Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Science behind progressives?

  1. #1
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    singapore
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    13

    Science behind progressives?

    Is there a simple way of explaining the science of various progressives to your patients? For example, the latest Varilux S series utilises nano technology to minimise swim effect. How should we go about explaining it to the patient?

  2. #2
    Master OptiBoarder rinselberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA 94086
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    2,301
    http://sseries.variluxusa.com/Techni...Nano-FINnb.pdf

    It's called "Nanoptix" technology.

    Not sure how anyone could come up with a simpler explanation of it.

  3. #3
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In Flux
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,615
    And that begs this question from the consumer: "What is Nanoptix Technology"

    and the simple answer to that is :

    " Individual File Point Technology lenses optimized for binocular fusion sight rather than monocular vision"

    or same as above but leave off "Individual File Point Technology"

    then demonstrate the principle using a pair of binoculars sitting on your desk, when the PD of the binoculars does not match the patient viewing through the binoculars , the image is best achieved monocularly, but when the adjustment is compensated for the individual's two different eyes Rx and
    PD then binocular fusion occurs and both eyes work together to enhance vision, then back up this demonstration using an old aspheric + 4.00 demonstrator ( an aspheric +4.00 mounted beside a non-aspheric + 4.00 overtop of grids )

    A demonstration is always preferable to the sprinkling of big words throughout a press release.

    Multiple Focal Point, twin front and back surface lenses synchronized to your binocular vision rather than your monocular vision.
    Last edited by idispense; 07-20-2013 at 06:54 AM.

  4. #4
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In Flux
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,615
    Binocular Fusion Vision lenses digitally made to match and synchronize your left and right eyes rather than optimize only one eye

  5. #5
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    939
    'Nanoptix' - What is the difference between this process and freeform?

    'Synchroneyes' - I thought all modern lenses take into account binocular vision?

    'Leading eye' - If you can 'optimise' one eye, why not both?

  6. #6
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    singapore
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    13
    Yes isn't zeiss progressives also based on the excellent binocularity it gives to the patient? Is that the same as the synchroneyes too?

  7. #7
    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 12345 View Post
    Is there a simple way of explaining the science of various progressives to your patients? For example, the latest Varilux S series utilises nano technology to minimise swim effect. How should we go about explaining it to the patient?
    My approach is to blind test the lenses, and then rate the optics in these categories:


    1. Distance acuity (including mesopic lighting conditions)
    2. Near acuity
    3. Distance peripheral blur
    4. Corridor length/power profile
    5. Initial and long term comfort


    I ignore intermediate and near zone widths- I consider the differences generally inconsequential for most Rxs.

    Most folks understand these concepts, i.e. power profile explains posturing when reading the middle of the newspaper page, etc. Use lay terms unless you're working with engineer types.

    Opinion- I didn't notice less swim with the "S" compared to a semi-finished Physio (same frame/Rx +2.25 add), and I'm pretty sensitive to Rx and design changes. Maybe an emerging presbyope would pick it up?
    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.



  8. #8
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    MI
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by 12345 View Post
    Yes isn't zeiss progressives also based on the excellent binocularity it gives to the patient? Is that the same as the synchroneyes too?
    My understanding is Zeiss patented what they called (marketed as) "Horizontal symmetry" back in the 1980's. The patent has since expired, so now everyone can use the same idea and market it as a different "technology." Combine this concept with free-form and you have a product that works as a progressive should.

    The big E marketing machine is hard at work making their state of the art product seem like something no one has done before, when really they have merely just caught up to the pioneers, from what I understand.

  9. #9
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    236
    I ignore intermediate and near zone widths- I consider the differences generally inconsequential for most Rxs.

    I seem to have the majority of complaints involving the reading area? I generally feel most people don't give themselves enough adjustment time though. I would definitely say that it's not an overwhelming WOW with alot of the new technology. Really depends on how they are presented during the sale, and at dispensing. I spend a great deal of time explaining limitations and making sure they know it takes time to adjust. Unfortunately, I don't do much of the selling so I don't have much control on how they are presented. I do try to educate the sales staff with all the new product though.

  10. #10
    Rochester Optical WFruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    1,273
    Quote Originally Posted by 12345 View Post
    Is there a simple way of explaining the science of various progressives to your patients? For example, the latest Varilux S series utilises nano technology to minimise swim effect. How should we go about explaining it to the patient?
    Explanation: Essilor's marketing department found some cool science words that hadn't been used yet to describe progressives.

    Simple patient explanation: These are the latest lenses from Essilor. The improvements they say they've made in the lens design should lower the amount of blurry vision you have when you turn your head.

    Most patient questions beyond that will have answers that progressively get "un-simple" very quickly.



    (I really do apologize for that pun)
    There are rules. Knowing those are easy. There are exceptions to the rules. Knowing those are easy. Knowing when to use them is slightly less easy. There are exceptions to the exceptions. Knowing those is a little more tricky, and know when to use those is even more so. Our industry is FULL of all of the above.

  11. #11
    Eyes eastward... Uilleann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,237
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy View Post
    My understanding is Zeiss patented what they called (marketed as) "Horizontal symmetry" back in the 1980's. The patent has since expired, so now everyone can use the same idea and market it as a different "technology." Combine this concept with free-form and you have a product that works as a progressive should.

    The big E marketing machine is hard at work making their state of the art product seem like something no one has done before, when really they have merely just caught up to the pioneers, from what I understand.
    This is like saying the Mercury 7 were the only "real" innovators in aerospace, and the entirety of the shuttle program is just a weak copy of the original program, with fancy marketing involved and no technological advancements or refinements. Really a pretty ridiculous thing to say when you spell it out that way for what it is. You don't have to like or use any Essilor products. But you DO have to give them proper credit for not only creating more products for more people that work better than what they have worn previously - but also for working to get the public talking about their eye care options.

    To date, there has never been any other company able or willing to do as much worldwide - and that is worth crediting.

  12. #12
    Save $$$$ with Acculab
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Illinois, United States
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    70
    stop supporting the company that is trying to run you to the ground. if Independents doctors are still supporting essilor after this new eyemed change I may have to give up on the human race. lol

  13. #13
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    7
    There is no nanotechnology in those lenses, they are not using any metasurfaces or metamaterials that are being developed for what is typically referred to as Nanotechnology.

    They are just giving you the runaround by being the first lens manufacturer to put "Nano" in a trademark.

  14. #14
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    MI
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by Uilleann View Post
    This is like saying the Mercury 7 were the only "real" innovators in aerospace, and the entirety of the shuttle program is just a weak copy of the original program, with fancy marketing involved and no technological advancements or refinements. Really a pretty ridiculous thing to say when you spell it out that way for what it is. You don't have to like or use any Essilor products. But you DO have to give them proper credit for not only creating more products for more people that work better than what they have worn previously - but also for working to get the public talking about their eye care options.

    To date, there has never been any other company able or willing to do as much worldwide - and that is worth crediting.
    Not the same as calling mercury 7 the only innovators. You misunderstand. I am describing something more similar to the difference between acetaminophen and Tylenol. Tylenol might be using acetaminophen, but it is not using JUST acetaminophen. I described, though perhaps to briefly, the fact that the horizontal symmetry and free-form generators finally allow progressives to function as they should. Each manufacturer is still going to have their design differences, benefits, disadvantages, etc. I was attacking Essilor's marketing team, not the researchers or engineers. Essilor's latest lenses are quality lenses that perform as anyone would expect them to, and they utilize some great design principals. However, the marketing machine, through it's nanotech description, is describing merely horizontal symmetry in conjunction with ray tracing. Ray tracing in some form is always going to be used when designing a (good) lens, and horizontal symmetry should be utilized to maintain stable vision throughout the corridor. In other words..."nanotech" means they did what we expect them to do. Design a lens that works.

  15. #15
    Objection! OptiBoard Gold Supporter shanbaum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Manchester, CT USA
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy View Post
    ... I am describing something more similar to the difference between acetaminophen and Tylenol. Tylenol might be using acetaminophen, but it is not using JUST acetaminophen. ...
    Maybe not a great analogy: http://www.tylenol.com/head-body/reg...rength-tylenol

  16. #16
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    3,137
    I like your thinking, but I could never ignore zonal widths in intermediate and reading, its a key measure of usefulness IMHO, especially as Progressive continue to grow more specialized for different tasks and usages. Comfort is a factor of muscular adaptation, although long term comfort (1 month after initial full time wear) is crucial initial comfort will depend largely on RX change, and how close their new design is to their old design, and even their mood at dispense.
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    My approach is to blind test the lenses, and then rate the optics in these categories:


    1. Distance acuity (including mesopic lighting conditions)
    2. Near acuity
    3. Distance peripheral blur
    4. Corridor length/power profile
    5. Initial and long term comfort


    I ignore intermediate and near zone widths- I consider the differences generally inconsequential for most Rxs.
    Last edited by sharpstick777; 08-13-2013 at 12:38 PM.

  17. #17
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    3,137
    Horizontal binocular symmetry is more advance. Crazy as it sounds but in the 1970's there was very little difference between R and L Progressives, they were just turned for convergence resulting in terrible nasal side distortion. The Gradal HS lens was the first that really was customizing designs for each eye to improve distance symmetry. Today, we can calculate for pupil movement, frame size and shape and expected power at each point binocularly through fields of view. Not all Free-form lenses offer all or any of these, but they can be a factor in reducing dynamic anesekonia for some patients. Peter Shaw's lens is in my opinion the leading product in the category
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy View Post
    My understanding is Zeiss patented what they called (marketed as) "Horizontal symmetry" back in the 1980's. The patent has since expired, so now everyone can use the same idea and market it as a different "technology." Combine this concept with free-form and you have a product that works as a progressive should.

    The big E marketing machine is hard at work making their state of the art product seem like something no one has done before, when really they have merely just caught up to the pioneers, from what I understand.

  18. #18
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    3,137
    The second leading cause of non-adapts in my opinion, is not having the expected widths in the patients most used zones. Its not uncommon as more progressives today are distance emphasized, where when the Comfort era it was reading emphasized because they were still competing against the ST-28., The Comfort has wider reading than all but a few Free-form lenses
    Quote Originally Posted by golfnut View Post
    I
    I seem to have the majority of complaints involving the reading area? I generally feel most people don't give themselves enough adjustment time though. I would definitely say that it's not an overwhelming WOW with alot of the new technology. Really depends on how they are presented during the sale, and at dispensing. I spend a great deal of time explaining limitations and making sure they know it takes time to adjust. Unfortunately, I don't do much of the selling so I don't have much control on how they are presented. I do try to educate the sales staff with all the new product though.

  19. #19
    Master OptiBoarder Darryl Meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Kansas City, Kansas, United States
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    3,700
    Quote Originally Posted by uilleann
    You don't have to like or use any Essilor products. But you DO have to give them proper credit for not only creating more products for more people that work better than what they have worn previously - but also for working to get the public talking about their eye care options.
    You seem to be equating marketshare with product performance...? But that would also mean Microsoft makes the greatest products on Earth. And that federal anti-trust laws are only intended to keep consumers from getting better products and services.

    Not that I am picking on Essilor, because I agree that they have done a good job raising consumer awareness, although I suspect that any lens manufacturer with their size and financial resources probably would have done the same.

    Best regards,
    Darryl
    Darryl J. Meister, ABOM

  20. #20
    Master OptiBoarder MakeOptics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    none
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    1,327
    Essilor market share in PALs will never be as good as the 100% they had in the early 60's. They actually lost dominance in the early to mid 90's, as well, then again were beat out by the compact for a shorty lens design. It has been years since Essilor has really released something new and innovative on the market, with the exception of Ipseo which incorporates patient specific biometric design data. I don't use Essilor products much anymore not because I don't like them, but because I can find better more advanced products for less out there. Although I would be a fool not to keep an eye on them since they are a major player and they do purchase a lot of IP that has given me insight into what the future of their lens designs hold.

    I also mimic their marketing with all of the products I offer, until someone call sell it better I'm gonna use their spiel.

  21. #21
    OptiWizard
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    West Scranton, Pa
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    329
    Essilor has so much product out that the differences between are getting a little murky. Doesn't each product need a market? With their business ethics aside it's hard to argue their product isn't good. The S series is another matter. In my experience these have as many fans as detractors and 50% is a pretty lousy ratio for your flagship product. Even "they're ok" isn't a success when you advertise that they will do so much more. Add to that the price point in an ever more competitive market (that in many ways you are competing with E) and many people are coming to the conclusion that there is as good or better choices out there. Not my opinion - just an observation.

  22. #22
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by MakeOptics View Post
    It has been years since Essilor has really released something new and innovative on the market, .... which incorporates patient specific biometric design data. I don't use Essilor products much anymore not because I don't like them, but because I can find better more advanced products for less out there. .
    Nail on head.

  23. #23
    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 sharpstick777 View Post
    The second leading cause of non-adapts in my opinion, is not having the expected widths in the patients most used zones.
    They're all too narrow!

    Its not uncommon as more progressives today are distance emphasized, where when the Comfort era it was reading emphasized because they were still competing against the ST-28., The Comfort has wider reading than all but a few Free-form lenses
    The Sheedy study put the Comfort in the middle of the pack for zone width at distance and near. The New Comfort has a slightly shorter corridor and slightly wider near.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason H View Post
    The S series is another matter. In my experience these have as many fans as detractors and 50% is a pretty lousy ratio for your flagship product. Even "they're ok" isn't a success when you advertise that they will do so much more. Add to that the price point in an ever more competitive market (that in many ways you are competing with E) and many people are coming to the conclusion that there is as good or better choices out there. Not my opinion - just an observation.
    But a good observation, I think. I tried the S, and felt that the semi-finished Physio was more comfortable, and equal in performance visually, for my brain and -4.00 add 2.25 Rx.
    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. Science Friday does eyeglasses
    By Uilleann in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-26-2010, 12:58 PM
  2. science fiction.
    By Mizikal in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 09-07-2010, 07:36 AM
  3. Ask not what science can do for you ...
    By rinselberg in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-04-2006, 10:04 PM
  4. Ocular Science - U.S. Equivalent ?
    By ioconnell in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-19-2004, 08:10 PM
  5. ocular science
    By JJ in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-28-2002, 09:52 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
  •