![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png)
Originally Posted by
AustinEyewear
Thanks for the follow up Tony. I'm furiously studying the subject right now. It appears that
Physio Enhanced FIT, Physio Enhanced Eyecode, and Ipseo Eyecode all take into account monocular PD, Fitting Height, Frame Wrap, Panto, VD and some the (special Eyecode/Head Cape/Posture) which would may place them in the category of a freeform.
Your gut feeling is correct.What will the big E do with millions of $$$ worth of front molded progressive lens inventory and equipment,they can't discard them over night,so they might as well ask their marketing gurus to keep on marketing their molded front side progressives ' Enhancing' them with back side digital surfacing.It's all about money
The DrX only accounts for PD, Fitting Height, but PAL is cut on backside. For what its worth, I would not consider this in the category of a freeform. To me, its more akin to a traditional lens being digitally surfaced on the backside, part way there, but no cigar. No ability to move the optimal reading zone around as one would normally do with a free form lense.
The others mentioned, all appear to be true freeforms, but then they have to throw a wrench into the equation by having this so called DUALOPTIX. As you mention, its hard to know what this would do. I perceive it as a "set" PAL on the frontside, with a "freeform" PAL on the back and it somehow compensates the front design. My gut feel concerning the molded PAL on the front, is that it would ruin the whole reason for going freeform in the first place, but what do I know about this subject, next to nothing, at least compared to the gurus :) To me, a big part of using a PAL freeform design is to provide the ability to adjust the corridor length and move the reading zone to the most optimal position in the frame, and it feels like a molded PAL on the front side would hamper the ability to do this?
Bookmarks