one grind additional negative sphero-cylindrical power?
The thought is "biconcave, plus cylinder form, lenticular".
Originally Posted by drk
I think you would be better served with a spherical front surface and the rest on the back.
DragonlensmanWV N.A.O.L.
"There is nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country."
One could actually lenticularlize/myodisc on both sides and peripheral vision is going to be virtually nonexistant after about 15mm from center.
Chip
We're retailing the job for 504.00 cdn with a high end AR.
The comments here lets me ask what other opticians thinks "looks good/better". What do you and your patients feel looks cosmetically better on a high minus Rx? Does linticulation and/or roll and polish make glasses more atractive?
I don't think so, imho, I think lenticulars nor roll and polish looks as good as a hide-a-bevel in the right frame. Roll and polishes and lenticulars have more reflection on the edges to the person looking at you. The only good thing R&L and linticulating does is reduce edge thickness. ( and weight to a minor degree).
I'll concide that there are certain combinations of power/frame that you would have to reduce edge thickness to mount the lenses properly, but...
With reflections around the edge, someone looking at you see's this, and I feel, it's distracting. With the strait 90 degree edge of a hide-a-bevel, the frontal view looks better. I guess my question is, do you think side view thickness is more important than frontal view reflections?
For this lady she justs needs to see.
That's your opinion maybe Ed feels differently. If the patient is that incapacitated you have to rely upon the care giver for advice using your best recommendations and even then they may reject them and go quite the opposite way. You can explain bi-con, myo-disc ect and show them but in the end it's still the patients or care givers say on what they want.
just my take
That's your opinion maybe Ed feels differently. If the patient is that incapacitated you have to rely upon the care giver for advice using your best recommendations and even then they may reject them and go quite the opposite way. You can explain bi-con, myo-disc ect and show them but in the end it's still the patients or care givers say on what they want.
just my take
Thanks. It's an odd rx for sure. Cosmetics are not important beyond the frame choice which is perfect. These lenses are gonna look fugly but better than her last ones.
I agree, it's up to the patient and the optician guiding on solutions. My question is, do you, personally, feel it's more important for profile cosmetics or frontal cosmetics?That's your opinion maybe Ed feels differently. If the patient is that incapacitated you have to rely upon the care giver for advice using your best recommendations and even then they may reject them and go quite the opposite way. You can explain bi-con, myo-disc ect and show them but in the end it's still the patients or care givers say on what they want.
just my take
I cant imagine any lens design of any kind would offer much peripheral vision anyway.
My point was since distortion is intollerable beyond 15mm from center, why not use the rest of the lens in double lenticulation to cut down on edge thickness? If done right edges could be almost the same as -2.00's at the mounting points of frame.
Obviously, no lenticulation ever increased field of vision.
Chip
Neither it's as I said before it's up to the patient or care giver once they have all the facts. You can't superimpose your position just because you think it's right. I once told a lady that because of frame size and the configuration of her face the frame she chose would not be a flattering one. She said who's paying for this me or you? I said you. She said I want the one I chose but thank you for your honest input.
just my take
Neither it's as I said before it's up to the patient or care giver once they have all the facts. You can't superimpose your position just because you think it's right. I once told a lady that because of frame size and the configuration of her face the frame she chose would not be a flattering one. She said who's paying for this me or you? I said you. She said I want the one I chose but thank you for your honest input.
just my take
You dodge my question..Do you feel/think personally that on high/moderate minus Rx's, roll and polish/lenticulation is as atractive "overall"? In other words I want optician's view on what's more cosmetically attractive/important...Edge profile, or frontal view to the observer? Personally, I feel frontal view, as someone see's you, is more important than side profile. R&L's and linticulation have a reflective ring that is hard to disguise from a frontal view. Samples are ideal to let the patient make the choice. But i just want to know what opticians here feel is of better benifit, and why..
Don't you know that all our miracle AR's EEEEEliminated all dem reflections so you won't see de front edge treatment!
My preference would be edge coat to match the frame. I feel roll & polish increases the appearence of concentric rings causing a tunnel effect. I have had pts. tell me that they find the shine from the edge polish increasing glare. I think polish makes the lens look thicker.
To each their own.
Personally I would go with Chips suggestion of a lenticular if it's done correctly. Or with a myo-disc with special emphasis put on edge beveling and rolling no polish. I agree edge polish adds too much glare almost all the time. I would add A/R only because it will capture some of the lost light due to the internal reflection problem. Hope that answers your question. :bbg:
you know, what you could do would be to use a high-base lenticular lens blank, grind a plus curve and myodisk on the "rear" of the blank, then flip it over and grind another myodisk on the plus side and have very thin poached egg dual-myodisk.
DragonlensmanWV N.A.O.L.
"There is nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country."
Dragon: Dat what I ben triin ta persplain in the last few posts.
Hmm, I'll have to order a few blanks and fiddle around and try that.
DragonlensmanWV N.A.O.L.
"There is nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country."
You're a glutton for punishment ain't ya!
:D:cheers:;):cheers::D
It's really kinda fun when you have the extra time and blanks to do it :D
:cheers:
Heh heh. NOT fun if you boo-boo and the blade hits the block.:hammer:
DragonlensmanWV N.A.O.L.
"There is nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country."
You're supposed to be smarter than the lens and the machine (of course some of us can only manage to be smarter than one or the other at a time)
I think I'm smarter than the lens, but I'm not sure about the generator- it's got a honkin' fast 386 CPU!:cheers:
DragonlensmanWV N.A.O.L.
"There is nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks