kodak unique reading troubles?

**Ecliptic** · 10-16-2008, 02:26 PM

I have been using the Kodak Unique for almost half a year now and have had good results with nearly ALL of the patients that I have put into the lenses (80% of my prog patients).

However, on 2 patients in particular I have gotten the same complaint: in the reading section of the lenses, they can read clearly on the left side in a small area... but not on the right side of the page of whatever it is that they are reading. Pd's are perfect, RX is perfect (1-2 degrees off?), seg is perfect.

The first patient got frustrated and switched to bifocals, the second is still trying to struggle through it but I'm trying to figure out what it is that is causing the problem:

Kodak Unique Trivex transitions grey lenses.

OD: +1.00 -0.75 x 165
OS: +1.25

ADD +2.25

**melvilletim** · 10-16-2008, 02:39 PM

when those were first introduced, i tried out 12 pairs. I switched out 5 of them and immediately stopped. of those were for the same type of problem. pt had to turn their head slightly in one direction to clear up the reading. it also happened to me with a pair of hoya cd's. i'd still love to know why it happens. is it a convergence issue?

**Ecliptic** · 10-16-2008, 02:50 PM

i just spoke with my lab and they said there were 5-6 similar calls from accounts with patients experiencing the same problem in the same time period... so maybe it was a bad batch of lenses or something? I can't really see anything in the lenses but I don't wear progressives myself, and that makes sense to some degree. The doctor checked him and can't really conclude anything either, so she asked him to see if it was an adaptation period dealy (ie 2 more weeks with the glasses). However given what the lab said I think I'm going to go ahead and call the patient back and send the glasses for evaluation by the lab!

BUT if anyone else has any bright ideas as to the cause I still have my ears open!

**Fezz** · 10-16-2008, 06:10 PM

A fellow Optiboarder, Craig, is a BigTime user of the Unique. Hopefully he will stroll in here and offer some insight. He is in the know, and may know!

Best of luck!

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

**chip anderson** · 10-16-2008, 08:06 PM

Anyone tried buying a piece of graph paper and actually looking through these troublesome lenses? Betyah find out a lot.

Chip

**Craig** · 10-17-2008, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by chip anderson

Anyone tried buying a piece of graph paper and actually looking through these troublesome lenses? Betyah find out a lot.

Chip

That is a great idea and we mounted a light above it so we can see the markings and any defects with ease. All optical's might benefit from having one on the wall to help mark up and see lens optics.

I have had a few of the same issues and have found it to be a convergence issue; we had it with all brands over the years, but this has only occurred a few times. We solved it by checking the near convergence and making a new set of lenses with the new near PD as a guide. It worked on all but one client; she wanted a Varilux and as soon as we put her in one she could see after rejecting 3 pairs of some other brand. It might have been the Pentax Perfas, but we could never figure out why she could all of a sudden see.

I have spoken with Kodak and they will await the lenses to be returned for evaluation, but every pair is inspected to insure the power plot is accurate. This is done with mapping software and should be on record at the lab.
PM me the name of the client and the lab it was ordered from so I can ensure it gets to Chris at Signet Armorlite to inspect and report the results. He can also look at the computer to see if anything unusual occurred when processing this pair.

I will get back to Optiboard as soon as I get the results from Kodak.

CRaig

**Fezz** · 10-17-2008, 01:24 PM

Thanks for stepping up Craig!

I applaud your efforts on helping others!

You got Gusto Man!

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

**Craig** · 10-17-2008, 02:16 PM

Chris is a very bright guy and is not trying to protect his product. He actually just ordered a bunch of free form from other companies and he was aghast at the quality. They were from 3 other companies and it took almost 2 weeks to get them. The optics were slightly off and the surface quality was marginal. He is the toughest critic at Signet and expects them to deliver quality on every job. By the way, all of the lenses he tested would still pass all ANSI standards- for what they are worth!

He reviewed the chances of lenses leaving that are not perfect and we agreed their can some slight power issues-an extra 0.25 cyl. that is unwanted-but overall, it is probably a convergence issue. It is almost impossible for the optics to not be where they are supposed to be; not saying anything is not possible. The reason for the extra cyl would be human error-they might polish 3 times to get the surface correct, but changed the power in the process. This should also be caught in final inspection.

The lenses are all made in one facility and then they would also be checked by the lab who is processing them for an account. That would mean it has been checked by at least 1 person at Signet, 2 at the lab processing and one when it is reached by the dispenser.

If it was a power issue; someone would have noticed something!

I am curious to hear how it turns out and if it is a convergence issue. If not, I am out of ideas.

Craig

**Ecliptic** · 10-24-2008, 04:32 PM

well... i sent them back to the lab and the assistant lab manager sent them to signet. He said that they WERE infact defective... though he didn't go into specifics.

I should get the glasses back today and I suppose we'll see if anything is different when I dispense them to the patient!

**Craig** · 10-24-2008, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Ecliptic

well... i sent them back to the lab and the assistant lab manager sent them to signet. He said that they WERE infact defective... though he didn't go into specifics.

I should get the glasses back today and I suppose we'll see if anything is different when I dispense them to the patient!

I will follow up with Signet and see what the verdict is; I will report back the good, bad or ugly.

We just need to know the real deal.

Craig

**sharpstick777** · 10-24-2008, 08:43 PM

but I have heard that as digital processing equipment ages, its need for calibration increases. So if its new it only needs to be calibrated at X number of jobs, however, a year down the road it should calibrated at x/2 number of jobs.

We had a problem with peripheral distance correction sucking and that was the culprit.

Sharpstick