Digitally produced backside progressives.......

[Diopterman]

I have read many of the posts on Optiboard about *free-form* or digitally produced progressives. It seems that the Shamir Auto II is the favored design.

Why?

Do you prefer the fixed or variable?

Why?

They are more expensive than most other offerings. Are they that much better?

What about some of the other offerings like:

Seiko Succeed
Seiko Supercede
Shamir Element
Indo Expert/Inicia
Kodak Unique

I know that there are others.

I am too young to wear progressives, but old enough to not believe a bunch of marketing fluff and sales rep rhetoric.

[Diopterman]

Does one design handle swim or sway distortion better than another? Is that able to be measured or tested, proved? I understand that producing the lens with the add power on the rear increases width of field in the different zones. But, is this measurable? Does one brand/design provide wider zones than another based on the design and rx variables?

Sorry for so many questions. I am really trying to grasp the concept of digital processing, free-form, and designs.

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

[Fezz]

Welcome to Optiboard!

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

I admire your search for knowledge. This is a great place! Hopefully some of our brighter than me {ok-everybody}members, will be by soon to help shed light on this subject!

[OCP]

I have read many of the posts on Optiboard about *free-form* or digitally produced progressives. It seems that the Shamir Auto II is the favored design.

Why?

Do you prefer the fixed or variable?

Why?

They are more expensive than most other offerings. Are they that much better?

What about some of the other offerings like:

Seiko Succeed
Seiko Supercede
Shamir Element
Indo Expert/Inicia
Kodak Unique

I know that there are others.

I am too young to wear progressives, but old enough to not believe a bunch of marketing fluff and sales rep rhetoric.

Many of the new fully back sides progressive works fantastic.
What the Shamir design team has done this time, is simply the best solution out there. One design for all frames in all materials.! Not a short design, not a long design, simply only ONE individual design for all fitting heights.
And with their special power compensating for oblique angels you will not find any other progressive lens with this clear and wide distance area.

Mike

[YrahG]

I posted this in another thread but it's relevent here as well so here is my response to the Shamir designs:

The design process for Shamir PAL's is:

1. Select initial surfaces
2. Prescribe initial distribution of point objects as a function of the viewing angle
3. Construct cheif ray for each point object
4. Determine a cost function to be optimized
5. Optimize the cost function
6. End

The cost function encompasses power error, astigmatism, magnification, distortion (the aberration), and torsion induced by the lens (skew).

I find it interesting that the algorithm that Shamir uses has an actual cosmetic function built into their cost function, I don't know how it is weighted in relation to other aberrations but it takes into account the thickness of the overall lens design as well as it's optical properties. They also incoprporate a function that allows for a smooth gradient of optical characteristics this means that they try to control the change in weight of different terms across the surface of a lens. For instance if the cost function has more weight for power error in the center any points adjacent to that point will gradually shift in weight towards another term like astigmatism rather than shift abruptly, this will provide better optics for a bundle of rays rather than just an individual ray and can be compared to Varilux's WAVE technology in a sense. I have a feeling that this term is the magic behind the design in the Shamir products as most people that I have placed in the lens feel comfortable almost immediately. The lens still exhibits everything any progressive design exhibits.

Also the maps show less of an emphasis on symetry which seems to be touted as the holy grail amoung some companies. I would honestly think that symetry might not be as important of a characteristics as it's made out to be, otherwise designs like the VIP, XL, Image, etc would have vanished a long time ago.

My overall opinion is that the lens designs through Shamir are well thought out and encompass all the latest research in optics.

The information contained here is from various Shamir patents. The company has designed PAL's for many companies includeing some fo the big boys out there. The Passport from MJ is a shamir design, the Freestyle from Kaenon is a Shamir design. I have heard that the Definity was a Shamir design, I am sure there are many others as well, my point is that they have been producing designs for years they are experienced and their experience shows.

[jamie w]

I can not get as technical as the last post. With that being said I love the Shamir Auto 2. I use the fixed design. I like that I can place the emphasis either on the intermediate or the reading area of the lens depending on the fixed design I choose and the seg the lens is fit at. It workes especially well when transitioning a flat top or trifocal wearer to a progressive. I have had 3 sucsessful patients in the last month who previously wore flatops or trifocals. I also love that I can get it in a variety of materials,pretty much any combo of features I want. The cost relative to the Physio 360 and other digital backside Pals, I feel is pretty reasonable for what you are getting.
jamie

[eyemanflying]

Sorry for so many questions. I am really trying to grasp the concept of digital processing, free-form, and designs.

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

Don't be fooled into thinking they are the same as they are not. First, some companies out there purposely develop marketing jargon making false claims and causing mass confusion both to ECP's and consumers.

For example, digital lenses are not free from lenses. They are simply conventional designs processed with more computations and degree of accuracy on a digital generator; but other than processing, they are far from free form. HD is also the same as digital.

Sure the degree of accuracy is superior, but this is a process, not a design.

Free form technology is a design and is also processed on a digital generator. The degree of computations and accuracy is far superior to that of digital lenses and requires specialized software and a super computer to provide the design and calculations.

Both digital lenses and free form go from cut to polish. The polishing process is not done on traditional equipment; there are at least a couple of patented ways to perform this task and is imperative that the curves remain absolutely unchanged from when they exit the generator.

Digital lenses are back side surfacing only. Free form design and processing can be done in 3 methods; both front and back surfacing, molded front and free form back or spherical front and 100% back side free form.

Don't fall into the tangled web of marketing misconception and misrepresentation companies love to do!

Lastly, free form designs are excellent quality and is the way of the future for all lenses.

[Jacqui]

Lastly, free form designs are excellent quality and is the way of the future for all lenses.

I've been preaching this for several years now. With the price of a very good entry level surfacing lab at about $300K (US), it really doesn't make sense for a wholesale lab not to be doing freeform.

:cheers:

[eyemanflying]

I've been preaching this for several years now. With the price of a very good entry level surfacing lab at about $300K (US), it really doesn't make sense for a wholesale lab not to be doing freeform.

:cheers:

The $300K is what you said - entry level only. However, the investment costs for the digital generator, laser engraver, polisher and related computers and software are quite steep for most (approx. $1M), so there has to be substantial volume to support this business model!

With the proper marketing (true facts, no jargon) and price points (the major manufacturers designs are excellent but quite expensive), these lenses will find their way to consumer's faces in droves.

On a side note, I have recently developed a network solution to address this. Since I can't announce here on this forum, anyone interested can PM me.

[Jacqui]

Actually the $300K is for a complete lab, surface equipment, computers, software, etc. The $1M would be for overpriced European junk with unneeded options.

[eyemanflying]

Actually the $300K is for a complete lab, surface equipment, computers, software, etc. The $1M would be for overpriced European junk with unneeded options.

Complete conventional yes - but not digital processing with free form capabilities, designs and click fees.

I agree it is overpriced, and am sure it will come down in the future. Question is...how long and how much?

In the meantime, time and market share opportunties continue to tick away quickly.

[Jacqui]

COMPLETE FREEFORM !!! Check this website and call DAC about it. http://www.dac-intl.com/equipment-sp...pment-line.htm It's considered the most versitile, most dependable most accurate, the least expensive, and it's made in the USA. I've been studying this for several years and it's not as expensive as Loh (essilor) and Schneider want you to think. Software is usually on a pay-per-click basis, so that is an on going cost. If you really want to go overboard, spend another $100K and have Indo do the programming so that you can produce lenses of your own design.

[eyemanflying]

Interesting stuff and the price seems about two thirds less than the big boys - but there's a huge caveat here. I have never in my 25 years in the industry heard of this company and also would be leary on what kind of free form lens design quality it would provide.

It's the old saying(s) - you get what you pay for, and if it's too good to be true, it probably is!

[OCP]

Interesting stuff and the price seems about two thirds less than the big boys - but there's a huge caveat here. I have never in my 25 years in the industry heard of this company and also would be leary on what kind of free form lens design quality it would provide.

It's the old saying(s) - you get what you pay for, and if it's too good to be true, it probably is!

Shamir has been in the industry just as long as Essilor has.
In the beginning they developed progressive designs for the industry, but about 10 years ago the start produce lenses for the end user.
http://www.shamir.co.il/prof.asp

Mike

[xiaowei]

Shamir has been in the industry just as long as Essilor has.
In the beginning they developed progressive designs for the industry, but about 10 years ago the start produce lenses for the end user.
http://www.shamir.co.il/prof.asp

Mike

HI,

I think the previous poster

It's the old saying(s) - you get what you pay for, and if it's too good to be true, it probably is!

was referring to the DAC freeform lab equipment, not Shamir!

BTW, interesting website, unfortunatelly couldn´t find almost nothing about their PAL design software and general PAL "design" approach. Would be interesting!

Also "funny", their (control) software still seems to based on (DOS-like) full text windows and full screen graphics displays (goold old VESA mode!):D. No offence here, in some places we still have this in our company too!;)

[Jacqui]

BTW, interesting website, unfortunatelly couldn´t find almost nothing about their PAL design software and general PAL "design" approach. Would be interesting!

They don't have a PAL design, they make equipment to make any design (Shamir, Zeiss, Rodenstock, etc, etc)

[eyemanflying]

HI,

I think the previous poster

was referring to the DAC freeform lab equipment, not Shamir!

BTW, interesting website, unfortunatelly couldn´t find almost nothing about their PAL design software and general PAL "design" approach. Would be interesting!

Also "funny", their (control) software still seems to based on (DOS-like) full text windows and full screen graphics displays (goold old VESA mode!):D. No offence here, in some places we still have this in our company too!;)

I was referring to the DAC equipment and not Shamir.

[xiaowei]

They don't have a PAL design, they make equipment to make any design (Shamir, Zeiss, Rodenstock, etc, etc)

I thought they probably have an independent PAL design software as IIRC Loh has....

I see (more or less), so how does this work "in-praxi", when you make - say - a Shamir Autograph on that equipment, you use Shamir design software (leased or bought?) or you send the RX to Shamir and they will send you back raw surface data for your DAC system?

[Jacqui]

You purchase software just like any other system.

[AWTECH]

I have actually tested the same lens design on multiple freeform equipment, including DAC.

My own opinion is that they all can produce good surfaces, but with that said they can all also produce bad surfaces when not properly calibrated and maintained. This process like any production involving multiple steps requires skilled people and knowledge of the total process.

There are also many opinions as to what a digitally surfaced lens is vs. a freeform lens etc. There is no true standard for this. A good lens design can be produced using equipment to surface the front and/or the back surface. This can be called freeform by one company or lab and digitally surfaced by another. You can digitally or freeform surface a spherical rear curve also.

To produce an advanced lens design using this new technology it must be a good lens design, that design must be sent properly to the machine where machine control software takes over. That typically is three different software programs working to communicate with each other. Lens design software, Lab management software and machine control software. Some of the challenges facing this technology is each software vendor keeps their software maintained with limited access to the others.

The costs to enter this arena are not just the cost of the equipment but also the costs to get into profitable production. Since you are not buying a complete system from one vendor there can be alot of finger pointing as to which program is not working properly and why.

[Barry Santini]

Can you offer insight into what I', experiencing:

Despite the DS, FF backside design chosen (Auto II, Individual, Impression FS, etc.), they all seem to have acceptance issues with clients vs. traditional FS molded designs when their adds are +3.00 or over.

At least, this is my current findings.

Barry

[Diopterman]

Boy-O-Boy! You gotta love Optiboard!

Threads seem to veer of subject quicker than the Big *E* buys labs!


I would like to steer this trainwreck back on track if I could please.

Are the differences in viewing zone widths measureable?

How are the designs different and can a lay optical person evaluate them without ordering each and every design and doing comparisons that way?

[AWTECH]

Boy-O-Boy! You gotta love Optiboard!

Threads seem to veer of subject quicker than the Big *E* buys labs!


I would like to steer this trainwreck back on track if I could please.

Are the differences in viewing zone widths measureable?

How are the designs different and can a lay optical person evaluate them without ordering each and every design and doing comparisons that way?

There is really not much more than you do with a molded PAL to confirm how well you like the design. Without a great deal of equipment (very expensive) you can not really compare. So you are left with either checking with people in the industry, (such as on here) and your customers.

Allen

[Robert Martellaro]

I am too young to wear progressives, but old enough to not believe a bunch of marketing fluff and sales rep rhetoric.

You need a test subject. There's no other way IMO. Pick two people of your choice (family members might take this more seriously)- an emerging presbyope with very little distance power, and an advanced prebyope with a more substantial Rx for distance. Make two pair with identical frames (grooved rimless makes it easier to switch out the lenses), evaluate, try another design, repeat until you run out of resources.

Do you prefer the fixed or variable?

If you're not sure, variable. You'll get burned on occasion. If you're sure, fixed.

Can you offer insight into what I', experiencing:

Despite the DS, FF backside design chosen (Auto II, Individual, Impression FS, etc.), they all seem to have acceptance issues with clients vs. traditional FS molded designs when their adds are +3.00 or over.

At least, this is my current findings.

Barry

Moderate to high plus on the distance? Maybe it's that "S" shape curve that you might get on a back surface PAL at these powers that you won't get with a front surface PAL.

[YrahG]

Does one design handle swim or sway distortion better than another?

The Hoya ID splits the horizontal and vertical differences in magnification between the front and back surfaces allowing a more orthoscopic view. In laymans terms they focus their design on reduction of swim