I've downloaded and read a white paper by Darryl Meister explaining the principles and optimization process behind Zeiss Individual lenses. It is an excellent paper.
There are valid questions raised by this paper as to just how much any ECP can "trust" that *any* FF lens supplier is actually delivering the full benefits of their optimization process. All ECPs essentially lack the tools to verify these lenses. It is up to the manufacturer/lab to ensure the quality and performance expected is that which is delivered. This class of lens designs then, becomes what I call the ultimate "take my word for it".
I have. And I have told my clients the same.
Their response is no different than those detailed in the paper. They uniformly prefer optimized, personalized FF progressive and SV lenses over their present traditional designs.
I've decided (anecdotally) that this class of lens is actually also more forgiving of departures from the ideal/optimal Rx that could be determined for any patient. Therefore, not only is your client more satisfied, the dispenser's job less fraught with sensitivity to where their supplied Rx is in the envelope of Rxs possible for any particular patient.
The questions I now have are:
1. Are our current tools and procedures for determining personalized fitting parameters (including PD, Panto, VD, panoramic angle)reliable, repeatable and representative of the assumptions these designs make for the values obtained?
2. Ditto the above for the assumed refracting parameters (especially Vertex distance).
3. Regarding the precision of 0.1mm inset calculations, as well as corridor lengths, how much of this optimization is compromised by real world fitting values, such as frame misalignment, slippage, skew and the like.
Your thoughts here are appreciated.
Barry
Bookmarks