I just saw Luzerne's TheraBlue lens.

[Chris Ryser]

I will say "head in the sand". I have been around a while also, but I look at product and the documentation and then judge it. ALMOST isn't quite clear and I don't think Judy ever said completely clear. I won't argue, but don't judge based upon "OLD" knowledge.

I can understand your wanting to "sell" your dyes.

Diane

I just went on Google and asked for”blue light blocking lenses” and get and got the following answer “300,000 results in 30 seconds”. Would that not make the whole subject old KNOWLEDGE with a large amount of products advertised. Blue light protection is nothing new, it has been around for a long time, as exactly 31 years.

It really started in the mid 1980’s when the dental industry introduced their blue light curing units for dental fillings, and every dentist needed at least a pair to protect their eyes.
Blue Blocking lenses were made then, and still today to absorb 100% UV and blue light from 280 nm to the visible range of 535 nm.

If you bring the color down to the same range as the sample in the picture Judy made, you will get absorption in the low 400 nm range only.

So the latest novelty is still old hat and has been around for a long time and has nothing to do with selling dyes as you suggest.

[ml43]

I just went on Google and asked for”blue light blocking lenses” and get and got the following answer “300,000 results in 30 seconds”. Would that not make the whole subject old KNOWLEDGE with a large amount of products advertised. Blue light protection is nothing new, it has been around for a long time, as exactly 31 years.

It really started in the mid 1980’s when the dental industry introduced their blue light curing units for dental fillings, and every dentist needed at least a pair to protect their eyes.
Blue Blocking lenses were made then, and still today to absorb 100% UV and blue light from 280 nm to the visible range of 535 nm.

If you bring the color down to the same range as the sample in the picture Judy made, you will get absorption in the low 400 nm range only.

So the latest novelty is still old hat and has been around for a long time and has nothing to do with selling dyes as you suggest.

Chris, I don't believe you can absolutely say that the visible spectroscipy(380nm-700nm) of two different compounds must be the same in perceived appearance.

maybe if the whole optical spectrum is identical(200nm-1400nm), then maybe, as they would likely be the same compound(or as least be an enantiomer).

[MikeAurelius]

Chris, I don't believe you can absolutely say that the visible spectroscipy(380nm-700nm) of two different compounds must be the same in perceived appearance.

maybe if the whole optical spectrum is identical(200nm-1400nm), then maybe, as they would likely be the same compound(or as least be an enantiomer).

Actually, he can. Visible light response is base on the visible light spectrum ONLY. Remove one part of the visible spectrum from a lens, and you get a color or a color shift. It isn't about the compound, it is about the transmission of light THROUGH those compounds.

This is one of those times when I absolutely agree with Chris.

[Diane]

OK, I saw a good product and saw what it does. Draw your own conclusions. Lee did a good job of discussing them all. I have simply added what I saw. Each of the blue light lenses / coatings that Lee discussed brings something to the table and I think we would be better off to embrace them all rather than argue.

Cheerio.

Diane

[Chris Ryser]

Actually, he can. Visible light response is base on the visible light spectrum ONLY. Remove one part of the visible spectrum from a lens, and you get a color or a color shift. It isn't about the compound, it is about the transmission of light THROUGH those compounds.

This is one of those times when I absolutely agree with Chris.

Thank you Mike for a fair and sound response.

I saw it all coming a few years back when Prof.Dr Peter Wilkinson (UK) asked me for copies of some reports on on the research the School of Optometry in Waterloo Ont. had published. Wilkinson had been hired by the one mega optical corporation to look into Blue light blocking. Furthermore that report was done in the late 1980's supplied with all the details from me..

[Chris Ryser]

OK, I saw a good product and saw what it does. Draw your own conclusions. Lee did a good job of discussing them all. I have simply added what I saw. Each of the blue light lenses / coatings that Lee discussed brings something to the table and I think we would be better off to embrace them all rather than argue.

Cheerio.

Diane

I am not arguing this one, just would like to add that we have now established that this newest technology is nothing new and has been around for over 30 years, and the technology from then still applies today.

[ml43]

Actually, he can. Visible light response is base on the visible light spectrum ONLY. Remove one part of the visible spectrum from a lens, and you get a color or a color shift. It isn't about the compound, it is about the transmission of light THROUGH those compounds.

This is one of those times when I absolutely agree with Chris.

that would be true if were talking about exactly the same materials.

like I said before, two transmission spectrums of only the visible(380-700nm) is not enough to determine the perceived color of a mostly transmissive medium.

if we are talking about the entire optical spectrum, then maybe.

but based on just the transmission spectrum/spectrograph is not enough, unless you are assuming the base material/dye/coating is the same.

I'll post more later tonight on this subject. This is actually very advanced photochemistry that is beginning to be used on the nano scale for much more than just glasses.

[Chris Ryser]

I'll post more later tonight on this subject. This is actually very advanced photochemistry that is beginning to be used on the nano scale for much more than just glasses.

ml43, Maybe you should keep it to the optical lenses and their manufacturers to make claims according to recent studies made in advanced photochemistry, and stay with the facts as we know them until proven otherwise, with published studies by official scientific bodies.

[Chris Ryser]

but based on just the transmission spectrum/spectrograph is not enough, unless you are assuming the base material/dye/coating is the same.

I'll post more later tonight on this subject. This is actually very advanced photochemistry that is beginning to be used on the nano scale for much more than just glasses.

That is not correct in my opinion, as I have been talking about a layer of added tints on the surface of the lens substrate which can be anything you want from CR39 to whatever, as long as it is tintable on its surface or coating.

The blue blocking tint layer is on the surface of the lens, front or back, or both.
It blocks the UV and visible blue light from entering the lens material whatever it is, or blocks it from passing on to the eye if tinted on the back side or both.

So the theory that different lens materials can make a change, seems to be
invalid.

Tinted layer on surfaces of the lens blocks from 280 nm to 535 nm whatever the lens material

[ml43]

Chris,

I believe you and Mike are forgetting that this lens(MR-95/UV420) is not a dye or a coating, but a compound either mixed in the polymer, or attached to the monomer.

Like I stated earlier, we cannot say with absolution given only a visible spectrum of only transmission, and define the perceived color of a medium.

Unless we know
1. The base material
2. The coating
3. The dye(which can either be in the coating or the base material)

It's the same reason a tinted lens designed to filter/absorb a certain spectrum will be different in perceived color than a lens that has been thin film coated to filter/reflect a certain spectrum.

Incidence = Transmission + Reflection + Absorption

I totally agree with both of you that you can judge perceived color with a decent amount of accuracy using a transmission spectrum, if and only if we are talking about a lens dye, done in the same material.

[Chris Ryser]

Chris,
Incidence = Transmission + Reflection + Absorption

I totally agree with both of you that you can judge perceived color with a decent amount of accuracy using a transmission spectrum, if and only if we are talking about a lens dye, done in the same material.

ml47, I agree with your statement that there is a difference between having the color mixed into the basic lens material or by simply treating the surfaces. Different tinted materials also will show the same tint combination a different way and it is a huge time consuming job to get them all equal.

So it is now up to the Optican or Optometrist and the consumer to sell or purchase a blue blocking lens that came finished from a manufacturer with a fixed blue light absorbing tint in the basic material or one that has been added by the lab by means of tinting. In many cases it will also boil down to purchase and retail pricing.

The latest thing in blue blocking sunglass dyes is that they are now also available in different colors from the standard amber, also in brown, chocolate brown and dark green.

[MikeAurelius]

Chris,

I believe you and Mike are forgetting that this lens(MR-95/UV420) is not a dye or a coating, but a compound either mixed in the polymer, or attached to the monomer.

Like I stated earlier, we cannot say with absolution given only a visible spectrum of only transmission, and define the perceived color of a medium.

Unless we know
1. The base material
2. The coating
3. The dye(which can either be in the coating or the base material)

It's the same reason a tinted lens designed to filter/absorb a certain spectrum will be different in perceived color than a lens that has been thin film coated to filter/reflect a certain spectrum.

Incidence = Transmission + Reflection + Absorption

I totally agree with both of you that you can judge perceived color with a decent amount of accuracy using a transmission spectrum, if and only if we are talking about a lens dye, done in the same material.

I totally disagree.

I base this opinion on optical physics, the science of which has been long set and proven.

Optical glass filters, such as the Schott GG/OG UV filters do not rely on coatings, they use an colloidal process that activates during a heat-striking operation, and once activated, do not ever change back.

There is one filter, Schott GG400, which is a base-line for measuring UV cut-off. It's 50% transmission point is at 400 nm, and the color of the filter is a pale straw yellow.

http://www.schott.com/advanced_optic...ec-2014-en.pdf

Another is the Schott GG395, which is clear in color.

The 'gold standard' for filter property discussion can be found here: http://www.schott.com/advanced_optic...n-2015-eng.pdf

And again, I will remind you that it doesn't matter WHAT material the filter is made from, glass, plastic, monomer, polymer, or what constituent components are added to it. The result is the exact same regardless.

Any time you change the transmission/absorbtion properties of a given material inside the boundaries of the visible light spectrum, through any means, you also change its apparent color. Again, this is basic optical physics.

This is, and always has been the reason for reluctance on the buyers side to purchase UV/Blue Light filtering lenses: unacceptable (to the consumer) color shifts.

[AngeHamm]

This is, and always has been the reason for reluctance on the buyers side to purchase UV/Blue Light filtering lenses: unacceptable (to the consumer) color shifts.

All this in mind, this lens is virtually clear in the visible spectrum. It has no more visible tint than an unactivated Transitions lens, while demonstrably and definitively blocking the HEV blue spectrum it's designed to block. It is clear enough to satisfy all but the most unreasonable engineer patients, unlike BlueTech, Prevencia, Gunnar, and other products. It addresses the primary issue of buyer reluctance to order an HEV/Blue light filtering lens brilliantly, and in a fashion previously not seen in this industry, despite Chris's claims that everything old is new again.

This is a new and unprecedented product. Period. You can argue the need for it all you like, but my point is that is does what it says it does in a way that we have not seen it done before.

[MikeAurelius]

Virtually clear is **NOT** clear.

I will grant you that it is the clearest of the UV filters so far, but it's **NOT** clear.

[AngeHamm]

Virtually clear is **NOT** clear.

I will grant you that it is the clearest of the UV filters so far, but it's **NOT** clear.

Sure. No one here has claimed even once that it is clear. But, as I've said about 20 times now, it has no more tint that unactivated Transitions or Photofusion, and no more tint than run-of-the-mill "clear" 1.67, 1.70, or 1.74 lenses, all of which we dispense to very happy patients on a daily basis. None of my high-index lens patients complain of the miniscule tint endemic to their materials, and I predict a similar 0% of patients wishing an HEV-blocking lens option will complain of the 2% tint in TheraBlue lenses.

[Judy Canty]

I. Have. Never. Said. The. Lens. Is. Clear.

[AngeHamm]

Also, this picture does not agree with my personal experience with this material. It is clearer in the flesh than in this picture. A lot clearer.

[Judy Canty]

Sorry. Working from home today. No make-up. In order from left to right. Clear 1.67, TheraBlue, BluTech

Attachment 12344Attachment 12345Attachment 12346

[ml43]

I totally disagree.

I base this opinion on optical physics, the science of which has been long set and proven.

Optical glass filters, such as the Schott GG/OG UV filters do not rely on coatings, they use an colloidal process that activates during a heat-striking operation, and once activated, do not ever change back.

There is one filter, Schott GG400, which is a base-line for measuring UV cut-off. It's 50% transmission point is at 400 nm, and the color of the filter is a pale straw yellow.

http://www.schott.com/advanced_optic...ec-2014-en.pdf

Another is the Schott GG395, which is clear in color.

The 'gold standard' for filter property discussion can be found here: http://www.schott.com/advanced_optic...n-2015-eng.pdf

And again, I will remind you that it doesn't matter WHAT material the filter is made from, glass, plastic, monomer, polymer, or what constituent components are added to it. The result is the exact same regardless.

Any time you change the transmission/absorbtion properties of a given material inside the boundaries of the visible light spectrum, through any means, you also change its apparent color. Again, this is basic optical physics.

This is, and always has been the reason for reluctance on the buyers side to purchase UV/Blue Light filtering lenses: unacceptable (to the consumer) color shifts.

Mike, you would be correct, if we were only talking about glass.


no one is arguing that MR-95/UV420 is clear, but it is definitely clearer than any glass 420nm long pass filter, and any tinted cr39/poly lens that has been designed to block 50-100% from 420nm-380nm, simply because it reflects a lot less and absorbs more due to whats in the substrate.

most compounds that absorb visible light, or light in general(200-1400nm) are some type of organic molecule/compound.
most chemist will use IR light(FT-IR) to do chemical analysis on organic substances to either determine purity or identity.
However, you can have two molecules with nearly the same FT-IR spectrum, that are different in terms of molecular weight, melting point, boiling point, and sometime color.

going back, when comparing two different transparent mediums, judging perceived color only works if you have all the information.
just a transmission spectrum is not enough, unless you are assuming the two mediums are made of the same material, have the same coating, or are dyed in the same way.

or you are assuming reflectance and absorption are equal in both materials.
Which is normally done in glass, due to the transmission of glass being decently consistent, and in most optical systems, you really don't care.
Especially for a long pass filter, which is designed to filter light in the most effect matter, not appear clear.

I'll be in the lab later this week, I should be able to find a GG395/GG400/GG420/GG435 to compare the MR-95/UV420 to.

[Chris Ryser]

no one is arguing that MR-95/UV420 is clear, but it is definitely clearer than any glass 420nm long pass filter, and any tinted cr39/poly lens that has been designed to block 50-100% from 420nm-380nm, simply because it reflects a lot less and absorbs more due to whats in the substrate.

......................, is because of the AR coating that will pass up to 9 to 10% more light through the basic lens material which absorbs the blue light up to a certain degree at 320 nm .

However a blue-blocking tinted CR39/Poly lens can absorb up to 100 % of the blue spectrum if tinted into sunglass shades. And you can have you own choice of how far you want to go. And as it is surface treated the lens material
would be of no importance.

Not every consumer is willing to pay through the nose for the latest and probably most expensive newest type of AR coating when there is any alternative that works as well or even better in dark shades, when a light yellowish tint can provide the same end result as a 400 nm UV dye has done the last 30 years, without the added feature of the AR coating.

Anybody that owns and operates a on-line optical retailer on the web is out to gain market share and will look for alternatives that are less expensive and still get to a good end result.

[ml43]

......................, is because of the AR coating that will pass up to 9 to 10% more light through the basic lens material which absorbs the blue light up to a certain degree at 320 nm .

However a blue-blocking tinted CR39/Poly lens can absorb up to 100 % of the blue spectrum if tinted into sunglass shades. And you can have you own choice of how far you want to go. And as it is surface treated the lens material
would be of no importance.

Not every consumer is willing to pay through the nose for the latest and probably most expensive newest type of AR coating when there is any alternative that works as well or even better in dark shades, when a light yellowish tint can provide the same end result as a 400 nm UV dye has done the last 30 years, without the added feature of the AR coating.

Anybody that owns and operates a on-line optical retailer on the web is out to gain market share and will look for alternatives that are less expensive and still get to a good end result.

no objection to that point chris.

I, like you believe, the most valuable tools available to opticians are a tint pot and a hand stone.

Over the years as a tech I have processed well over 10,000 jobs, maybe even more, all of which were final touched on the hand stone to get the perfect fit/finish.

Tinting is an art, not a science. Unfortunately, it is an art that is slowly becoming a dying breed.

However, to dismiss a new technology because it achieves the same thing as old technology in a different way is a bit myopic.

Technology will move forward, with or without the artisans of the past.

[MikeAurelius]

Technology will move forward, with or without the artisans of the past.

Technology isn't the issue. Marketing and advertising is. When bringing a product to the attention of professionals in the industry, it is a good thing to not treat us as if we are just off the potato truck. Get rid of the weasel words, present graphs, show pictures of competing products in a similar condition (if your new product is A/R coated, please don't try to palm off uncoated competitors products). Describe the products using technical words the professionals of the industry will understand and know.

Don't say 'virtually clear', instead say 'very pale yellow'. Be honest in your descriptions.

If you are going to sell a product that filters...anything, show the doggone transmission chart so that your customers can see exactly how the material performs.

When you show pictures, use bright white bond paper and lay 'your' lenses and the 'other' lenses side by side, then take photographs under natural (sun) light, incandescent, florescent, and LED light. All for comparison under varying light conditions.

None of us are idiots, although one or two of us *might* be lunatics (I include myself in that description).

Don't use the same sales techniques to sell to industry professionals that you use to sell to consumers.

These several threads have been an excellent class on what not to do with a new product. Maybe OptiBoard can offer CE credits to those of us who participated

[Judy Canty]

Is the horse dead yet?

[MikeAurelius]

Is the horse dead yet?

No, I think the horse is still showing some signs of life.

[Chris Ryser]

no objection to that point chris.

I, like you believe, the most valuable tools available to opticians are a tint pot and a hand stone. ...................

Tinting is an art, not a science. Unfortunately, it is an art that is slowly becoming a dying breed.

However, to dismiss a new technology because it achieves the same thing as old technology in a different way is a bit myopic.

Technology will move forward, with or without the artisans of the past.

ml43..........nice post, but, Actually when you call a tint pot old technology, I am of the same opinion.

However there is also some new technology in that field which you forget to mention or you don't know about it.

Instead of a dye pot with the old low temperature dyes you could use the Microwave with the latest technology high temperature dyes, which lets you tint a high index lens in 4-to-6 minutes to the darkest shades you want. You can also get a regular CR39 there in a minute, or less.

.......to your last point.

If an optician looses his last bit of the artisanat on which the profession is based on, then he/she becomes nothing than a reseller for the optical corporations and, or their labs. Their price markups that were based on their artisanat and know how to do it, would not be justified no more.

However, to dismiss a new technology because it achieves the same thing as old technology in a different way is a bit myopic.

Also old technology has advanced as stated above. If the artisan becomes just a reseller because the manufacturers of new technology that supplies the finished and cooked Hamburger to the reseller who passes it on to the consumer at their rates, will encourage the consumer to purchase these items on-line.