Originally posted by RKJ
Recall that years ago each lens manufacturer actually offered their own proprietary "corrected curve" or "best form" lens design. Some designs primarily corrected oblique astigmatism (e.g., Zeiss Punktal), some designs corrected tangential power error (e.g., AO Tillyer Masterpiece), and so on. Each design philosophy resulted in a slightly different base curve choice for each prescription. The number of available base curves was also an important parameter associated with each lens design.
The introduction of asphericity made possible more degrees of freedom, since the lens design could now be corrected for optical aberrations while the form of the lens was also manipulated. The use of weighting or merit functions could even allow the control of aberrations out to a certain diameter and then lens thickness beyond that point, resulting in unique aspheric designs that were considerably flatter and thinner than traditional corrected curve lenses.
The introduction of free-form surfaces makes possible even more degrees of freedom, since the lens design is no longer limited to a rotationally-symmetrical surface created by simply rotating a one-dimensional surface height function around the design center. Correcting optical aberrations due to the position of wear, prescribed prism, and other factors is now possible with sufficiently advanced optical design software, which allows lens designers to control the optics at points over the entire lens surface.
So, with free-form single vision lenses, lens manufacturers now actually have more ways of differentiating their lens designs, not fewer ways. First, lens manufacturers can define their basic lens design to achieve a variety of goals, including the correction of specific optical aberrations, manipulation of lens form or thickness, control of mangification, and so on. Second, lens manufacturers can then offer different levels of customization for their lens design based upon factors such as the prescription, position of wear, frame shape, and/or ocular anatomy.
With both traditional and free-form progressive lenses, the overall optical layout or "fingerprint" of the basic progressive lens design is probably the single most important characteristic of the lens for most wearers. After all, even the best free-form optical customization strategy will simply preserve the intended performance of the lens for every wearer. Consequently, a fully customized free-form version of a mediocre lens design will just ensure the same mediocre performance for every wearer.
Because progressive lenses are obviously more complex designs than single-vision lenses, with many additional design parameters involved, optical customization using free-form technology offers even more avenues of product differentiation for lens manufacturers. Additionally, the choice of surface configuration becomes yet another degree of freedom with these lenses, whether the free-form lens design is located on the front surface, back surface, or split between the two.
Further, not all free-form lenses are created equally. The level of manufacturing quality and design sophistication may vary considerably from supplier to supplier. Unfortunately, these optical technicalities have been overlooked by many eyecare professionals today. This has resulted in many ECPS making the broad generalizations that "Free-Form" is inherently "Better" and that lenses are either "Free-Form" or "Not Free-Form," which are oversimplifications that may not accurately reflect differences between the various free-form products on the market.
Best regards,
Darryl
Comment