Zeiss I Terminal and Individual lenses

[OptiTim]

Anyone else using the Zeiss I Terminal to fit the Zeiss Individual lenses? Having any trouble?:hammer:

[Barry Santini]

Interesting that you asked if anyone is having any trouble, as opposed to the success they may be enjoying.

In fact, it's just the prospect of sherlocking trouble that has put me off about the EyeTerminal.

The problem as I see it: Since the "Eye" terminal *cannot* take measurements with a frame that has lens templates in it, just how does one "vet" or verify the original measurements taken with the Rx lenses installed?

Barry

[OptiTim]

You are supposed to remove the lenses if you can, but the I Terminal works fine with lenses in it as well.
Anyone having any success with the I Terminal that they are enjoying? How about the labs you use? Do they know how to use the information you give them from the I Terminal?

[OPTIDONN]

Have not used the individual yet but do use the I-Terminal for troubleshooting and consultation. Patients like to see and compare four frames at once. We love it and have had very little trouble.

[au]

Ssame as optidonn, I like to use all kind of computer software to show what the problems of pal and help them to understand more on the pal and lens.
I terminal is good to show color and transition lens and 4 frames together

Rodenstock software is good to show difference among pal, how distortion will affect the lens when add goes up. It's good to suggest the patient to wear pal ASAP !

[OptiTim]

So,nobody uses this very sophisticated device for its intended purpose, to take exact measurements of progrssives and lined bifocals? You paid that much money for a frame comparison camera?
I guess I should be more specific. I am having great difficulty in getting the Zeiss labs (Cumberland,Carl Zeiss Virginia) to use/understand the information that the I Terminal provides, I.E.-Panto,BVD,etc. Anyone else experiencing this?:hammer:

[chip anderson]

OptiTim:
Don't have an I-terminal and don't know much about them. But I do know that Cumberland~Nashville understands panto, vertex, etc.

Chip

[OptiTim]

Chip,
Thank you for your reply. Cumberland is lab we are using. They have absolutely no clue and it takes usually three tries to get a wrong lens to me. We have waited a month sometimes. We also tried Carl Zeiss Virginia and it was much worse.
Is that General Lee and the stars and bars on your avatar? :drop:

[Christosfer]

I have not had great success either with the I-terminal, segs were consistently high compared to manual measurements, and with wide temples you can't get a vertex distance. The lens itself has not performed all that well either.

[OptiTim]

Thank you for your reply,Chris. That is exactly what I noticed about the high segs. What are your thoughts on the lens?

[Darryl Meister]

I have not had great success either with the I-terminal, segs were consistently high compared to manual measurements, and with wide temples you can't get a vertex distance.

This point is exactly what I was alluding to earlier: The i.Terminal does not replace the optician, it replaces the PD ruler. I've conducted i.Terminal training sessions before, and I often notice that dispensers focus intently on the computer screen, but sometimes forget to evaluate the patient, although these same opticians would diliently ensure that the patient was correctly positioned when taking manual measurements. This is due mainly to the "paradigm shift" that digital centration technology represents from traditional lens fitting.

If the patient has assumed an unnatural posture, this will certainly influence the measurements. When having a photograph taken, particularly in a seated position, many patients may make postural adjustments that do not represent how they normally carry themselves. I call this the "straightening up for the camera" effect. Although we have become accustomed to accounting for this while taking manual measurements, we still need to exercise our professional judgment when using digital centration devices as well.

Also, it is important that the frame is placed in the intended position of wear. Since digital centration devices typically rely on a "scaling" apparatus of some sort, which is attached to the frame, the patient may not place the frame on "all the way," if he or she is not reminded to do so. This can influence fitting height measurements.

There are also a few additional tips and tricks that can ensure more consistently accurate measurements. For instance, start with the "head" of the unit slightly lower than necessary, and then bring the red horizontal reference line up to the level of the pupils. This reduces the tendency of the patient to "look up" at the red laser speckle target when it is being lowered, instead. And ensure that the patient only observes one red target; if he or she observes two targets, this indicates that the patient is not fixating on the target properly.

Also, in my experience at least, opticians are much more likely to "fudge" the fitting height down a millimeter or so when taking manual measurements with a PD ruler. With the i.Terminal, on the other hand, opticians routinely fit to pupil center. Keep this in mind when comparing i.Terminal measurements to manual measurements.

In any event, if you continue to experience what you feel are measurement issues, I would encourage you to contact your Carl Zeiss Vision representative. He or she should be able to confirm that the device has been installed properly, including any leveling. Some "refresher" training might also improve your results, at least until you have sufficient experience with the device.

As for vertex distance measurements, there really aren't many other options for measuring this distance when the temples of the frame obscure the cornea, unless you have a manual tool, such as the Distometer. In these cases, I generally recommend "eyeballing" the location of the cornea from above the head of the patient, relative to an easy reference point on the frame, and then using this reference point to select the position of the cornea during the measurement process. Small variances will not influence the calculations much in most prescriptions, and still represent more accuracy than ignoring the measurement altogether.

[OptiTim]

Thank you for your reply, Darryl. I am glad a Zeiss reprentative has responded to my inquiry. After using the I Terminal, I now realize that the measurements are not the problem. The problem is Zeiss labs have no idea what to do with the information that the instrument gathers. I have sold probably 10 of the lenses and it takes 3 weeks because I have to send it back (almost always) the first time because the lab didn't use the measurements, messed them up, segs were wrong, I even recieved one that had been generated upside down. My rep is so sick of hearing from me, she is throwing attitude. We are about to try our third lab, after using Cumberland and Carl Zeiss Virginia. Lisa at Cumberland told me some office want the measurements used and some don't. We would NOT have bought the I Terminal if we didn't want the information used.:finger:Your people need training on this product and FAST! Digital is the future, Sir, Zeiss being a leader in our industry should really consider getting on board with this technology.

[Darryl Meister]

I will look into this for you immediately. Every Carl Zeiss Vision laboratory that has been enabled with our free-form technology should have no problems whatsoever using position of wear measurements supplied from either the i.Terminal or the manual tools that we provide.

What Lisa may have meant is that some eye care professionals choose to measure the patient's position of wear, while some choose not to; in these situations, the laboratory will utilize average "default" values for the position of wear.

[sachmet]

@OptiTim

I have the i.Terminal (it's called RV-Terminal here) and the i.Profiler since more than a year. I also have the Rodenstock ImpressionIST since 2007. We use them both with great success. Almost all clients are very happy with their new individual PALs.

The big difference is: I am in Switzerland. That means, that Carl Zeiss Vision Germany (or Rodenstock Germany) delivers us with the lenses. The quality of both is very high.

I know, it's not helping you very much. But I assure you, the technique works.

Cheers,
Daniel.

[OptiTim]

Thanks for your reply, Satchmet. Darry, I must be fair and add that my customers seem to really like the Zeiss Individual and the measurements taken by the I Terminal have worked fine, so far. It is easy to operate and the customers seem to like it. I, again, am so surprised at the problems I have had with the labs. Hopefully, third time is a charm. :shiner:

[Yeap]

yes i agree that the i-terminal or RV terminal is not a replacement of optician but to me is more like a assistance for dispensing tools. a combination of the terminal with an dispenser will be a good combination. i found out that there are lots of information and interactive software which able to shorten the consultation chair time. never restrict the terminal usage for only individual lens fitting. impress your patient with the technology as well as the lens.

[Mr.Powers]

I Dont Know What happend, butt Zeiss, ´dont work anymore, we never sell them again. main problem is the distance zone. the last customer that complaint over his individuel lenses, i gave him creation fra shamir, and he was very happy.

[Achraf]

is there any one using Rodenstock impressionIST 3 any problems ?!