Favored Free Form

[icare]

We're going to give some Essilor and Shamir Free Forms a shot in our office. I know it looks like we're dyed-in-the-wool Essilor fans, but please be patient while we figure out how to shake our allegiance to them. Up until recently, we've held off while waiting for the industry to tool up and discover what really works. The models listed indicate some of the offerings we're considering. I'll be wearing some of these myself in the near future and want to select the models that are more likely to be successful. If you'd like to note your preferred material, I'd be happy to learn about that, too.

All comments and experiences are appreciated! :)

[Fezz]

We're going to give some Essilor and Shamir Free Forms a shot in our office. Up until recently, we've held off while waiting for the industry to tool up and discover what really works. The models listed indicate some of the offerings we're considering. I'll be wearing some of these myself in the near future and want to select the models that are more likely to be successful.

All comments and experiences are appreciated! :)

What "free-forms" are you trying from Essilor? Are you evaluating the same type of technology, or processing procedures, used for each companies progressives? In other words=Are you comparing apples to apples in respect to how these lenses are designed and produced?

Oops.....just saw the poll options.

I don't believe that you are comparing apples to apples.

[icare]

What "free-forms" are you trying from Essilor? Are you evaluating the same type of technology, or processing procedures, used for each companies progressives? In other words=Are you comparing apples to apples in respect to how these lenses are designed and produced?

Oops.....just saw the poll options.

I don't believe that you are comparing apples to apples.

Hey, Fezz. Thanks for your early input. You can see that I have much to learn. The poll lists the models that are getting the most attention from Luzerne and Balester here in PA. My reps are also offering me the above for my own personal use to trial. I'm really hopeful that I can appreciate the free form technology in light of the success we've had with Comforts and Panamics.

Yes, it is time for us to look outside the 'E'-box. We want to make a thoughtful and sensible change.

[Fezz]

You may want to research the Seiko and the Kodak Unique offerings as well.

www.seikoeyewear.com

www.signetarmorlite.com

Our very own resident expert, Darryl Meister, wrote a fantastic continuing education article about Free-Form progressives in the Oct, 2008 20/20.

www.2020mag.com

[Fezz]

Keep in mind that *free-form* is really a production platform, not a lens design. A Younger Image, Zeiss Top, or a Sola XL can all be made on *digital* or *free-form* equipment.

Some questions to start asking:
-Does that make them better?
-A WhateverBrand progressive may have been front side molded using *digital* processing, but does that make it any better than a prog made with a conventional molding process?
-If a prog is made using *free-form* or *digital* processing, but if the design of the rx, progressive areas, etc, have not been customized/optimized, why are they being offered as somehow better?

Great thread Doc. I hope some of our more enlightened Optiboarders chime in. This is a great topic!

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

[icare]

Our very own resident expert, Darryl Meister, wrote a fantastic continuing education article about Free-Form progressives in the Oct, 2008 20/20.

www.2020mag.com

Thanks again. I'm having trouble locating the article. Would you have a direct link?

[icare]

I'm definitely more interested in true back surface 'digital'/'free-form' manufacturing. I don't want to move on any front molded PAL designs because I agree that they are far less likely to provide a real difference. 'Optimized' is a term that makes sense to me, too, since it may be more likely to lead to patient satisfaction.

The designs that would get my greatest attention would be those PALs that can be generated on any unfinished SV blank.

I hope I'm reaching some thoughtful conclusions!

[HarryChiling]

I think you were wise in the wait, many of the lenses on the market right now are decent options. The definity is a good lens, dual add split between front and back, doesn't make much of a difference done this way but it's a decent lens at a good price. I have decided to stay away from the 360 designs. My reason is that they use a traditional progressive and "optimize" the back. I have said more than a few times that any progressive like Fezz mentioned can be optimized with an atoric back side and they will all see improvements by compensateing for the oblique errors created with a slightly off base curve that the traditional progressives come in. That said if I am going to pay the FF price I see it like this:

$$$$$ = Progressive designed with Rx and position of wear compensated (i.e. zeiss, hoya)
$$$$ = Progressive designed with frame demensions and Rx incorporated (i.e. shamir)
$$$ = Progressive designed with Rx incorporated (i.e. seiko, definity)
$$ = Progressive lens with atoric back side (i.e. what I think could be happening with the 360 designs)
$ = Digitally molded progressives and traditional progressives, all in the same boat if you ask me I don't care if they say the digitally molded version is supposedly better, it would be like me sellign you a horse and buggy and telling you it's advanced because the buggy has rubber wheels on it instead of the old wooden wheels. :hammer:

Oh and Darryl's article in the 20/20 Oct issue would rate in my book as a top ten must have articles, it rates up there with the Sheedy report with progressives. He dispells some of the more common myths and discusses some fo the differences between designs and terminology related to progressives and freeforms in particular.

[bob_f_aboc]

I'm with Fezz on this one. I have had amazing success with the Kodak Unique. My next choice is the HOYA iD (true freeform) or HOYA iD Lifestyle (digitally molded front, freeform back). If you are a VSP office, I would recommend the iD Lifestyle since it is in the "N" catagory. The Unique is also in the "N" catagory, but the A/R that Kodak puts on the lens is not a VSP coating and you have to go through the special lens hassle. The HOYA iD is not approved by VSP so again you have the special lens process to deal with.

Sorry, I'm tired this morning. That probably came out clear as mud. I will edit once the cobwebs in my head are gone.

Bob

[Fezz]

I don't want to move on any front molded PAL designs because I agree that they are far less likely to provide a real difference.

Aren't the Essilor 360 lenses just that?

[icare]

Aren't the Essilor 360 lenses just that?

Woah. If they are then I'm not in with any of them. I'll wait for a visit from Shamir.

[Fezz]

Woah. If they are then I'm not in with any of them. I'll wait for a visit from Shamir.

Maybe they are front side molded-but molded with molds that were made using digital processes? Maybe they are the regular blanks, but digitally processed. What are the lens engravings? Are the engravings any different for them vs. the non-360 series?

;):cheers::cheers::cheers::D

[Andrew Weiss]

The Essilor 360 lenses, as well as the Accolade Freedom, are all digitally-molded front surfaces with a "free-form" digitally surfaced backside. I know this both from the literature and from experience.

That doesn't mean they aren't any good; we've had a lot of success with the Vision Source version of the Accolade Freedom. And Uncle Fester has had a lot of success with the Comfort 360 because it gives an optimized-back-surface option for the dedicated (or maybe addicted?) Comfort wearer, with the standard molded Comfort front surface the wearer has come to love. But I'd stay away from the Physio/Ellipse 360's, mostly because of the price. You can get something very close to those with the Accolade Freedom for less $$. In fact, there were threads on the Progressive Lens forum awhile back indicating that people found greater success and patient satisfaction with the Accolade Freedom than with the Physio 360.

I really like the Definity, and the price is pretty decent. I also like the Autograph II. (I wear both) I've tried and really like the Zeiss Individual, but I tend to reserve it for patients whose facial features or eye musculature require that kind of customization.

Just one person's take.

[Andrew Weiss]

What are the lens engravings? Are the engravings any different for them vs. the non-360 series?

;):cheers::cheers::cheers::D

Hey Fezz, good old Essilor doesn't put any special marking on their "free-form" product. Physio's and Physio 360's markings are identical. Essentially, the only way you can know whether it's an Accolade or an Accolade Freedom, for example, is to either know from the order slip or to do some very fancy and sophistocated curve analysis. This subject came up on the Progressive Lens forum awhile back; Essilor's failure to differentiate these products creates problems for many people.

[icare]

Yes, apparently the Comfort, Physio and Ellipse 360 designs have a digitally molded front side. I'm not sure what degree of digital surfacing, if any, is incorporated to optimize anything of substance. There may be none.

The Definity is half-front and half-back and touted by Essilor as superior in its ability to reduce astigmatism that is inherent in 100% back-digital designs.

I wonder if Essilor is afraid of losing its semi-finished blank business by going to a 100% back-digital design. It would also make licensing their design on a per use basis a quandary, wouldn't it? I mean, how would Essilor know how many are sold if it can't count the blanks?

[Fezz]

Take a look at Hoya's offerings as others have mentioned.
We have a bunch of Hoya employees on this board.

Rt, a fellow Optiboarder, has posted some very valuable information on free-form processing and progressives. Hopefully he/she will chime in with some wisdom to help you understand the *Free-Form Labyrinth*!

Indo also has some free-form offerings.
:cheers::cheers::cheers:

[BSDetector]

Definity is not a 50/50 design. The backside is digitally surfaced w/ the distance correction curvatures along w/ a .75 diopter unique progressive design. The front side is a digitally molded unique progressive design that fills out the total power EX. +2.00 add Front side=+1.25 Backside=+.75, +3.00 add Front side=+2.25 Backside=+.75 etc etc etc

The whole idea is displacing the soft focus over 2 surface areas so the distortion does not overlap like in a single side PAL design. The two designs are offset and rotated as well. The benefits are a wider intermediate zone, less peripheral distortion and the ground view advantage. Definity is also a mono-design lens which means the progression will start in the same place no matter what the add power is.

Definity Short is the same thing but it has a 12mm progression as opposed to a 15mm in the Definity.

They both work very well. I have dispensed about 400 since '06 w/ minimal issues.

[HarryChiling]

Definity is not a 50/50 design. The backside is digitally surfaced w/ the distance correction curvatures along w/ a .75 diopter unique progressive design. The front side is a digitally molded unique progressive design that fills out the total power EX. +2.00 add Front side=+1.25 Backside=+.75, +3.00 add Front side=+2.25 Backside=+.75 etc etc etc

The whole idea is displacing the soft focus over 2 surface areas so the distortion does not overlap like in a single side PAL design. The two designs are offset and rotated as well. The benefits are a wider intermediate zone, less peripheral distortion and the ground view advantage. Definity is also a mono-design lens which means the progression will start in the same place no matter what the add power is.

Definity Short is the same thing but it has a 12mm progression as opposed to a 15mm in the Definity.

They both work very well. I have dispensed about 400 since '06 w/ minimal issues.

The end result I believe of any lens is that a ray will leave the back surface of a lens in a particular direction. I am not sure that splitting the effects between the two surfaces provides much of a difference when we are considering the addative effects of both surfaces. I do know as a fact moving the progressive surface closer allows a greater area of ocular rotation in the channel and reading zone. This could give all back surface designs an advantage. The ground view advantage I don't think was intentional, it actually gives away the design as a bipolar design. A similar but non FF product is the compact ultra which if fit in a large enough frame would start to revert from maximum plus back towards minus which could be described as "ground view advantage". I wish we had more info on any lens design to really say what's what.

[Robert Martellaro]

We're going to give some Essilor and Shamir Free Forms a shot in our office. I know it looks like we're dyed-in-the-wool Essilor fans, but please be patient while we figure out how to shake our allegiance to them. Up until recently, we've held off while waiting for the industry to tool up and discover what really works. The models listed indicate some of the offerings we're considering. I'll be wearing some of these myself in the near future and want to select the models that are more likely to be successful. If you'd like to note your preferred material, I'd be happy to learn about that, too.

All comments and experiences are appreciated! :)

Here's what I'm looking for in an advanced PAL design:

1. Atoricity and real-time Rx optimization.
2. Low and high index materials e.g. Trivex, and 1.70.
3. User specified corridor lengths (at least two), with the longer corridor version having SV-like on-axis distance vision.
4. A competant PAL design that provides excellent binocular vision with reduced skew distortion and unwanted astigmatism for the best possible visual comfort.
5. A reliable oleophobic AR coating.
6. Can be optimised for position of wear, primarily for the custom inset capability.
7. Flatter base curves.

Varilux is not atoric. The degree and type of Rx optimization for both unknown. Advantage Shamir.

Shamir uses Trivex- advantage Shamir.

Both have user selectable corridor lengths.

Both use very good PAL designs- slight advantage to Varilux.

Crizal has a proven history of excellence- advantage Varilux.

Varilux not optimised for position of wear. Shamir may be optimised, and may have zero inset capabilty. If true, advantage Shamir.

Varilux uses flatter BCs, insuffcient data for Shamir but probably not. Possible advantage to Varilux.

[HarryChiling]

Here's what I'm looking for in an advanced PAL design:

1. Atoricity and real-time Rx optimization.
2. Low and high index materials e.g. Trivex, and 1.70.
3. User specified corridor lengths (at least two), with the longer corridor version having SV-like on-axis distance vision.
4. A competant PAL design that provides excellent binocular vision with reduced skew distortion and unwanted astigmatism for the best possible visual comfort.
5. A reliable oleophobic AR coating.
6. Can be optimised for position of wear, primarily for the custom inset capability.
7. Flatter base curves.

Nicely put Mr Martellaro

[Fezz]

All of you folks who voted = Other

What would you suggest?

[BSDetector]

Why not use Varilux Ipseo? That would be my choice for "other"

[optigrrl]

Hi Harry! For the Hoya iD frame dimensions and RX are taken into account when creating the lens. They come back with very little to edge off, almost exactly the shape they need to be edged.

I think you were wise in the wait, many of the lenses on the market right now are decent options. The definity is a good lens, dual add split between front and back, doesn't make much of a difference done this way but it's a decent lens at a good price. I have decided to stay away from the 360 designs. My reason is that they use a traditional progressive and "optimize" the back. I have said more than a few times that any progressive like Fezz mentioned can be optimized with an atoric back side and they will all see improvements by compensateing for the oblique errors created with a slightly off base curve that the traditional progressives come in. That said if I am going to pay the FF price I see it like this:

$$$$$ = Progressive designed with Rx and position of wear compensated (i.e. zeiss, hoya)
$$$$ = Progressive designed with frame demensions and Rx incorporated (i.e. shamir)
$$$ = Progressive designed with Rx incorporated (i.e. seiko, definity)
$$ = Progressive lens with atoric back side (i.e. what I think could be happening with the 360 designs)
$ = Digitally molded progressives and traditional progressives, all in the same boat if you ask me I don't care if they say the digitally molded version is supposedly better, it would be like me sellign you a horse and buggy and telling you it's advanced because the buggy has rubber wheels on it instead of the old wooden wheels. :hammer:

Oh and Darryl's article in the 20/20 Oct issue would rate in my book as a top ten must have articles, it rates up there with the Sheedy report with progressives. He dispells some of the more common myths and discusses some fo the differences between designs and terminology related to progressives and freeforms in particular.

[optigrrl]

There should be more offerings on the poll. So many people think free-form is the same as digitally molded. While I agree that the digitally molded process is much more precise optically than traditional laps and molds, true freeform is still lumped into that category by the marketing departments of the lens mfgr.'s.

From what I have read, on the 360 designs (Pete please jump in!) are the digitally surfaced comforts and Ellipse's. Not new designs, but better optics because of the accuracy of the mold reproduction.

[optical24/7]

Yes, apparently the Comfort, Physio and Ellipse 360 designs have a digitally molded front side. I'm not sure what degree of digital surfacing, if any, is incorporated to optimize anything of substance. There may be none.

The Definity is half-front and half-back and touted by Essilor as superior in its ability to reduce astigmatism that is inherent in 100% back-digital designs.

I wonder if Essilor is afraid of losing its semi-finished blank business by going to a 100% back-digital design. It would also make licensing their design on a per use basis a quandary, wouldn't it? I mean, how would Essilor know how many are sold if it can't count the blanks?

I very well may be wrong, but this is my understanding of all 360 series lenses...

They ALL start with the basic, pre-molded, all add on the front blank as their regular series. (i.e. a Physio 360 uses the same exact blank as a regular Physio) hence, no special identifier markings on a 360. The only way to know if you have a 360 is if you made it yourself, you take the lab's word it provided a 360. They are simply digitally surfaced. (back side)

Ipseo is what I would call half freeform since the front is pre-molded, the back is free-formed.