Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 94

Thread: Varilux Physio comments & feedback please

  1. #51
    The Hi-End PALs Specialist Bobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Thailand
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    381
    Wave Front Free Form technology that used in Physio is technology of 1993. ( Rodenstock Multigressiv 2 )
    " Life is too short to limit your vision"


    ISOPTIK : The Hi-End Eyeglasses Centre
    494 ERAWAN BANGKOK 4th floor
    Ratchaprasong , Bangkok , Thailand 10330
    isoptik@gmail.com
    www.isoptik.com
    Hotline & SMS : +66 81 538-4200
    Fax. : +66 2 251-3770

    :cheers:

  2. #52
    OptiBoard Novice
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobie View Post
    Wave Front Free Form technology that used in Physio is technology of 1993. ( Rodenstock Multigressiv 2 )
    I am not sure how something that has just been patented in the last few years can be 1993 but you obviously have an axe to grind to push your sales. I find this type of discussion very disheartening, particularly in a place like Thailand. Around Asia in general the market is wanting to use the new technologies but often lacks the confidence, it is our job as manufacturers to build confidence in the use of progressives not undermine it by attacking the products we all wish to sell.

    There is plenty of room for all out there, if you are going to make comments supply the data that goes with it. I read just the other day in a Chinese newspaper that a prominent Internet pioneer is now anti the lack of regualtion of comment on the net as people can say anything without backing it up. The comment the other day about Gradal is the same, there will always be anecdotal points to be made about any product but where are the details - there are so many factors to consider; base curves; Rx; thickness and the wearer's own perception etc. There are many cases where the lens design gets blamed when it is just good old aniseikonia, as with any type of lens, altering perception and needing patient adaptation.

    If you want to prove something do the research, give the data, back up your content. We spend $1 million a year educating practitioners and educators across the Asia Pacific through Varilux Academy once they have the skills they can see for themselves which products work for them.

  3. #53
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    6,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobie View Post
    If you believe in Essilor and would like to get trouble , try to fit Physio 360 on Zeiss Gradal Individual's wearer. You will see the truth.
    My experience: I've fit Impression ILT until it was removed from the US market many years ago. I then switched to Zeiss Gradal Individual. This switch, for my *discriminating* clients, was seemless, and they continued to enjoy the Zeiss version for this class of freeform progressives. I must confess that I did not present this lens design class to all clients, many because of cost, fabrication time, and lack of the full array of lens options (transitions in particular). My pre-selected clients, whom I thought would recognize and enjoy (or had the *desire*) for the best progressive lens design available in the US, were presented this lens choice.

    Now, I have enought (10) of these same Individual clients that I have switched into Accolade FREEDOM to report that they LOVE this lens equivalently to their Individuals. I am not making the claim that they are design/performance equivalent, only that they are accepted as such (anecdotally) by these discriminating clients.

    With my experience using Darryl's wrap compensator, and having taken 100's of panto, face form and vertex distance measurements, I can see why using some typical defaults for these values in the Accolade Freedom design process does not materially change the Rx calculations when compared with specified/found values for Gradal individual. In fact, it appears that applying standard Rx tolerancing *and verification* is more crude by a factor of at least 3 compared to the additionally found/calculated precision of specified values for these parameters.

    I have additionally found that almost all my clients respond enthusiastically to a switch in lens design from Comfort to (regular) Accolade.

    Caveat: In all comments cited above, the Rx you begin with MUST be optimal for *that* client, i.e.:

    1. Not overplussed (unless intended)
    2. Corrected for astigmatism properly (amplitude and axis)
    3. Not used in too short a fitting height, i.e., less than 17mm.

    My current *seat-of-the-pants* experience, FWIW

    Barry

    PS - Accolade has essentially *killed* off my Physio and Physio 360 sales (and it certainly not for cost reasons, as they are similarly priced). Apologies to my Varilux rep.

  4. #54
    The Hi-End PALs Specialist Bobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Thailand
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    381
    Sometime , some PALs company can close the sky with their hand , but it can not be forever , because nobody can hide the truth forever.
    " Life is too short to limit your vision"


    ISOPTIK : The Hi-End Eyeglasses Centre
    494 ERAWAN BANGKOK 4th floor
    Ratchaprasong , Bangkok , Thailand 10330
    isoptik@gmail.com
    www.isoptik.com
    Hotline & SMS : +66 81 538-4200
    Fax. : +66 2 251-3770

    :cheers:

  5. #55
    OptiBoard Professional Kyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Athens, Georgia
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    195
    Methinks some may have been sipping from the "Right in any light" cup...

    I especially liked the statistic mentioned regarding some 2 million unique lens combinations. Ever contemplate just what that means and how it stacks up to other lenses? Let's see...5 base curves available with add powers from +0.75 to +3.50...Sphere range -9.00 to +5.00... Cyl range to -4.00...180 axes possible...

    Heck, when you do the marketing math (akin to "man-math" which usually involves a fish), even a P6 looks impressive!

    Essilor is marketing genius at its best. They're great at giving the least amount of detail to entice the most amount of curiosity. That's their job. That opticians get caught up in the hype isn't accidental, either. Does the Physio stack up? It's a good design. Is it the Bugatti of the lens world as Essilor suggests? Nope, but with a good wax in the press room it sure does look pretty.

  6. #56
    OptiBoard Professional dbracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Ryser View Post
    If a company can still do product launch parties of that kind.........in the UK and how many other countries.................they for sure will price the product accordingly and count on major sales figures.

    The customer will always have to pay back advertising cost and original R&D in the price of the product.
    What's wrong with that?

    Confused dbracer
    "Do not waste time bothering whether you 'love' your neighbor; act as if you do." C.S. Lewis

  7. #57
    OptiBoard Professional dbracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle View Post
    Methinks some may have been sipping from the "Right in any light" cup...

    I especially liked the statistic mentioned regarding some 2 million unique lens combinations. Ever contemplate just what that means and how it stacks up to other lenses? Let's see...5 base curves available with add powers from +0.75 to +3.50...Sphere range -9.00 to +5.00... Cyl range to -4.00...180 axes possible...

    Heck, when you do the marketing math (akin to "man-math" which usually involves a fish), even a P6 looks impressive!

    Essilor is marketing genius at its best. They're great at giving the least amount of detail to entice the most amount of curiosity. That's their job. That opticians get caught up in the hype isn't accidental, either. Does the Physio stack up? It's a good design. Is it the Bugatti of the lens world as Essilor suggests? Nope, but with a good wax in the press room it sure does look pretty.
    Kyle,

    This is more profound than some might recognize.

    dbracer.
    "Do not waste time bothering whether you 'love' your neighbor; act as if you do." C.S. Lewis

  8. #58
    OptiBoard Professional Kyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Athens, Georgia
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    195

    rants from ants

    This is to Tim, whose position and opinions I do respect:

    How much profit does that million dollar "education" yield for Varilux?

    Education for the sake of margin = advertisement.

    Don't get me wrong. I'm actually (and some would say bizarrely) in favor of some degree of homogenization of the industry in terms of education and training. For instance, can you imagine a world where there were NO CEC's available? Without the efforts of larger companies, the foundation of most opticians' education would be minimal at best - you have to get a start SOMEwhere. That said, there is NO excuse, in my humble opinion, in spreading disinformation through lies of omission.

    A large computer manufacturer once thought themselves infallible. Reps always wore the same suit/skinny tie combination (and GOD, THOSE SHOES!!!) and for decades the company enjoyed the "largeness" of their "cobalt" creation. The company rose to iconic levels, the name itself being used to describe products from other manufacturers (the Frigidaire/Xerox effect). Ask someone in IT today whether this company's machines stand in the market and they might even reply, "Who?". The marketing platform was there, but the products themselves were clearly not capable of the quick adaptation required in the market.

    Touting a lens as being unique in the industry without providing actual and practical data to its retail distributors is extremely similar to what we see in the States every election year; playing politics is the art of manipulation for personal gain. The clearly weighted presentations of your corporation are no different than those of many others, who ALSO have "educational" programs aimed at elevating the knowledge of ECP's, and are, at their most basic level, political in nature.

    It is only through objective analysis that we find truly useful and helpful information. Do not presume EVER the notion that we, this body of opticians locally and globally, aren't smart enough to figure out when our collective chains are being yanked. However, if you're a large lens or frame manufacturer, don't ever presume that as promotion-chasing sheep we won't volunteer them for a price...say, a million dollars annually? Heck, I might even go for a trip for 2 to...Lisbon? Mostre-me o dinheiro!

    Soas not to delve unnecessarily into my opinion of Essilor's "white papers", read this section at:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_p...l_white_papers

    And by the way, and a bit astray, why aren't all Colts lab results made public? (Rhetorical)

    BAHHHHHHHH

    Now where's my daggum coffee...

  9. #59
    OptiBoard Professional dbracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    114

    White Paper

    Kyle,

    I don't necessarily disagree with your position. I need to research this thing better, but using Wikipedia doesn't lend you any credibility. In fact it's a source of White Paper in itself -- maybe not in marketing ploys, but certainly in poorly researched claptrap.

    I keep hearing significant jealousy about Essilor's marketing ability. Let's stick to the facts here and quit knocking someone else's legitimate good points. Why haven't you improved your marketing.

    If marketing is done on lies, that's one thing. If it's done by driving home good points and not speaking at length on the bad ones, it's just good marketing. Unless your saying that most of us dwell on the bad points of what we produce, and we all have those bad points. I know I don't to the former, and I do to the latter. So far I've heard none of the bad admitted by any of the companies represented on this thread. Only finger pointing.

    All of you seem to expect me to believe that what you say is all correct and what they say is mostly wrong.

    Come on guys, lets here why some of you are still in a "small market" if your product is so good. If it's marketing, why haven't you done a better job so we aren't in this argument in the first place. And as for you "big market" guys, some of these "small market" people are obviously smart, and they have some damn good points.

    And all of you on this thread have got to have better sources than Wikipedia.

    Respectfully,
    dbracer
    "Do not waste time bothering whether you 'love' your neighbor; act as if you do." C.S. Lewis

  10. #60
    OptiBoard Professional Kyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Athens, Georgia
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    195
    Wikipedia as a source of useful information, thankfully, was not my point. I also don't disagree with yours. I enjoy reading your posts. I welcome your criticism and am grateful for such an open forum.

    As far as jealousy goes, I'm certain the "giants" have good programs and am extremely thankful for them, frankly - I benefit from those programs every day: my AR sales are definitely improved by Sola and Essilor's marketing (the 'bullet' lens is amazing!!!), progressive sales by that of Essilor and Zeiss and frame sales by marketing of every fashion designer on the planet.

    In the long run, how many of these innovations would have come about were it not for extensive R&D driven by market research/positioning? Seriously!

    Am I ticked that companies won't/can't, either by policy or contract, provide me with more comprehensive data to digest? Yup. Do I think they're evil because of that? It really doesn't matter in the long run. It is what it is. Am I jealous because they have larger programs than I do? Nope, but if I get an offer to sail to Bimini on the [insert giant corporation name here]-sponsored boat, I probably won't turn it down. Just don't expect me to change my opinion on product XYZPDQ which has nothing to do with Wikipedia's validity as an information source.

  11. #61
    OptiBoard Professional dbracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    114
    Kyle,

    Points taken and noted.

    Remember, you don't get to post, then say that some part of it is not your point. Whatever you say is part of your point or you wouldn't have used it.

    In the words of G. Gordan Liddy, "Words mean things."

    Sometime what's said on here does change my opinions on certain products, after I've checked their validity. That's why I read these "educated" forums. If it doesn't change yours, so be it; but I'm unsure of why you bother, unless it is just to espouse your opinion. That's okay, I reckon.

    Still you've made some damn good points. And, you've influence some of my opinions.

    Respectfully,
    dbracer
    "Do not waste time bothering whether you 'love' your neighbor; act as if you do." C.S. Lewis

  12. #62
    OptiBoard Professional Kyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Athens, Georgia
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    195

    words, mean things

    Dr. DB,

    I like the quote.

    From my own experience sometimes less is more so I'll just say I hope the weather out there is as fantastic today as it is in Georgia.

    I bet we'd have one hell of a great time on that boat to Bimini. ;)

    Enjoy your day.

    Kyle

  13. #63
    OptiBoard Professional dbracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    114

    Boat to Bimini

    G'Day to ya, Kyle.

    dbracer
    "Do not waste time bothering whether you 'love' your neighbor; act as if you do." C.S. Lewis

  14. #64
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964
    P.S. Doesn't Pete Hanlin post here, anymore?
    Not nearly as often as I used to, unfortunately. Between travel and work, there just isn't much time left in the day anymore.

    Y'all take a pretty dim view of marketing people. I work with ours every day, and they're a pretty nice- and responsible- bunch of folks. Their challenge is trying to communicate product benefits to an audience who often doesn't really understand the product!

    In this thread alone there are misconceptions that would be clarified if one simply read the marketing provided with the product:
    1.) Varilux Physio has a digitally-molded front and a traditionally surfaced back.
    2.) Varilux Physio 360 shares the same front- but has a 360 Digitally Surfaced back.
    3.) DEFINITY has +0.75 ADD on the back surface- with the remainder on the front (so a +2.00 ADD with have +1.25 on the front and +0.75 on the back).
    4.) Putting all the progressive & distance power on the back surface of a PAL is a concept currently used by at least 4 manufacturers.

    Finally, its one thing to have a real eye care professional who is confused and wants some illumination- but perhaps folks with financial interests in other products could spare us all the fabricated indignation when a major manufacturer brings a product to market.

    PS- Varilux Physio 360 isn't the Bugatti of progressives, its the Jaguar XKR!
    PPS- Statements of "PAL X works soooo much better than PAL Y" are silly (and you can make X and Y any design you want).
    Pete Hanlin, ABOM
    Vice President Professional Services
    Essilor of America

    http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74

  15. #65
    OptiBoard Professional dbracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    PPS- Statements of "PAL X works soooo much better than PAL Y" are silly (and you can make X and Y any design you want).
    Pete,

    I haven't looked into things well enough, yet, to separate the wheat from the chaff on some of your other "defense tactic" statements. But in 30 years of prescribing all the PA's out there, I can say the quote hereinabove is true without a doubt.

    I ain't never prescribed a PA that works every time for every one, nor have I had a patient that will accept every PA at any time.

    Respectfully,
    dbracer
    "Do not waste time bothering whether you 'love' your neighbor; act as if you do." C.S. Lewis

  16. #66
    Master OptiBoarder Darryl Meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Kansas City, Kansas, United States
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    3,700
    I ain't never prescribed a PA that works every time for every one, nor have I had a patient that will accept every PA at any time
    I don't think it's possible for a single progressive lens design to work for everyone, simply because many people have vastly different visual needs. prescription requirements specific to that individual wearer. The presbyope who spends much of her day at a desk may benefit from a lens design with larger intermediate and near zones, whereas a commercial driver may benefit from a lens design with a large, clear distance zone. Similarly, a low hyperope who generally removes her spectacles to drive may prefer a larger near zone, whereas a low myope who removes her spectacles to read may prefer a larger distance zone. Individualized customization of lens designs based on this type of wearer feedback is one of the most meaningful applications of free-form technology, in my opinion.
    Darryl J. Meister, ABOM

  17. #67
    OptiBoard Professional Kyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Athens, Georgia
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    195

    der....

    Pete,

    You mean it's better than my '91 Accord? :shiner:

    PS: I like market people. They sell me produce.
    PSS: I secretly admire large corporations. They employ my patients. :bbg:

  18. #68
    OptiBoard Professional bren_03825's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Peterborough, NH, US
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    147

    Comment and Feedback on My Physio 360 and Physio

    Now being a myopic astigmatic, and being an ABO certified Optician for about 16 years, and wearing progressives for 7 years....the Physio I had sucked compared to the Panamic, same frame, measurements, materials, etc. The Physio 360 in plain poly with Alize Clearguard is the only lens I have been able to compare to my Multigressiv ILT. Tis only my opinion, but Kudo's to Essilor for catching up and comparing to that lens. For some of my patients, they like it better, some not as good. The next lens I will be trying is the GT2 (having been secretly a Zeiss fanatic before the Multigressiv) I want to see if it is as good as I think it will be. When I fit any patient (previous or new) with progressives, I will fit between these lenses, unless they want barebones, then I fall back to comfort, definity, VIP, XL. The hardest thing is overcoming bad fits from outside eyeglass providers, imho.

  19. #69
    OptiBoard Professional dbracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    114

    Some general questions on PA's

    To Darryl Meister, Kyle, Tim Thurn, Awtech,

    Let me ask a few questions here that confuse me about some of your comments. Please understand I’m not arguing with you. Ya’all seem pretty intelligent to me, and my retriever’s IQ is 10 points above mine. So you’ve nothin’ to fear from me.

    I don’t care whose lens is best. I just want to know some things. I want to clear-up what seems illogical.

    First a short explanation so we’re on the same page, as far as I can tell, in our understanding.

    Zernike coordinates are simply Cartesian coordinates with elevation (piston), tilt and yaw. There are millions of them on a cornea. But, ocular surgeons have found that if they work with that many, they get lost in the forest for the trees. So, 30 or 40 are adequate.

    Now I’m sure an aberrometer could be used in any kind of optics, but to date, the name is, sorta, reserved for intra-ocular aberrations, but aberrometer is by no means a “patented” exclusive for ocular work. For example, a tonometer measures ocular pressures, but tension is measured in other professions also: vascular tension for example. They use tonometers.

    Now aberration within the eye isn’t a problem unless a given eye is “missed with” such as by refractive surgery. What I mean is that I’ve never heard of an individual having problems with aberrations unless they’ve had cornea work or a disease causing the same effect. The exception here being aberration caused by an optical device, and that’s not intra-ocular that is extra-ocular. Extra-ocular problems don’t have to do with intra-ocular aberrations. Right?

    So in dealing with glasses and incident light the eye, intra-ocular aberration doesn’t come into play because the eye has no aberration problems as long as we can make the incident light resemble that to which it is accustomed.

    So why would and optical lens engineer need to determine individual corneal aberration since the eye itself doesn’t have any problems? It hasn’t been altered to cause intra-ocular aberration such that wave front analysis and Zernike polynomials are needed.

    So if the light coming out of the back of the lens has properties similar to what the eye is accustomed, why would a company have to analyze each eye? Wouldn’t it be adequate to simply make incident wave fronts more of the normal type?



    Respectfully,
    dbracer
    Last edited by dbracer; 06-26-2007 at 02:56 PM.
    "Do not waste time bothering whether you 'love' your neighbor; act as if you do." C.S. Lewis

  20. #70
    Master OptiBoarder Darryl Meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Kansas City, Kansas, United States
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    3,700
    Zernike coordinates are simply Cartesian coordinates with elevation (piston), tilt and yaw. There are millions of them on a cornea. But, ocular surgeons have found that if they work with that many, they get lost in the forest for the trees. So, 30 or 40 are adequate.
    I may not entirely understand your question here.

    Typically, Zernike basis functions are generally expressed in either polar (radius, angle) coordinates (not entirely unlike a Fourier series) or, less commonly, Cartesian (x, y) coordinates. After measuring the height of a given surface, such as an aberrated wavefront, over a sufficient number of points, the surface can then be "fitted" with these Zernike basis functions using least-squares techniques. Just as you can build a rather complex looking house out of a combination of simpler shapes, such as squares and rectangles, Zernike basis functions can "build" a complex surface shape when added together.

    However, the actual Zernike aberrations are generally expressed by their orders and modes, though the first few have relatively common-ish names like "defocus," "astigmatism at 045," "vertical coma," etcetera. Each Zernike aberration has a coefficient associated with it that indicates the quantity of that particular aberration present in the surface shape -- that is, the "size" of the basis function.

    Now I’m sure an aberrometer could be used in any kind of optics, but to date, the name is, sorta, reserved for intra-ocular aberrations, but aberrometer is by no means a “patented” exclusive for ocular work.
    True. Though, in other optical applications, the device is typically referred to as a wavefront sensor.

    Now aberration within the eye isn’t a problem unless a given eye is “missed with” such as by refractive surgery.
    Uncorrected higher-order aberrations can reduce the quality of vision to some extent, though probably less than most people are willing to tolerate, anyway. These aberrations generally limit the ultimate resolving power of the eye though, and once they are eliminated the resolving power of the eye becomes limited by diffraction and the neural density of the retinal mosaic.

    So in dealing with glasses and incident light the eye, intra-ocular aberration doesn’t come into play because the eye has no aberration problems as long as we can make the incident light resemble to which it is accustomed...
    Just so we're on the same page here, we have been discussing progressive lens designs that claim to reduce the higher-order aberrations produced by the spectacle lens, itself, not the higher-order aberrations of the wearer's actual eye -- though this is a common misconception. Due to the variation in refractive error across the surface, progressive lenses introduce coma-like and trefoil-like wavefront aberrations. Unfortunately, you cannot really eliminate these aberrations, just as you cannot eliminate unwanted surface astigmatism. However, you can manage them, just as you can choose to use either a "harder" or "softer" lens design to manage astigmatism accordingly. Lower gradients of power, for instance, will reduce coma; however, in order to obtain the desired change in Add power over a reasonable distance, you still need to have high gradients of power -- and, consequently, high coma -- somewhere along the progressive corridor.

    So if the light coming out of the back of the lens has properties similar to what the eye is accustomed, why would a company have to analyze each eye? Wouldn’t it be adequate to simply make incident wave fronts more of the normal type?
    Unfortunately, the only higher-order aberration that has an actual "trend" in the normal population is spherical aberration, which isn't actually produced by most spectacle lenses anyway, since the small pupil of the eye limits -- or "stops down" -- the diameter of the ray bundles leaving the spectacle lens. The other higher-order aberrations are pretty much "normally" (in the Gaussian sense) distributed.
    Darryl J. Meister, ABOM

  21. #71
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964
    I haven't looked into things well enough, yet, to separate the wheat from the chaff on some of your other "defense tactic" statements.
    Simply trying to clarify some of the (sometimes humorous) mistatements of fact regarding various products... Its amazing how some individuals can complain so vehemently about material they've obviously never read. Your dispensing experience is similar to my own- there's no peg that fits in every hole.

    Personally, I think if you're using a PAL and are happy with its performance, then you obviously have a good thing going and should stick with it. Nearly any PAL is going to be better than a segmented bifocal when it comes to visual performance, so I'm more interested in seeing the market do a better job of recommending PALs to patients than I am in arguing how good one design is compared to another.

    That said, I happen to work for the manufacturer of Varilux, DEFINITY, and other PALs. So, the most important thing to me is that I'm convinced Essilor's PALs are the best in the world (because it would be quite depressing if I didn't believe that)- if I'm able to convince others of the merits of Essilor's PALs, that's just icing on the cake.
    Pete Hanlin, ABOM
    Vice President Professional Services
    Essilor of America

    http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74

  22. #72
    OptiBoard Professional dbracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    I haven't looked into things well enough, yet, to separate the wheat from the chaff on some of your other "defense tactic" statements.
    Simply trying to clarify some of the (sometimes humorous) mistatements of fact regarding various products... Its amazing how some individuals can complain so vehemently about material they've obviously never read. Your dispensing experience is similar to my own- there's no peg that fits in every hole.

    Personally, I think if you're using a PAL and are happy with its performance, then you obviously have a good thing going and should stick with it. Nearly any PAL is going to be better than a segmented bifocal when it comes to visual performance, so I'm more interested in seeing the market do a better job of recommending PALs to patients than I am in arguing how good one design is compared to another.

    That said, I happen to work for the manufacturer of Varilux, DEFINITY, and other PALs. So, the most important thing to me is that I'm convinced Essilor's PALs are the best in the world (because it would be quite depressing if I didn't believe that)- if I'm able to convince others of the merits of Essilor's PALs, that's just icing on the cake.
    Can't argue much with a straight up statement like that.

    Respectfully,
    dbracer
    "Do not waste time bothering whether you 'love' your neighbor; act as if you do." C.S. Lewis

  23. #73
    OptiBoard Professional dbracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    114

    Mr.'s Kyle, Meister, Thurn, Awtech, Hanlin

    I think Mr. Meister is correct. I didn’t communicate my question well.

    The first few paragraphs are to establish level of understanding. I ain’t smart but I did spend the best part of my youth in terrible dingy, musty, stale science and math class rooms. Some of it actually stuck to a dull knife. I was just trying to say I begrudgingly spent as many college hours in trig, calculus and physics as the next guy.
    I’ll do some of it again.

    Level of understanding coordinates (not a question):
    Cartesian coordinates are not limited to a simple quadratic, two dimensional abscissa and ordinate plots. They can also include the z-axis converting quadrants to octants and 3-deminsional space.

    You can explain the Zernike surface development by formulation like Mr. Meister or you can more practically describe it as:

    Taking x,y,z Cartesian coordinate then adding to it formulated curvatures front and back, left and right establishing tilt and yaw like an airplane, ultimately establishing not only precise location, but also orientation.

    Knowledge of the term aberrometer (not a question):
    Tscherning actually called the original instrument for observing the distortions in ones own eye an aberroscope. We’ve always called the sophisticated device used today an aberrometer, but I’ve never thought of an aberrometer as being exclusively an eye care instrument.

    The reason is, if you look in such reputable reference as Dorland’s Medical Dictionary, Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, and The Dictionary of Visual Science by Schapero, Cline, Hofstetter they give the definition as “An instrument for measuring aberrations in experiments or observations.” They are not limited to optics. Mr. Meister must be only familiar with the intra-ocular ones. According to these sources an aberrometer typically called something else remains and aberrometer. What’s typically called a runway by a duck is referred to as water by a Chukar.

    So, even though it’s my field, I think that declaring “aberrometer” mainly an ophthalmic &/or medical optics term is stretching the truth a bit to benefit ones own point of view, which I find a source of aggravation on these threads. So Mr. Miester, Mr. Thurn has you on that one.

    The Questions:
    I’m not discussing whether anyone is even doing wave front analysis on lenses currently. The question has nothing to do with coordinates, aberrometers or 3rd of 4th order aberrations.

    The question is why do we need to analyze an individual’s intra-ocular aberration when, with spectacle lenses, we are dealing with extra-ocular wave fronts before they even reach the eye?

    If the incident wave fronts are made more like the ambient wave fronts to which the patient is accustomed then there will be less distortion perceived, because I know of no one who, with their "stand alone eyes," complains of aberration unless their eyes are diseased or surgically altered.

    So why can’t we use wave front analysis to determine a more appropriate extra-ocular incident light pattern with out considering each individual?

    Respectfully,
    dbracer
    Last edited by dbracer; 06-26-2007 at 11:32 PM.
    "Do not waste time bothering whether you 'love' your neighbor; act as if you do." C.S. Lewis

  24. #74
    Master OptiBoarder optigrrl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    The surface of the sun on a rainy day
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    1,336
    Quote Originally Posted by doclabs View Post
    Physio 360 (among many others) is an improvement to normal front side progressives. However, they do not surface the front side. It is a cast normal front side progressive that they say is digitally designed (marketing). The distance/intermed/near are all done on the front side (confronted essilor on this and they admitted this -pre-moulded progressive). The backside of the progressive is aspheric/atoric and that is where the freeform component comes it. This asphericity allows for less abberation in the periphery.

    Dont take my word for it. To find out if you have a front side progressive and an aspheric inside curve (physio 360 while physio is just a normal conventional prog) simply use a sag gauge on the front of the progressive in different areas and u will see that all of the progression is on the front of the lens. If you clock the back (on the two meridians) you will see that there is only the slightest amount of asphericity. An improvement or conventional progressives but by no means the holy grail. Fully internal progressive are the real deal.

    With respect to essilor claiming their fix higher order abberations well, its a marketing lie. Why? You need to know what you are correcting for. You need an abberometer which measures a persons eye and the higher order abberations therein (opthonics does this). The you can use that mapping to recreate and fix the higher order abberations. However you must ask yourself... if someone adjust their glasses or moves their eyes... that fix is out the door because that fix is at a fixed point only. Marketing is what these big vendors do best. Their staff simply spout what they are told and like to dazzle and wow people with a whole bunch of complexities that are more weighted towards marketing vs truth. That said it is definately an improvement over normal progressives, however i believe fully internal progressive (sag on front reads spherical and full progression on back) is the way to go. Overcomes the inherent weaknesses of having to look through lens material before you can even get to the active curves of the lens (the progression on the front side of progressives)

    Also there are dual patents issued in north america for fully internal progressives. Seiko has one, and so does Zeiss/Sola. This means everytime someone produces any internal progressive (their own included), they have to pay just over $3US each. This is the most probably reason why Essilor has not come out with there own fully internal yet (however i suspect they will because the patents are being fought in court). Keep in mind the Essilors and big vendors are marketing machines that know exactly how to successfully launch products and create buzz.

    Cheers,

    doclabs
    Thank you for putting it so succinctly. Don't forget the Hoya iD.

  25. #75
    Master OptiBoarder Darryl Meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Kansas City, Kansas, United States
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    3,700
    First of all, let me say that I do enjoy discussing this sort of stuff, and I'm glad to have run across a few individuals who actually have a genuine interest in this topic.

    I was just trying to say I begrudgingly spent as many college hours in trig, calculus and physics as the next guy... Level of understanding coordinates (not a question):
    At the end of the day, coordinate systems are just a means to express a location in a multi-dimensional space. It just so happens that some of them are more convenient than others for a particular application (e.g., rectangular/Cartesian, polar, curvilinear, etcetera). That is to say, the use of one coordinate system over another may simplify the mathematics involved, once the initial transformations to the chosen coordinate system have been completed. And you can certainly convert from one coordinate system to the another in many (if not most) cases, assuming they at least represent the same multi-dimensional space, that is.

    I suspect that the Zernike basis functions (i.e., Zernike "aberrations" or "modes") all look pretty much alike when the surface also looks the same in a given coordinate system.

    So, even though it’s my field, I think that declaring “aberrometer” mainly an ophthalmic &/or medical optics term is stretching the truth a bit to benefit ones own point of view, which I find a source of aggravation on these threads. So Mr. Miester, Mr. Thurn has you on that one... Mr. Meister must be only familiar with the intra-ocular ones
    Keep in mind that I have already distinguished between wavefront sensors used in ophthalmic applications (i.e., "aberrometers") versus wavefront sensors used in other applications (e.g., adaptive optics for telescopes) in post #39, so I am certainly familiar with the use of these devices in non-ophthalmic contexts.

    As I noted in that same post, I have only ever seen the term "aberrometer" (as applied to wavefront measurements) used in ophthalmic applications, but I certainly won't discount the possibility that someone -- somewhere -- has applied it in a different context. For that matter, much of our ophthalmic vernacular has subtly different meanings in other fields and contexts. In any event, I think you will find that modern usage of the term almost inevitably refers to a wavefront sensor used for measuring ocular aberrations.

    And, certainly, this is the common meaning of the term in modern vision science literature. Further, as you noted, Tscherning did not call his device an "aberrometer" (not that "aberrometer" is anything more than "aberration" and "meter" combined). However, if you find a specific -- and reasonably common -- reference to the use of the word "aberrometer" in a different ophthalmic context, or in a non-ophthalmic context, I would happily reevaluate this assumption. In the meantime, I would argue that a typical astronomer would still look at you in confusion if you referred to an "aberrometer," while a typical ophthalmologist would immediately identify it as a device for measuring ocular wavefront aberrations.

    The question is why do we need to analyze an individual’s intra-ocular aberration when, with spectacle lenses, we are dealing with extra-ocular wave fronts before they even reach the eye?... So why can’t we use wave front analysis to determine a more appropriate extra-ocular incident light pattern with out considering each individual?
    The short answer is that we do not need to analyze the wavefront aberrations of the wearer to minimize the wavefront aberrations produced by the spectacle lens. However, there is no way around analyzing the wavefront aberrations of the actual eye before attempting to correct those -- at least beyond assuming a nominal correction for spherical aberration.

    But keep in mind that a spectacle lens cannot fully eliminate the wavefront aberrations of the eye, anyway, without introducing additional lower- and higher-order aberrations as the eye rotates behind the lens.

    ...Mr. Meister...
    post-scriptum,
    It's just "Darryl." ;)
    Last edited by Darryl Meister; 06-27-2007 at 12:22 PM.
    Darryl J. Meister, ABOM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Free Uni-Clip for Varilux Physio order at incredible low price
    By Uni-Clip in forum Optical Marketplace
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-21-2006, 09:27 PM
  2. Advice on comparing Varilux Physio 360 to Zeiss Gradal Top
    By johnm98 in forum Progressive Lens Discussion Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-07-2006, 05:46 AM
  3. Zeiss individual vs varilux physio?
    By nancy1953 in forum Progressive Lens Discussion Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-20-2006, 07:32 AM
  4. Essilor Announces Industry Changing Progressive Addition Lens
    By Newsroom in forum Optical Industry News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-13-2006, 02:17 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-21-2005, 04:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •