Opticast info

**mauroventura** · 06-27-2005, 06:06 AM

Hello guys,
is there someone who have experience with the Opticast system ?

Is it a valid system ?

thank you

Mauro Ventura

**Jacqui** · 06-27-2005, 07:33 AM

We were thinking about buying one, the problem was the range of corrections and lens types. It's a decently made unit and reasonably accurate. One drawback, besides the range, is that the front molds are made from vacuum formed metal. We received a few samples from the sales dept. and all appeared to be of good quality, both correction and appearance.

P.S. I'm a non-adapt to progressivs (have tried over a dozen different ones), but I can use the Opticast progressive lens. Also we love the range of photochromic colours that are available.

**coda** · 06-27-2005, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Jacqui

One drawback, besides the range, is that the front molds are made from vacuum formed metal. We received a few samples from the sales dept. and all appeared to be of good quality, both correction and appearance.

Jacqui, can you tell me why vacuum formed metal molds might be a problem?

**Jacqui** · 06-27-2005, 01:39 PM

It just seems to me that glass molds would be better, although more expensive to replace. Also, as long as they are forming metal molds, why can't they give me D35 and tri's, maybe even execs and short corridor PALs and a wider range??

**coda** · 06-27-2005, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Jacqui

It just seems to me that glass molds would be better, although more expensive to replace. Also, as long as they are forming metal molds, why can't they give me D35 and tri's, maybe even execs and short corridor PALs and a wider range??

I can't think of any reason that glass should be any better or worse than metal in as delivered molds (presuming even half way decent quality control). Regarding the demand for additional designs it's no easier in metal than glass. I expect the real resistance to providing such a variety is cost. Could you afford to purchase 4 addional mold sets (or have the lease cost of the molds multiply by 4, I don't remember Opticast's business model)?

**Jacqui** · 06-27-2005, 03:08 PM

I was willing to pay the price

**coda** · 06-27-2005, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Jacqui

I was willing to pay the price

Well, I guess I was over simplifying. While the production cost is fairly high the real cost for a limited demand product is the development and tooling costs. If the demand was high (say 1/4 to 1/3 of the total systems sold) or if the addition of extended ranges and products would bring in substantial new business (say a 20 to 25% addition to the existing business) then these costs are recoverable otherwise they'd have to move the entire cost directly on to you which would, I expect, be prohibitivly expensive.

**Jacqui** · 07-03-2005, 09:15 AM

Actually the cost wouldn't be that bad, and yes I was willing to pay it. I'm enough of an engineer (BSIE and BSIT) to know the problems and the processes.

**Leo Hadley Jr** · 07-08-2005, 06:51 AM

Opticast is now offering a full yield guarantee. This means that if you save your defects, you will be reimbursed on monomer!!!!

Now that is amazing, This practice should make them #1 in the casting business.

**opticalman** · 08-25-2005, 07:43 AM

You should investigate the Fast Grind system. It will give you more capability and flexibility therefore the ROI will be much higher. It is not casting but a small version of surfacing. I have a friend who would like to sell his Opticast so he can buy a Fast Grind

**Jacqui** · 08-25-2005, 08:42 AM

Why not just get a small, basic surface system like the OWC Space Saveer?? I think National Optronics and maybe Optek or Coburn could do the same. It wouldn't take much more space than a casting unit.

**opticalman** · 08-26-2005, 03:48 PM

Any of those alternatives are better than casting. However, it depends on your volume. Optek, Coburn and Optronics all require at least 100 sq. ft of space and cost well over 80K. The OWC is smaller and around 50 -60K but you have to fine and polish one lens at a time so if you have the volume to justify their investment you probably are better served with one of the larger system. Typically you need to be doing 20 -30 pair of lenses/day (not including single vision) to justify those systems. I mentioned Fast Grind for those of lesser volume that might be considering casting and can't justify the systems you mentioned. Fast Grind I think is only about 25K and can handle volumes up to the 20-30.