Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Progressive Design Classification - Has it gone too complicated?

  1. #1
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    mla
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    23

    Lightbulb Progressive Design Classification - Has it gone too complicated?

    Hello everyone. It used to be that progressive designs would be classifiied as Soft, Hard or Multi-Design. Question now is, with the advent of freeform and a more sophisticated computer software are progressive lenses no longer classified with the above description? Has it gone too complicated that it won't fit any of those 3 classifications? Take for example the varilux family of lenses. Can we classify each of the varilux lenses the old fashioned way? thanks.

  2. #2
    Bad address email on file Randle Tibbs, ABOM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Alabaster, AL
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    213
    While the initial design may be built upon the foundation of either hard or soft, the new designs now incorporate the better aspects of both designs so that now we have what is considered hybrid designs.

    Randle

  3. #3
    Compulsive Truthteller OptiBoard Gold Supporter Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    At a position without dimension...
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by jland View Post
    Hello everyone. It used to be that progressive designs would be classified as Soft, Hard or Multi-Design. Question now is, with the advent of freeform and a more sophisticated computer software are progressive lenses no longer classified with the above description? Has it gone too complicated that it won't fit any of those 3 classifications? Take for example the varilux family of lenses. Can we classify each of the varilux lenses the old fashioned way? thanks.
    Sorry but in a word--- no.

    Here's my reasoning (and I hope I'm mostly right).

    There's just too many variables from the molded generation where the progressive power is all on the front surface. Now we have to deal with frame designs and patient powers and it just becomes a mess. As an example I loved the super no line 2 for it's intermediate but only for simple powers. That same lens on a high myope was asking for trouble.

    If we just deal with 3 "zones" distance,intermediate, and near- as a rule you can pick 1 or 2 to maximize at the expense of the other(s). (Except in a few cases which was the power used used to create the master mold.)

    I think it would be easier to classify them as good better or best but- as a rule- until position of wear compensated goes rogue (cheaper) is usually directly proportional to cost.

    (Now give me a second to find some cover from the shelling I expect to come my way!)

  4. #4
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    3,137
    jland,
    most lenses that have launched since the Comfort have been what I term "adaptive" designs. An adaptive lens changes as the add power increases, in many cases they become harder. In the case of the Comfort the reading stayed wide, the lens become little harder, and the distortion moved up. Its neither "hard" nor a "soft" design, it just adapts with add power increases. The Comfort is not the same progressive at 1.50 as it is at 2.50 add powers.

    Most soft design free-forms have more usable area than hard design grinders, so the designation is not widely used anymore. Most dispensers couldn't even tell you what a hard or soft design was. For the record, a hard design (like the AO Compact) offered wider corridor, but at the cost of higher distortion. A soft design like the Essilor Natural or Sola Percepta, had corridors that narrowed in higher add powers. Inherantly as the add power increases in any lens, distortion increases geometrically, if this distortion is not moved, the consequence is a narrower corridor.

    Most FF lenses are softer, and are adaptive designs as the add power increases the lens gets a little harder, but not a lot. They give up a little bit of corridor width in higher add powers.

  5. #5
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    939
    I think you can still use the terms 'harder' and 'softer', absolutely. I do all the time when I'm talking to my colleagues and our patients. I think it's very clear that many of the best designs are still very different to one another.

  6. #6
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Betelgeuse
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    10
    Here is an answer to your question plus a Business 101 lesson.

    The "progressive design classification" is simply a tool for segmenting the market and performing price differentiation.

    The idea is to capture consumer surplus*:
    It's sort of like if you were all set to buy that new merino wool sweater, and you thought it was going to cost $70, which is well worth it, and when you got to Banana Republic it was on sale for only $50! Now you have an extra $20 in found money that you would have been perfectly happy to give to the Banana Republicans!
    Yipes!

    That bothers good capitalists. Gosh darn it, if you're willing to do without it, well, give it to me! I can put it to good use, buying a SUV or condo or Mooney or yacht one of those other things capitalists buy!

    In economist jargon, capitalists want to capture the consumer surplus.
    So if you offer a PAL for 200$ but there are people willing to pay 300$, you are losing 100$ from each sale to them.
    But there are also other customers willing to pay only 100$, so with the 200$ price tag you drive them away and lose their 100$.

    So what do you do? You ask the customers to tell you how much they are willing to pay maximum for the product and sell it to them at that price.
    Wow, that sound neat. So how do you do that!?

    Create 3 price segments (Value=100$, Performance=200$, Luxury=300$) for the product and the people will reveal their spending limit by choosing the appropriate category.

    Congratulations, you managed to capture some of that sweet consumer surplus.

    Now lets take a look at the PALs… how do you create different categories? You have to make the products seem different or the system does not work.

    1. Taunt features and optimisations but do not quantify the gains: Our lens has the XYZ tech. that mimics the eyes natural XYZ for wider near zone (but only 0,23% wider).

    2. Taunt subjective improvements and factors that are impossible to challenge or even quantify.
    Bonus: Use improvements of feel, comfort etc. which are so subjective that nobody could prove you wrong.

    3. Publish real quantitative improvements that really benefit only small percent of the customers, but don't mention the part about "benefit only small percent of the customers".
    Hey, it's not lying.. you just forgot to mention some details:
    The optimised inset takes into account the individual PD for a wider near and intermediate zones of up to 30% (but only on extremely large or small PD, possessed by a minuscule part of the general population). Erase the part in the bracket and make some money today.

    4. State improvements, but do not specify what you are comparing against:
    The precise XYZ allows us to increase the zones of clear vision by as much as 50% (compared to the varilux 1 from 1959).

    That way you can continually show a large widening of the zones product after product… Even if your product's zones stay the same, you could still claim year after year that the new lens is 50% wider (compared to the varilux 1 from 1959). Just don't mention that part in the brackets and you are good.

    5. ... use your imagination, the sky is the limit.

    Also do not bother mentioning anywhere that fitting and centering can reduce the lens performance by as much as 80% then the design optimum. That does nobody any good.

    Oh and you would do well to show some pictures showing your massive, bulging zones . Just don't forget to never-ever publish how you define zones of good vision.

    When you consider astigmatism of 0,75D no problem for clear vision, those PAL zones would look mighty large indeed.

    Just remember: when you market the new hi-tech single vision free-form individual wonder lenses… consider even 0,25D of astigmatic error enough to cause massive blur.

    That would make your comparisons with the poor old spherical lens that much better. If you still do not like the results, nudge the spherical lens base curve slightly in the wrong direction, your finance department would thank you for it.

    So Mr. jland, i guess that answers your question sufficiently well.
    As long as there are still price segments not covered by the current price structure, the number of lens classes would grow and the differentiating features must fallow.

    *Want to know more about this sweet consumer surplus business, check this article:
    http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articl...erDuckies.html
    Last edited by Zaphod Beeblebrox; 02-16-2013 at 05:11 PM.

  7. #7
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    north of 49
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,002
    Nice post, Zap Bee.....and welcome to the Forum.

    Ummmm Kemo Sabay..........I say Zapod Beeblebrox shoot with straight arrow.
    Eyes wide open

  8. #8
    OptiBoard Professional RT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    CT
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    879
    Taunt features and optimisations
    Somehow, I have visions of the French castle guard from Monty Python and the Holy Grail selling glasses..."now go away or I shall taunt you a second time."
    RT

  9. #9
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    6,008
    IMHO, progressive design is not what has become too complicated, but rather the issues surroundimg defining progressive corridor between designs/companies in a more standardized way.

    Think boxing system for progressives.

    B

  10. #10
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    7
    Indeed, the companies are still all trying to compete with each other in Marketing speak, but in reality the manufacturers are all moving towards unified design portfolios.

    These are massive massive companies and they will literally of studied 100's of thousands of patients to try and get a particularldesign or design philosfy that works for a high percentage of patients.

    You look at what at what the big boys are doing, there is small/no difference in "design" between the entry lenses and the top of the range ones, they are trying hard to gives us lenses that work really well no matter which one we choose, but should we feel our patients benefit from a particular feature of a more individulised product then we can recommend that to them.
    Half of the problems we run into are with us applying our own subjective experience with a particular design to the patients actual issue, it's always interesting to see how another individual can resolve the same problem.

  11. #11
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    3,137
    Barry,
    I have defined a few basic Free-form design types based on corridor emphasis and distance width based on FF mapping we did. These are only possible in Free-form.

    T Design = Distance clarity edge to edge (primary zone gain), narrower intermediate, narrow to moderate reading... Auto II (most Shamir), Seiko Succeed/Supercede, et al.

    Free-form Hour-glass = A little gain in most zones, but not edge to edge clear in any one. Wide Distance (but not edge to edge), moderate int and wider reading. Its a balanced design, general purpose lens, with no single emphasis. and Comfort DRx and Physio DRx, Steath Pro SD/MD

    Plus Shape = Reading and Intermediate are very wide, but distance is not. Distortion is essentially moved to the four corners, which balances spacial distortions, and effectively widens the entire effective corridor, which is more cylindrical. (Definity, Hoya iD Lifestyle)

    Barrel Shape = Wide Intermediate, slightly narrower distance and reading. Basically instead of putting the narrow end of the progressive cone at the pupil, it turns it around and puts the wide end at top instead. Distortion is moved to both the top and bottom edges, but gives about 4X the distance width as most Plus lenses. Basically, its two corridors, stacked with their wide ends together. The Seiko Surmount is the only one in this catagory at this time.

    V Shape= Edge to edge distance, wider intermediate, but very narrow reading. Ziess GT2-3D is the only lens in this catagory.

    Fountain Shape = The newest design, its like a T shape but instead of the narrow part of the corridor at the top, the narrower point is lower in the middle between the intermediate are reading zones. The intermediate ends up being a little wider, with a little lower declination. Reading is a little lower. Distance is edge to edge, and because of the distortion being pushed down, and away from the central view, the feeling is terrific. It turns into two intermediate zones though, one high, and one lower. Two lenses in this category, The new Shamir InTouch and the new Seiko Supernal. Because they start the intermediate lower, its good for laptops, but the reading is little lower too. Fit on Center. I have to dig a little deeper in both lenses to get the fine print. Reading width is OK though.


    [=Barry Santini;452873]IMHO, progressive design is not what has become too complicated, but rather the issues surroundimg defining progressive corridor between designs/companies in a more standardized way.

    Think boxing system for progressives.

    B[/QUOTE]

  12. #12
    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
    Barry,
    I have defined a few basic Free-form design types based on corridor emphasis and distance width based on FF mapping we did. These are only possible in Free-form.

    T Design = Distance clarity edge to edge (primary zone gain), narrower intermediate, narrow to moderate reading... Auto II (most Shamir), Seiko Succeed/Supercede, et al.

    Free-form Hour-glass = A little gain in most zones, but not edge to edge clear in any one. Wide Distance (but not edge to edge), moderate int and wider reading. Its a balanced design, general purpose lens, with no single emphasis. and Comfort DRx and Physio DRx, Steath Pro SD/MD

    Plus Shape = Reading and Intermediate are very wide, but distance is not. Distortion is essentially moved to the four corners, which balances spacial distortions, and effectively widens the entire effective corridor, which is more cylindrical. (Definity, Hoya iD Lifestyle)

    Barrel Shape = Wide Intermediate, slightly narrower distance and reading. Basically instead of putting the narrow end of the progressive cone at the pupil, it turns it around and puts the wide end at top instead. Distortion is moved to both the top and bottom edges, but gives about 4X the distance width as most Plus lenses. Basically, its two corridors, stacked with their wide ends together. The Seiko Surmount is the only one in this catagory at this time.

    V Shape= Edge to edge distance, wider intermediate, but very narrow reading. Ziess GT2-3D is the only lens in this catagory.

    Fountain Shape = The newest design, its like a T shape but instead of the narrow part of the corridor at the top, the narrower point is lower in the middle between the intermediate are reading zones. The intermediate ends up being a little wider, with a little lower declination. Reading is a little lower. Distance is edge to edge, and because of the distortion being pushed down, and away from the central view, the feeling is terrific. It turns into two intermediate zones though, one high, and one lower. Two lenses in this category, The new Shamir InTouch and the new Seiko Supernal. Because they start the intermediate lower, its good for laptops, but the reading is little lower too. Fit on Center. I have to dig a little deeper in both lenses to get the fine print. Reading width is OK though]
    thanks for this, sharp stick!

    B

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Progressive Design
    By majucalicut in forum Progressive Lens Discussion Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-18-2010, 10:14 AM
  2. Progressive design by AGE?
    By Uilleann in forum Progressive Lens Discussion Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 02-02-2010, 10:02 PM
  3. Next generation Progressive design?
    By braheem24 in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-02-2009, 06:58 PM
  4. How to design progressive
    By nixg in forum Progressive Lens Discussion Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-08-2007, 09:19 AM

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
  •