Strange glare...

**Quince** · 10-19-2016, 12:09 PM

Click image for larger version.

Name: glare.jpg
Views: 131
Size: 17.6 KB
ID: 12996

So I highlighted a sample of this strange glare coming through on a set of lenses we made for a patient. It was hard to capture on camera, but in the right lighting the highlighted area is much stronger and appears near ANY light source. I looked through these lenses and it looks like double vision around lights.

These are plastic progressives with no AR. Obviously AR should help, but he hasn't had it before and is having a problem with this pair specifically.

This glare seems so much stronger than what I've seen through other non AR lenses and my office is hoping there might be some insight from the Optiboard community. Any suggestions? Thanks in advance!

**Marlon** · 10-19-2016, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Quince

So I highlighted a sample of this strange glare coming through on a set of lenses we made for a patient. It was hard to capture on camera, but in the right lighting the highlighted area is much stronger and appears near ANY light source. I looked through these lenses and it looks like double vision around lights.

These are plastic progressives with no AR. Obviously AR should help, but he hasn't had it before and is having a problem with this pair specifically.

This glare seems so much stronger than what I've seen through other non AR lenses and my office is hoping there might be some insight from the Optiboard community. Any suggestions? Thanks in advance!

I have that happen before with a patient
like you said AR will definitely help in this case but if patient does not want to get that for whatever reason all i can think of is change the material, if that was CR lens, I will change it to trivex.
Trivex has a better abbe value and will definitely help with that, also check an see if the lenses don't have stretch lines or crazing in most cases that can cause that problem too.
Chromatic aberrations can be cause also if patient has a high amount of astigmatism.
I hope this help

**Quince** · 10-19-2016, 12:54 PM

Thanks for the insight. I'm double checking material history.

His Rx is:

+0.50 Sph
+0.50 -0.50 x100
ADD 2.00

This pair had an abnormal amount of scratches on the back for the time-frame so we did a redo for him and added backside coat (which we don't normally add to CR-39) just for customer satisfaction. He put the new set of lenses on and said "Oh they are still there." That was the first time he brought up the glare problem so we figured we'd look into it before making him anything else.

**Hayde** · 10-19-2016, 12:56 PM

Actually Trivex's abbe is inferior to CR39. (mid 40s vs upper 50s)

How does that spot look under the lensometer? Even power, or is there a lens aberration at that spot?

[edit: if symptom reoccurs on the remake, then it's probably not an aberration. I'd be interested in what the gurus of internal lens reflections thought of that pattern....]

**Marlon** · 10-19-2016, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Hayde

Actually Trivex's abbe is inferior to CR39. (mid 40s vs upper 50s)

How does that spot look under the lensometer? Even power, or is there a lens aberration at that spot?

[edit: if symptom reoccurs on the remake, then it's probably not an aberration. I'd be interested in what the gurus of internal lens reflections thought of that pattern....]

You are absolutely right Cr39 has a better abbe value then trivex.
quick question? is that patient perhaps confusing glare with the progressive marking of the lens, depending how the light hits the lens, it can create a "coma" like aberration from it.... I've had that happen before as well.

**Quince** · 10-19-2016, 01:11 PM

His other pair is an AO safety in Poly and does not have the same effect.

The lens looks normal (no defects or marks other than light scratching) and is a normal thickness for CR-39. Good thought though!

**Quince** · 10-19-2016, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Marlon

You are absolutely right Cr39 has a better abbe value ten trivex.
quick question? is that patient perhaps confusing glare with the progressive marking of the lens, i have that happen before as well.

We in the office are seeing the double lights as well.

-Funny story, I had someone try and return Ray Ban sunglasses thinking the RB signature on the front was scratches!

**optical24/7** · 10-19-2016, 01:44 PM

How old was the src coating you put on the back? Could be a problem with that.

**Quince** · 10-19-2016, 01:57 PM

We didn't put a backside on on the first run- we don't BSC CR-39 unless it's going out for AR. The original lenses were only 1 1/2 months old, but he sees the same effect in the remake with backside coat.

**optical24/7** · 10-19-2016, 02:15 PM

Then it must be some type of internal refraction at a given angle of incidence. Those also look like MR16 lights. Are they full spectrum? If not try a more full spectrum light source. ( non-full spectrum lights definitely have more ghosting through non-AR lenses.)

**Lelarep** · 10-19-2016, 02:38 PM

Agree with O24/7, it looks like some kind of internal reflection at a particular angle. I'm thinking you've discovered an "edge case" (the so called exception to the rule), just the wrong Rx, in just the wrong material, at just the wrong angle, in just the wrong light, and you have a defect that is idiosyncratic. I guarantee its nothing you did wrong, its a multi-factorial problem. Changing the material will probably fix it. Idiosyncratic lens issues are usually fixed when you change one variable in the equation.

**Quince** · 10-19-2016, 02:44 PM

Awesome! Thanks to everyone for the input. I'll look at switching materials for him and see if that does the trick.

The lights in the pic are from our office.... horrible, I know. He apparently has seen the same glare issue in other environments though.

**PRECISIONLAB** · 10-19-2016, 04:06 PM

Consider the lens polish you are using. I had a similar situation in which we tried a new formula per the rep's recommendations. The result was "milky" looking lenses after polish with the glare similar to your example in all materials. Backside SRC would help. I would check if a polish change has occurred if this is a new problem.

**Uncle Fester** · 10-25-2016, 01:58 PM

Appropriate as Halloween approaches!!!

Does this thread help?

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...t-image-woooo?

**Quince** · 10-25-2016, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Uncle Fester

Appropriate as Halloween approaches!!!

Does this thread help?

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...t-image-woooo?

OOOOOOOOOHH! Very helpful!

Harry's input is just what I needed to set out some options for my patient. He hasn't been back yet for any changes. I will be sure to post results. Didn't realize this was just a 'thing' that happens sometimes. Thanks!

**Quince** · 12-05-2016, 11:05 AM

UPDATE:

We upped the base curve and added AR (as suggested from the beginning) and all seems... okay? He wasn't excited about the change. Said it was better but didn't come across as impressed. I'll settle for contentment at this point!

**Lelarep** · 12-05-2016, 01:09 PM

Sounds like a win to me.

**finefocus** · 12-05-2016, 02:11 PM

So this is after the horse is gone, but these ghosts (esp. in minus lenses) can be interplay between ocular surfaces and edges. I'm not sure if you saw the effect when looking at the glasses, or only when looking through them. In any case this possibility is easy to eliminate; make the edges dark. No need to get fancy, just use a black Sharpie. If that works, you won't need to stay with dark edges, just use a different bevel profile; should solve the same problem.

**Quince** · 12-05-2016, 04:41 PM

Interesting suggestion... hadn't heard that one yet. I will certainly keep it in mind for the future

**lensmanmd** · 12-14-2016, 08:26 AM

Late jumping in on this, so my apologies. From the JPG, this looks like a poor polish from surfacing. Typically a baume issue, but can also be related to time and pressure during the polishing.

Were there any changes in the pads/polish? How often is the baume checked? Or was this ordered from an outside lab?

**AngeHamm** · 12-14-2016, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by lensmanmd

Late jumping in on this, so my apologies. From the JPG, this looks like a poor polish from surfacing. Typically a baume issue, but can also be related to time and pressure during the polishing.

Were there any changes in the pads/polish? How often is the baume checked? Or was this ordered from an outside lab?

I was thinking the same thing. Looks like a bad polish cycle.

**Quince** · 12-14-2016, 11:44 AM

I run 6 minutes with Digi-Sheen Pro from Coburn. No changes but thanks for the input. We haven't run into anything similar since, but I'll take continual feedback to cover all the bases

**lensmanmd** · 12-14-2016, 08:51 PM

Q,

We moved away from the DigiSheen for this exact reason. We have experienced baume consistency with the DigiSheen. Currently, we are using PSI FreeForm AR for our polish and I have not seen this type of haze. The baume stays relatively consistent. We will be switching to SatisLoh soon and will use their polish. We'll see if the additional cost is worth it.

**Uncle Fester** · 12-15-2016, 04:22 PM

How do I pronounce "baume"?

Rhymes with???

**Don Gilman** · 12-15-2016, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by lensmanmd

Q,

We moved away from the DigiSheen for this exact reason. We have experienced baume consistency with the DigiSheen. Currently, we are using PSI FreeForm AR for our polish and I have not seen this type of haze. The baume stays relatively consistent. We will be switching to SatisLoh soon and will use their polish. We'll see if the additional cost is worth it.

Why would you switch from PSI, an independent, if it is consistant to the BIG E and pay more???