Shamir Element

[drpopowski]

Thanks so much to Laurie for her post to clearly delineate the differences between the Shamir Autograph II fixed vs variable designs. Very informative. I have been prescribing and dispensing the Autograph and Autograph II for several months and have had great success. Almost all patients have noted a significant improvement in their vision and comfort of their PAL with the Autograph and Autograph II, when my receptionist calls the patients 10 days after the dispense date.

I would like to learn more technical information about the Shamir Element, which is purported to be a lower priced personalized back-surfaced PAL that shares many of the characteristics of the Autograph II. I am aware that the Element is not available in a variable design, has a minimum fitting height of 16mm, but does not take into account panto and the more specific fitting information that can be sent to the lab to create the Autograph II.

I look forward to receiving any information about the Element. Thanks!

[Laurie]

Hi drpopowski,

The Shamir Element was designed with similar technology as the original Autograph. It was designed using Eyepoint Technology, a sophisticated Ray Tracing program that simulates human vision at different positions of view.

The advantage is that it is an excellent design* that is brought to the back surface via freeform. As you know, bringing the optics to the back surface enhances field of view, like the keyhole affect.

Unlike the Autograph II as you mentioned, you cannot alter the design with as-worn measurements, ect. The Autograph II actually runs personal parameters through a design software program, and 'tweaks' the Rx for position of wear, and frame parameters.

I can see us all moving into complete freeform...back surface, personalized optics. The Element could be positioned as a stepping stone to get us there.

On a personal note, now that I have had my own paradigm shift, I consider all lenses with a front mold, whether optimized or not, 'pre-fab', one size fits some. (getting ready to duck!)

: )

Laurie

*email me, or ask me to post what I consider an excellent design...

[HarryChiling]

On a personal note, now that I have had my own paradigm shift, I consider all lenses with a front mold, whether optimized or not, 'pre-fab', one size fits some. (getting ready to duck!)

: )

Laurie

*email me, or ask me to post what I consider an excellent design...

I agree the lenses are pre-fab, it's the one size fits some that I think is wrong, our industry has non-adapt rates to prove that the majority find traditional molded progressive satisfactory and the manufacturers keep making them so need still exists.

Sooooooooooooo what do you consider an excellent designand why?

[john-atlanta]

I have to say that it is important to understand that IMHO, the Auto II variable is a *dramatically* better design than the element (short at least).

When considering it's higher cost, remember non adapts and patient satisfaction have a cost as well.

For myself, a longtime Shamir fan, the Auto II is IT, but the Element is not. Still looking for that less expensive digital design to fit into my bag of tricks. Anyone have any feedback on the Indo lenses or the Seiko Superceed (not the older Suceed)?

John

[Laurie]

Hi Harry,

Why thanks for asking. ; )

My list for great design:

1. Ratio of distortion: The ratio of distortion (amt. of distortion/Add power)...Orginally 4:1 (meaning that if the add pwr is +2.00D, there could be up to 8.00D of distortion (excessive cyl, surface astigmatism, ect.). Then we moved to 2:1, then 1:1, and now it is mathematically possible that a PAL could be as low as < 0.50 - 0.75 less than Add power. So, for an add of +2.00D, there would be no more than 1.25 to 1.50 of distortion. The great thing about this, is that the strongest power/steepest curvature will be at the Add...the brain will not notice the distortion as much, as it will tend to go to the strongest part of the lens. When the ratio is 1:1 or worse, the brain tends to 'find the distortion' more.


2. Keeping the distortion below the 180... When analyzing a contour plot, I place my mm rule across the 180, at the fitting cross...the goal is to have zero distortion up in this area, or at least no more than 0.50D of distortion (using plots like the Rotlex).

3. Consideration of position of gaze, equalizing the distortion in zone 4 (the lower peripheri)...we used to think that the distortion should all be in the nasal, as we hardly use that area of the lens. This was incorrect...if we look down and to the right, for example, our OD is using the lower outer area, and the OS is using the inner-nasal area. You can check this criteria by looking at the balance of distortion between outer and inner areas...even better if you can see a right and left plot side by side.

4. 100 percent Add power, and approximately 5mm of it in the vertical. We wouldn't accept a FT with less than 100 percent of Add, and our criteria for PALs should be no different. And, cutting most of it off is unacceptable.

5. A short design made with the same criteria...no bumping adds! (save the bump for the dance floor!) Please Docs, it is no longer necessary to 'add 0.25 if going into a PAL, unless you are dispensing a VERY old design. And, to opticians, it is outright illegal for us to bump adds autonomously.

In another thread, if you'd be interested, I will write about an experience at the college I used to teach at in Massachusetts. Our college purchased a super-computer, and the math/music faculty were able to do some cool stuff with it...written up in MIT...it was about mathematical chaos Vs. mathematical order, and where it ends in higher math...it relates to optics, in that mathematical order is smooth, crisp optics, and mathematical chaos is distortion...

6. Finally, dumping the desire to have one PAL used for all things. There is no such thing (IMHO) as a PAL which is suitable for computer use...we need to go into an occupational lens at this point. And, for wraps, simply being able to produce one on a high base w/o actually changing the design creates tremendous amounts of distortion. The actual design must be changed if we stray away from Best Form theory (choosing the right BC).

: )

Laurie

[Barry Santini]

I have to say that it is important to understand that IMHO, the Auto II variable is a *dramatically* better design than the element (short at least).

When considering it's higher cost, remember non adapts and patient satisfaction have a cost as well.

For myself, a longtime Shamir fan, the Auto II is IT, but the Element is not. Still looking for that less expensive digital design to fit into my bag of tricks. Anyone have any feedback on the Indo lenses or the Seiko Superceed (not the older Suceed)?

John

Johns:

I'd be curious to know both your DV RX and add. I suspect that your DV hovers around plano, or a similar spherical equivalent. For Rxs like these, the slightly "harder" design of the Element may be less user friendly. I think that Shamir has found the need to tweak both their *eyepoint technology* and their POW compensations for Autograph II with DV Rxs that lie around plano, to provide more satisfaction for these wearers.

IMHO, Element delivers the goods for alot of wearers. And in a comparable sense, I feel it deserves better than the "red-headed stepchild" moniker you seem to imply it deserves. I too have had some slight DV issues with switching Definity wearers to Element.
But they wear them, and they enjoy the better astigmatism correction this design in said to deliver.

I'm still keeping an open mind here, though. But whe it come to the nee-plus-ultra, for me, that currently belongs to Hoya ID (Full version). I delivered two pairs today. Both clients exclaimed "WOW, this is unbelievable!" One wore FTs, one wore Individual.

FWIW

Barry

[john-atlanta]

John:

I'd be curious to know both your DV RX and add. I suspect that your DV hovers around plano, or a similar spherical equivalent. For Rxs like these, the slightly "harder" design of the Element may be less user friendly. I think that Shamir has found the need to tweak both their *eyepoint technology* and their POW compensations for Autograph II with DV Rxs that lie around plano, to provide more satisfaction for these wearers.

IMHO, Element delivers the goods for alot of wearers. And in a comparable sense, I feel it deserves better than the "red-headed stepchild" moniker you seem to imply it deserves. I too have had some slight DV issues with switching Definity wearers to Element.
But they wear them, and they enjoy the better astigmatism correction this design in said to deliver.

I'm still keeping an open mind here, though. But whe it come to the nee-plus-ultra, for me, that currently belongs to Hoya ID (Full version). I delivered two pairs today. Both clients exclaimed "WOW, this is unbelievable!" One wore FTs, one wore Individual.

FWIW

Barry

Barry,

You are GOOD! My Rx is plano -1.25 x15 OU with a +1.50 ADD.


I want to be clear here, I don't hate the Element, but to me it does not represent the quantum leap from "Digital mold" lenses I have worn.

It had not occurred to me that it may be an issue that is peculiar to my Rx, especially considering just how great the Auto II-Var is in my Rx.

And to me, when promoting a new technology that represents a clear break with past lenses, that is important. I want my patients to have that "WOW" effect. I get that with the Auto II, but so far not with the Element.

I have even had a couple of non adapts, whereas I have not had ONE that I can recall with auto II.

I would be willing to loan my lenses (both Auto II and element in the same rx, same shape, etc to someone with a Rotlex is they want to measure the difference). I want them back though, well at least the Auto II lenses :)

Thanks!

Great thread and Great posts!

[dkippolito]

It is my understanding that the Shamir Element IS the Shamir Autograph original design. The difference is that the "new" Autograph has a variable corridor and near inset and it accounts for face form and panto, therefore, more customizable like a Zeiss Individual.

[Fezz]

Hi drpopowski,

The Shamir Element was designed with similar technology as the original Autograph. It was designed using Eyepoint Technology, a sophisticated Ray Tracing program that simulates human vision at different positions of view.

The advantage is that it is an excellent design* that is brought to the back surface via freeform. As you know, bringing the optics to the back surface enhances field of view, like the keyhole affect.

Unlike the Autograph II as you mentioned, you cannot alter the design with as-worn measurements, ect. The Autograph II actually runs personal parameters through a design software program, and 'tweaks' the Rx for position of wear, and frame parameters.

I can see us all moving into complete freeform...back surface, personalized optics. The Element could be positioned as a stepping stone to get us there.

On a personal note, now that I have had my own paradigm shift, I consider all lenses with a front mold, whether optimized or not, 'pre-fab', one size fits some. (getting ready to duck!)

: )

Laurie

*email me, or ask me to post what I consider an excellent design...

Hey dkippolito,

You may want to review the above post by one of our most excellent Optiboarders, Laurie!

[sharpstick777]

Great post Laurie... I want to take one of your classes someday...

! Van

Hi Harry,

Why thanks for asking. ; )

My list for great design:

1. Ratio of distortion: The ratio of distortion (amt. of distortion/Add power)...Orginally 4:1 (meaning that if the add pwr is +2.00D, there could be up to 8.00D of distortion (excessive cyl, surface astigmatism, ect.). Then we moved to 2:1, then 1:1, and now it is mathematically possible that a PAL could be as low as < 0.50 - 0.75 less than Add power. So, for an add of +2.00D, there would be no more than 1.25 to 1.50 of distortion. The great thing about this, is that the strongest power/steepest curvature will be at the Add...the brain will not notice the distortion as much, as it will tend to go to the strongest part of the lens. When the ratio is 1:1 or worse, the brain tends to 'find the distortion' more.


2. Keeping the distortion below the 180... When analyzing a contour plot, I place my mm rule across the 180, at the fitting cross...the goal is to have zero distortion up in this area, or at least no more than 0.50D of distortion (using plots like the Rotlex).

3. Consideration of position of gaze, equalizing the distortion in zone 4 (the lower peripheri)...we used to think that the distortion should all be in the nasal, as we hardly use that area of the lens. This was incorrect...if we look down and to the right, for example, our OD is using the lower outer area, and the OS is using the inner-nasal area. You can check this criteria by looking at the balance of distortion between outer and inner areas...even better if you can see a right and left plot side by side.

4. 100 percent Add power, and approximately 5mm of it in the vertical. We wouldn't accept a FT with less than 100 percent of Add, and our criteria for PALs should be no different. And, cutting most of it off is unacceptable.

5. A short design made with the same criteria...no bumping adds! (save the bump for the dance floor!) Please Docs, it is no longer necessary to 'add 0.25 if going into a PAL, unless you are dispensing a VERY old design. And, to opticians, it is outright illegal for us to bump adds autonomously.

In another thread, if you'd be interested, I will write about an experience at the college I used to teach at in Massachusetts. Our college purchased a super-computer, and the math/music faculty were able to do some cool stuff with it...written up in MIT...it was about mathematical chaos Vs. mathematical order, and where it ends in higher math...it relates to optics, in that mathematical order is smooth, crisp optics, and mathematical chaos is distortion...

6. Finally, dumping the desire to have one PAL used for all things. There is no such thing (IMHO) as a PAL which is suitable for computer use...we need to go into an occupational lens at this point. And, for wraps, simply being able to produce one on a high base w/o actually changing the design creates tremendous amounts of distortion. The actual design must be changed if we stray away from Best Form theory (choosing the right BC).

: )

Laurie

[Laurie]

Hi Sharpstick,

Thanks!

I see that you are in Seattle, I will be giving a one hour CE class in Seattle on Saturday, March 7th, in conjunction with Walman, I believe.

Maybe you can attend?

: )

Laurie

[HarryChiling]

Hi Harry,

Why thanks for asking. ; )

My list for great design:

1. Ratio of distortion: The ratio of distortion (amt. of distortion/Add power)...Orginally 4:1 (meaning that if the add pwr is +2.00D, there could be up to 8.00D of distortion (excessive cyl, surface astigmatism, ect.). Then we moved to 2:1, then 1:1, and now it is mathematically possible that a PAL could be as low as < 0.50 - 0.75 less than Add power. So, for an add of +2.00D, there would be no more than 1.25 to 1.50 of distortion. The great thing about this, is that the strongest power/steepest curvature will be at the Add...the brain will not notice the distortion as much, as it will tend to go to the strongest part of the lens. When the ratio is 1:1 or worse, the brain tends to 'find the distortion' more.


2. Keeping the distortion below the 180... When analyzing a contour plot, I place my mm rule across the 180, at the fitting cross...the goal is to have zero distortion up in this area, or at least no more than 0.50D of distortion (using plots like the Rotlex).

3. Consideration of position of gaze, equalizing the distortion in zone 4 (the lower peripheri)...we used to think that the distortion should all be in the nasal, as we hardly use that area of the lens. This was incorrect...if we look down and to the right, for example, our OD is using the lower outer area, and the OS is using the inner-nasal area. You can check this criteria by looking at the balance of distortion between outer and inner areas...even better if you can see a right and left plot side by side.

4. 100 percent Add power, and approximately 5mm of it in the vertical. We wouldn't accept a FT with less than 100 percent of Add, and our criteria for PALs should be no different. And, cutting most of it off is unacceptable.

5. A short design made with the same criteria...no bumping adds! (save the bump for the dance floor!) Please Docs, it is no longer necessary to 'add 0.25 if going into a PAL, unless you are dispensing a VERY old design. And, to opticians, it is outright illegal for us to bump adds autonomously.

In another thread, if you'd be interested, I will write about an experience at the college I used to teach at in Massachusetts. Our college purchased a super-computer, and the math/music faculty were able to do some cool stuff with it...written up in MIT...it was about mathematical chaos Vs. mathematical order, and where it ends in higher math...it relates to optics, in that mathematical order is smooth, crisp optics, and mathematical chaos is distortion...

6. Finally, dumping the desire to have one PAL used for all things. There is no such thing (IMHO) as a PAL which is suitable for computer use...we need to go into an occupational lens at this point. And, for wraps, simply being able to produce one on a high base w/o actually changing the design creates tremendous amounts of distortion. The actual design must be changed if we stray away from Best Form theory (choosing the right BC).

: )

Laurie

Great post, thank you. I would agree with the bumping adds thing, it's an old way of trying to make a mono design a multi design, no longer a necessary or even a good idea. My philosophy is similar to yours when it comes to the design choose it to fit the scenario presented no one size fits all. I would agree that distortion is something that should be minimized and I would agree with the distance zone having minimal distortion, but my thought would also be that it would depend on the wearer more than just being a hard and fast rule, for instance in a hyperope I would want the least amount of distortion in the periphery of the distaance or for that matter anywhere in the lens due to large area of the lens the person would utiize for off axis viewing. Since the opposite is true of myopes it could be argued that little distortion in the periphery of the distance could mean more room for improvements in other areas of the lens. I find it ineresting that the latest trend with designers seems to e orthoscopy, do you have any information as to what has lead to this push? New research? New knowledge?