http://shamirautographintelligence.com/
Figured I'd start a new thread for the new Shamir PAL to better organize information for future searches
Printable View
http://shamirautographintelligence.com/
Figured I'd start a new thread for the new Shamir PAL to better organize information for future searches
From 8 years ago a thread to get you up to speed, if like me, smoke starts coming out your ears over the mathematics involved in sophisticated progressives (I'm trying to find a thread with a Harry C(?) post that I think will pertain to what will eventually be my question!):
https://www.optiboard.com/forums/sho...away?highlight
I'm right there with you. That's my first thought whenever I see new lenses on the market. None of it really seems to be "NEW" per-se, but more re-branding and re-marketing what's already out there in new ways. The last thing that I've seen that's really truly new and unique was Younger's Camber lens.
Seems like with this lens specifically, they've invented this problem that they now have a solution for. Which is great, but I don't understand why I would want an AI (or a lens company) to choose what lens my patient gets. That's my job. Each of my patients is unique and gets a personalized lens that fits their unique needs. Why do I now suddenly need Shamir to tell me they've "cracked the code" and that I can put everyone in this lens and it will work?
I will have lots of questions for my rep when it is time for us to discuss this lens...
So am I'm correct in thinking they are going to play with the Zernike & seidel's depending on whether the patients lifestyle is weighted towards best distance, intermediate or near as explained in this post?
Darryl Meister
https://www.optiboard.com/forums/ima...er-offline.png
Master OptiBoarder Join DateMay 2000LocationKansas City, Kansas, United StatesOccupationLens ManufacturerPosts3,700Benefits, if any, of using Zernike Polynomials to describe spectacle lens aberrations?
It really depends upon your application. When dealing with an aberrated wavefront that varies in complex ways, for instance, representing the aberrations with Zernike polynomials may be more useful. When dealing with a centered, rotationally-symmetrical optical lens, on the other hand, Seidel aberration polynomials are probably more practical.
Consequently, for single-vision lenses, Seidel polynomials (or at least quantities described in terms of Seidel aberrations) will often suffice. For progressive lenses, on the other hand, which have refracting surfaces that have non-zero third derivatives, Zernike polynomials will provide more quantitative information, particularly if you want to examine some of the more subtle optical errors.
Another important distinction is the fact Seidel aberrations have field-dependent terms that evaluate lens aberrations such as oblique astigmatism and curvature of the field as a function of viewing angle or lens position. Zernike aberrations, on the other hand, must be calculated separately for each angle of view along the principal ray.
I actually wrote a pretty lengthy article on the subject, Wavefront Aberrations and Spectacle Lenses, for Dispensing Optics in the UK two or three years ago. This provides an intermediate-level discussion of these topics.
Best regards,
DarrylDarryl J. Meister, ABOM
A must read from Darryl on the basics of progressives. ALL his courses are must reads btw...
http://64.50.176.246/cecourse.php?ur...essive_lenses/
PS- I miss Darryl.
Zeiss ID2 has had this option well before this AI version. Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Fester
I think I speak for many when I confess this pushes the limits of my understanding how progressives are designed.*
Truth be told I am lost trying to understand a white papers mathematics- but from posts on this site I think I kind of am grasping the grand scheme of trade offs of seidel aberrations that must be factored into all progressives. Somehow Mr Zenike is apparently in here too.
So do you Guru's who understand the math agree this is really a marketing ploy going all-in on an algorithm based on lifestyle?
Can you dumb this down for those of us in the trenches?
Robert Martellaro I'm especially shouting out to you!
Any chance a designer from Shamir in Israel will join this thread to dispute my claim?
Sometimes "Will that be paper or plastic?" sounds sooo appealing!:wink:
*Frankly- I doubt if I understood this math I would be an optician. Engineers generally make more money without the hassle some of the public presents!
:eek:
Fes...you crack me up! I am an engineer by education, and I still have a difficult time understanding all of this! I am old school, and have been out of school for what, a millennia? Science must have evolved since the day I put on a lab coat.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Fester
Want to be humbled by a Titan like Darryl? Check this out:
https://www.optiboard.com/forums/sho...ht=fact+create
I'm still looking for the post that talks about how seidel's must take from one to give to another.
Think it was by Harry Chiling aka MakeOptics. It was great!
WOO WHOO I FOUND IT!!!
Post #25- but the whole thread is informative. I like the sandbox visualization #17.
https://www.optiboard.com/forums/sho...el+aberrations
I am but a minnow in a pond of bass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Fester
Who really understands differential geometry?Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Fester
It's similar to using a tablet/smart phone to determine the best correction for refractive error- hit and miss, mostly miss for folks age 50+.Quote:
...agree this is really a marketing ploy going all-in on an algorithm based on lifestyle?
Best regards,
Robert Martellaro
Yeah, that's some high-level stuff. Certainly above my pay grade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Fester
I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THE SANDBOX ANALOGY. I use it frequently. Thanks for linking to these posts, Fes. There's some seriously good info there (albeit maybe a little higher-level than many opticians are used to).Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Fester
Here's a thread for everybody's education on lens designs from 5 years ago. It's a long thread where Zeiss and Essilor go toe to toe (politely!) over variations in designs.
https://www.optiboard.com/forums/sho...Definity-lens?
Interesting how they couch this word salad- From a newsletter out in Australia:
Shamir has released new progressive lens technology designed to better adapt to the needs of presbyopes. The company’s Autograph Intelligence technology was developed using big data analysis and elements of artificial intelligence, which utilised five million prescriptions to establish a correlation between patients’ visual needs and what Shamir calls their ‘Visual Age’.
Within the 12 different additions, there are 440,000 design options and each individual addition has 36,000 different inbuilt options, which are reinforced by Shamir’s three new technologies – Eye Point, Continuous Design, and Visual AI Engine.
“This is truly an innovation that will impact the industry and evolve the design in lens technology for years to come.”
Paul Stacey, Shamir
CEO of Shamir Australia, Mr Paul Stacey said the company had taken a new direction with its latest technology.
“Prescribing and dispensing the lens is simple and eliminates the need to ask your customers to complete questionnaires or select an individual progressive type for different needs,” he said.
“The revolutionary new lens design is unlike any progressive currently available. Incorporating three new ground-breaking technologies developed by Shamir, the lens can mimic human behaviour resulting in an optimal user experience for presbyopes involved in a range of activities.
“This is truly an innovation that will impact the industry and evolve the design in lens technology for years to come.”
According to Shamir, Eye Point Technology incorporates HEIM (Head Eye Integrative Movement) software that tracks exactly where wearers look and considers the actual viewing angles and switch distance frequency, which supposedly provide the perfect(?) vision by age group in any zone – horizontally or vertically.
Meanwhile, Continuous Design Technology incorporates 12 prototypes – one for each visual age (addition) – in an attempt to ensure that every patient receives a unique lens based on their visual needs. Finally, the Visual AI Engine implements the continuous design concept along a matrix of optimisation parameters, which is said to give it an advanced capability to mimic human behaviour. :rolleyes:
Also- did the Auto 3 have none of these?:
Within the 12 different additions, there are 440,000 design options and each individual addition has 36,000 different inbuilt options, which are reinforced by Shamir’s three new technologies – Eye Point, Continuous Design, and Visual AI Engine.
I am so lucky to have access to this kind of stuff, even if it doesn't truly add to my day to day ability.
Thank you for collecting together those threads
Translation:
"We've decided to follow Essilor's business model when it comes to progressive lenses. This means that we've tried to take the human element out of dispensing progressive lenses, and this re-issue of the same technology illustrates just that. Rather than have an experienced optician make a reinforced connection with a client, we're going to start advising people to talk less and order more. More orders means more money for us, and the more people talk, the more likely they are to recommend a different company's lens. And of course we wouldn't want that."
self delete double post
Another nugget of optical gold from one of our resident geniuses Sharpstick777:
Barry,
I have defined a few basic Free-form design types based on corridor emphasis and distance width based on FF mapping we did. These are only possible in Free-form.
T Design = Distance clarity edge to edge (primary zone gain), narrower intermediate, narrow to moderate reading... Auto II (most Shamir), Seiko Succeed/Supercede, et al.
Free-form Hour-glass = A little gain in most zones, but not edge to edge clear in any one. Wide Distance (but not edge to edge), moderate int and wider reading. Its a balanced design, general purpose lens, with no single emphasis. and Comfort DRx and Physio DRx, Steath Pro SD/MD
Plus Shape = Reading and Intermediate are very wide, but distance is not. Distortion is essentially moved to the four corners, which balances spacial distortions, and effectively widens the entire effective corridor, which is more cylindrical. (Definity, Hoya iD Lifestyle)
Barrel Shape = Wide Intermediate, slightly narrower distance and reading. Basically instead of putting the narrow end of the progressive cone at the pupil, it turns it around and puts the wide end at top instead. Distortion is moved to both the top and bottom edges, but gives about 4X the distance width as most Plus lenses. Basically, its two corridors, stacked with their wide ends together. The Seiko Surmount is the only one in this catagory at this time.
V Shape= Edge to edge distance, wider intermediate, but very narrow reading. Ziess GT2-3D is the only lens in this catagory.
Fountain Shape = The newest design, its like a T shape but instead of the narrow part of the corridor at the top, the narrower point is lower in the middle between the intermediate are reading zones. The intermediate ends up being a little wider, with a little lower declination. Reading is a little lower. Distance is edge to edge, and because of the distortion being pushed down, and away from the central view, the feeling is terrific. It turns into two intermediate zones though, one high, and one lower. Two lenses in this category, The new Shamir InTouch and the new Seiko Supernal. Because they start the intermediate lower, its good for laptops, but the reading is little lower too. Fit on Center. I have to dig a little deeper in both lenses to get the fine print. Reading width is OK though.
[=Barry Santini;452873]IMHO, progressive design is not what has become too complicated, but rather the issues surroundimg defining progressive corridor between designs/companies in a more standardized way.
Think boxing system for progressives.
Just as relevant today as it was when first posted in February 2013 before the designs got even better!* :rolleyes:
*and more expensive
I had a good chat with my Shamir rep yesterday and I feel like I have a much better understanding of the Auto Intelligence now.
When the word 'age' came in to play with how the designs were selected, I was completely turned off from the idea. It reminded me of Eyezen's foolish rules on what power to give patients but their age. As we all know- this is a terrible method. What Shamir was getting at is that they are relating ADD power to visual age- which makes sense. The older your eyes are, the harder time they have accommodating between near and far.
The integration of AI and big data was confusing as well, but what it comes down to is that they studied posture, head movement, how often eyes divert from where they are focused, and how much time people were focusing at different distances. This information was segregated by ADD power and graphed out to show how often each person on each visual age was focusing at each level of the PAL design (a multitude of different lenses from different manufacturers). They used that to optimize the designs- one for each ADD power, totaling 12 designs. The charts are quite helpful in detailing the differences between the designs by showing where the priorities are set.
Personally, I am looking forward to getting some guinea pigs in this design (well, 1/12th of them). As a Shamir lens, they use outside pucks which means no restrictions on materials and upgrades. That is one of the main reasons I like them for my high-end PAL.
The Auto 3 had it's own 4 specialty features- Intellicorridor, Quardo, Posture somethingorrather, and blah-di-blah. But there are 3 NEW features with the Auto Intell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Fester
I forgot to touch on this last bit: The additional feature of the AI programming is quite unique. After the ADD dictates the design; the PD, lens material, POW measurements, and frame size and shape help that AI run all of the extra info through to make the lens fully optimized. Apparently it takes six minutes for the programming to run through every combo before spitting out the most optimized (least distortion / ease of wear) design.
Thats awesome, thank you for that in depth description Quince.
For what it’s worth, I ‘m getting really good feedback from accounts that are selling this lens. I’m hearing mostly “my vision is clearer and sharper” in this lens to “this is the first progressive lens” I actually like. I’m not so sure I understand the technology whine it and I certainly don’t have any interest in brand a vs brand b. It appears Shamir has been pretty liberal in offering free fits in my area for ECP’s to try. Just thought I would share......
full disclosure .. I rep for Luzerne Optical in the Carolinas
Regarding Position of Wear, digitally compensated, "top tier" progressive lenses- to me anyway- it works out to 99% proper optician rx interpretation, frame selection and fit(!) and 1% design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee H
Less than top tier are 80/20%.
Put a cherry on top of a healthy dollop of managing patient expectations on any progressive should go without saying.
Not everyone should be in a progressive!!! :smile:
Once more, Shamir adds a bell or whistle.
I'm sure it's good.
I'm not too keen on every design update being a new lens brand. Please make it stop.
You are essentially updating software, so use the software update system...
Please make it "Shamir Autograph 3.1" or whatever. Give me a break on:
Autograph
Auto II
Auto III
Auto II+
Intelligence
What's next?
It has to be a different name- The latest i-Phone is not selling as well I hear because people are tired of needing a new phone with each 7.1 .2 .3 etc "upgrade" and not seeing (pun intended) that much difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drk
I understand where where you are coming from yet in Shamir’s defense they do not introduce new designs or updates very often like some companies do. It’s been what, 3 or 4 years since Autograph 3? As a lens rep I hear all the pitches about new lenses and it can does get out of hand. I certainly don’t go with marketing talk and frankly don’t understand much of what the Shamir piece says on their sales sheet...I guess it wouldn’t matter as I’m skeptical with marketing talk from most all lens companies.....bottom line for me is what do my clients say about it. So far, I have received very positive feedback including several that have never liked progressives. As far as “what’s next?”, I suppose in 3-5 years we will see..