Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Why higher adds produce more "swim"...

  1. #1
    Compulsive Truthteller OptiBoard Gold Supporter Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    At a position without dimension...
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,063

    Why higher adds produce more "swim"...

    From 2005- A Dr. Sheedy article on PAL's and Minkowitz's Theorem I find interesting and not found with a search of the OB.

    Correct me if I'm wrong- but isn't this broadly speaking why Position of Wear compensated lenses are more often a better lens?

    Can a guru chime in with a clarification of the last sentence. Is further reducing, not just redistributing, unwanted astigmatism the final frontier of progressives? Or just theory?


    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16276325

  2. #2
    Compulsive Truthteller OptiBoard Gold Supporter Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    At a position without dimension...
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,063
    Here's a picture of what this is talking about from Darryl Meister's Progressive Optics tutorial---


  3. #3
    Compulsive Truthteller OptiBoard Gold Supporter Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    At a position without dimension...
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,063
    And for deep divers the tour de force article...

    http://64.50.176.246/cecourse.php?ur...essive_lenses/

  4. #4
    OptiBoard Professional Kujiradesu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Hudson Valley, NY/ Northern, NJ
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Fester View Post
    And for deep divers the tour de force article...

    http://64.50.176.246/cecourse.php?ur...essive_lenses/
    Thanks for this. I found the example with the executive N-focal lens especially informative, its an excellent way to grok the whole concept and geometry of a PAL. (^_^ )
    Optical Cross: crucifixion apparatus used by the New Jersey State Board.

  5. #5
    Master OptiBoarder DanLiv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    434
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Fester View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong- but isn't this broadly speaking why Position of Wear compensated lenses are more often a better lens?
    I believe most of the advancements in progressive optics are in the digital design and surfacing alone. This is where designers can manipulate the distortions to best meet the particular wearers needs; like giving more or less priority to distance, or intermediate, or near; varying near vision inset and prism by Rx and PDs; varying corridor length by seg height. This is all the stuff that plays around with Minkwitz.

    Position of wear is the next higher order customization, but if I understand it correctly POW values will not alter the lens design, they will simply refine the Rx as they would in a SV lens (and possible induce a little compensating prism for wrap).

    IMO 80% of the value is in upgrading to good digital progressives, the last 20% is in the POW. I fit digital progressives about 50/50 with and without POW, because for moderate Rxs I think almost all the benefit to be gained is satisfied by the digital design alone. Plus, to be cynical, there is so much distortion in even the best progressives that I think the benefits of "last mile" fine tuning of POW is pretty much obliterated for all but the highest Rxs or bizarre frame fits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Fester View Post
    Can a guru chime in with a clarification of the last sentence. Is further reducing, not just redistributing, unwanted astigmatism the final frontier of progressives? Or just theory?
    "In the end, it appears the unwanted astigmatism associated with a given power change along a given distance can be redistributed but probably not reduced."

    That one? If there is a way to reduce unwanted astigmatism, no one's found it yet even a decade later. There are advancements that reduce other distortion, like Camber reduces distortion from base curve problems, higher ABBE materials reduce chromatic aberration, but those lens problems are not the unwanted astigmatism quantified by Minkwitz, those are extra problems we have in addition to it. I think it's a physics limitation of our progressive lens paradigm, and we won't be getting away from it until someone images an entirely new multifocal lens design concept.

  6. #6
    Master OptiBoarder DanLiv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    434
    Quote Originally Posted by Kujiradesu View Post
    Thanks for this. I found the example with the executive N-focal lens especially informative, its an excellent way to grok the whole concept and geometry of a PAL. (^_^ )
    YES agreed. I consider Darryl Meister's article necessary reading for every optician.

  7. #7
    Compulsive Truthteller OptiBoard Gold Supporter Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    At a position without dimension...
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,063
    Thanks Dan for your reply! Getting my head around the optics of the myriad of progressive choices and their level of sophistication too often boggles this Luddites mind. Oh for the day when the Grohlman fitting device and an AO or Sola choice was about it for a progressive lens!!!

    While I confess to being easily confused by much of this- I also created the thread to help newbies, lurkers, and the consumer appreciate what a progressive lens is.

    I'd welcome some more "optical gold" from the likes of Robert Martellaro. Especially when it's putting into layman's terms what we are dealing with.

    Harry C had a great post using a sandbox analogy. I think I'll dig for that...

    Found it- From Harry Chiling in early 2009:

    Think of a designing of a PAL like a sandbox, we know we want a 2 story castle in the top of the sandbox and our add of lets say +2.00 tells us that the castle on the south side of our sandbox must be 4 storys high. Now we have a limited amount of sand so we can't exactly create these castles without taking a bit of sand from other areas of the sandbox. So one company decides heye I'll build my castle with maots around them and the sand I take outta the moats will go towards building the castle, another company might say I'll skim the entire surface of the sandbox and use that skimmed sand to make my castles. One might say my castles better because it's got moats around them the other company says my castles are built on level foundations. The different designs are determined by what the designer thinks a patient might like. Even in Single Vision lenses you could have a point focal lens, a percival lens, or a minimal tangetial error lens, or reduce the RMS error. In progressi9ve lens design they are trading one charactersistic to gain in another and certain companies will employ better processes to finalize their design and include both objective (ray tracing) and subjective (user trials) to see what people really think of the lenses and then tweak their designs based on the further research.

    The difference in design is going to be the biggest difference in the lens regardless of the processing techniques employed, even the best traditionally molded lens is going to give you similar optics to a FF lens on a select nnumber of Rx's, and some crappy FF desings are going to be no better or worst than a good traditionally molded design. The one big advantage to FF PAL's is that the deformed conicoidal surface is moved to the back of the lens alowing for a larger angle of view through a smaller surface of the lens this correlate to wider optics through the umbilic and other parts of the lens. Even the crappy designs like the SNL mentioned above will see an increase in clarity with FF just by moving the PAL surface to the back, also even a traditionally molded PAL will see improvments from non-optimal base curves in the series being cleaned up with atoric surfaces on the back surface.

    Thanks again.
    Last edited by Uncle Fester; 05-16-2017 at 10:50 AM.

  8. #8
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Dorval, a suburb of Montreal in a park like environment on Lake St.Louis.
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    21,208

    Blue Jumper The higher the add, the narrower the intermediate and smaller the reading section

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Fester View Post
    Here's a picture of what this is talking about from Darryl Meister's Progressive Optics tutorial---




    Very simple...................................

    The higher the add, the narrower the intermediate and smaller the reading section, and the larger the distorted area, on whatever progressive and whatever brand or design.

    Anybody in an older age group should think hard, to continue wearing progressive lenses, when they can have a ST lens with a 5 times larger reading section.
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

  9. #9
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    usa
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    32
    Just keep beating on that dead horse Chris. You will convince somebody, someday, maybe...but I doubt it. By this logic we should also abandon the FT28/7x28s and fit every single multifocal wearer in executive trifocals rights?

  10. #10
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Dorval, a suburb of Montreal in a park like environment on Lake St.Louis.
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    21,208

    Redhot Jumper Just keep beating on that dead horse Chris................................

    Quote Originally Posted by Kwill212 View Post

    Just keep beating on that dead horse Chris. You will convince somebody, someday, maybe...but I doubt it.

    That dead horse has been alive since 1955 and is still alive. On the drawings of the plus 3.00 addition lens above (Darryl Meister) there is just about 50% of unusable distortion with a very narrow progressive part and the clean crisp reading area is terribly small.

    Taking into account that the old people, who already have problems adapting to the getting older, have to move their head around, to see and focus on some small print instead of having a crisp view of about a 30 centimeters wide.
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

  11. #11
    OptiBoard Professional Kujiradesu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Hudson Valley, NY/ Northern, NJ
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Ryser View Post
    That dead horse has been alive since 1955 and is still alive. On the drawings of the plus 3.00 addition lens above (Darryl Meister) there is just about 50% of unusable distortion with a very narrow progressive part and the clean crisp reading area is terribly small.

    Taking into account that the old people, who already have problems adapting to the getting older, have to move their head around, to see and focus on some small print instead of having a crisp view of about a 30 centimeters wide.
    I agree. If you have a +3.00 add in a PAL there should at least be a discussion about moving to a FT28 or FT35. Someone who's retired generally only needs two zones. 7x28 if you need an intermediate for something. Life's too short to suffer with such a small reading area.
    Optical Cross: crucifixion apparatus used by the New Jersey State Board.

  12. #12
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Gold Supporter rbaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Newberry, FL
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    3,999
    Quote Originally Posted by Kujiradesu View Post
    Someone who's retired generally only needs two zones.
    Oh, really! When one is no longer encumbered by the work process one tends to increase their activities and, therefore, their visual needs.

  13. #13
    OptiBoard Professional Kujiradesu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Hudson Valley, NY/ Northern, NJ
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by rbaker View Post
    Oh, really! When one is no longer encumbered by the work process one tends to increase their activities and, therefore, their visual needs.
    Just one person's opinion. Its patient to patient really, but many of my retired patients are not big computer users. So if all youre doing is watching tv, reading, and generally nothing else spectacular a FT does the job.
    Optical Cross: crucifixion apparatus used by the New Jersey State Board.

  14. #14
    One eye sees, the other feels. OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,409
    Quote Originally Posted by DanLiv View Post
    Position of wear is the next higher order customization, but if I understand it correctly POW values will not alter the lens design, they will simply refine the Rx as they would in a SV lens (and possible induce a little compensating prism for wrap).
    Dan,

    Some lens manufacturers have software that is capable of significantly modifying the PAL design. It's mostly centered around retaining the intended design regardless of Rx (see image below) including position of wear, for example, a shorter corridor for smaller values of wearer's vertex distance.

    Plus, to be cynical, there is so much distortion in even the best progressives that I think the benefits of "last mile" fine tuning of POW is pretty much obliterated for all but the highest Rxs or bizarre frame fits.
    It can be a tough call sometimes. We need to be skeptical, until we can obtain convincing data and experience fitting and wearing different designs, ensuring that our recommendations are in our client's best interest.

    I think it's a physics limitation of our progressive lens paradigm, and we won't be getting away from it until someone images an entirely new multifocal lens design concept.
    Probably electroactive eyeglasses, although med/science/pharma may come up with a way to delay or prevent presbyopia before that happens.

    Best regards,

    Robert Martellaro
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Optimized PAL Cyl plots.jpg  
    Roberts Optical Ltd.
    Wauwatosa Wi.
    www.roberts-optical.com
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made, in a narrow field. -Niels Bohr

  15. #15
    Master OptiBoarder DanLiv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    434
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    Some lens manufacturers have software that is capable of significantly modifying the PAL design. It's mostly centered around retaining the intended design regardless of Rx (see image below) including position of wear, for example, a shorter corridor for smaller values of wearer's vertex distance.
    Can you give me examples of who does? I understand the concept and that it should be possible, varying corridor based on vertex makes perfect sense, but I haven't read in any manufacturer literature that they exploit the technology to this extent. I'd love to know who's really using the tech to the fullest extent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    It can be a tough call sometimes. We need to be skeptical, until we can obtain convincing data and experience fitting and wearing different designs, ensuring that our recommendations are in our client's best interest.
    I will always use POW compensation when I believe the Rx or POW warrants it, but in cases where neither of those are crazy I don't see how an Rx compensation of even 0.12D will overcome diopters of unwanted astigmatism. Perhaps a strict design which aim for as little distortion above the 180 as possible might get some advantage in distance, but in my experience even those designs don't actually seem to deliver on that claim. Softer designs, like Varilux, smear distortion all over the lens which makes them pretty easy to wear but makes it pretty unlikely the Rx compensation alone would have any discernible effect on the overall lens experience. I'm not yet a wearer so I'm just relying on my analysis of the internal logic of the system.

    Thanks for the comments Robert!

  16. #16
    One eye sees, the other feels. OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,409
    Quote Originally Posted by DanLiv View Post
    Can you give me examples of who does? I understand the concept and that it should be possible, varying corridor based on vertex makes perfect sense, but I haven't read in any manufacturer literature that they exploit the technology to this extent. I'd love to know who's really using the tech to the fullest extent.
    Zeiss for sure.

    https://www.zeiss.com/vision-care/en...hnologies.html

    I will always use POW compensation when I believe the Rx or POW warrants it, but in cases where neither of those are crazy I don't see how an Rx compensation of even 0.12D will overcome diopters of unwanted astigmatism. Perhaps a strict design which aim for as little distortion above the 180 as possible might get some advantage in distance, but in my experience even those designs don't actually seem to deliver on that claim. Softer designs, like Varilux, smear distortion all over the lens which makes them pretty easy to wear but makes it pretty unlikely the Rx compensation alone would have any discernible effect on the overall lens experience. I'm not yet a wearer so I'm just relying on my analysis of the internal logic of the system.
    The unwanted/surface astigmatism is carefully managed to minimize disruption of the visual image. In this regard, PAL designers make assumptions about the POW, the distance to the center of rotation to the eye, etc., regardless it there's distance or near compensation, hoping that the intended design, sometimes clinically tested, reaches the end user.

    OTOH, if the intended design is a bad one, it's still bad after fussing with the additional measurements. What I do is to single blind test the lenses in my Rx, sometimes with a test subject, to determine who has the best performing designs, knowing that the personalized and customized designs will be the best at keeping that level of performance over a wide range of Rxs and fitting values.

    Thanks for the comments Robert!
    I hope you find my thoughts useful to you.

    Robert Martellaro
    Last edited by Robert Martellaro; 05-19-2017 at 12:09 PM.
    Roberts Optical Ltd.
    Wauwatosa Wi.
    www.roberts-optical.com
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made, in a narrow field. -Niels Bohr

  17. #17
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Dorval, a suburb of Montreal in a park like environment on Lake St.Louis.
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    21,208

    Blue Jumper All, this mumbo jumbo to sell progressives that have a minimal fraction .............

    Quote Originally Posted by Kwill212 View Post

    Just keep beating on that dead horse Chris. You will convince somebody, someday, maybe...but I doubt it. By this logic we should also abandon the FT28/7x28s and fit every single multifocal wearer in executive trifocals rights?

    That dead horse is still so much alive ..............................

    All, this mumbo jumbo to sell progressives that have a minimal fraction of more clear reading area, and a creates larger distortive area that comes with it, is all to make a more expensive sale for the optical retailer.

    When are opticians going to admit that the times of hokus pokus high priced glasses with a 50 percent distortion on each lens should be a thing of the past for elderly people.
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

  18. #18
    OptiWizard Quince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Sebago ME
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    Zeiss for sure.

    https://www.zeiss.com/vision-care/en...hnologies.html

    The unwanted/surface astigmatism is carefully managed to minimize disruption of the visual image. In this regard, PAL designers make assumptions about the POW, the distance to the center of rotation to the eye, etc., regardless it there's distance or near compensation, hoping that the intended design, sometimes clinically tested, reaches the end user.

    I hope you find my thoughts useful to you.

    Robert Martellaro
    What about Shamir Auto III? From what our rep explained- the "Eyepoint Technology" is set-up to work off of the 'keyhole' design (ADD power on the back) so that they can focus on how to adapt the Rx so that different Rxs have the same field of vision.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	shamir-eyepoint-technology-1-autograph-3.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	34.6 KB 
ID:	13304

    Robert, I personally always enjoys your view on things!
    Have I told you today how much I hate poly?

  19. #19
    Compulsive Truthteller OptiBoard Gold Supporter Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    At a position without dimension...
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Quince View Post
    What about Shamir Auto III? From what our rep explained- the "Eyepoint Technology" is set-up to work off of the 'keyhole' design (ADD power on the back) so that they can focus on how to adapt the Rx so that different Rxs have the same field of vision.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	shamir-eyepoint-technology-1-autograph-3.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	34.6 KB 
ID:	13304

    Robert, I personally always enjoys your view on things!
    They should market it as allowing the hyperope to at last play chopsticks with the same field of view as the myope...

  20. #20
    OptiWizard Quince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Sebago ME
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Fester View Post
    They should market it as allowing the hyperope to at last play chopsticks with the same field of view as the myope...
    Too funny!
    Have I told you today how much I hate poly?

  21. #21
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Ryser View Post
    Very simple...................................

    The higher the add, the narrower the intermediate and smaller the reading section, and the larger the distorted area, on whatever progressive and whatever brand or design.

    Anybody in an older age group should think hard, to continue wearing progressive lenses, when they can have a ST lens with a 5 times larger reading section.
    And no intermediate..
    🤔

  22. #22
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Dorval, a suburb of Montreal in a park like environment on Lake St.Louis.
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    21,208

    Blue Jumper Not needed ...........................

    Quote Originally Posted by golfnut View Post

    And no intermediate..


    Not needed ...........................

    ...........at old age you use two pairs of glasses one for daily all around glasses, and another pair on your desk in front of the computer.

    When you get older everything becomes more complicated even little daily things, so making it simpler is helping getting these complications simplified.
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-24-2014, 10:28 PM
  2. Just substitute "eyeglasses" or "OTCs" for "umbrellas"
    By Barry Santini in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 08-28-2011, 01:27 PM
  3. New Varilux Comfort Lens and "Swim"
    By Joe787 in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-06-2007, 02:07 PM
  4. 24K web "gold" - AUDIO tributes to a man called "Bob"
    By rinselberg in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-05-2006, 04:15 AM

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
  •  
OptiBoard is proudly sponsored by:
Younger Optics, Carl Zeiss Vision Inc., Vision Systems, Inc., ISOTech and The Optical Group