Omnilux....

[drk]

Thank you very much for explaining your design and responding to all the comments, and for offering demonstration lenses!

[JerGuinnip]

Thank you very much for explaining your design and responding to all the comments, and for offering demonstration lenses!

You're welcome and trust me I understand the hesitation with it. I worked for Hoya for 10 years and have been with Quest for 10 years so when they told me all of this stuff I had the same reaction. It's the same reaction most people have when there is something new that challenges the norm. I'm telling you if you give it a chance you will not be disappointed. If anyone else has questions I would be happy to answer them.

[Prentice Pro 9000]

Here's the white paper:

https://www.qldsamerica.com/_files/ugd/afad1f_bf2f69e6073d4b4fa35fcbff401ce06d.pdf

At it's most basic, the concept seems to be something like a Camber blank, just backside? May try a pair to see how it feels on these old eyes. Of course, the marketing used paints even modern PALs as some sort of horrid ancient optical torture device, rife with "swim and distortion", the buzz words of every powerpoint slide bemoaning PALs since their inception. I've not seen "swim and distortion" be even a minor factor with almost any of the better lenses now for close to 20 years. And if you're struggling at all in taking a proper PD or seg height, the problem isn't with the lens design... *shrug*

Wooo boy this "white paper" is wordy AF. This feels like when you have a paper do and you need to pad the word count.

[juno]

How does add affect the corridor (for want of perhaps a better term). We're all aware a +2 add vs a +3 add in a PAL is going to have reduced channel width, does the NAL also experience a similar diminution?

[JerGuinnip]

How does add affect the corridor (for want of perhaps a better term). We're all aware a +2 add vs a +3 add in a PAL is going to have reduced channel width, does the NAL also experience a similar diminution?

The reason the channel width with a progressive narrow in this instance is because the power progression increases quite a big over a short corridor length. Our power progression is through a 22mm power progression backbone which means the increase is much more subtle (which is why you don't get the same unwanted astigmatism/swim you get with a PAL) so it doesn't narrow the width. I encourage anyone who is curious to try it because seeing the lens makes a big difference. In the instance if you wanted me to make samples with the 2 different add powers so you can see I would be more than happy to.

[JerGuinnip]

Wooo boy this "white paper" is wordy AF. This feels like when you have a paper do and you need to pad the word count.

I believe the idea was to explain the history of multifocals in order to show the difference between PAL (also acknowledge how far they have come) and the NAL. They were aware that after 60 years of progressives it would be a challenge to show the difference and also get past cynicism and skepticism about something new and different.

[AndyOptom]

The reason the channel width with a progressive narrow in this instance is because the power progression increases quite a big over a short corridor length. Our power progression is through a 22mm power progression backbone which means the increase is much more subtle (which is why you don't get the same unwanted astigmatism/swim you get with a PAL) so it doesn't narrow the width.

I believe any progressive that can be ordered with a progression length of 22 mm would be significantly softer than whatever it is most patients dread about progressives. Haven't ordered a corridor that long before, the longest I've personally dispensed was a Seiko Superior with an 18 mm corridor (to a highly enthusiastic response, I quote the patient, "I'm a lucky ******* with vision like this"), but I've definitely seen at least one indie lab here that offered such an option.

Has this Omnilux design been compared accordingly with a progressive design of similar progression length and if so, how did it fare?

[brucekrymow]

JerGuinnip, I understand that QLDS just released a new NAL lens design named "OmniLux Custom".

From what I understand, this new "OmniLux Custom" lens is an Omnilux concept and in the same group as the original "OmniLux NAL", but for placing vertically this lens design in to the frame, a Fitting Height is used (not frame shape, position of DBL, and large statistical data as used for the original "OmniLux NAL"), and that since the Fitting Height is used to position this design, a tracing is not needed and it could run as an uncut lens, is that correct?

Can you please explain what the difference it between the "OmniLux Custom" vs the original "OmniLux NAL"?

And what benefits will the wearer gain w/ the Fitting Height use compared to the regular NAL?

[JerGuinnip]

I believe any progressive that can be ordered with a progression length of 22 mm would be significantly softer than whatever it is most patients dread about progressives. Haven't ordered a corridor that long before, the longest I've personally dispensed was a Seiko Superior with an 18 mm corridor (to a highly enthusiastic response, I quote the patient, "I'm a lucky ******* with vision like this"), but I've definitely seen at least one indie lab here that offered such an option.

Has this Omnilux design been compared accordingly with a progressive design of similar progression length and if so, how did it fare?

I have to stress that this is not a progressive lens. It was granted a new US utility patent in 2022 so it is not just another design of progressive lenses it is a new multifocal concept and the first since the original progressive patent 60 years ago. The patent was granted for the Natural Accommodation Lens but the commercial handle is the Omnilux. Progressives have 3 distinct zones, Distance, Intermediate and Near, so essentially a no line trifocal. The NAL (Omnilux) on the other hand has a slow power progression backbone which uses a mathematically created curvature based on natural downward gaze focal length deceleration requirements to correct for all focal lengths from 20ft to 1ft (so 20ft, 19ft, 18ft, 17ft) with one continuous curve through the lens. So as you look down through the lens it will correct for whatever distance you are needing not just 3 distinct fields while depending on your reserve accommodation. When you consider how our visual habits have changed and we spend about 90% of our time inside which means using more and more of your reserve accommodation (since most things insides are under 20ft away.) It leads to eye strain/ fatigue and sometimes headaches. With NAL you don't get that because it is correcting for all distances. It also uses peripheral defocus to help combat the unwanted astigmatism generated from the power progression which is why between the defocus and the longer ramp you do not get the swim feeling you get with progressive lenses. Since there is no swim and not harrow intermediate corridor to learn to guide through there is no adaptation period. If you want to test it against any progressive I would be happy to provide samples for the test.

[JerGuinnip]

JerGuinnip, I understand that QLDS just released a new NAL lens design named "OmniLux Custom".

From what I understand, this new "OmniLux Custom" lens is an Omnilux concept and in the same group as the original "OmniLux NAL", but for placing vertically this lens design in to the frame, a Fitting Height is used (not frame shape, position of DBL, and large statistical data as used for the original "OmniLux NAL"), and that since the Fitting Height is used to position this design, a tracing is not needed and it could run as an uncut lens, is that correct?

Can you please explain what the difference it between the "OmniLux Custom" vs the original "OmniLux NAL"?

And what benefits will the wearer gain w/ the Fitting Height use compared to the regular NAL?

So the idea with the custom is gives you the ability accommodate for unusual fittings. Instead of using the computer AI to place the design vertically (which takes into account the closest distance between the lenses, the B measurement, the shape itself and also large amount of statistical data) it allows the optician to provide a fitting height. This does allow the ordering of uncut lenses without a tracing which can be seen as a benefit for those not able to send a trace or not wanting to send the frame. The other benefit to the custom is it removes the B measurement requirement because you have the ability to place the design how you see fit. I do have to say though it does have a minimum recommended fitting height of 19mm.

[AndyOptom]

Lots to unpack and understand here (for me, at least), hope you don't mind the further inquiries :)

I have to stress that this is not a progressive lens. It was granted a new US utility patent in 2022 so it is not just another design of progressive lenses it is a new multifocal concept and the first since the original progressive patent 60 years ago.

Ok, noted.

Progressives have 3 distinct zones, Distance, Intermediate and Near, so essentially a no line trifocal. The NAL (Omnilux) on the other hand has a slow power progression backbone which uses a mathematically created curvature based on natural downward gaze focal length deceleration requirements to correct for all focal lengths from 20ft to 1ft (so 20ft, 19ft, 18ft, 17ft) with one continuous curve through the lens. So as you look down through the lens it will correct for whatever distance you are needing not just 3 distinct fields while depending on your reserve accommodation.

Be that as it may, how does this design functionally differ from a progressive with a 20 mm corridor? One continuous curve or not, once a progressive corridor gets that long, they're smoother than the usual anyway (as with certain office progressives whose designs are basically one extended corridor running through the entire vertical of the lens, those definitely don't feel like a no-line trifocal, as you describe).

Regardless of how a lens design is accomplished mechanically (PAL as a no-line trifocal with an extra long corridor versus NAL with this single continuous curve), how much is the perceived improvement when placed in front of the end user's eyes? Compared to a progressive of equivalent corridor length?

Doesn't matter that whatever the NAL uses is not a corridor, how does it measure up functionally and feels-wise versus a corridor that gets stretched out that long (therefore widening and further softening the PAL anyway)?

With NAL you don't get that because it is correcting for all distances.

So if an NAL wearer is looking through the upper part of the corridor/curve (intended for about 20 feet), they can also see clearly a fixation target within about arm's length (supposed to be only viewable through the lower part of the corridor/curve, if we were talking about progressives)?

Therefore the entire corridor/curve can work for any distance between 20 to 1 feet, and the wearer doesn't have to look down to fixate closer?

That is the impression I get when you say the NAL corrects for all distances in a way PAL cannot.

Otherwise, no-line trifocal or not, PAL also correct for all distances. Just using a shorter corridor (and therefore with a narrower FOV + more swim).

It also uses peripheral defocus to help combat the unwanted astigmatism generated from the power progression which is why between the defocus and the longer ramp you do not get the swim feeling you get with progressive lenses.

Various progressives also have built in design features with the same stated aim, so my initial question remains:

Design etc aside, has the NAL been compared side by side with a progressive of equivalent above average corridor length? And if so, which designs + what were the results? The white paper makes no mention of this.

Otherwise, beg pardon for me saying so, this sounds like how the bigger labs compare a brand new freeform progressive design in high index with multicoat to a bog standard molded design uncoated in CR-39.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for innovation and advancements in lens technology, and routinely dispense PAL, multifocal contact lenses, bifocals, you name it, for purposes other than their actual intended designs... as long as to the patient, the vision + function provided meets expectations + requirements. So this NAL has definitely piqued my curiosity, although I'd definitely subject it to the same professional skepticism I would any new lens from any lab (all of my regular lens reps know, if they can't at least clarify such details reasonably to aid the fit and dispense, I'm not selling those products).

[JerGuinnip]

Lots to unpack and understand here (for me, at least), hope you don't mind the further inquiries :)



Ok, noted.



Be that as it may, how does this design functionally differ from a progressive with a 20 mm corridor? One continuous curve or not, once a progressive corridor gets that long, they're smoother than the usual anyway (as with certain office progressives whose designs are basically one extended corridor running through the entire vertical of the lens, those definitely don't feel like a no-line trifocal, as you describe).

Regardless of how a lens design is accomplished mechanically (PAL as a no-line trifocal with an extra long corridor versus NAL with this single continuous curve), how much is the perceived improvement when placed in front of the end user's eyes? Compared to a progressive of equivalent corridor length?

Doesn't matter that whatever the NAL uses is not a corridor, how does it measure up functionally and feels-wise versus a corridor that gets stretched out that long (therefore widening and further softening the PAL anyway)?



So if an NAL wearer is looking through the upper part of the corridor/curve (intended for about 20 feet), they can also see clearly a fixation target within about arm's length (supposed to be only viewable through the lower part of the corridor/curve, if we were talking about progressives)?

Therefore the entire corridor/curve can work for any distance between 20 to 1 feet, and the wearer doesn't have to look down to fixate closer?

That is the impression I get when you say the NAL corrects for all distances in a way PAL cannot.

Otherwise, no-line trifocal or not, PAL also correct for all distances. Just using a shorter corridor (and therefore with a narrower FOV + more swim).



Various progressives also have built in design features with the same stated aim, so my initial question remains:

Design etc aside, has the NAL been compared side by side with a progressive of equivalent above average corridor length? And if so, which designs + what were the results? The white paper makes no mention of this.

Otherwise, beg pardon for me saying so, this sounds like how the bigger labs compare a brand new freeform progressive design in high index with multicoat to a bog standard molded design uncoated in CR-39.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for innovation and advancements in lens technology, and routinely dispense PAL, multifocal contact lenses, bifocals, you name it, for purposes other than their actual intended designs... as long as to the patient, the vision + function provided meets expectations + requirements. So this NAL has definitely piqued my curiosity, although I'd definitely subject it to the same professional skepticism I would any new lens from any lab (all of my regular lens reps know, if they can't at least clarify such details reasonably to aid the fit and dispense, I'm not selling those products).

When a progressive lens transitions from the distance power to the intermediate it starts very subtle for the first 4mm then it has a more dramatic power increase to the intermediate power (generally half the add power.) The intermediate corridor is typically 8mm long then it has another dramatic power increase to the full add power (this is what gives you the hourglass shape of the design and also the unwanted astigmatism/distortion). This also means the total power progression is at most 18mm (though most are shorter). So with 3 distinct corrections (distance, inter, near) it relies on the use of your reserve accommodation to correct for anything in between. The problem with that is the visual habits of people are changing so much and we are spending 90% of our time inside (which is almost always under 20ft.) We are constantly using our reserve accommodation throughout the day which can lead to eye fatigue/strain and lead to headaches. The NAL has a subtle power progression that corrects for each distance as you look down through the lens. With this subtle power progression means less swim effect when combined with the use of peripheral defocus and aspheric power bands you get a more natural viewing experience. So there is no way to compare it with a progressive that has the same length because there are none. (I just want to mention minimum fitting height is different than power progression) We have plenty of testimonials from optometrists, opticians, other optical professionals and patients who chose the NAL over the best progressives on the market or could never adapt to a progressive. What I can say is we would happily provide lenses for anyone to test or have patients test. Then you can see for yourself

[Brea]

I received my sample pair yesterday. After wearing them all afternoon and now this morning I am already impressed. The flow from my distance Rx to the reading is pretty well seamless, I will say there seems to be just a little bit of adaptation (maybe not the best word, just getting used to), but about the same as putting on a pair of Eyezen + lenses for the first time or a change to a new Rx. Driving I had full clear visibility of my dash and odometer, looking at the road felt just as natural as when I used to wear single vison glasses! These feel very natural to my eyes, sitting at the computer I can already tell I am not straining as hard to read continuously and am hoping to see less eye fatigue at the end of the day. If you are iffy still I say give them a try, I am extremely intrigued by this lens and honestly very impressed. Thank you Jeremy and Quest Labs for the opportunity to try these first hand!

[drk]

I would like to thank Jeremy for posting so dilligently on this lens design.

Jeremy, I hope I'm not going over old territory, but can I characterize the design this way?

First of all, it seems that in aspheric multifocal CL design, some (B+L, e.g.) aim for "stabilized zones" which means it wants to make a "trifocal-like" effect but with "blends" in-between the zones. They feel it gives more dedicated "area" (it's all about "area") to, say, 40cm and 66cm. The "gaps" (like, say 50 cm) have less area dedicated and in fact you zip through that on your way from intermediate to near.

I think some of the spectacle lens PALs are aiming for the same thing...a quick ramp up of power to a larger area for intermediate use, where the power change slows down, and then another quick ramp up to another "stabilized" zone (no further progression) for near.

If that's right, can we characterize the Ominlux as a "continuous" power change without the "speed bumps" for stabilized, dedicated areas?

[drk]

I really hesitate to seem contrarian, because I'm not. Can we get something approximate in a design such as Shamir's Attitude Sport?