Help! Essilor Physio and Definity

[skirk1975]

Can someone explain in the simplest terms the difference in the new Varilux Physio(the Ipseo for all now?) and the Definity they also do? The definity is dual add technology and the Physio is 360 degree wavefront technology. I want a simple breakdown of this. :hammer:

[AWTECH]

A- The Physio has a traditional cast front PAL designed lens called the Physio

B- The Physio 360 uses the same name but is a different approach using a non-spherical front surface and this is combined with a non-spherical back surface that is freeform generated. (I am not sure if the front surface is freeform generated one lens at a time or there are a number of cast semi-finished lenses used

C- The Definity is an Essilor acquisition. This was acquired while the Physio 360 concept was under development and the dual add simply means that a portion of the near prescribed power is achived by having this on the front of the lens. (The main reason I believe Essilor does not offer a freeform PAL design on the backside only with a spherical front side is that there is a patent for such a design that they do not own nor can they have rights to make such a lens)

From what I can tell these designs in no way take total advantage of the opportunities that the use of great lens designs created individually using freeform technology offer. I do however believe these are probably good effective designs for mass marketing.

Bentley makes a great luxury automobile but it will not make as much money for the parent company as a Toyota Camary will make for Toyota.

Which is better depends on how you look at it.

[Pete Hanlin]

Varilux Physio and Varilux Physio 360 share a common front surface. This surface is created using digitally surfaced molds which create a design created using Essilor's new W.A.V.E. Technology design tool.

Basically, the lens design has been optimized as follows:
In the distance, analysis of the wavefront passing through the lens has resulted in a design which manages the wavefront to control coma and other high order aberrations (which provides sharper distance vision and increased contrast sensitivity).
In the intermediate, vertical alignment of the astigmatism enables the eye to focus more efficiently and gives the perception of greater width in the intermediate field.
In the near zone, the wavefront analysis yields a zone which is stable over a larger vertical area. Since studies show the typical wearer varies posture (and the area of the lens used) over the course of a day, the result is more comfortable near vision.

Regarding the differences between Varilux Physio and Varilux Physio 360- both products control the wavefront as it passes through the front (ADD design) side of the lens. Varilux Physio 360 uses a 360 Digital Surfacing process to optimize the rear (distance Rx) surface as well. Basically, regardless of your distance Rx, the perception of the progression is optimal (this is not true with traditionally surfaced lenses). So, Varilux Physio- traditional surfacing with WAVE Technology on front side. Varilux Physio 360- 360 Digital Surfacing (using freeform equipment and the WAVE Distance Rx design).

Definity uses direct to surface (aka freeform) equipment to allow the ADD power to be split between the front and rear surfaces of the lens. The result is decreased overall astigmatism and greater perception of intermediate width. Different technology than Varilux Physio- but benefits result from both approaches.

Hope this helps to clarify the various designs,
Pete

[AWTECH]

Pete;

What is this W.A.V.E. Design Tool? It sounds like a computer program to create various lens designs somehow using wavefront technology. Such technology is useful at the nanometer level but I can not clearly understand how this relates to designing a lens that is then produced using traditional surfacing with laps etc. The degree of accuracy of design can not be delivered using such an approach. In addition to achieve nano meter accuracy the frame will have to be 10mm bars of titanium screwed to the skull to prevent lens movement.

Please help me understand what I am missing. Or is W.A.V.E Design Tool an Essilor trade name that could mean anything and has no relation to wavefront methology.

[Cherry Optical]

Pete;

What is this W.A.V.E. Design Tool? It sounds like a computer program to create various lens designs somehow using wavefront technology. Such technology is useful at the nanometer level but I can not clearly understand how this relates to designing a lens that is then produced using traditional surfacing with laps etc. The degree of accuracy of design can not be delivered using such an approach. In addition to achieve nano meter accuracy the frame will have to be 10mm bars of titanium screwed to the skull to prevent lens movement.

Please help me understand what I am missing. Or is W.A.V.E Design Tool an Essilor trade name that could mean anything and has no relation to wavefront methology.

I agree with you on needing some clarification on what the whole WAVE thing is. Trying to pin down and explain exactly what WAVE means has been a bit of a trick so far in the field. It sounds a lot more like a trade name than an actual technology or process.

Please get techinical on the WAVE.

Adam

[AWTECH]

Is it similar to the lens material the optical world knows as Polycarbonate?

Wait there is one sunglass manufacture that produces lenses that have the same characteristics as Polycarbonate but they call it "Plutonite"

Is the Oakley lens "Plutonite" chemically any different than Polycarbonate?

Is this "W.A.V.E. Front" a trade name for ray tracing and lens design calculation?

Is this W.A.V.E. Front technology a process that Essilor is attempting to patent? or is it just trademaked?

My guess is that the next explaination we hear is the actual details of how this works are confidential.

[jbiggs114]

You are right. Essilor does not own the patent on a lense that has the whole add power on the back of the lense. Shamir has that product and it is called the Autograph.

[AWTECH]

pjbiggs114

Sorry to correct your incorrect assumption, but the Shamir Autograph is not produced under a backside patent license.

[drk]

I know squat about ray tracing, but reading what went into the design of the Physio, it sounded a lot like ray tracing.

I smell hype on this Physio. I'm sure it's a solid lens, but I doubt it does what it purports to do.

[DaQuano]

Shamir does have its own patent on backside technology. This was settled in the latter part of 05. What also matters is what the backside technology is being applied to. Shamir is currently the only manufacturer of progressive lenses that offers a 4th generation progressive lens with backside technology. Hense, virtually no returns from experienced progressive lens wearers in the 2 years I've been dispensing this product. I also attribute this to the Shamir line material availability. Meaning.........I can avoid poly!:D

[DaQuano]

Eye point technology is maximizing the light rays through all angles of the lens therefore providing clearer vision throughout. Wave point technology is breaking down those light patterns. Wave point is great technology as soon as our Doctors start refracting in 100ths of a diopter.

[jbiggs114]

You Go Ahead With Yourself South Carolina Girl! I Love Them Shamir Lenses!

[AWTECH]

DaQuano;

Please explain how this patent issue was handled in 2005. I am very interested to understand how Shamir contends they have a different patent. If they do have a backside patent that is superior to the other backside patent that was issued in 2000

[AWTECH]

The patent that I am talking about was filed in 1997 and issued in February of 2000. I am very familiar with this patent # 6,019,470, and I am not aware of the Patent that DeQuano is referring to.

If anyone can clairify I would appreciate them doing so.

"I'll show the one I am talking about now you identify the one you say Shamir has." Or is this what a Shamir sales rep told you and you have not seen any reference to a Shamir Patent.

I have been exploring this patent issue for more than three years and to my knowledge I do not know what Shamir would claim to be able to produce a backside PAL with a front spherical surface. I am however willing to let someone show me how they are able to do this.

[DaQuano]

It was settled between the parties involved, the specifics were not released. Shamir had to wait for this to settle before releasing the Autograph, which was scheduled to release a few years prior. Being the creators of free form lens technology they, as a company, hold several patents. Shamir created several of the top selling progressive lenses in the U.S. I never said Shamirs backside patent was superior, its the lens that its applied to that makes the difference.

[AWTECH]

It was settled between the parties involved, the specifics were not released. Shamir had to wait for this to settle before releasing the Autograph, which was scheduled to release a few years prior. Being the creators of free form lens technology they, as a company, hold several patents. Shamir created several of the top selling progressive lenses in the U.S. I never said Shamirs backside patent was superior, its the lens that its applied to that makes the difference.

You say "Being the creators of freefrom lens technology they, as a company, hold several patents." I will grant you Shamir has created a freeform lens, however I do not think they are the original creators of this technology. (see below).

From Shamirs own website:

In 2003 Shamir made its mark again – this time with a new progressive lens based on a new technology. Its Shamir Autograph™ caught everyone’s eye because it characterized the era of personal lenses, thanks to Shamir’s new Direct Lens Technology™

The Patent that I referred to in this thread was filed in 1997 which is a quite a few years ahead of 2003. This patent that I referred to was grated by the US Patent office in February of 2000. Also years in advance of Shamirs own claimed date of entry into freeform.

I want the reader of Optiboard to have facts to base their decisions on not hear say. So far I have not seen DaQuano support any of the claims made with supporting references, and I don't mean to offend you in any way as I am sure you are just repeating what you have been told. My facts can be confirmed on the US patent office web site.

I welcome comments regarding this patent issue that can be factually supported. I would think if Shamir did have a patent on the backside surfacing that they would want to disclose this on the area of their website dealing with freeform. I did not see any mention of such a patent.

[DaQuano]

I'm not exactly sure what your quote points out other than Shamir launching a new progressive lens based on new technology. However, I'm not going to get into a long drawn out debate. I wish you much luck with your patent memorization. Good Day.

[Cherry Optical]

You are right. Essilor does not own the patent on a lense that has the whole add power on the back of the lense. Shamir has that product and it is called the Autograph.

Hmm. I am not exactly sure if this is 100% accurate. My understanding is that Seiko holds the patients for the backside PAL. <-- I also dont know if if this is 100% accurate. LMAO

Adam

[Cherry Optical]

Hence, virtually no returns from experienced progressive lens wearers in the 2 years I've been dispensing this product. I also attribute this to the Shamir line material availability. Meaning.........I can avoid poly!:D

This I agree with hole hardly. We have processed approx. 40 Physio and 50 Physio 360 without any returns (so far). One of the aspects of the launch that we did not totaly agree with was the initial release in Polycarboante. Why ruine a great lens design by putting it in a optically inferior lens material? It is kind of like buying a BMW to haul gravel in the backseat.

Adam

[Cherry Optical]

I'm not exactly sure what your quote points out other than Shamir launching a new progressive lens based on new technology. However, I'm not going to get into a long drawn out debate. I wish you much luck with your patent memorization. Good Day.

What is really great about patent debate is none of them mean jack in China!

Adam

[AWTECH]

DaQuano

However, I'm not going to get into a long drawn out debate. I wish you much luck with your patent memorization. Good Day.

AWTECH Previous concern:

The Patent that I referred to in this thread was filed in 1997 which is a quite a few years ahead of 2003. This patent that I referred to was grated by the US Patent office in February of 2000. Also years in advance of Shamirs own claimed date of entry into freeform.

I want the reader of Optiboard to have facts to base their decisions on not hear say. So far I have not seen DaQuano support any of the claims made with supporting references, and I don't mean to offend you in any way as I am sure you are just repeating what you have been told. My facts can be confirmed on the US patent office web site.

DaQuano indicated that Shamir first developed the backside PAL design using a spherical front curve and that they have patents on this process, (see below)

DaQuano statement:

Being the creators of free form lens technology they, as a company, hold several patents.

My point to DaQuano is that I think everyone here want facts not fiction, and I am not saying your information is all fiction but there are inaccuracies, such as "Being the creators of free form lens technology", which they are not. I am not questioning the function of their lens technology just the marketing and patent rights to certain designs.

I like many here am looking for facts and documented support to prove claims.

[culland]

AWTECH,

I've been looking into this for a while as well since a lab person that uses a lot of Shamir lenses told me they were originally the ones that came up with the Free Form lens. I had never heard from anyone a patent number or any type of reference to this technology and how they developed it. However I've searched the U.S. Patent Office's website and found that patent # 6,786,600 is register to Shamir as of Sept 7th, 2004 and was filed on May 1st, 2002. We all know that the Seiko patent was awarded well before this patent was even filed. The abstract to this patent to Shamir read as follows:


A method for generating a progressive surface includes generating the surface from stored delta data and a substantially spherical surface calculated on-the-fly.


This still doesn't clear anything up to me. I don't know from all the technical jargon in the two patents what the difference is and then throw in the patents given to HOYA and J&J etc... Maybe with this someone could further clarify differences.


AWTECH, All I know after all this is you are correct in saying that Seiko's patent number 6,019,470 is by far the first registered patent for this type of technology that I can find. Also I'd love to hear DaQuano provide the information that can dispute this!!!

[AWTECH]

The Seiko-Epson patents basic point covers a PAL lens design on the backsurface of the lens when a spherical front surface is used.

I would guess one reason J&J used the dual add concept is to get similar optical performance by placing some of the add on the front surface, thereby avoiding a patent conflict with Seiko-Epson. As I understand Hoya does not use a spherical front curve for there freeform lens either. (although I have not confirmed this with Hoya).

Your findings regarding the Shamir Patent seem to indicate that the Shamir patent is already covered by the Seiko-Epson patent. This will require more reading of the Shamir patent before I can comment further.

Thanks again for the Shamir update.

[Pete Hanlin]

What is this W.A.V.E. Design Tool? It sounds like a computer program to create various lens designs somehow using wavefront technology. Such technology is useful at the nanometer level but I can not clearly understand how this relates to designing a lens that is then produced using traditional surfacing with laps etc. The degree of accuracy of design can not be delivered using such an approach. In addition to achieve nano meter accuracy the frame will have to be 10mm bars of titanium screwed to the skull to prevent lens movement.
Please see the other thread for a complete description of the application of wavefront technology to Varilux Physio. To address your specific question in this thread, you are correct- control of the wavefront requires exceptionally precise control of the surface being corrected. In a progressive power lens, the surface which instills most of the higher order aberrations to the wavefront is the progressive surface (the progression of power creates coma, unwanted astigmatism, etc.). Controlling the wavefront to reduce or eliminate higher order aberrations thus requires extreme control of that progressive surface. As mentioned in the other thread, the rendering of the design from mathematical concept to physical lens is accurate to 1/10th of a micron. This was not possible using old molding technology (slumping- an interesting way to make a mold- but one that instilled imprecision). Even with freeform equipment, several (patented) methods of modifying and controlling the equipment were necessary to acheive the precision necessary for the Varilux Physio molds.

For lenses which will have significant curvature on the back side (i.e., distance Rx with considerable astigmatism), wavefront control is also applied to the backside of the lens in Varilux Physio 360 using an extremely accurate 360 Digital Surfacing process.

As to placing the ADD on the back or front side- mathematically there are theoretical optical benefits- but wearer studies confirms the surface on which the ADD is placed is not a significant factor.

I've been studying the science, R&D, and studies associated with Varilux Physio for 6 months now. Is there a lot of hype? Yes. Is it merited? The 2,000+ wearers who evaluated the final design would indicate yes. One other indication of how efficiently the progression on this lens works is the +4.00 ADD available with this design. But, I suspect many will have to "see for themselves" (in fact, I'm hoping millions will do so ;^).

[AWTECH]

I do appreciate you explaining this from the manufacturers point of view.

1-The additional facts I can then conclude are that as suspected the lens is a good PAL design.
2-Two new PAL designs are available
a-Physio using traditional spherical backside surfacing with fining and polishing.
b-Physio 360 a design that uses a non-spherical backsurface matched to the front lens surface to produce a more accurate finished lens.
3-A design which has an accuracy of + or - 0.05 of a micron is much more accurate than can be produced by either manufacturing technique. I don't know what your tolorance for the backsurface freeform is but it is probably 1.0 microns or greater.
4-This Physio can be ordered with standard Rx info which means that it is not optimized for the wrap and tilt or vertex distance.
If this lens was an automobile, I would describe it as a Toyota Camery with about 1/2 of the options. (Great transportation, but not a top of the line Lexus, Ferrari or Porsche.) This lens is designed for broad based use, nothing special to lean to order one etc.

Pete; can you tell me the distance between the near and far optical zone choices for the Physio and the Physio 360 please.