Physio Vs Hoyalux ID

[hardbox_happy]

attend Hoya seminar they explain that HOyalux ID are using vertical as front surface and horizontal as back surface,they mention that it is better design than physio Or physio 360.Both are free form technology,but how about the design of the lens??Free form technology is just a process of the lens only.
Anyone can give some comment or opinion?

[Bobbi]

I recently had this very problem....but my research has led me to the conclusion that the physio and 360 are highly inferior to the hoyalux ID, they are old designs and they are molded differently, but they aren't really "free-form" like they claim. The ID, the Shamir Autograph, and there are a couple other ones (Seiko has one I believe, and so does Zeiss if memory serves) are truly "top of the line" Personally, I don't dispense the physio or 360 anymore ( I can get the same technology and performance from a handful of other lenses at lower prices to my patients) But, like I said, that's just what I came up with when I dug a little deeper than the marketing strategies of all the lens manufacturers, so don't take my word for it.

[hipoptical]

Hey "Bobbi".....

Ditto.
Don't believe the hype!

[For-Life]

Hype?

Essilor is not the only lens company that spits out hype. Look at the hype around the Shamir Creation, a basic progressive that is essentially flatter and thinner.

Yes, the Hoya ID has some of its design on the front and back, but so does the Physio 360. Sounds like two very similar lenses.

[Bill Mahnke]

First, the HOYA iD is not a massed produced lens.

HOYA starts with a hockey puck sized "chunk" of 1.67 or 1.7-index material. Using “FreeForm” technology the front and back surfaces are produced for the particular Rx requirements.

With iD the vertical power components (distance power) are placed on the front surface of the lens, this reduces eye movement for better vision. The horizontal components (namely the intermediate and ALL of near vision power) are placed on the back surface. This moves the near vision power closer to the eye and reduces or eliminates distortions/swim/etc.

The HOYA iD is a custom lens on both surfaces; it’s NOT available in Transitions like other products; Definity, Physio 360, Sola HD, and more. Transitions lenses are produced in bulk-thousands of lenses at a time, so if a lens product - any product is available in Transitions the front surface of that lens can't be custom!

Another advantage of iD is the availability of HOYA’s Super HiVision A/R. With a Bayer score of 10.93 Super HiVision is close to glass in durability and it’s more than twice as scratch resistant as Crizal Alize with a Bayer of 5.0. If your patients are going to invest in the newest lens technology, why not provide them with the best in A/R coating technology. (Bayer testing is always done on CR-39 lenses)

Something to think about….

[dochsml]

First, the HOYA iD is not a massed produced lens.



HOYA starts with a hockey puck sized chunk of 1.67 or 1.7-index material. Using “FreeForm” technology the front and back surfaces are produced for the particular Rx requirements.






Another advantage of iD is the availability of HOYA’s Super HiVision A/R. With a Bayer score of 10.93 Super HiVision is close to glass in durability and it’s more than twice as scratch resistant as Crizal Alize with a Bayer of 5.0. If your patients are going to invest in the newest lens technology, why not provide them with the best in A/R coating technology.



Something to think about….

10.93? On a 1.67 lens? This could be a little misleading. First of all, Bayer is just a ratio of before and after haze due to a measured amount of rough media being passed across the front surface 600 times. This test has standards. Standard media type and size. As well as a standard lens (-2.00 CR39). At least when bragging about AR it does. I know that Essilor uses these standards for their results. It wouldn't be fair to make an apples to oranges comparison here. Quick example: Let us take a non-hardcoated Poly lens (I know don't say it) and one that has hardcoat. Run the media across the non-hardcoated Poly lens and watch it haze like crazy. (take measurement using hazometer). Now run the hardcoated Poly lens and do the same. Factor out the original haze reading of the Poly lens before the test and simple math gives us the ratio. Now this ridiculous test would yield a VERY high Bayer ratio due to Poly lenses scratching easily with no harcoat but it does not mean they are more durable than a CR39 lens with a different hardcoat. I don't know if I'm making sense, but you have to use the standards when calculating Bayer or else the comparison is flawed. Of course, I could be running off at the mouth and these results could be from using standard lenses but that's not what I got from your post.

Personally I don't like the Bayer test since it only measures scratch resistance on the front surface. Adhesion using the Choka test or doing a saltwater boil test tells me a better story. Besides, it's real easy to get good results on a Bayer test with a really good hydrophobic. The media slides across the lens smoother until the hydro gets scratched off.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with Hoya's AR. I just wanted to clarify some of these test result numbers for anyone that may not know exactly what they are looking at.

[Bill Mahnke]

If you know anything about the Bayer test you know that all testing is done using CR product. It is a very valid and exacting test when conducted properly.

If the test is being done for a coating they're testing only the coating and not the lens substrate. Only CR-39 product can be used when Bayer testing. I think most of us would agree that any coating would hold up better on CR than it would on a poly lens. Again, you do not use poly, 1.67 or any non CR-39 product when doing Bayer testing.

You may not like or fully understand Bayer testing procedures. Perhaps you work for Essilor and just didn't like what I had to say about your product. You do appear to be trying to confuse the issue. As you can see I'm just trying to set the record straight.

If you need more information on Bayer testing a pdf file should still be available from Colts Laboratories.

Please contact them at http://www.colts-laboratories.com/

[BS Detector]

So if Hoya's AR is as hard as glass, what is the impact effect if the substrate is softer than the overcoat? Shouldn't there be some compromise between durability and flexability?

[dochsml]

If you know anything about the Bayer test you know that all testing is done using CR product. It is a very valid and exacting test when conducted properly.

If the test is being done for a coating they're testing only the coating and not the lens substrate. Only CR-39 product can be used when Bayer testing. I think most of us would agree that any coating would hold up better on CR than it would on a poly lens. Again, you do not use poly, 1.67 or any non CR-39 product when doing Bayer testing.

You may not like or fully understand Bayer testing procedures. Perhaps you work for Essilor and just didn't like what I had to say about your product. You do appear to be trying to confuse the issue. As you can see I'm just trying to set the record straight.

If you need more information on Bayer testing a pdf file should still be available from Colts Laboratories.

Please contact them at http://www.colts-laboratories.com/

Bill,

As a matter of fact I do understand Bayer testing very well. If you read my post, it states exactly what you did about the testing needing to be done on a CR39 lens. It's just that your original post talks about 1.67 lenses and then mentions that the Bayer is 10.93 leading people to believe that particular product got that score. Obviously you were just talking about your AR and not your 1.67 lens when you posted those results but it seems you were the one being confusing. I don't think we need to insult anyones' intelligence here, obviously we both understand the way COLTS tests are done. And no, I don't work for Essilor or any lens manufacturer for that matter. In fact, I'd be the last person to defend Essilor but was really confused about the facts of that post. I'm sure if I ordered 6 -2.00 CR39 lenses with Hoya's AR on them and had them tested at COLTS, I'd get exactly a 10.93 average.

[dochsml]

So if Hoya's AR is as hard as glass, what is the impact effect if the substrate is softer than the overcoat? Shouldn't there be some compromise between durability and flexability?

I agree. Generally AR gets more brittle the harder and more scratch resistant it gets. There have been some major improvements to help this compromise and it certainly wasn't Hoya that pioneered them. I would like to see their Choka, saltwater boil, and QUVT test results as well.

[Pete Hanlin]

The primary value of a Bayer test pertains to manufacturing consistency- not as an indicator of overall product durability/quality. In other words, Bayer value is not particularly correlative with real-life durability, but it is a parameter which can indicate whether the manufacturing process is stable.

In the test, an uncoated CR-39 lens and the lens being tested are situated at the bottom of a container of either alum or "special" sand. The container is agitated for a number of cycles, the lenses are removed, and the amount of "haze" is measured on each lens (the CR lens is a reference). In the scale, a "1" indicates the value of an uncoated CR-39 lens, however, the scale is not linear (i.e., "6" is not twice as good as "3"). Bayer values are relevent for manufacturing managers (and apparently for some marketing managers).

Hoyalux iD uses a direct-to-surface process to create a front and back aspheric surface. Varilux Ipseo used to be created the same way (direct-to-surface process on front and back). Today, the front surface of a Varilux Ipseo is spherical, and the back surface is directly surfaced with an individual progressive design and distance power (this represents a refinement and advancement in the manufacturing process). Due to the fact that ophthalmic lenses are thin lens systems, the positioning of progression on one side or the other makes minimal difference to the wearer.

Of greater importance than marketing or manufacturing method is the performance of the design on a patient.

[Bill Mahnke]

From Colts Laboratories:

Bayer Ratio – a factor by which the test lens can be quantified against an ISO standard lens. Example: a ratio of 2.0 means that the test lens abraded 2 times less than the standard lens.

It seems to me that any product receiving a high “Bayer Score” would be more scratch resistant (and potentially more durable) than a product with a lower “Bayer Score”.

[Fezz]

So....

A Super Hi-vision coated , Hoya ID lens(cr-39) is 10.93 times less likely to scratch than the standard test lens.

A Crizal-Alize coated Physio lens(cr-39) is 5.0 times less likely to scratch than a standard test lens.

Right?


But..what is the better lens?
The original question is on the actual design of the lenses and the differences, which Bill Mahnke explained about the Hoya ID.

Fezz
:cheers:

[hipoptical]

So....

A Super Hi-vision coated , Hoya ID lens(cr-39) is 10.93 times less likely to scratch than the standard test lens.

A Crizal-Alize coated Physio lens(cr-39) is 5.0 times less likely to scratch than a standard test lens.

Right?

Fezz
:cheers:

The question you should ask yourself is: "What is the 'Standard' test lens?"
I'm gonna test my own lenses & use a naked poly for the "standard" and a thermal hard-coated A/R lens for the test sample. I bet the results are around, oh- let's say 10.93? Then, I'm gonna be fair and use a naked cr-39 versus the same A/R lens. My guess- 5.0 will be the result.
I want to see a real test: only difference being the A/R coating. Same substrate, same hard coat, same process, same curves. I predict that the test will show a result of 1-2 on most GOOD A/R products.

[Bill Mahnke]

This thread is titled “Physio Vs Hoyalux ID”. Seems like we’ve moved into A/R products and testing procedures.

Quote:
"The question you should ask yourself is: "What is the 'Standard' test lens?" “I want to see a real test: only difference being the A/R coating. Same substrate, same hard coat, same process, same curves”.

Okay, I’ll play with you…
Bayer testing requirements are very detailed. As you can see ONLY uncoated CR-39 lenses by the same manufacturer and of the same curvature are to be used. Colt's even has very detailed and important requirements for the leveling of the testing machine.

The Bayer Abrasion test is measuring the performance of the coating! At this point, it appears that the Bayer test is everything that you asked it to be!!

Please take the time to visit Colts Labs website or download the Bayer pdf files from the following links.

3.8 ISO Standard – uncoated CR39 plano power lens with a convex radius of curvature equal to 84 +/-15mm produced by the designated ISO lens supplier.

3.9 Lens Set – two lenses tested simultaneously as part of Bayer Abrasion test. The lens set usually includes an ISO standard lens and a coated test lens.

http://72.236.117.146/pdfs/Bayer%20Test.pdf

http://72.236.117.146/pdfs/Bayer%20Pan%20Leveling.pdf

[stanley_tien]

Hoyalux iD uses a direct-to-surface process to create a front and back aspheric surface. Varilux Ipseo used to be created the same way (direct-to-surface process on front and back).

well, Pete the difference between Physio and 360,it just front and front & back surface.These that i know ,but how we gonna explain to our patient?What can we do or explain let them understand or clearly?

[blackbirdy4444]

I think if you research a little more, you will find that the Physio 360 is nothing like the HOYA ID. The Physio lens is still molded on the front, not customized. The 360 is precisely 50% of the technology represented in the ID.

[blackbirdy4444]

HOYA has an actual lens display that is available to demonstrate conventional progressived technology compared to the ID. And they are using their best selling molded progressive as a comparison... seeing is believing. i have often wondered why Essilor focuses so much on pamphlets... they don't really have a way to prove their lenses are any good... the ID display will make your jaw drop.

[blackbirdy4444]

The primary value of a Bayer test pertains to manufacturing consistency- not as an indicator of overall product durability/quality. In other words, Bayer value is not particularly correlative with real-life durability, but it is a parameter which can indicate whether the manufacturing process is stable.

In the test, an uncoated CR-39 lens and the lens being tested are situated at the bottom of a container of either alum or "special" sand. The container is agitated for a number of cycles, the lenses are removed, and the amount of "haze" is measured on each lens (the CR lens is a reference). In the scale, a "1" indicates the value of an uncoated CR-39 lens, however, the scale is not linear (i.e., "6" is not twice as good as "3"). Bayer values are relevent for manufacturing managers (and apparently for some marketing managers).

Hoyalux iD uses a direct-to-surface process to create a front and back aspheric surface. Varilux Ipseo used to be created the same way (direct-to-surface process on front and back). Today, the front surface of a Varilux Ipseo is spherical, and the back surface is directly surfaced with an individual progressive design and distance power (this represents a refinement and advancement in the manufacturing process). Due to the fact that ophthalmic lenses are thin lens systems, the positioning of progression on one side or the other makes minimal difference to the wearer.

Of greater importance than marketing or manufacturing method is the performance of the design on a patient.

Actually it is really easy to prove that front vs. back placement is VERY important... even with a lens that is only 1.0 thick in the center. All you need is a ruler, paper and pencil.. Using two lines that form the 'top' of a triangle, you can see measurable difference in field of view by moving the appropriate portions of a lens 1.0mm closer to the eye. Really though, the key to the success of the ID is that the HOYA software that 'drives' the surfacing process can actually quantify the perception of the wearer and recalculate, through index mapping, exactly how to make that persons vision quasi-perfect at every angle. The software is the lens... Anyone can make a FREE Form lens, but HOYA's software is award winning... right in Essilors back yard at Silmo. Research vs. Marketing does pay off at this level of technology.

[rdcoach5]

Actually it is really easy to prove that front vs. back placement is VERY important... even with a lens that is only 1.0 thick in the center. All you need is a ruler, paper and pencil.. Using two lines that form the 'top' of a triangle, you can see measurable difference in field of view by moving the appropriate portions of a lens 1.0mm closer to the eye. Really though, the key to the success of the ID is that the HOYA software that 'drives' the surfacing process can actually quantify the perception of the wearer and recalculate, through index mapping, exactly how to make that persons vision quasi-perfect at every angle. The software is the lens... Anyone can make a FREE Form lens, but HOYA's software is award winning... right in Essilors back yard at Silmo. Research vs. Marketing does pay off at this level of technology.

Do you work for or live with anyone who works at Hoya?

[blackbirdy4444]

Do you work for or live with anyone who works at Hoya?

I currently work for HOYA. Dispensed for Ten years prior to that... mostly Essilor products, but Zeiss and Rodenstock too... started using HOYA before i left dispensing.. it is the best. There spectrum of products in smaller than Essilor, but far more advanced technologically. The greatest thing is that in virtually every instance it is easy to prove visibly the superiority of HOYA lenses.
E.G.
A simple polariscope shows the horrible chromatic abberation of most lens materials, however shows in many cases the lack thereof in HOYA lenses.

A simple intense flourescent light shows the bifringence on ANY AR coated lens that is NON-HOYA, but Essilor's are the worst. The Physio for instance may be a great design, but combine it with poly or Essilor's 1.67 and Crizal Alize... and it is a recipe for disaster. More and more pt's are having trouble with materials and coatings that reduce their visual satisfaction... many times the progressive design is blamed, when it was not the problem in the first place. (I equate it to putting bald tires on a Mercedes, great car, but its performance is compromised by what is holding it to the road)

Test after test has also proved the durability difference between HOYA AR coatings and the rest of the pack. I am not saying other coatings are not good,.. just that for the same money, i would rather have MY patients in the AR that is tougher, and offers superior transmission, without bifringence, that is MORE chemical resistant, that will withstand more heat... etc...

I have never been more impressed DAILY as an optician than i have since i have been working with and for HOYA. The dispensers that switch to HOYA will tell you the same and i have found that on this exact web site how much the technology difference is finally being recongnized.

Our labs still have human error elements etc... but the product itself is second to none.

[AWTECH]

blackbirdy4444 said:

I have never been more impressed DAILY as an optician than i have since i have been working with and for HOYA. The dispensers that switch to HOYA will tell you the same and i have found that on this exact web site how much the technology difference is finally being recongnized.

Hoya does offer a number of fine products and your excitement for your new job is great.

We don't publish our testing but I had the ICE-TECH Individual backside PAL design compared to the Hoya ID and the ID does not offer any significant benefit compared to the ICE-TECH backside individualized PAL.

How much of Hoya's dual surface design is the result of not having access to patented backside technology PAL's.

[blackbirdy4444]

blackbirdy4444 said:

Hoya does offer a number of fine products and your excitement for your new job is great.

We don't publish our testing but I had the ICE-TECH Individual backside PAL design compared to the Hoya ID and the ID does not offer any significant benefit compared to the ICE-TECH backside individualized PAL.

How much of Hoya's dual surface design is the result of not having access to patented backside technology PAL's.

I would love to know what your test was... and i am not really sure what your last question is asking... so i will wait for clarification.

[au]

Hi all

For those who love Hoyalux ID, sometimes later, they can have another choice of Hoyalux FD, it is a more economic than ID but still a double aspheric PAL with similar effect on ID. Hong Kong has start launching it since Jan 2007. Even in Australia the FD has started to produce locally instead of ordering from Japan. It also come with 1.6 and 1.67 or suntech 1.6. The price difference will be 20% cheaper compare to ID

:cheers:

[m0002a]

Hi all

For those who love Hoyalux ID, sometimes later, they can have another choice of Hoyalux FD, it is a more economic than ID but still a double aspheric PAL with similar effect on ID. Hong Kong has start launching it since Jan 2007. Even in Australia the FD has started to produce locally instead of ordering from Japan. It also come with 1.6 and 1.67 or suntech 1.6. The price difference will be 20% cheaper compare to ID

What is the average retail for a pair of Hoya ID lenses? Or how does it compare in price to Zeiss Individual and Rodenstock Impression ILT