Take an inherented uv material, say poly, add crizal uv, someone explain my extra benefit please?
Wholesale costs go up maybe. I know the blah blah essilor stuff, but just curious on honest opinion of this be it blah or not.
Is this actually something missed all this time? I hardly doubt it.
Gotta be Mumbo jumbo
I don't see a Crizal UV that people have been talking about. I see a Crizal Sun on their website and it says -Originally Posted by anthonyf1509
makes sense....4 times less UV rays are reflected on the inside surface of your glasses into your eyes.
More importantly...
Not categorized by VSP / How long before we are no longer to order the original version under category D instead of having to find another, or go through the hassle of "specialty lens" calculations?
It only applies to cr-39 and who is selling cr with a premium ar? When Crizal was still called Mirage, there was a cr-39 product we sold that had inherent UV protection in the material as UV dips caused problems with adhesion at the time. This was done 15 years ago to no avail and this seems no different to me.
Gotta love the marketing machine at the Big E!!!
Can we get it with the no-fog coating as well?
http://www.crizalusa.com/ECP-Resources/Documents/UV%20Whitepaper%204%20page.pdf
Here's a link to the brochure our rep brought in
So far just Avance and Sapphire.
Alize and Easy are June 2012
Please....make it stop!
Crizal Mark ? The E Marketing Machine is at it again. Take a product that does well on the market, rename it and call it new and all the E sheeple will smile. New sells people nobody wants the old version of the widget.
Answer this, Who is Essilor's customer?
- Optician
- Frame Maker/Designer
- Teacher of the art of crafting handmade eyewear.
Someone take two CR-39 lenses and treat one with UV and take your UV meter and test it.
Send the other out for AR treatment and then test it.
Now take a poly or some hi index material measure how much it filters then send it out to have AR put on it. When It comes back measure it and then get back with us on the diffrences you find.
It will be soooooooooo very little that you will realize a hell of a lot more UV is coming in from around the lens then through the lens.
It would be like filling a swiming pool with a 1000 gallons of water and then say, aww what the hell, lets add another gallon just for good measure. No one at all will ever be able to tell you put that extra gallon in there.
What im saying is all of the lenses on the market filter SOME percentage of UV, clear glass filters the least. Now the higher the index the more UV it will be filtering. Now apply AR and they filter 100% UV through the lens. So just what is the reason for UV filtering AR? other then $$$$$$$. Anyone have a answer?
[QUOTE rename it and call it new and all the E sheeple will smile.[/QUOTE]
Now I like that right there!Guess its much more easy to do that then your own research.
There are studies out the have researched and concluded that "reflected" UV, from the back of an eyeglass/sunglass lens, can pose an exposure risk. I'll see if I can find my copy.
"It only applies to cr-39 and who is selling cr with a premium ar?"
Ummm....me!?
B
AR coating or not you want to protect to 400nm......................
Not so....................................Clear crown glass filters out all of the short wave UV, called UVB which is in the range of 270 to 360 microns. These are the rays that do immediate damage as burns and so forth.
The UV A from 360 nm to slightly over 400nm are the trays that do long term damage to the eyes and should be eliminated. A perfect UV treatment to a lens will protect against UVA and UVB from 270 to 400nm.
AR coating or not you want to protect at least up to 400nm and sometimes up to 430-450nm by using blue blocking dyes.
Same here. Too bad the government (except for children) won't let us surface it to a reasonable 1.5mm ct! Tempered glass also.
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman
Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.
Me too. I never use high index/poly when cr39 will do.
-Tony
I found this link (below) about the reflected UV from Crizal. Basically, any A/R coated lens will do what Crizal says their A/R does. Another marketing hype by Essilor. Think about it; if they really had an A/R that blocked direct UV, it would prevent Transition lenses from darkening. The "ad" also says to use lenses that block UV.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6qNgRaUfTtA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
Then we should all be selling close-fitting goggles so that absolutely no uv can reach the eye?
Come on...marketing is marketing, not real education, not even a nodding acquaintance with the facts.
"sheeple"...I like that!!
Me three.
Honestly, Essilor. I like your products a lot; I sell them almost exclusively. But I'm already asking my patients to choose between three levels of progressives, four levels of A/R, and a half-dozen lens materials. I am NOT confusing them further with additional anti-fog and anti-UV options.
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
They have to have something to launch at VEE. I see big uv-meters everywhere...and uv-lamps and...tanning booths..OH MY!
Sounds like the Big E needs to convince the Big V that there's a reason to cover it.
I think this way:
If another ECP opened nearby, and decided to offer Max value by "promo-ing" Sapphire w/ UV...and I wasn't... well...."
ALWAYS give them the best! It's an investment in your future.
B
Any means to reduce UV exposure into the eye and adnexa should be viewed as a plus by ecps everywhere. Even more so by those of us in high exposure climates, high altitude, lots of water, sand, snow etc. Sure, we should all wear ski goggles all the time, every day, or at the least, old Vuarnet glacier glasses. Although in the real and practical world, a simple lens solution that makes an evolutionary step at measurably reducing UV reflected towards our faces and into our eyes can in no realistic way be seen as a bad product. If anyone else had done this, no doubt many would be singing the praises - but since it's the big E, and this is opti(snarky, anti-E)board, the response here is fully expected.
Yeah, because I don't know a thing about living around water here in VA Beach. I'm about spitting distance from both the Atlantic Ocean and Chesapeake Bay, where incidentally the UV studies on the watermen were conducted.
However, I do know BS when I hear it.
I don't see how it's a bad thing, if they want to rebrand their version of a UV coating and promote it and make the public aware I am not sure why anyone would be against that especially those in the industry. I'll sell it, and charge more than a comparable UV coating because this is a branded version and compatible with AR coatings.
It's basically another opportunity to make money, take it or leave it.
Actually - it isn't. I'd suggest getting informed, and learning a little more about the specifics of that which you may jump to bash.The tech is at worst interesting and worth a nod, and at best offers an evolitionary step in eyecare/health options. No one forces you to dispense it, and yet so much energy is expended trashing products you've never seen or used. Whatever floats one's boat.
As an interesting side note - UV studies are done on more places than the Chesapeake (although it's a cracking place for a wedding eh Fezz?!) We've got more UV here every day than you've got on your sunniest. Exposure can change due to far more than a body of water alone, as was previously stated.
LOL...dont' forget your tanning goggles!
___________________________________________
Actually - it isn't. I'd suggest getting informed, and learning a little more about the specifics of that which you may jump to bash.
As an interesting side note - UV studies are done on more places than the Chesapeake (although it's a cracking place for a wedding eh Fezz?!) We've got more UV here every day than you've got on your sunniest. Exposure can change due to far more than a body of water alone, as was previously stated.
Really? "My UV is better than your UV" is your arguement?
This is just too dumb to continue.
Peace out!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks