Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 69 of 69

Thread: Auto III/Physio Enhanced

  1. #51
    OptiWizard
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    West Scranton, Pa
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    329
    Are you speaking of pantoscopic angle bringing the add power closer to the eye here?

  2. #52
    OptiWizard
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    West Scranton, Pa
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    329
    Sorry, bad at computers.

  3. #53
    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 Jason H View Post
    I had always wondered how the corridors on the Enhanced series could narrow vertically if they are using the same molded blanks as Comfort and Physio with longer minimum seg heights. Any takers?
    Because the backside is produced on a free-form generator, they can modify the progressive optics as needed, with the appropriate software of course. The Physio Short for example, in Trivex, starts out with a regular semifinished Physio blank. The manufacturing complexity is higher, but inventory cost is lower.

    This could then technically be called a free-form lens, although it's probably lacking any additional optimizations compared to what could have been an off-the-shelve semifinished PAL. But the Physio Enhanced is absolutely and without any doubt a free-form lens with optimizations.
    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.



  4. #54
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason H View Post
    Are you speaking of pantoscopic angle bringing the add power closer to the eye here?
    No, the umbilic of a "front side" progressive must always offer increasing plus powers, so from the distance reference point it must turn "in" closer to the wearer. The add of "front-side" add lenses will always sit behind, not in front of, the distance spherical power. If it stuck in front even for a tiny bit it would render some portion of the corridor unusable, it would be over minused.

  5. #55
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    .

    http://www.youngeroptics.com.br/arqu...ient_needs.pdf

    Back-side or front-side?
    • The position of the progressive surface (even if there are two progressive surfaces) is not that important.
    • The important thing is the progressive surface (or both) being free-form and computed with good software, not the position.
    • The performance of any front side PAL can be reproduced in a back side PAL. The opposite is also true.

    • Some miss-conceptions about back-side progressives:
    • “Field is wider because the surface is nearer to the eye.” Indeed the back surface is a little bit nearer, but also there is less room for progression on the back, so there is not net improvement.
    • “Magnification is more stable because front refractive power is constant.” That’s true, but the effect is so small. Magnification is mainly due to power. As power increases in a PAL, so does magnification.
    • “Back side PALs produces less distortion”. False. Distortion depends on the power variation. The faster the variation, the larger the distortion. This is a characteristic of the design, whether it is back of front.

    I will disagree with Younger here, the "backside add" (really backside transitional curves) is extremely valuable because there is enormously more power variation outside of the corrective curves when the transition curves are on the front, vs. the back.
    Its not unlike Edward Tillyers work in the 1920's to prove Cylinder correction should be on the back, not the front of a lens. Sadly most of what his work wasn't fully appreciated and implemented until the early 1970's.

    Since the front side add sits behind the spherical curve, they never intersect on any plane. To smoothly merge those curves ( a requirement of a progressive being "no-line") I will need two transitional curves to do so, one with high plus cyl and one in the reverse direction with high minus cyl. Its sort of an S shape from a cross section. When the transitional curves are on the back, the add is flattest portion of the lens and sphere power is always steeper. The result is the Add power always intersects the plane of the sphere. I only need one transitional curve.

    the net result is that although both create distortion, the total number of focal points will be spread over a wider area than a single unwanted cylinder curve would be. It will also require more "space" to resolve both curve smoothly. Less range in focal points, equals less swim or sway. Less space equals greater (wider) usable zones. It creates its own base curve issues, so it necessarily doesn't cut the distortion in half (100% backside free-form lenses don't use Vogels rule for base curves, esp in plus powers).

    We always focus on the corrective curves, but the non-corrective curves have a huge influence over the lens.

    Here is the way to see it more simply.

    Here is the curve line of Traditional front lens:
    Convex curve for Distance,
    Steeper Convex curve for first transition curve (beginning of soft focus area, very high plus cyl
    Steep Concave Curve to link the first Convex curve to the reading. (end soft focus area)
    Steep Convex curve for the reading zone (usable)
    Steep Concave Curve (unusable)
    Steep Convex Curve (unusable)
    Convex Curve (usable distance portion)

    Backside 100% Free-form lens
    Steep Concave Curve (for distance)
    Flatter Concave curve (to link distance to reading, soft focus area, minus cyl only)
    Flat Concave curve (usable reading area)
    Flatter Concave curve (soft focus area, minus cyl only)
    Steep concave curve (for usable distance zone)

    The backside Free-form lens is ALL Concave surfaces, there is patent that ensure this for most lenses.

    Mixing Convex and Concave surfaces on the front of a progressive (As in all traditional and hybrid lenses) creates far great variation in unwanted cyl and prism. In a backside add lens, all the surfaces are concave, of varing degrees. There is distortion, but the variance in unwanted focal points is far less. Less swim or sway. Voila.

    Me thinks that Younger knows this, its what makes their newer Camber lens so intriguing, it does not have any concave surfaces on the front, its all convex. Would Younger care to comment?

  6. #56
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    3,137
    The simplest way to visual is this, is that the 2 front transitional curves on "front side add" progressive will pull the path of light in 2 directions off center. Combined they created their own unwanted prism that is also divergent from the visual axis. In a backside add lens, that transitional curve only pulls the light path in 1 direction. Both create distortion, but they vary by the type, direction and degree.

    There will generally be more swim or sway in a front side add lens as that light is pulled off to a higher net variance between the plus and minus cyl. The math is interesting on this.

  7. #57
    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 Robert Martellaro View Post
    When did they change to an aspheric front? Zeiss owns the free-world patent (USPTO 6,089,713) on multifocal back side lenses with a spherical (rotationally symmetrical) front surface!
    A single-vision aspheric blank is rotationally symmetrical. A plus-cylinder lens (for example) would not be.

    There's no such thing as a "free-world patent." The '713 patent is a U.S. patent; there's a similar one in Australia, and a somewhat less-broad variant in Europe.

  8. #58
    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 shanbaum View Post
    A single-vision aspheric blank is rotationally symmetrical. A plus-cylinder lens (for example) would not be.
    Fixed. Thanks for the catch. I type faster than I think sometimes.

    There's no such thing as a "free-world patent." The '713 patent is a U.S. patent; there's a similar one in Australia, and a somewhat less-broad variant in Europe.
    I was (mostly) joking!
    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.



  9. #59
    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 Robert Martellaro View Post
    Thanks for the catch. I type faster than I think sometimes.

    I was (mostly) joking!

    You shouldn't joke about patents.




    OK, I was joking.

  10. #60
    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 Robert Martellaro View Post
    When did they change to an aspheric front? Zeiss owns the free-world patent (USPTO 6,089,713) on multifocal back side lenses with a spherical rotationally symmetrical front surface!
    Quote Originally Posted by shanbaum View Post
    A single-vision aspheric blank is rotationally symmetrical. A plus-cylinder lens (for example) would not be.
    As is a SV spherical blank. I thought I got the nomenclature wrong, but I didn't, so I unfixed the fix. What am I missing?
    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.



  11. #61
    Objection! OptiBoard Gold Supporter shanbaum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Manchester, CT USA
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    2,976
    I read your original comment thus: "Why would Zeiss switch to aspheric blanks when they have a patent on backside progressives using rotationally-symmetrical spherical ones," implying that backside progressives using aspheric blanks would be excluded from their patent because they're not rotationally symmetrical.

    Sorry if I read that incorrectly, but that still looks like a reasonable interpretation to me.

  12. #62
    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 shanbaum View Post
    I read your original comment thus: "Why would Zeiss switch to aspheric blanks when they have a patent on backside progressives using rotationally-symmetrical spherical ones," implying that backside progressives using aspheric blanks would be excluded from their patent because they're not rotationally symmetrical.

    Sorry if I read that incorrectly, but that still looks like a reasonable interpretation to me.
    For a patent attorney!

    I just meant that they have the patent, the experience and knowhow, and why would they deviate from that.
    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.



  13. #63
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    For a patent attorney!
    I just meant that they have the patent, the experience and knowhow, and why would they deviate from that.
    I had a piece of marketing material that implied they were using the original GT2 semi-finished front add blanks. If that is true, then moving more of those blanks would provide some incentive. When I finally got around to ordering the lens for myself the marketing had changed about 6 months later. So I can't verify that the lens was ever a hybrid (full cast add on the front, digital back) or if the marketing material was simply wrong. It was just implied.

    Sadly our source as Zeiss has passed away...

  14. #64
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    3,137
    The press releases from Germany regarding the GT2-3D launch never say its 100% backside Free-form. The press releases for the GT2-3D-V however, do make that clear. The GT2-3D-V touts in being 100% backside free-form. It may be a marketing error, but there is no mention of Free-form in the orginal GT2-3D release.


    http://www.meditec.zeiss.com/C1256A7...2573CC004E9B6D

  15. #65
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Maryland
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,103
    Dude. This thread has become fantastic.

  16. #66
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Saskatoon, Canada
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    35
    I have another question about Choice Plus. Is it based on anything? Like the GT2-3D is, presumably, a GT2 design converted to be used on freeform generators with single vision lens blanks, but otherwise pretty similar to a GT2 (except less swim because the power is ground into the back of the lens?). Otherwise, why call it a GT2-3D? If it is mostly new design based on the GT, it should be a GT3. :P. So now transfer that line of reasoning over to the Choice line of lenses. Is Choice Plus just an Individual2 without customization features, with the option for set corridors? Or is it just a new version of a previous Zeiss design? Or is it something completely different than either of those options?

    If that ramble makes it sound like I'm confused, it's because I am. The marketing material is most unhelpful in distinguishing WTF these lenses are, and on which patients they should be used. They basically just "good better best" them, but I can't believe that's how it really is. When should I use an Individual over a Choice Plus? Or vise versa?

    And, speaking of Individuals, are digital (or freeform, if there is a difference in this case?) single vision lenses any better than conventional? I got a pair of Essilor 360 lenses, and beyond really liking the newest formulation of the Crizal Forte UV coating (they really fixed a lot of my crazing and glare issues last time they revamped it), I notice no difference. I'm a -8.00 -1.00 in my bad eye. I'd think if any myop should be noticing a difference, I should be. Should I try a Zeiss Individual single vision lens next time I get the chance, or will it make no real difference over a stock lens?

    Thanks. Hopefully those questions made sense.
    Last edited by stedel; 10-11-2014 at 09:31 PM.

  17. #67
    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 stedel View Post
    I have another question about Choice Plus. Is it based on anything? Like the GT2-3D is, presumably, a GT2 design converted to be used on freeform generators with single vision lens blanks, but otherwise pretty similar to a GT2 (except less swim because the power is ground into the back of the lens?). Otherwise, why call it a GT2-3D? If it is mostly new design based on the GT, it should be a GT3. :P. So now transfer that line of reasoning over to the Choice line of lenses. Is Choice Plus just an Individual2 without customization features, with the option for set corridors? Or is it just a new version of a previous Zeiss design? Or is it something completely different than either of those options?

    If that ramble makes it sound like I'm confused, it's because I am. The marketing material is most unhelpful in distinguishing WTF these lenses are, and on which patients they should be used. They basically just "good better best" them, but I can't believe that's how it really is. When should I use an Individual over a Choice Plus? Or vise versa?

    And, speaking of Individuals, are digital (or freeform, if there is a difference in this case?) single vision lenses any better than conventional? I got a pair of Essilor 360 lenses, and beyond really liking the newest formulation of the Crizal Forte UV coating (they really fixed a lot of my crazing and glare issues last time they revamped it), I notice no difference. I'm a -8.00 -1.00 in my bad eye. I'd think if any myop should be noticing a difference, I should be. Should I try a Zeiss Individual single vision lens next time I get the chance, or will it make no real difference over a stock lens?

    Thanks. Hopefully those questions made sense.
    http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...l=1#post456317

    Should I try a Zeiss Individual single vision lens next time I get the chance, or will it make no real difference over a stock lens?
    The answer is complicated. Individual sensitivities vary significantly for one thing.

    At this power, a premium stock SV finished lens can perform very well and may be hard to beat. Semifinished aspheric lenses, especially in the higher refractive indexes, may suffer from a lack of base curves compared to spherical blanks. We won't use a spherical blank with a power of -8.50 because the best form BC of 1.74 is a rather steep +4.25, increasing thickness, weight, and sag depth, potentially introducing noticeable aberrations off-axis, primarily oblique astigmatism. If the software compensates for tilt, there can be improvement in vision on-axis as well as off-axis, especially when the tilt values are greater than about five degrees.

    For example, with your Rx (axis 180) the client chooses a frame that results in a pantoscopic tilt of 12 degrees, and can not be reduced to a lower value due to the endpiece design. Wrap is a typical five degrees. The compensated Rx is about -7.75 -.62 x 16. Without the compensation, the client will be over-minused, with incorrect cylinder and axis values. An emerging presbyope will be most unhappy!

    With the cost of optimized free-form lenses decreasing, approaching the cost of semifinished, it makes sense to take advantage of this technology. However, make sure that your clients have been provided with realistic expectations when the expected improvement in optics is small.
    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.



  18. #68
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post

    http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...l=1#post456317

    The answer is complicated. Individual sensitivities vary significantly for one thing.

    At this power, a premium stock SV finished lens can perform very well and may be hard to beat. Semifinished aspheric lenses, especially in the higher refractive indexes, may suffer from a lack of base curves compared to spherical blanks. We won't use a spherical blank with a power of -8.50 because the best form BC of 1.74 is a rather steep +4.25, increasing thickness, weight, and sag depth, potentially introducing noticeable aberrations off-axis, primarily oblique astigmatism. If the software compensates for tilt, there can be improvement in vision on-axis as well as off-axis, especially when the tilt values are greater than about five degrees.

    For example, with your Rx (axis 180) the client chooses a frame that results in a pantoscopic tilt of 12 degrees, and can not be reduced to a lower value due to the endpiece design. Wrap is a typical five degrees. The compensated Rx is about -7.75 -.62 x 16. Without the compensation, the client will be over-minused, with incorrect cylinder and axis values. An emerging presbyope will be most unhappy!

    With the cost of optimized free-form lenses decreasing, approaching the cost of semifinished, it makes sense to take advantage of this technology. However, make sure that your clients have been provided with realistic expectations when the expected improvement in optics is small.
    Robert, as ususal has a great answer. Small addition: If a SV Lens has prism you are likely to benefit much from Free-form powers. Some stock Aspheric lenses esp Zeiss and Seiko can be really good for Mid powers, and lower cyls.

    My best guidelines are that over +2.50 to -4.00 sphere, anything with prism, and any cyl over -1.00 will see the best improvements in SV Free-form. Anything over a +1.50 Cyl should be higher end free-form with POW Compensations (if you can get them).

  19. #69
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    1,012
    So far so good with the Auto III, we have successfully re-fit several Physio Enhanced pat's.
    Clinton Tower

    The intellect to live free is in short supply
    ALT248=°

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. What happened to the Physio Enhanced??
    By jmchapman in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-15-2016, 03:08 PM
  2. Physio or Comfort Enhanced vs DRX version
    By hlstavn in forum Progressive Lens Discussion Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-12-2014, 05:22 PM
  3. How do you present the Physio Enhanced Eyecode progressive to your patients?
    By Jalane in forum Progressive Lens Discussion Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-26-2012, 10:08 AM
  4. Varilux Physio Enhanced Lenses
    By Judy Canty in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 06-19-2010, 09:18 AM
  5. Physio Enhanced = AR Automatic?
    By DC Optix in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-24-2010, 03:27 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
  •