Shamir "mystery" computer program
What does anyone really know about the program Shamir reps have on their laptops that pulls up other companies lenses (contour plots, etc...) and puts them next to Shamir and they all look bad. What is this and how valid is it? Where does the data come from? Why is this not available to others in the industry? Why can't they print out findings or data or take screen captures? I mean, if it's that great, why WOULDN'T you show everyone? What is up with this technique?
:hammer:
Well, considering there is a good chance that shamir actually designed the lens they are comparing to their own, it's not that weird. According to one of the top dog shamir guys, they used to make more off of designing progressives than making their own lenses. That may be different now, but that's how it was before.
See here: http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php/32931-Progressives-Lenses-Revealed for where the contour plots come from. From what I understand, Shamir uses Rotlex for their contour plots as well, although to my knowledge they can't/won't do Free Form lenses. For all other lens plots, see here: www.thelensguru.com, a very nice site run by TLG here on Optiboard. I'm getting together a batch to send that aren't currently on the site, but shipping is a bit sticky at the moment.
There are rules. Knowing those are easy. There are exceptions to the rules. Knowing those are easy. Knowing when to use them is slightly less easy. There are exceptions to the exceptions. Knowing those is a little more tricky, and know when to use those is even more so. Our industry is FULL of all of the above.
I won't pretend to know much about this, but since no one else has replied to your questions let me post what I think I know...and then let everyone trash me for trying.
I don't believe there is a 'magical' software program that makes Shamir's lenses look better. They have simply created a program to show the results of their lens mapping.
Where does the data come from?
I was told by my rep that the lenses were mapped at the Rotlex facility in Israel.
Why is this not available to others in the industry?
It is. It's available to anyone who is willing to supply Rotlex with lenses and pay to have them mapped. The best example I can offer are the maps on my site, which Harry C purchased, surfaced and mapped (at Rotlex as well) on his own dime. I think it's safe to assume that all companies have their lenses mapped for their own purposes, not for sharing.
Why can't they print out findings or data or take screen captures?
Of course they can, but then you wouldn't schedule an appointment with your Shamir rep to see them.
...if it's that great, why WOULDN'T you show everyone?
Because, frankly, none of us trust these when the mapping is paid for by a manufacturer. It is simply too easy to make someone else's product look bad. This is the real beauty of Harry's maps - independently done with no brand loyalty involved.
The last time Shamir reps ran around with a bunch of contour maps(6-7 yrs ago), they were independently done by Dr Sheedy for his study. Shamir showed them to everyone because frankly their lenses came out looking great in comparisons. Some have suggested that freeform mapping may be suspect since lenses like the Autograph II and others use POW measurements and are thus 'optimized' for the wearer and may not be comparable to maps of molded lenses (for arguments sake - are they mapped while tilted with 10 degrees panto? 9? 11? Flat?).
We are fortunate to have a Rotlex representative on this board - Ranaan Bavli. Perhaps he would be kind enough to jump in and tell us about the freeform maps.
-Tony
Who said Shamir outperforms the others? Not me or my customers!
I and Harry had the same thoughts on progressive mapping and decided to send off 3 sets of lenses. We sent off a Kodak Unique, Shamir Autograph 2 and an old Seiko design in a real prescription; we used +2.00 -2.50 x 045 with a +2.50 add to comapare the results from Israel.
The results showed what I have found over the past 8 years; they were all great products and the patient would be happy with any of them and probably could not tell the difference. I did the same thing years ago with a Pentax free form and a Zeiss Individual, the patient loved them both and could not tell the difference.
We have used many brands over the past 8 years and the level of patient satisfaction has nothing to do with the brand used! The only time we have patient rejection is from the compensation numbers used by Shamir!! I have no faith in Shamir to be truthful and tell us as they make changes to the compensation. I have seen the same RX have the compensated power change by almost 1D on the same RX, depending on the software update of the day.
The base lenses are all very similiar, but the compensation formulas can vary from brand to brand and this is where we will see future problems with progressive lenses.
The most consistent results come from utilizing the formula from Darryl on OptiCampus! We have tested them against all others and his is the most consisent.
Craig
Craig,Originally Posted by Craig
Actually we found inconsistencies in the processing. The reason fro sending off two lenses being the same design, prescription, fitting parameters, etc. meant that the maps should have been identical, however what we foudn was that the difference was greater than some manufacturers different molded products. So in reality what has been said all along about free form processing is true. If the process isn't controlled properly then the lenses can be garbage, it is very important that labs stick to the predetermined ranges that the manufacturers supply. It is important that the QC process be tight and unforgiving. It is important that you use a good lab known for quality work. When all these variables are meet most the designs are good, the whole compensation thing is another story.
I agree with Craig I put more trust in Darryl's and Zeiss' compensation, the reasoning is that I have seen the science behind how they compensate and it's sound, I can't say that about other manufacturers so it's an issue of trust.
The caveat about the Shamir maps is that the increments used are 0.50D so the maps have very few gradients of power change in them. This means that harder designs are not going to fair well put up against softer designs. Since shamir designs seem to be real soft it is no wonder why their lenses look good on their maps.
1st* HTML5 Tracer Software
1st Mac Compatible Tracer Software
1st Linux Compatible Tracer Software
*Dave at OptiVision has a web based tracer integration package that's awesome.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks