Omnilux....

[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?

[JerGuinnip]

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!

I am really happy to hear that and I am glad to hear everything is going well. If there is anything else you need please let me know. I can also provide a list of labs that are currently selling the lens. You're very welcome and thanking for being open to trying them.

[JerGuinnip]

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

There is no way for me to give that because the Attitude Sport is a progressive design but the NAL (Omnilux) is new multifocal concept that has a utility patent. Any of the progressives out there that have patents have design patents but they are all based off the original Bernard Maitenaz utility patent which are essentially no line trifocals. Since this has a continuous curve that mathematically calculates the amount accommodation needed at every distance from 20ft to 1ft along a 22mm backbone there is nothing like it out there. ​

[kdw613]

The Omnilux NOW has a custom design, where a HEIGHT CAN BE MEASURED. This is for those that want to order UNCUTS, have a different frame shape or just ant to measure it. The MINIMUM height is 19mm.

If you want to try a pair, reach me at kevinw@eyevoc.com.

My biggest concern is not needing a vertical height. It’s recommended to correct uncomfortable gaze positions by adjust the panto and or vertex and/or nose pad for height. Some frames this could be a challenge, like most plastics. I’m not dismissing it, Quest is top notch at pushing the edge of feasible. But until I try one, ( cough, cough, courtesy), or saw a spectrum of different Rx types adaption, it makes me…not sure, but curious..

[Brea]

I am really happy to hear that and I am glad to hear everything is going well. If there is anything else you need please let me know. I can also provide a list of labs that are currently selling the lens. You're very welcome and thanking for being open to trying them.

I would really appreciate a list of labs! I work in an independent office, the OD here has the same Rx as me (give or take .25) and I let him take a look at these, he was also impressed!