More *Free-Form* Confusion!

[Fezz]

There have been a few threads lately that have got me really thinking about the mass confusion over *Free-Form* progressives. Some posters have alluded to how easy of a sell they are, how basic the optics and math really are, how we should all be demonstrating how fantastic these lenses are. I stand by my statement that:

"How can we expect a patient to understand the technology when many of us do not understand it?"



I want to point out an example of the confusion that exists with *Free-Form* progressives. If the lens companies and the laboratories that process these *Free-Form* lenses can not be on the same page...................how can we?

I will use Seiko as an example, because I was reading a bunch of their material and CE information this morning.

The Seiko website lists the following seg heights for their lenses:

Succeed-17, 19
Succeed WS-15, 17
Supercede-16, 18
Supercede WS-14, 16

I will use two labs that are claiming to be all digital and that process these lenses in house, to show the descrepancies that exist!

Lab#1
Succeed-?
Succeed WS-One sheet lists two minimums! 14, and 15!
Supercede-13*
Supercede WS-13*
*Minimum for both designs!

Lab#2
Succeed-15*
Succeed WS-15*
Supercede-14
Supercede WS-14
*"15mm fitting height for both designs"

As a sidenote: Both labs sent me information about the Supercede that states that Trivex and Trivex Transitions are an option. I called lab#1 and tried to order one..............well, they don't have it yet! So...why promote it I ask...........? I haven't called lab#2 yet, but their price and availability sheet is dated December 2008, and Trivex is listed.

So....what do you believe? Who is right?

[Jacqui]

I think we are going to see a lot of this. Most of these people don't really know what the H they are talking about, the technology is still too new.

[Fezz]

I think we are going to see a lot of this. Most of these people don't really know what the H they are talking about, the technology is still too new.

Is it really all that new?

Seiko has been producing these type lenses since 1996. Labs here in the US have been *manufacturing partners* for Seiko for quite a few years. I assume that Seiko and the other lens companies do a whole bunch of training, computer set-up, etc for these labs. I just find it amazing that something as simple as consistent minimum seg heights can not be found! How are we supposed to believe that the actual lens designs will be consistent?

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

[Fezz]

We have to remember that the two labs that I am talking about are the ones beating the *Free-Form* drum the loudest. Their whole success rides on convincing us that either Seiko, Shamir, or Indo *Free-Form* progressives are the end all be all. They promote only two or three brands.

I would assume that Seiko, or Shamir, etc would have a little more concern about such descrepancies.

[Fezz]

I just find it amazing that something as simple as consistent minimum seg heights can not be found! How are we supposed to believe that the actual lens designs will be consistent?

On top of all of this..............we are expected to believe that any compensated rx's and power readout slips are correct! Correct to what?


:cheers::shiner::cheers:

[chip anderson]

With these type lenses it would be difficult for us to tell easily if the stated seg. ht. had anything to do with the real world anyway. Until our skills and instrumentation are up to checking and evaluating them perhaps the "curve" is ahead of all of us, including the manufacturers.

Chip

Just a couriosity question, Daryl and Chilly Harry whom I believe to me smarter than most of us on these things. Do you really understand these lenses both in theory and practice?

[bob_f_aboc]

On top of all of this..............we are expected to believe that any compensated rx's and power readout slips are correct! Correct to what?


:cheers::shiner::cheers:

I can only go by what I have heard/read on here and from the manufacturers and by the patient experiences that I have witnessed.

I have not tried the Seiko free-form product on my patients since the reaction I have had to the Seiko/Pentax AF lenses has been less than stellar.

I have fit the Essilor 360 line and was not impressed with the results. HOYA's iD and iD Lifestyle have gotten pretty good results as well as the Kodak Unique. But, by far the best patient response has been with the Shamir Autograph II and Variable. I may not understand all of the science behind the lens, but I can't argue with the results that I personally have witnessed.

Obviously, there is no such thing as the one lens that fits everyone. Someone else with a different fitting/measuring strategy for PAL's may have better success with another lens. At this point in the game, I think its best to find lenses that you are comfortable in fitting that are giving the patients as much of what they need as possible. All the 'education' from the manufacturers in the world is useless if the lens doesn't work for your patients and your practice.

[Fezz]

PS. Lab#2 has the Shamir Element listed as having a 15mm minimum fitting height! They are doing the Seiko products in Trivex.

:cheers::cheers:

[bob_f_aboc]

Just a couriosity question, Daryl and Chilly Harry whom I believe to me smarter than most of us on these things. Do you really understand these lenses both in theory and practice?

I frimly believe that Harry and Daryl are cyborgs from the future here to help advance the standards of opticianry. I think that between the two of them, they have all of the optical knowledge ever attained on Earth. Thank God we have them here!

[Jacqui]

IMO

I think that for the forseeable future we are going to see many differences in freeforms, same brand, style, etc. I think it's due to differing equipment and operators. Until things can be stabilized there are going to be differences between labs. I'm really not sure the lens companies actually know what's going on.

Also with out high tech measuring devices we cannot verify these lenses accurately. Maybe we need more Rotlex type units around to do it for us.

[Fezz]

Jacqui,
I think that I pick up what you are dropping.


Let me give you an example of what I think that you are getting at:

I have a patient that I want to put into a Supercede, or Auto II. This poor gal has 4.5 base up/4.5 base down. Lets assume that Lab#1 is going with a minimum 13 seg height, even though the manufacturer states 15, that they can do it, but they can not vary from the total prism power of 3 per eye(Seiko), or 4 per eye (Shamir)?

That is the scenario that I am dealing with. I am trying to get them to answer me why they can use a different seg height, but can not deviate from the prism.

**Sniff....sniff....sniff** Something stinks in *Free-FormVille*!!

[Jacqui]

**Sniff....sniff....sniff** Something stinks in *Free-FormVille*!!

Yes!! Until labs and lens companies can get together and staighten things out there will be these problems. It may take a while :(

Where is AWTECH when we need him?? He has been making them about as long as anyone.

[Fezz]

That is the scenario that I am dealing with. I am trying to get them to answer me why they can use a different seg height, but can not deviate from the prism.

I just spoke with one owner of one of the labs. He clearly stated that they alter seg heights "All day long"! I asked to explain then why he couldn't alter the prism. His response was that "The computer won't let us."!


Huh?

Sooooooooo...............................the computer will let them change the seg height, possibly altering the whole design of the lens, but it will not let them change the prism!

Oh yeah....................something REALLY stinks in *Free-FormVille*!!!

:cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::D

[Lee Prewitt]

On top of all of this..............we are expected to believe that any compensated rx's and power readout slips are correct! Correct to what?


:cheers::shiner::cheers:

Hi Fezz,

I too had a problem with this until I remembered way back in the day when I had to compensate a high minus due to vertex changes. No one really does this anymore but then we did all the time. The lenses would read completly different from the prescibed RX yet the patient saw just fine. The compensated RX worked. I trust today that the compensated RX that comes with the Shamir AutoII to be the equivalent of what was ordered. Lo and behold...the compensated RX worked.

[obxeyeguy]

Jacqui,
I think that I pick up what you are dropping.


Let me give you an example of what I think that you are getting at:

I have a patient that I want to put into a Supercede, or Auto II. This poor gal has 4.5 base up/4.5 base down. Lets assume that Lab#1 is going with a minimum 13 seg height, even though the manufacturer states 15, that they can do it, but they can not vary from the total prism power of 3 per eye(Seiko), or 4 per eye (Shamir)?

That is the scenario that I am dealing with. I am trying to get them to answer me why they can use a different seg height, but can not deviate from the prism.

**Sniff....sniff....sniff** Something stinks in *Free-FormVille*!!

....

[chip anderson]

I don't want to bad mouth any company today but I for one have had a number of compensated Power wraps, especially on progressive suns that definitely did not work.

Chip

[HarryChiling]

I don't want to bad mouth any company today but I for one have had a number of compensated Power wraps, especially on progressive suns that definitely did not work.

Chip

Our office has only ordered 5 in total from various labs/manufacturers and none have worked. I am also told by the same people that have ZERO answers beyond what I can find in brochures that I wouldn't understand and that they are the experts pretty much in the same breath. The industry is basically witnessing another ball being dropped ladies and gentlemen. The product is beign catered to the vast majority of numb nuts that just don't know so wanyone with a golden tongue can field a call, but if you have any legitamte question that my stump someone the cold shoulder treatment comes out. Call me when we start applying this technology to traditional progressive blanks as this lab will be the one that truly understands the technology untill then they're all just implementing processes developed by someone else and their understanding is less than anyone here except for the tolerances they need to maintain and the mechanics of the equipment. I'd say the only lab that understands the potential is the 3 Rivers lab that is seperatign the optics from the form, AWTECH has a neat idea with the blended lenticulars but so far I haven't meet anyone really impressed witht eh quality of the work. The companies cleaning up optics are also the same companies that dirtied them up over the years so I am not impressed with their products for simply being able to clean up what they spent the better half of the last century convincing the industry is too expensive.

[Fezz]

Today I receive a flyer from Lab#1 that lists the Shamir Element.

Oddly, their listed minimum seg height is 16! Lab#2's msh for the Element is 15. I see that the listed Element fitting heights in the Frames Facts Lens Guide are 19 and 16 for the Element short.


Hmm?

[chip anderson]

Fezz:
As you know, everyone's technical department seldom reflects the advertising department. Appearently advertising departments can do miracles compared to the technical people.

Chip

[Fezz]

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

[Jacqui]

Today I receive a flyer from Lab#1 that lists the Shamir Element.

Oddly, their listed minimum seg height is 16! Lab#2's msh for the Element is 15. I see that the listed Element fitting heights in the Frames Facts Lens Guide are 19 and 16 for the Element short.


Hmm?

As I said before, you're going to see this until all parties (design, software, equipment and fitting) get together and coordinate efforts.

As of right now they are suffering from non-linear waterfowl issues. :D

[DragonLensmanWV]

Is it really all that new?

Seiko has been producing these type lenses since 1996. Labs here in the US have been *manufacturing partners* for Seiko for quite a few years. I assume that Seiko and the other lens companies do a whole bunch of training, computer set-up, etc for these labs. I just find it amazing that something as simple as consistent minimum seg heights can not be found! How are we supposed to believe that the actual lens designs will be consistent?

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

You mean like having old Progressive Identifier books that show lenses with a minimum of 24 hi, but the new books show the exact lens as now being able to be fit at 18 hi?

[GAgal]

I feel like somebody has their head up their bum. I just don't know if its me or the lab:hammer:I like to think that I am a reasonably intelligent person. I realize that coffee may be hot and that I should not use the hair dryer in the shower. I even understand the basics (very basic) of free form surfacing, but I don't understand how the labs can change the so called minimum seg height and still expect the same results. Minimum is minimum. When you cut 4mm off the "minimum" seg height, something is lost. I think that would be common sense Maybe I'm wrong.

I agree with Jacqui that we are going to keep seeing this until all parties get together. Question is, when is that going to happen and can we make it happen sooner?

[RT]

I even understand the basics (very basic) of free form surfacing, but I don't understand how the labs can change the so called minimum seg height and still expect the same results. Minimum is minimum. When you cut 4mm off the "minimum" seg height, something is lost.

I am unaware of this happening in any FreeForm or digitally surfaced lens. In fact, one of the chief complaints about FreeForm as expressed by Optiboard posters is the inability to make changes (i.e. change base curves, etc.).

Today I receive a flyer from Lab#1 that lists the Shamir Element.

Oddly, their listed minimum seg height is 16! Lab#2's msh for the Element is 15. I see that the listed Element fitting heights in the Frames Facts Lens Guide are 19 and 16 for the Element short.

Is this a fundamental problem that is unique to FreeForm? Has there never been confusion about the specifications for traditionally produced progressives? It seems like the examples you've cited are all newly released designs, that happened to be produced using FreeForm. I would think that confusion over specifications is a function of a design (traditional or FreeForm) that is new, not a function of how the back surface is produced.

[Fezz]

I am unaware of this happening in any FreeForm or digitally surfaced lens. In fact, one of the chief complaints about FreeForm as expressed by Optiboard posters is the inability to make changes (i.e. change base curves, etc.).

RT,

Please re-read my above posts, #11 and #13.