Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 53

Thread: Free form optimised single vision lenses

  1. #26
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    3,137
    I think we forget what free-form lenses primarily do. The first two primary things that free-form acheived was to compensate for the limited base curves of multifocals and bring a lens closer to true form optics, and to solve the issue of Oblique Marginal Astigmatism (which is really a base curve issue too).

    As most of you know, every RX should have its own unique base curve, so a -2.00 should be on a different base curve than a -2.50, from a -2.75 etc. We can't do this in multifocals simply because the total amount of blanks necessary would shoot up to about 25,000 for one progressive to cover every base curve in every add power. Its not financially feasable. As a result, we ususally end up with progressive blanks available on only 5 or 6 base curves instead of about 45, which is what we would need.

    In single vision, we can solve this with true-or best form finished single vision lenses (or SV aspheric lenses that simulate true form optics) because we can use a SV finished lens for every axis (we just rotate the blank when laying it out). We don't have add powers to stock, so it IS cost effective to make Finished SV using best form or aspheric optics. A stock SV lens made with true form base curves can be stocked cost effectively. In fact the Zeiss Punctal lenses in the 1930's did just this.

    The problem with True form optics is that it runs a lot steeper than most people prefer cosmetically, so aspheric lens try to bridge that gap of providing better (simulated true-form optics) on a flatter base curve that is thinner and more appealing cosmetically. We can improve optics immensely simply by using quality aspheric finished SV lens blanks.

    In the end either a SV finished True Form lens, or a quality finished aspheric SV (like Zeiss and Seiko) will give vision very close to Free-form, because the goal is same, simulated true form optics.

    The variable is the lab. Many labs (for reasons beyond me) grind every lens, even SV, on simple base curves like 2,4,6, 8 etc. Those lenses will NOT be close to true or best form optics. They will not provide optimal vision.

    The other issue is that Atoric lenses seem to be disappearing in finished SV (some manufacturers call theirs "double aspheric" now), so cyls over -1.25 will see some benifit in Free-form SV lenses over a stock lens that is not atoric.

    So if you use a quality stock SV true form lens, it will give you vision almost indistinguishable from Free-form in lower powers. If you grind every lens, Free-form lenses will seem enormously better


    Quote Originally Posted by 12345 View Post
    Hi, would anyone here like to share their experiences in prescribing free form single vision lenses for their patients? Is the visual optics provided much better than the conventional lenses? Is the vision much better at night time for free form sv?
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert_S View Post
    I find that with anything over a +/-2.00 with anything over a 1.00 cyl, the patient will notice a difference.

    However, usually the patient will only notice a huge difference if the Sphere is over a +3.00 or -4.00, or if the cyl is above a 2.00, or if they are the engineer type.

  2. #27
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    6,008
    Not sure of the "Punktal" facts. I know the original Punktal series was custom/individually computed for each RX rec'd, the precise radii calculated and individually made. They were expensive...about 10x normal stk meniscus lenses.

    When the corrected curve series were introduced, two things happped:

    1. Depending on the manufacturer's chosen design tolerance, a select amount of power or cylinder or power/cyl error was accepted to reduce the need for individually caculated lenses, and....

    (wait for it....)

    2. The angular field of view that the design was intended to correct was reduced from Zeiss Punktal's original 60 degree, to the corected curve series 30 degree...a factor of 4x less optimized AREA.

    FFSV, in a well dione design and production process, can equal or exceed Punktal's original 60 degree FOV correction.

    For the newer, taller frames with high pupil placement above mechanical center, this can be quite significant, even in lower powered sphere's, especially under 2.00D, and especially if low abbe material is employed.

    B
    Last edited by Barry Santini; 07-19-2012 at 04:51 PM.

  3. #28
    Master OptiBoarder MakeOptics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    none
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    1,327
    Any shift of gaze larger than 20 degrees is usually accompanied by a head rotation. A lens beyond 30 to 40 degrees field of view or apparent field of view is really just going to be unnecessary. If we were to use technology to it's fullest the zones outside of this 40 degree optimal zone should be used to reduce cosmetics like thickness and/or weight. To be fair the better lenses on the market take this into consideration and use outer zones of the lens to improve cosmetics. Atoric lenses are obsolete, no longer necessary when the lens can be ground digitally providing the same effects, IMO.

    I love the fact that I am not allowed to sell a coating as "No-Glare", but digital lenses are trying to be sold as reducing Chromatic Aberration. True the effects of all aberrations are compounded so if the digital lens can reduce other optical aberrations the tolerance for Chromatic Aberration should in theory be higher but the lens or design still does not improve chr. abbe.

    Sharpstick777, comparing Punktal lenses to today's digital lenses isn't fair. The lenses in those days had to meet stricter tolerances, so although the technology and the equipment exists today to make a much more accurate product the research shows that a much less acceptable tolerance is accepted by the general population and optical "professionals", couple that with a lack of equipment designed to verify these new age lenses at the dispenser level and we have an opportunity ripe for abuse. Currently a few labs exist that are abusing digitally surfaced lenses and I believe that in the next so many years a "white list" of trusted manufacturers and a "black list" of abusers will emerge.

  4. #29
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    6,008
    Phi trace:

    I'm not sure I wholly agree with the default head rotation consensus. Having participated in the design of 100 degree FOV telescope eyepieces, I can tell you that, without head rotation, and field imaged sharply this wide is...well, like nothin else you've ever seen!

    B

  5. #30
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    6,008
    Sharpstick:

    I think really well done SV FF lenses, in truth, often EXCEED the off-axis performance of true/best form fitting.

    B

  6. #31
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    6,008
    Quote Originally Posted by sharpstick777 View Post
    The problem with True form optics is that it runs a lot steeper than most people prefer cosmetically,
    Interestingly, Darryl has pointed out that as the index goes up (higher), the appropriate true form curve needs to be STEEPER...something counterintuitive to me at first.

    With this in mind, it's obvious why stk, non-aspheric poly SV has had such a bad rap for peripheral vision.

    B

  7. #32
    ABOM Wes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Santini View Post
    Interestingly, Darryl has pointed out that as the index goes up (higher), the appropriate true form curve needs to be STEEPER...something counterintuitive to me at first.

    With this in mind, it's obvious why stk, non-aspheric poly SV has had such a bad rap for peripheral vision.

    B
    That's very counterintuitive. Do you have a link?
    Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA

    “As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein

  8. #33
    Master OptiBoarder MakeOptics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    none
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    1,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Santini View Post
    Phi trace:

    I'm not sure I wholly agree with the default head rotation consensus. Having participated in the design of 100 degree FOV telescope eyepieces, I can tell you that, without head rotation, and field imaged sharply this wide is...well, like nothin else you've ever seen!

    B
    Interesting fact, did you know that an Owl cannot rotate their eye's, that is the reason for 270 degree rotation of the head. The reason I brought up that fun fact is that we shouldn't ignore head rotation, it's a factor in how we use our eyes.

    In the case of telescopes I have never designed one though I have though of a dobsonian design for it's simplicity if I were to ever design one. Now field of view in a telescope describes the amount of sky you can see through the telescope, in a pair of ophthalmic lenses this is not the case, even though a particular field of view is designed for does not mean that beyond this field of view their is zero vision like in the telescope. Also with the telescope you don't move the telescope around while looking through it, you align the telescope then you view through it, in essence the telescope has no head rotation. I don't think they are really good comparisons, but your designing a telescope lens does put a bit more confidence in your ability to understand a lens so if it was confidence in your opinion that statement meant to evoke, then you have my confidence. I would still disagree to the level of optimization necessary. I think right now it may be a novelty and the higher the field of view, "the better" the better the lens must be and I'm all for it, yes I do sell SV FF lenses and love them, but I think we will begin to see lens optimization utilized differently in the next gen products.

  9. #34
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    6,008
    Phi Trace:

    I look forward to havin a beer with you and discussing this subject.

    B

  10. #35
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    6,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Wes View Post
    That's very counterintuitive. Do you have a link?
    No link. Part of a discussion I engaged in with Darryl regarding this very point.

    B

  11. #36
    ABOM Wes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Santini View Post
    Interestingly, Darryl has pointed out that as the index goes up (higher), the appropriate true form curve needs to be STEEPER...something counterintuitive to me at first.

    With this in mind, it's obvious why stk, non-aspheric poly SV has had such a bad rap for peripheral vision.

    B
    Quote Originally Posted by Wes View Post
    That's very counterintuitive. Do you have a link?
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Santini View Post
    No link. Part of a discussion I engaged in with Darryl regarding this very point.

    B
    Well, it goes against base curve surfacing charts, which have flatter curves with higher indices. It also doesn't mesh well with Darryl's own spectacle optics analysis program. Hmmm...
    Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA

    “As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein

  12. #37
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    6,008
    Wes
    Unless i got it backwards.....

    ???!!
    B
    Last edited by Barry Santini; 07-20-2012 at 05:56 AM.

  13. #38
    Master OptiBoarder MakeOptics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    none
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    1,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Wes View Post
    Well, it goes against base curve surfacing charts, which have flatter curves with higher indices. It also doesn't mesh well with Darryl's own spectacle optics analysis program. Hmmm...
    Wes,

    In the spectacle optics program set the line to a power you want to read and then cycle through the different materials. You'll notice for higher index materials the base curve goes up for the Ostwalt (or commonly used leg of the tschernings ellipse). I recognized this a few years back when creating a tschernings analysis excel spread sheet. It is a bit counter intuitive since in a surfacing lab we are taught to pull a base lower or flatter. Either lens manufacturers give precedence towards cosmetics or they use aspherics for their lenses, but like you I was taught in the lab to pull a base or two lower. It is later in life I learned to ignore those assumptions and go with science, but even then only if I knew the surface geometry of the lens.

  14. #39
    ABOM Wes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by PhiTrace View Post
    Wes,

    In the spectacle optics program set the line to a power you want to read and then cycle through the different materials. You'll notice for higher index materials the base curve goes up for the Ostwalt (or commonly used leg of the tschernings ellipse). I recognized this a few years back when creating a tschernings analysis excel spread sheet. It is a bit counter intuitive since in a surfacing lab we are taught to pull a base lower or flatter. Either lens manufacturers give precedence towards cosmetics or they use aspherics for their lenses, but like you I was taught in the lab to pull a base or two lower. It is later in life I learned to ignore those assumptions and go with science, but even then only if I knew the surface geometry of the lens.
    I find I am guilty of some ignorance (and a bit of mis-speaking) of which I was unaware. To the mis-speaking, I shouldn't have said flatter, what I was thinking was "closer to 6 diopters" which seems to apply well to minus rx's. I assumed that applied to plus rx's being "closer to 6 diopters" as the index goes up. Following that line of thinking, I experimented. If you re-set the surface curvature index to standard tooling, which is what we think of as the curve as opposed to actual surface power, you will find that in higher plus rx's (above +3 or so), it is "closer to 6 diopters", if only marginally.

    Barry & Phi, thanks for the education!
    Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA

    “As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein

  15. #40
    Master OptiBoarder MakeOptics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    none
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    1,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Wes View Post
    I find I am guilty of some ignorance (and a bit of mis-speaking) of which I was unaware. To the mis-speaking, I shouldn't have said flatter, what I was thinking was "closer to 6 diopters" which seems to apply well to minus rx's. I assumed that applied to plus rx's being "closer to 6 diopters" as the index goes up. Following that line of thinking, I experimented. If you re-set the surface curvature index to standard tooling, which is what we think of as the curve as opposed to actual surface power, you will find that in higher plus rx's (above +3 or so), it is "closer to 6 diopters", if only marginally.

    Barry & Phi, thanks for the education!
    I don't know if I'd call that education I seem to recall having a similar conversaton on a similar topic with you some time ago, as the saying goes you'll probably forget more about optics then most people know. The trick is to surround yourself with people that remember the parts that you don't remember and you create an optical monster.

  16. #41
    Master OptiBoarder Darryl Meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Kansas City, Kansas, United States
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    3,700
    Well, it goes against base curve surfacing charts, which have flatter curves with higher indices. It also doesn't mesh well with Darryl's own spectacle optics analysis program
    As you guys have noted using Spectacle Optics, high-index lenses with spherical front curves would need steeper front curves in order to eliminate off-axis marginal astigmatism.

    Nevertheless, flatter base curves are often used for non-aspheric high-index lens materials primarily for cosmetic reasons, not optical reasons. Most high-index lenses are made with aspheric front curves, however, so the front curve can be made as flat as desired.

    It is interesting to note that high-index lens materials also suffer from slightly higher levels of off-axis power or astigmatic error, due to a greater departure of Petzval's surface from the ideal imaging points of the eye (i.e., the far-point sphere) as the refractive index increases.

    Consequently, between the slightly greater power errors and the increased lateral chromatic aberration that also contributes to off-axis blur, it becomes even more crucial to use aspheric, atoric, or optimized free-form designs with high-index lens materials.

    Best regards,
    Darryl
    Darryl J. Meister, ABOM

  17. #42
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    3,137
    I agree that it can Barry, but it depends on the amount of astigmatism IMHO. The difference I am trying to point out is not the FF is the same, but in SV FF we are not going to get the Wow factor as fast or as much as a FF Progressive, simply because we can (possibly) make a SV Lens closer to best form optics without much work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Santini View Post
    Sharpstick:

    I think really well done SV FF lenses, in truth, often EXCEED the off-axis performance of true/best form fitting.

    B

  18. #43
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    6,008
    Quote Originally Posted by sharpstick777 View Post
    I agree that it can Barry, but it depends on the amount of astigmatism IMHO. The difference I am trying to point out is not the FF is the same, but in SV FF we are not going to get the Wow factor as fast or as much as a FF Progressive, simply because we can (possibly) make a SV Lens closer to best form optics without much work.
    Most of my comparative statements about the vision improvement with FFSV lenses are framed against both stk and surfaced lenses that rarely, if ever, employ the optimal BC in compliancce with best form fitting. And certainly do not take into account any frame wrap angles greater than 7 degrees, which is common.

    Barry
    Last edited by Barry Santini; 07-23-2012 at 06:59 PM.

  19. #44
    Master OptiBoarder MakeOptics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    none
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    1,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Santini View Post
    Most of my comparative statements about the vision improvement with FFSV lenses are framed asint both stk and surfaced lenses that raraely, if ever, employ the optimal BC in compliancce with best form fitting. And certainly do not take into acoount any frame wrap angles greater than 7 degrees, which is common.

    Barry
    Interesting, I know what you're getting at. It's also the reason why some people will drive a bentley while others drive a hyundai. The hyundai driver might not see the logic in driving the bentley. Ultimately your right in the fact that an optimized lens will offer greater precision if utilized properly, I don't know if everyone will notice the improvement but to some even a slight improvement is worth every penny. Who am I to argue against the premium sale.

  20. #45
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    6,008
    Quote Originally Posted by PhiTrace View Post
    Interesting, I know what you're getting at. It's also the reason why some people will drive a bentley while others drive a hyundai. The hyundai driver might not see the logic in driving the bentley. Ultimately your right in the fact that an optimized lens will offer greater precision if utilized properly, I don't know if everyone will notice the improvement but to some even a slight improvement is worth every penny. Who am I to argue against the premium sale.
    I have no customers, aka zilch, that do not see the difference with FFSV. At leadt for te Rxs I suggest them for.

    I've already had clients opt for conventional stk poly lenses to save the $120 upcharge for FFSV (CR-39).

    There are no more unhappy faces when they discover the "whoa" of going without FFSV. Of course I was happy (to eat) the stk poly and charge the difference for the upgrade to FF. It's a small price to pay for their future commitment to premium FF.

    B

  21. #46
    OptiBoard Novice
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Cardiff, United Kingdom
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    1
    I have dispensed quite a few free form single vision lenses to px's and I also wear them. So far the response from my px's has been positive with most people remarking that their new lenses seem clearer and not as distorted. So far I have only dispensed medium to high RX's as i think on a simple rx up to about +-4.00 it is a little bit harder to justify the increased price. As for myself I am quite myopic and I have a -4.50 cyl in my rt eye and a -2.50 cyl in the left I definateley feel that they are better than conventional lenses. If I have any px's with rx's similar to mine I always recommend free form lenses.
    http://cheapspecsdiscountglassesscardiff.co.uk

  22. #47
    OptiBoardaholic CoolOptician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    261
    Yes, our patients who elected to upgrade loved the Hoya product we used. All the cases I can remember always commented on the difference in clarity. I also have had superb experience with Hoya coatings, as well as their lenses. Just overall, super experience.
    Mother Theresa - MRS. "CoolOptican"

    Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do. —
    James Harvey Robinson

  23. #48
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    939
    Quote Originally Posted by glucocq78 View Post
    I have dispensed quite a few free form single vision lenses to px's and I also wear them. So far the response from my px's has been positive with most people remarking that their new lenses seem clearer and not as distorted. So far I have only dispensed medium to high RX's as i think on a simple rx up to about +-4.00 it is a little bit harder to justify the increased price. As for myself I am quite myopic and I have a -4.50 cyl in my rt eye and a -2.50 cyl in the left I definateley feel that they are better than conventional lenses. If I have any px's with rx's similar to mine I always recommend free form lenses.
    http://cheapspecsdiscountglassesscardiff.co.uk

    I love the irony of you recommending better products for people whilst selling glasses online. If quality is so important to you, how can you justify that practice? Well, I guess money is more important.

  24. #49
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Killeen, Texas
    Occupation
    Frame Manufacturer
    Posts
    42
    Free-form single vision lenses are more preferred as they provide high precision of free form surfacing which can produce lens surfaces over 100 times more accurate. Sophisticated lens design software employed in free form single vision lenses allow correction levels beyond corrective curve lenses. Free-form lenses also reduce glare and halo effects caused by light sources at night, such as car headlights.

  25. #50
    One eye sees, the other feels OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,458
    Quote Originally Posted by toddchaney View Post
    Free-form single vision lenses are more preferred as they provide high precision of free form surfacing which can produce lens surfaces over 100 times more accurate.
    Any improvement in dioptric power accuracy over traditionally surfaced or finished lenses is not clinically significant.

    Sophisticated lens design software employed in free form single vision lenses allow correction levels beyond corrective curve lenses.
    Reduction in aberrations and power error is certainly welcome, when it exists, but does require extremely capable software and an optician who can determine and place the optics in an optimum position, and also be able to communicate that position to the software/fabricator.

    Free-form lenses also reduce glare and halo effects caused by light sources at night, such as car headlights.
    Not generally due to lens design. Coated optics (anti-reflection) will reduce ghost images and increase light transmission.
    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.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Single vision free form?
    By need2see in forum Progressive Lens Discussion Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 06-22-2010, 05:03 AM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-02-2010, 11:22 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-02-2010, 11:03 PM
  4. Free Form Technology on single vision
    By tktien in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-24-2008, 11:53 AM
  5. Free-form Single vision?
    By kwon0504 in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-17-2007, 04:24 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •