Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Terminology trouble.

  1. #1
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    9,388

    Terminology trouble.

    I'm a little brain-locked on this.

    If we are talking about free-form single vision, or digital single vision, or individualized single vision or whatever we call it, what would be the most technically correct way to communicate what we want?

    If, for example, we ask for digital surfacing for a sphere, we may get a spherical curve. If we ask for free-form surfacing of a sphere, we may get an aspheric design.

    If we ask for digital surfacing for a sphero-cylinder, we may get a sphere front surface. If we ask for free-form surfacing of a sphero-cyl, we may be communicating the request for an atoric.

    So, I ask, should we specify:

    1. spherical design vs. aspheric or atoric design
    2. digitally vs. traditionally surfaced?

    For example: -1.00-1.50x 090
    "Please provide a digitally-surfaced atoric SV design"
    "Please provide a traditionally-surfaced spherical design"

    ???

  2. #2
    Master OptiBoarder rbaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Gold Hill, OR
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    4,401
    I don't think that you can provide too much information. For example: -1.00-1.50x 090 digitally-surfaced atoric SV design in CR39 on a 72MM blank with a 2.2MM FCT

  3. #3
    OptiBoardaholic other_bill_fea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Morton, PA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    247
    There's a lot of confusion about it, and the best answer is to ask your lab to see how they use these words, as some people use them interchangeably.

    Just because something is digitally surfaced, doesn't mean that it's a free-form lens. All free-form lenses are digitally surfaced, but not all digitally surfaced lenses are free-form. Free-form describes the method by which the surface that is being cut was calculated - as compared to a traditional calculation using a base/cross curve. "Digitally Surfaced" describes the method by which the lens is physically cut, either using traditional cutting tools, or a diamond for digital. You can have the same -1.00 sphere cut digitally or traditionally, but it's still more or less the same lens. The digital process just makes it possible to more accurately cut the lens, but if it's just a regular -1.00 sphere, it's not going to give you compensation or anything like that - the digital generator is still going to be cutting the same thing the non-digital generator cut, just to a higher degree of accuracy.


    If you want frame/wearer compensation, that's where you need a free-form calculation to be able to instruct the generator to cut that design. It's the increased accuracy of the digital generator that makes it possible to create a free-form lens.
    FEA Industries
    Independent Wholesale Optical Lab
    www.feaind.com
    www.optmagazine.com
    Morton, PA

  4. #4
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    9,388
    I guess that's why the "shorthand" of lens branding can be helpful. Each lab has their own schmaltzy name for their FFSV product.

    My current issue arises because I use a couple labs (and they will always be changing), and I'm trying to keep my office software as "general" as possible. I was trying to avoid inputting "SuperPeeker Lens" and instead "digital atoric" etc.

  5. #5
    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 drk View Post
    I'm a little brain-locked on this.

    If we are talking about free-form single vision, or digital single vision, or individualized single vision or whatever we call it, what would be the most technically correct way to communicate what we want?
    I would narrow it down to traditional surfacing and free-form surfacing. The lens surface design might be more complex with free-form surfacing, and might be much more optimized, possibly with many different types of error correction.

    I never understood why 'digital lens surfacing' took off, except that it sounds cool, like HD, but has very little practical meaning when you consider that our equipment as been computerized, using digital to analog conversion, for the last 50+ years.
    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.



  6. #6
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,951
    Just stick to using big "E" products, I find they are the least confusing.

  7. #7
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Gold Supporter Judy Canty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    7,482
    Quote Originally Posted by obxeyeguy View Post
    Just stick to using big "E" products, I find they are the least confusing.

  8. #8
    Master OptiBoarder MakeOptics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    none
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    1,327
    I do a traditional, premium and optimized. By keeping the terminology in office generic you can sub products into your various spots without cheating patients. For instance with ARC if someone wants Crizal and they ask for it by name then they get a premium coat and I put Crizal in the notes. If they don't ask by name I use what I want.

    For your specific example of FFSV.

    Optimized = Zeiss, IOT, HOYA
    Premium = stock aspheric, stock atoric, all essilor digital
    Traditional = stock spherical lenses.

    I know a large group of folks would argue that the E digital should be in the optimized category, however I have found the company takes many shortcuts on their products which leads to sub par products. For example ARC crazing, inconsistent ARC color between batches, poly that consistently cracks, lenses that are molded too thin, hard coats not index matched, etc. Many of their lenses don't pass drop tests either so I avoid whenever possible.

  9. #9
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,175
    Quote Originally Posted by drk View Post
    I guess that's why the "shorthand" of lens branding can be helpful. Each lab has their own schmaltzy name for their FFSV product.

    My current issue arises because I use a couple labs (and they will always be changing), and I'm trying to keep my office software as "general" as possible. I was trying to avoid inputting "SuperPeeker Lens" and instead "digital atoric" etc.
    Why change labs and use so many? I use one for 10 years and just had an issue that needed to be fixed. It was fixed and the lab is your largest and most important vendor; Why use more than 2 and change them constantly?

    I work with them to design products and systems that make us all better. We are partners and they are also my friends after 10 years. I also only use mainly 12 frames brands and most have been with me a long time. We change out 2-3 a year as we analysis what sells, but we never change labs.

    You may want to work out issues with labs; it is cheaper and easier than a divorce. We always know who did the work and we also don't even have a warranty for anything but defective product. No RX changes or scratch warranty, we pay for our mistakes and they pay for theirs.
    Works for us.

  10. #10
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    9,388
    Craig, I was like you, back in the day.

    We've devolved. We now see clients of vision care companies. We merely refract them and send the measurements to the mother ships.

    We are drones. I'm glad they need us until they replace us.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. You know you will have trouble
    By Mizikal in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-23-2011, 09:02 AM
  2. UK / US Terminology
    By norrimac in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-31-2010, 10:15 AM
  3. Terminology
    By SABOWN in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-19-2005, 10:54 AM
  4. Am i looking for trouble?
    By LENNY in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-30-2002, 09:25 AM
  5. Progressive Lens Terminology
    By Pete Hanlin in forum Ophthalmic Optics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 09-23-2001, 01:26 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
  •