Omnilux....

[kdw613]

Has anyone tried the new Ominlux? I have fit several patients and am will NEVER fitting a Progressive again. Out of myself and 10 patients that I have fit, there has been NO push back. In fact, three patients want an additional pair. I have tried them and WOW. Having tried virtually every Progressive on the market...these are DIFFERENT! NO Distortion, NO limiting Mid Range and NO swim effects. I am now migrating Bifocal and Trifocal wearers to the lens.

Thoughts?

[dwlk]

their website seems so gimmicky to me... i dont really get how its different from like a modified shamir relax lens?

[brucekrymow]

The website may not be very well put together, and I understand English is not their first language, but it is not gimmicky at all. The OmniLux NAL it isn't even close to the Shamir Relax, for which I've tried and am a permanent non-adapt (as I am so far w/ all other PAL designs, on which I have finally given up!).

[optical24/7]

I thought Quest labs in Fl developed and sells this lens.

[brucekrymow]

Has anyone tried the new Ominlux?

I personally wear the QLDS OmniLux HD Digital NAL myself - I love 'em!


The OmniLux NAL is not really new and have been around a little while, but I'm a huge skeptic and poo-poo'd them when I first heard of them. Like many folks, I chalked it up to the typical over-marketing BS we often see/hear/read, and then further credibility degradation as a result of spec/info-misunderstanding, under-education, and/or improper use-fitting by optical practice providers.


The NAL synopsis denotes it is not a bifocal, not a trifocal, and not a PAL. The NAL lenses provide a SV viewing experience w/ continuous, sharp, natural vision at any gaze from distance to near w/o waves or distortions. There is no adaptation period, no peripheral swim effect, and no fitting height required! Because NAL mimics natural accommodation, it eliminates eye fatigue, provides clear natural instinctive vision in all distances, the visual fields don't have that dumb hour-glass shape, and the wide intermediate provides effortless mid-range navigation, smoothly connecting visual fields to provide natural vision from infinity to 14" or so.


In the past 20+ years, I have never been able to get properly fit into any PAL ever, and I'm in the industry and have tried all of them, so believed I was a permanent PAL-non-adapt. Being a -9.00OU for Distance w/ a moderate Cyl of -1.25, I typically wear contacts (always aspheric to dial out some of the Cyl since torics blow), but now at age 58, am more of an established presbyope.


Then some long-time friendly colleagues, Robin (RIP) and Yoav @ QLDS, talked me into just trying the NAL, and then made a pair for me. I committed to wearing them for a full 10 days non-stop, but honestly, my expectations were very, very low and thought them to be more of the same marketing over-hype we often see ('specially w/ the likes of EssLux). But gosh darn it and call me a blue-nose gopher.... I was super impressed and ended up loving them! Easy to see, no line, no jump, so swim, no bad spots, no moving my fat head around to find a sweet spot, etc... just good natural accommodation. I would personally characterize them as a high-def, no-line bifocal, w/ no jump.


I became so enamored w/ the QLDS NAL that I perhaps all-too-frequently talked about them, and so I started buying them for my family, friends, and colleagues that had similar experiences. I did so as a gifting favor since so many people I know have been sucked into the over-marketed PALs that were never properly fit, hated them, and so no one trusts anything. But the result has been 100% adaptation & love so far. So, I guess I'm doing a little QLDS NAL grassroots movement...LOL!


Anyway, my only suggestion is: Try Them. Get QLDS to fabricate you a free sample pair and assay away!

fin.




FYI: Optivision is an international LMS provider for all types of optical labs of any size, and we support all conventional and freeform/digital lens designs equally for all of our lab clients - this particular design just happens to be my personal fav since PALs failed me for decades as a high myope.

[brucekrymow]

I thought Quest labs in Fl developed and sells this lens.

You are correct, sir.

Other labs also process QLDS designs in-house as they can do w/ any other digital lens design.

[optical24/7]

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..

[Elvis Is Alive]

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..

I have exactly the same concern. We had been in contact with Jeremy at Quest about those lenses about 6 months ago. When I found out that you can't specify vertical/seg height and saw those recommendations, I lost interest to be honest. He did offer a complimentary pair, but we didn't take him up on it.

Sounds like it might be good lens for internet orders, possibly even designed for that.

[Uilleann]

Here's the white paper:

https://www.qldsamerica.com/_files/u...ff401ce06d.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*

[drk]

Thank you Uilleann.

It's "just" a inverted triangle design. It seems those designs are intermediate-optimized.

If the near zone is wide enough, I guess it would work for general purpose.

[Uilleann]

A Definity 4.0 analogy then?

[JerGuinnip]

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..

The vertical height is not required because the lens design system automatically adjusts the design based off a few factors including the closest distance between the lenses, the B measurement and the shape of the frame. It does require a tracing in order for the design to be placed properly. The Omnilux is not a progressive lens it is a different multifocal concept which was granted the first US utility patent for multifocal vision since the original progressive lens under the Natural Accommodation lens or NAL. It is recommended to have about 10-12 degrees of panto but that is pretty standard for any free form lens. I would be more than happy to make you a pair to try because we can say all of this but to show it isn't just marketing we recommend you experience it for yourself. If you send me an email at Jeremy.G@QuestOpticalLab.com we can work out getting you a sample pair at no cost.

[JerGuinnip]

I have exactly the same concern. We had been in contact with Jeremy at Quest about those lenses about 6 months ago. When I found out that you can't specify vertical/seg height and saw those recommendations, I lost interest to be honest. He did offer a complimentary pair, but we didn't take him up on it.

Sounds like it might be good lens for internet orders, possibly even designed for that.

At this point we have made thousands of pairs with great success and it is being dispensed all over the US, Canada, Trinidad, Central & South America, UK and Israel. We do still recommend the lenses be dispensed because it still requires things like 10-12 degrees of panto, positive facial wrap and at least a 32 B (we recommend 34 but can go down to 32). The offer still stands if you want to try it for yourself. Email me at Jeremy.G@QuestOpticalLab.com if you are interested.

[JerGuinnip]

Here's the white paper:

https://www.qldsamerica.com/_files/u...ff401ce06d.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*

It is nothing like a Camber lens because with Camber they use a molded blank with part of the add power on the front side of the lens and then grind a free form IOT progressive design on the backside of the lens. The Omnilux is a Natural Accommodation Lens that was granted a utility patent for multifocal vision in 2022. It's not just another progressive lens design it is a different concept in multifocal vision that corrects for all focal lengths on a 22mm power progression back bone. Which is why it doesn't have any peripheral distortion/swim, doesn't require an adaptation period and also eliminates the eye fatigue you sometimes get with progressive lenses. I have spoken to a number of people in our industry who still struggle with progressive lenses and others who accepted them because there were no other options until now unless you wanted a lined bifocal/trifocal. I would be happy to make you a pair to show you the difference. If interested email Jeremy.G@QuestOpticalLab.com

[JerGuinnip]

Thank you Uilleann.

It's "just" a inverted triangle design. It seems those designs are intermediate-optimized.

If the near zone is wide enough, I guess it would work for general purpose.

I think referring to it as "just" an inverted triangle is oversimplifying it. It does have a more funnel shape than the "hourglass" design of a progressive but instead of having 3 zones (near, inter, distance) it has a power progression ramp that covers 22mm of the lens. This power progression backbone uses a mathematically created curvature based on natural downward gaze focal length deceleration requirements to correct for all focal lengths from 20ft to 1ft with one continuous curve through the lens. This is why the patented name is for the Natural Accommodation Lens. I would be happy to provide a pair for you to see the difference. Email me at Jeremy.G@QuestOpticalLab.com if you are interested.

[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/u...ff401ce06d.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.