Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wrap sunwear & base curves

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Wrap sunwear & base curves

    STATEMENT OF THE GOAL:
    I would like to devise my own "Rx program" for my basic sunglass collection, much like our Maui Jim and Oakley collections have their own Rx programs.

    They've specified their power limitations on each frame, probably based on base cuves that will work with the frame front, and hopefully weight and thickness limitations.

    I need to be able to put the proper limitations on lesser-expensive sunglass frames that I carry for cost-sensitive patients.

    With the popularity of 8-base wrap frames, I would like to know how to limit the Rx's to those that would physically fit the frame and would work optically.

    WHAT I THINK I ALREADY KNOW:
    Obviously, any frame with a +6.00 base lens will work for a wide range of Rx lenses, like an ophthalmic frame would.

    My thinking is this: I assume 8-base frames can take 6-10 base lenses and still not get too much frame distortion and too many glazing problems. The optimal Rx range for that base curve range in CR39 would be -2.00 to high plus powers. If I am willing to sacrifice optics somewhat, I could expand that range in minus to about -4.00, I believe.

    USING ASPHERICS AND HIGHER INDICES
    I also realize that 1.6 indices, like polycarb, which we use in these frames, cause the lens to be flattened by about 15%, compounding the problem, let alone aspheric design in minus, which flattens it even further. I feel aspheric design in higher plus lenses is desireable to reduce weight in these large eyesize frames, but I'm not sure it's a good idea, because these wrap frames also induce horizontal lens tilt and prism. Will an aspheric plus lens be worse than a sphere would?

    (Another factor I'd like to correct for is the blasted lens tilting-effect, which changes the effective power and prism of the lens. I'll forget about that for now.)

    I would appreciate any comments, including those that say I may be trying too hard!

    #2
    I've had the most success with 6 base lenses or higher in the wrap frames. Anything flatter tends to require taking some wrap out of the frame for mounting, even if your edger allows you to specify base curve. What Rx's you can put on a 6 base in part depends on what the patient can tolerate.
    Also, I prefer to set the PD a little wider in wrap frames to compensate for the horizontal tilt. This can also reduce the decentration needed, which will help keep the edge thickness down. If you have a computer program or at least a formula for estimating edge thickness, that will help you determine if the lens will be too thick for the temples to close or for nosepad adjustment.
    Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear brighter before you hear them speak.

    Comment


      #3
      Thanks, Blake. I know that adidas' sunwear Rx adapter instructions suggests the same thing, and they said that the idea comes from a German ophthalmology institute.

      After reviewing your suggestion, I tried to look up the theoretical basis of outsetting the MRPs.

      While it would allow the optic axis to intersect the center of rotation of the eye, it would also induce different types and varying degrees of prism in different Rxs.

      As far as the amount to outset, is the formula identical to 1mm of MRP drop per 2 degrees of pantoscopic tilt? If so, I would estimate that a 8-base frame has 15 degrees of faceform, so each lens would need outset by 15/2/2 or 3.75 mm. That seems like a lot!

      And then, compensatory prism would need to be ground to offset the induced prism, which, I believe has two components: lens-tilting induced and decentration-induced.

      Darryl said before that a computer has to "iterate" a lens-tilt-compensating formula over and over until a high-order approximation is arrived at. I'm starting to think that I will just have to keep wrap Rx's to a minimal availability of, say, +/- 2.00D and just let the patient try to tolerate the uncompensated Rx.

      I'm really curious as to how Oakley got this capability. I doubt that Maui Jim has the ability. If I knew how to write code, I'd try to come up with it!

      Comment


        #4
        They've specified their power limitations on each frame, probably based on base cuves that will work with the frame front, and hopefully weight and thickness limitations.
        Not likely.
        I also realize that 1.6 indices, like polycarb, which we use in these frames, cause the lens to be flattened by about 15%, compounding the problem,
        Not really. Depends on the power.
        (Another factor I'd like to correct for is the blasted lens tilting-effect, which changes the effective power and prism of the lens. I'll forget about that for now.)
        Actually the prism effect is minimal. The main problem with the tilt is induced cylinder...At least to the wearer.

        adidas' sunwear Rx adapter instructions suggests the same thing, and they said that the idea comes from a German ophthalmology institute.
        I lauphed when I read those instructions for the first time... And please note by the same instructions, decenter the lens 1mm irregardless of power. Real smart, those silly Germans!
        Darryl said before that a computer has to "iterate" a lens-tilt-compensating formula over and over until a high-order approximation is arrived at.
        Nope. Not higher order. Consult your Opthalmic Optics book from Optometry school. Minor trig, and some algebra.

        I know a great lab, that has never not filled a wrap Rx (whether or not we thought we shouldn't!).;)

        Comment


          #5
          Predator 8 and Predator 2 Ray-Bans. Any tips for a 6 base? Always a pain in the @ss. I would love to rx them because they are fab styles but we have never pulled it off. Something always goes wrong.

          Comment


            #6
            If memory serves they are 10 base? If so use an 8 base lens and run a front bevel. (in general)

            It really is easy to make wraps. But just like with drill mounts you need the right equipment.

            Comment


              #7
              Sounds so easy...try one and repost.

              Comment


                #8
                I have done more than I can count....

                Comment


                  #9
                  Darryl said before that a computer has to "iterate" a lens-tilt-compensating formula over and over until a high-order approximation is arrived at.
                  Iteration would be used during ray-tracing for a more complete, more exact correction of a wrapped lens. The difficulty is that many of the factors are interrelated. If you compensate for the prism induced by lens tilt, for instance, you must reevaluate the actual tilt of the optical axis in order to compensate for the changes in power induced by lens tilt. And so on.

                  Consult your Opthalmic Optics book from Optometry school. Minor trig, and some algebra
                  Unfortunately, it probably won't get you very far. ;)

                  Best regards,
                  Darryl
                  Darryl J. Meister, ABOM

                  Comment


                    #10
                    The reality is that I, and many other dispensers, haven't fully understood the ramifications of putting lenses in a wrap frame. It seems like it can't really be done without sacrificing optics a good deal. I'm going to give my lab a break and cut it out.

                    Having said that, my ignorance has generally been bliss, and I've been getting away with it. But now my eyes have been opened...

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Wraps add a lot of distortion, however distortion tolerance is in the eye of the beholder (or maybe the brain).

                      If your lab needs a break from wraps, you may need a new lab.

                      Don't be a chicken drk.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Darryl Meister
                        Iteration would be used during ray-tracing for a more complete, more exact correction of a wrapped lens. The difficulty is that many of the factors are interrelated. If you compensate for the prism induced by lens tilt, for instance, you must reevaluate the actual tilt of the optical axis in order to compensate for the changes in power induced by lens tilt. And so on.
                        I agree theoretically but not in reality. (Actually making the thing)

                        Unfortunately, it probably won't get you very far.
                        It gets you to compensate for the induced cyl, maybe sph (but usually not enouph of a factor). Works every time.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          I agree theoretically but not in reality. (Actually making the thing)
                          That's how we make 'em. ;)

                          It gets you to compensate for the induced cyl, maybe sph (but usually not enouph of a factor). Works every time
                          An optometry textbook will not tell you how to compensate for tilted sphero-cylinder lenses, just spheres (and most Rx's have cylinder). It will not tell you how to compensate for induced prism, either (though there are some books out there that will).

                          Best regards,
                          Darryl
                          Darryl J. Meister, ABOM

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by mrba
                            If memory serves they are 10 base? If so use an 8 base lens and run a front bevel. (in general)

                            It really is easy to make wraps. But just like with drill mounts you need the right equipment.
                            I noticed that some wraps have a temporal ledge, for lack of a better word, coming off of the back of the bezel. Is there a way of edging minus lenses into these frames without getting into expensive blade sets?

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Darryl Meister
                              That's how we make 'em. ;)


                              An optometry textbook will not tell you how to compensate for tilted sphero-cylinder lenses, just spheres (and most Rx's have cylinder). It will not tell you how to compensate for induced prism, either (though there are some books out there that will).

                              Best regards,
                              Darryl
                              Darryl, you are holding out on us! Textbook, please! Or would Sola goons put the hurt on you, if you started singing?;)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X