Computer PAL vs. Regular PAL

[DC Optix]

Shamir Auto II Office all day long - have sold hundreds and have not had a single issue. GREAT LENS!

[Robert Martellaro]

Computer eyewear also makes the best readers. For computer and near work only the Seiko PC Wide has the widest computer zone, its edge to edge and it has the same Barrel design as the Surmount (widest portion at the pupil)_ Most computer lenses still have the narrowest zone at the pupil. PC Wide also has great material options, including Transitions.

http://seikoeyewear.com/PDF/PCW_Brochure.pdf

That's the best astigmatism contour plot I've seen for a comp PAL, although it's not clear if the dark horizontal line is the fitting point/y=0. Regardless, a diopter or more of surface astigmatism is sitting right there, along or slightly above the primary vision, unnecessarily compromising the vision when looking center screen. It's unreasonable to find this acceptable in a lens designed strictly for desktop computer use. Note that they've proclaimed that the fitting point is designed for 50cm, uncommonly close for the typical desktop monitor, resulting in remakes, distance Rx and degression tweaks.

So much confusion for something so simple.

This may be the best attempt to make a discounted PAL (most are 40% less than their general purpose PALs) that can't be utilized for anything other than as a task lens, but still performs poorly for its intended use. Accountants, radiologists, any occupation that requires the subject to spend many hours a day looking at desktop monitor needs and deserves better. They aren't looking for a cheap solution that is only at its best, adequate, they're looking for the very best possible.

Here's my request to the ophthalmic lens industry; design a PAL that's optimized desktop monitors, that is, minimal aberrations 15mm either side of the fitting point, with a power profile in the corridor that starts somewhat slow but ramps up quickly to 100% at 14mm, and price it to eliminate an end-run around your standard PAL pricing structure. Until then, I'll continue to use regular PALs with generous distance zones, trial frame the work distances, and power those distances as required for the best acuity and comfort.

[Hayde]

http://seikoeyewear.com/PDF/PCW_Brochure.pdf

That's the best astigmatism contour plot I've seen for a comp PAL, although it's not clear if the dark horizontal line is the fitting point/y=0. Regardless, a diopter or more of surface astigmatism is sitting right there, along or slightly above the primary vision, unnecessarily compromising the vision when looking center screen. It's unreasonable to find this acceptable in a lens designed strictly for desktop computer use. Note that they've proclaimed that the fitting point is designed for 50cm, uncommonly close for the typical desktop monitor, resulting in remakes, distance Rx and degression tweaks.

So much confusion for something so simple.

This may be the best attempt to make a discounted PAL (most are 40% less than their general purpose PALs) that can't be utilized for anything other than as a task lens, but still performs poorly for its intended use. Accountants, radiologists, any occupation that requires the subject to spend many hours a day looking at desktop monitor needs and deserves better. They aren't looking for a cheap solution that is only at its best, adequate, they're looking for the very best possible.

Here's my request to the ophthalmic lens industry; design a PAL that's optimized desktop monitors, that is, minimal aberrations 15mm either side of the fitting point, with a power profile in the corridor that starts somewhat slow but ramps up quickly to 100% at 14mm, and price it to eliminate an end-run around your standard PAL pricing structure. Until then, I'll continue to use regular PALs with generous distance zones, trial frame the work distances, and power those distances as required for the best acuity and comfort.

Robert, I find 50mm pretty typical for the patients I measure at the desk. Even my longer-armed gents top out at around 56mm for the most part. What's more common in your experience?

(I'm with you on modifying standard PALs. Most of my patients end up wanting to see across the room even if they don't realize it, I make them work hard at convincing me otherwise.)

[Robert Martellaro]

60cm to 70cm for large desktop monitors, measured by the client before fitting. The top third of the screen is typically aligned with the straight-ahead gaze, but the monitor I'm using at the moment is dead center. 50cm is more typical of sheet music on a piano, but I'll see some folks who sit that close. Some of those can get by with SVNO, but I usually encourage them to sit back a bit and leave room for at least a .75 add.

[Paul Smith LDO]

+1, Robert, I agree with your assessment regarding Seiko's design explanation and what seems to be an odd computer working distance at about 19 inches. The success to any occupational lens rests with trial framing and working outside of the manufactures restrictions, along with the learning curve that comes with each lens design. This is why we get the big bucks.

[Paul Smith LDO]

Robert, I find 50mm pretty typical for the patients I measure at the desk. Even my longer-armed gents top out at around 56mm for the most part. What's more common in your experience?

(I'm with you on modifying standard PALs. Most of my patients end up wanting to see across the room even if they don't realize it, I make them work hard at convincing me otherwise.)

I assume that you meant cm, are you finding that most if your patients are working in front of one monitor or two, side by side. I am noticing that more of my patients are working with two side by side and require a working distance between 30-36 inches, along with using their personal lap tops. I wonder if we will all be seeing more of these patients and if these lens companies will start making adjustments for it in their designs. I've tried the Shamir Computer which is suppose to work well, within a 5 foot area but have not had as much success as I had hoped for. Still dealing with the learning curve along with the expectations of my patients 58 to 65 years of age. These are truly exciting times.

[Hayde]

I assume that you meant cm, are you finding that most if your patients are working in front of one monitor or two, side by side. I am noticing that more of my patients are working with two side by side and require a working distance between 30-36 inches, along with using their personal lap tops. I wonder if we will all be seeing more of these patients and if these lens companies will start making adjustments for it in their designs. I've tried the Shamir Computer which is suppose to work well, within a 5 foot area but have not had as much success as I had hoped for. Still dealing with the learning curve along with the expectations of my patients 58 to 65 years of age. These are truly exciting times.

That's a good assumption! Sorry, yes I meant cm.

Thanks for sharing notes. My clientele is largely geriatric, so the multi-monitor wall scene hasn't caught up to them yet. Most of them address their desk-pair needs with line BFs.

I'm sure you guys will have it all ironed out for me by the time the Xers make it to our clinic.