Thank you.
Printable View
Thank you.
OK, more help needed.
People talk about a "6-drop" lens or a "4-drop" lens, and it always makes me wonder what they're talking about.
So here's what I'm chewing on...
First of all, Zeiss Labs give this really, really cool print out with jobs (fanboying again, I know) that has a lot of good information on it. Of course it has a mini-layout diagram.
So...with Zeiss they've chosen to put the prism reference point (the prescribed prism--which is usually goose egg) six millimeters below the fitting cross (that is, where the pupil center is).
So...that means that our Zeiss PAL wearers will be getting a certain amount of prism in the distance zone, depending on the lens power in the vertical meridian, of course.
Why do they choose this approach? I get that a lower optical center (typically) can help make sure the lens thickness is minimized, and Zeiss' website does list thinness as a design goal.
Question: is this a problem for anisometropic patients? Sure, it would help minimize prismatic imbalance on downgaze, but at the expense of prismatic imbalance on straight-ahead gaze. True?
Question: will this give patients a weird feeling to be looking through "more" prism (than, say, a 4-drop lens) in straight-ahead gaze?
Irrespective of the technicalities, most people prefer Zeiss progressives for distance vision. That's been the case for a long time.
It's probably the "harder" design philosophy, I'm thinking.
Yes.
Probably not, due to habitualization. CL wearers might have difficulties, along with changes from magnification and convergence effects.Quote:
Question: will this give patients a weird feeling to be looking through "more" prism (than, say, a 4-drop lens) in straight-ahead gaze?
Most of your concerns are addressed in this thread:
https://www.optiboard.com/forums/sho...l=1#post172064
Best regards,
Robert Martellaro
Hoo-hoo, another "collectible" Hall of Fame thread.
(Heck, anything with Darryl on it is HOF-worthy).
Thank you!
BTW, you were pretty smart back in 2007.
What happened to you? hahahaha
I'm not at guru status.
I'm still at gu.
OK Devil's advocate here, but knowing I'm not smart enough I'll lobb a softball to those who are. Zeiss is mostly a 6 drop (Darryl actually told me why) Seiko is a zero drop. What does that do to vertical imbalance in anisometropes, antimetropes - wrestling with this as I hate to introduce prism to people who can cope without it. Please help the unknowing.
If you remember, what did Darryl say?
Since blank size is no longer a concern due to free form production the PRP location ultimately is not relevant. One could say increased distance between the fitting cross and the PRP reduces prism at near, but it will increase prism at the fitting cross compared to a decreased distance.
If we assume that the surface of a progressive is spherical(obviously it is not) then we can calculate the prism at the fitting cross(assuming no prism thinning) and if you have a 6 mm difference there will be more prism than that of a 4 mm difference, however, we cannot calculate it this way. What power would you use for the calculation? The power at the fitting cross is different than that of the ordered power(power verified at the DRP) and the power at the PRP.
A progressive lens is a non symmetrical surface, which lacks a center of curvature, therefore, it lacks an OC.
For this reason prism at any point in a progressive lens is calculated using ray tracing, that takes the wrap and tilt along with the thickness and distance from the center of rotation, among other criteria) to the point on the back surface and front surface to calculate the prism at any given point.
The location of the PRP will not, in most cases, have an impact.
Mind. Blown.Quote:
A progressive lens is a non symmetrical surface, which lacks a center of curvature, therefore, it lacks an OC.
Yeah, it`s well known for qualified items
Is there a zeiss lens with identifier "CS67?" The closest I can find is OS67, the 1.67 officeroom lens.
Ok, those were actually OS67...guess I need to bump my add :) It looks like the officeroom lens gives a bump of +0.25-0.50 over written distance Rx in the top of the lens. So if I read them as +0.50 in the lensmeter and they are engraved as 1.75 add, can someone please clarify how I would "work backwards" to get the full Rx that was used to produce these?
I think you over thinking this issue. When you fit a s.v. Lens you put the oc in the geometric center but normal gaze is usually above geometric center. This is rarely a problem. The same holds true for a multifocal. The pantoscopic tilt has the effect of raising the o.c.
On a progressive the PRP is reference point to check for imbalance. The distance Rx check point is just a place on the lens where you can get a reasonable Rx reading nothing more.
Aren't you better off just going to the source?
I don't know how they label it. If you want to sleuth, I would look at the progression power between the top and the bottom. If it's +1.75 progression, then that's how they label it.
But I doubt that. It'd be weird.
More likely, +1.75 is the prescribed add power, and you'll find that there is about a +1.25 progression (inferring 1/2D more plus at the top than the distance Rx), and therefore the prescription would have been "top part reading in the lensometer, subtract out the 1/2 overplus, and the marking for the add as the add power".
But that's a guess.
OS67 means that the lens is an Office Lens in 1.67 material. On the temporal side you should see something like ##100 or ##200 or ##400, where ## could be 20 or 40 or 30, this does not matter. The 100(100 cm) is the ZEISS Office Book, the 200(200 cm) is the ZEISS Office Desk and the 400(400 cm) is the ZEISS Office Room. The Room add 0.25 D to the distance and subtracts 025 D from the add, the Desk adds 0.50 D to the distance and subtracts 0.50D from the add and the Book adds 1.00D to the distance and subtracts 1.00D from the add.
The engraved add power is the add power of the lens.
If you read the distance as +0.50 with a 1.75 add and the lens is marked with a 200 then you know it is a Desk and you need to subtract 0.50 from the distance(0.50 - 0.50 = 0.00), the total near is 2.25(0.5 + 1.75). The distance Rx would be Plano with a 2.25 add.
"Book" = 1 D add in distance portion = 1 meter (~3 ft) punctum remotum ("far point")
"Desk" = 0.5 D add in the distance portion = 2 meter (~6ft) punctum remotum
"Room" = 0.25 D add in the distance portion = 4 meter (~12ft) punctum remotum
Got it.