IZON Wavefront Prog. Lenses:Post your experience

[rinselberg]

They are using the same technology that was invented to fix the Hubble telescope when it was sent up and didn't work ... remember that? This is the exact same stuff. NASA did not take into account [the] abberrations occuring in space. They thought about atmospheric abberations, but not [the] distortions coming from outer space. It is the exact same material that is sandwiched inside the lens.

Not that it matters from an optical dispenser's point of view, but I thought that was just an engineering blunder - that the contractor did not construct the telescopic mirror to the specified optical "prescription" - and that somehow it slipped through whatever quality assurance reviews and got launched into space "as built" instead of "as specified".


When is a forum post more than just a forum post? See OptiBoard's Word of the Day!

[Fezz]

Craig vbmenu_register("postmenu_172067", true);
OptiBoard Novice
Occupation: Dispensing Optician
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 6



Do Izon and Ophthonix Lenses work???
I just returned 3 machines and was the largest purchaser of lenses in the United States; the technology has some merits, but beware of the pitfalls. Please be careful as you invest in new technology; it is the company and their commitment to the market that one must bank on, not the technology. :finger:





I would assume that the above author knew the technology well. Said author even invested in three machines. I for one, don't know enough about this technology to form an intelligent decision. Trouble is, information(not marketing fluff) is hard to come by. I wonder if there really is a WOW factor.

[drk]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

If we understood in diopters the amount of correction that this wavefront stuff is providing, we'd gasp.

I believe it's on the order of less than a tenth a diopter. Anyone surfacing to 0.12D accuracy routinely? Any refractionists doing 0.12D routinely?

For all the hype, there is NO NEED for that level of accuracy in spectacle Rxs, in general. Yes, there is someone out there with +0.25D inheirent positive spherical aberration (whatever) and they would benefit from correction of that error. But, let's face it: that occurs maybe in 1% of cases, at best.

Since you can't profitably produce devices for 1% of the market who would need it, you have to hype up the overall benefits to the customer: the unsophisticated eye care professional who is mesmerized by terms such as "Shack Hartmann aberrometry" and "quadrifoil" and "Zernicke polynomials", etc., and just says to himself "I want to provide the best! Sign me up!" (Selling it to the end consumer is not Opthonix's job...it's yours.)

IF (big IF) this pans out (which it won't), then we'll all join in, when the prices come down.

I feel it's a foolish waste of money to risk "being the first" at something. Some would disagree with me.

[Gogs]

...

[Darryl Meister]

DRK, The "diopter" is a unit of measurement based on curvature. Only the second-order wavefront aberrations, which are comparable to sphere and cylinder errors, can be strictly expressed in terms of curvature. Curvature is related to the second derivative of the wavefront height. (Though in the popular Zernike series used for expressing wavefront aberrations, each order includes some lower-order terms, as well.) Higher-order aberrations involve terms with higher derivatives, so the terms would involve D/mm, D/mm^2, etcetera.

It is also possible to express wavefront errors in "equivalent" diopters. Essentially, this equates the root-mean-square (RMS) wavefront error of the higher-order wavefront errors at a given pupil size to an equal RMS wavefront error of the second-order errors, only. Since the second-order errors can be expressed in terms of diopters, this allows you to express all of the wavefront errors in "equivalent diopters." However, the effects of the higher-order aberrations on vision aren't the same as the effects of the second-order aberrations, so this approach isn't especially meaningful...

[eyepod]

DRK
Interesting way to look at it . How many new technologies that are now established in consumer markets came to market at a high price only to have these fall as it becomes mainstream .The list is endless. How many opportunities in life are blown as a result of 'OH It Will Never Work , Oh I dont beleive that will sell etc etc' only to be proved wrong.Scientists used to say that man would never fly .
Unfortunately as I mentioned on an earlier post the vast majority of ideas & opinions being placed here are wrong in relation to how the Z View system works and how its resulting Izon HD Vision Glasses work.
The reason for using a nanometer measurement is
1.The Z View machine measures to that accuracy consistently due to the accuracy of the 3d holographic imaging sensor .
2. HOA makes up 20% of refractive error you need to measure it and correct it at a .01 d accuracy to get a result that delivers customised HD vision.HOA occurs in small quantities in its various classifications and the effect on quality of vision of these is disproportionate and high ( for those challenged by it) when you look at the small values it records itself in .So to deliver a solution that reads that the error accurately ( the Z View does it at 11,300 points) and correct it you need to look at it with .01d accuraccy.

The only way to move forward in the competitive markets of today is to be innovative & informative and pass the story on (patients expect to be kept up to date about new technologies and information that could be beneficial) .If you dont do it someone else will.I would urge you to seek out someone from Ophthonix who can get you into some lenses ,you will then appreciate there is a difference and with it the clinical opportunies and market opportunies.

I dont work for Ophthonix but I am involved in distributing the product in UK and Eire and delivering clinical talks on the technology .My experience and our customers experiences are all positive with this new technology despite the high end price of the lenses.

Gordon Hughes

Thanks, Gordon. I've been feeling like the odd man out here.....like I should be stoned to death for wanting to believe that this works.

[eyepod]

I will be ordering a pair of Izon lenses for myself and should have them in about 1 month. I was considered a candidate for the lenses...I am also very skeptical...I will let you know my experience with the new lenses when I receive them.

also: I wear SV lenses...I know some others that will be getting Progressive Izon lenses and will find out from them their experience.

I absolutely love my IZON lenses. I constantly compare them to a conventional SV lens and the increase in clarity is not only noticable, but surprising as well. The amount of glare and halos while driving at night is greatly reduced. This is one of the reason I feel strongly about these lenses. Once you can see for yourself the increase in clarity, you really won't care how they work. I want to add that colors are much more vivid as well. I experienced the "WOW" factor. :o

[Craig]

I have as much experience as anybody in the world and after most clients had problems reading with the progressive, we sent back 3 machines. We had more machines than anybody and sold more than anybody. The company is all "smoke and mirrors"; I tried to work with them to overcome the lack of patient satisfaction and they are only concerned with raising more venture capital money. They owe me over $30,000 in credits and refuse to deal with the issues. They have recently lost most of their sales staff over these types of issues; such as people can't use the $305 lenses to see and the company could care less. Ask them why as many have sent back the machines as kept them. See what they tell you.
LET THE BUYER BEWARE OF OPHTHONIX!!!

[Craig]

I have sold more than anybody and the progressive does not work; we have put over 30 people who rejected the Izon lens by Ophthonix and 100% went in the same frame and RX into another free form progressive and we have had 100% success. THERE IS A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH THE COMPANY AND THE PRODUCTS. What are you going to do with an overpriced abberometer and no company to service you. They have raised $80,000,000 and need to sell aton of lenses to stay in business. Best of luck and I would be glad to speak with you if you have any interest. My background is in wholesale optical and this is a good start, but it does not work and the company does not care about anything but going public with scetchy products at best.

[Craig]

DRK
Interesting way to look at it . How many new technologies that are now established in consumer markets came to market at a high price only to have these fall as it becomes mainstream .The list is endless. How many opportunities in life are blown as a result of 'OH It Will Never Work , Oh I dont beleive that will sell etc etc' only to be proved wrong.Scientists used to say that man would never fly .
Unfortunately as I mentioned on an earlier post the vast majority of ideas & opinions being placed here are wrong in relation to how the Z View system works and how its resulting Izon HD Vision Glasses work.
The reason for using a nanometer measurement is
1.The Z View machine measures to that accuracy consistently due to the accuracy of the 3d holographic imaging sensor .
2. HOA makes up 20% of refractive error you need to measure it and correct it at a .01 d accuracy to get a result that delivers customised HD vision.HOA occurs in small quantities in its various classifications and the effect on quality of vision of these is disproportionate and high ( for those challenged by it) when you look at the small values it records itself in .So to deliver a solution that reads that the error accurately ( the Z View does it at 11,300 points) and correct it you need to look at it with .01d accuraccy.

The only way to move forward in the competitive markets of today is to be innovative & informative and pass the story on (patients expect to be kept up to date about new technologies and information that could be beneficial) .If you dont do it someone else will.I would urge you to seek out someone from Ophthonix who can get you into some lenses ,you will then appreciate there is a difference and with it the clinical opportunies and market opportunies.

I dont work for Ophthonix but I am involved in distributing the product in UK and Eire and delivering clinical talks on the technology .My experience and our customers experiences are all positive with this new technology despite the high end price of the lenses.

Gordon Hughes

I have sent back 3 machines and the product is all "fufu dust"; the company is on a quest to go public at any cost. We have had more patient rejections than all other progresssives combined. We put over 30 IZon non adapts in a new free form lens and 100% loved them. THey were all the same RX and frame. I have a box of over $30,000 in returns sitting in my office as we speak. Good luck and it is time to dust off your resume.

[Craig]

Sorry guys, but you are all mis-informed. The wavefront correction is mostly in the center third of the lens, but, the programming is "fanned out into the periphery and is dependent on a few things. First, vertex must be specified on the order form. Studies show that a person will only cut their eyes about 15% before turning their head. The wavefront in the periph. is recalculated based on changes to the vertex when a patient looks to the side. It is based on the original rx, vertex, frame size etc. They are using the same technology that was invented to fix the Hubble telescope when it was sent up and didn't work....remember that? This is the exact same stuff. NASA did not take into account abberations occuring in space. They thought about ATMOSPHERIC abberation, but not distortion coming from outer space. It is the EXACT same material that is sandwiched inside the lens. Well, we all know how beautifully the Hubble works now, don't we?
I am disappointed to see the negativity when most people don't really understand how this works. I have heard so many success stories from patients I can't keep track of them all. You guys are missing out on something really special. That's okay....we have patients coming from all over the United States to see us for this technology. If you don't want all of those patients, we'll gladly take them!

You may want to retract this comment, I have a box full of Izon non adapts- 30 pairs at last count. This was after trying to work with Ophthonix; to no avial. I sent back 3 machines and they have received more back in the past quarter than they shipped; not a good trend. By the way, my friend Greg Allen fixed the Hubble as the lead optical PHD type and he would not be happy to be associtated with anything from Opthonix. The Hubble actually failed because he quit prior to completion of the project and NASA called his new employer, Kodak in Rochester, NY and demanded he be loaned back to General Dynamics until it was fixed. He left the same day as the call came in and a few months later, it was fixed. Ask Opthonix how the technologies have any similarities; the answer is there is none and they are all "smoke and mirrors". Good Luck with all the unhappy clients who paid a fortune for lenses that don't work as advertised.:finger:

[rinselberg]

Any comments (Craig?) on the iZon Single Vision Lenses? Were there technical problems with the Ophthonix Z-View Aberrometer that is required to dispense these lenses? Instrument malfunctions? Or was the aberrometer judged to be not acceptable - technically - for the purposes of refraction - irrespective of the performance of the iZon lenses or whether iZon lenses were dispensed?

PS to Craig: I can see that you have real issues with Ophthonix. I'm interested in the technology, first and foremost, and that is all that motivates my questions - personally.

[Craig]

Any comments (Craig?) on the iZon Single Vision Lenses? Were there problems with the Ophthonix Z-View Aberrometer that is required to dispense these lenses? Instrument malfunctions? Or was the aberrometer judged to be not acceptable for the purposes of refraction - irrespective of the performance of the iZon lenses or whether iZon lenses were dispensed?

The aberrometer by Ophthonix is not an accurate device for deriving usable prescriptions in my opinion: I have spoken numerous times with both the designer(the just removed CEO and not by his choice! ) and technical VP at the company and they were not interested in solving the refractive errors.
I tried to work with them on a study to determine the problems and they denied there is RX issue; they are only interested in raising $80,000,000 and trying to convince the financial public this company is worth $250,000,000- yes that is a quarter of a billion. It is hard to imagine a company that is only producing 40 jobs per day to be worth that kind of money. After breakage, they take on average of 6 weeks to get lenses; just imagine the reaction of you and your client when after waiting 6 weeks and they can't see or read as well as there old glasses and you promised the vision would be great.
DId you hear about J&J and how much money they lost on the Definity before they sold the equipment and got out of the business. This one does it with unsuspecting venture capital money and hopes no one realizes the lack of substance in the technology and the company.

There are many times the RX must be changed by the OD and in either case- THE TECHNOLOGY DOES NOT PROVIDE A USABLE RX OR LENSES THAT GIVE BETTER VISION (in my experience with 100's of pairs)- this is in SV or Progressives. I have more non adapts from the SV and Progressive from Ophthonix than all other lenses combined over the past 8 years. I do 98% progressives in my 3 stores and have never told a person they can't wear a progressive until we started using the Izon lens.
PLEASE LET ALL BUYERS OF THE $30,000 MACHINE AND THE $305 LENS ( YOUR COST) KNOW OF ALL THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS TECHNOLOGY AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS.:finger:

[Craig]

Craig vbmenu_register("postmenu_172067", true);
OptiBoard Novice
Occupation: Dispensing Optician
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 6



Do Izon and Ophthonix Lenses work???
I just returned 3 machines and was the largest purchaser of lenses in the United States; the technology has some merits, but beware of the pitfalls. Please be careful as you invest in new technology; it is the company and their commitment to the market that one must bank on, not the technology. :finger:





I would assume that the above author knew the technology well. Said author even invested in three machines. I for one, don't know enough about this technology to form an intelligent decision. Trouble is, information(not marketing fluff) is hard to come by. I wonder if there really is a WOW factor.

You might want to contact all the former sales reps for the company and the reasons they have left , the remaining are polishing off their resumes.
The company had more units returned than sold in the past quarter; does that tell a story that might interest potential buyers.
LET THE BUYER BEWARE OF GETTING INVOLVED IN A TECHNOLOGY COMPANY WITH NO RETAIL OPTICAL EXPERIENCE

[Barry Santini]

Not that it matters from an optical dispenser's point of view, but I thought that was just an engineering blunder - that the contractor did not construct the telescopic mirror to the specified optical "prescription" - and that somehow it slipped through whatever quality assurance reviews and got launched into space "as built" instead of "as specified".

The Hubble's mirror's initial figure was fabricated off BECAUSE THE *TEST* FIXTURE WAS MIS-CALIBRATED (and, obviously, not known to be so)!

It's kind of like taking a PD with a pupilometer that has a serious problem. Sure, you've taken the PD, but does it represent the measurement you want, in reality?

Barry

[eyepod]

You might want to contact all the former sales reps for the company and the reasons they have left , the remaining are polishing off their resumes.
The company had more units returned than sold in the past quarter; does that tell a story that might interest potential buyers.
LET THE BUYER BEWARE OF GETTING INVOLVED IN A TECHNOLOGY COMPANY WITH NO RETAIL OPTICAL EXPERIENCE

Ophthonix has lost one sales person. Not the entire force as Craig suggests. (Oh wait....counting Craig, that makes 2.....you were a sales rep, right? ) Craig, I appreciate your informatice comments but would appreciate them more if you left your personal feelings out of the mix. You are coming across as bitter instead of knowledgable. The statement you make about there being more returned units than units sold is completely false and fabricated. Are you an ex-employee? How would you even know that? Are you aware that the founder of Ophthonix invented one of the best pieces of ophthalmological equipment in the detection and treatment of glaucoma? He invented (or helped invent...not sure which)the HRT so I think there is some experience in the field. Sorry you feel so badly about the company. They are striving to repair any misgivings in the customer service area, which I admit needed some fine tuning. All new companies and technologies have growing pains. Yes, the progressives need a little work and they are working diligently to make it better. In my experience, as long as the frame is pre-adjustd and measured properly, with the OC at least 10mm from the top eyewire they work just fine on the right candidates. Everybody is not a candidate for this lens. You have to manage patient expectations properly or you will be unsuccessful as you have described. The best person for the IZON PAL is the person who is most concerned with clear distance vision and night driving.....not an architect or engineer working over a wide span area. You MUST specify vertex distance and panto tilt in order for the lenses to work properly.I have never had problems returning lenes for credit unless I sit on them too long and then it's my own fault.

[eyepod]

The aberrometer by Ophthonix is not an accurate device for deriving usable prescriptions in my opinion: I have spoken numerous times with both the designer(the just removed CEO and not by his choice! ) and technical VP at the company and they were not interested in solving the refractive errors.
I tried to work with them on a study to determine the problems and they denied there is RX issue; they are only interested in raising $80,000,000 and trying to convince the financial public this company is worth $250,000,000- yes that is a quarter of a billion. It is hard to imagine a company that is only producing 40 jobs per day to be worth that kind of money. After breakage, they take on average of 6 weeks to get lenses; just imagine the reaction of you and your client when after waiting 6 weeks and they can't see or read as well as there old glasses and you promised the vision would be great.
DId you hear about J&J and how much money they lost on the Definity before they sold the equipment and got out of the business. This one does it with unsuspecting venture capital money and hopes no one realizes the lack of substance in the technology and the company.

There are many times the RX must be changed by the OD and in either case- THE TECHNOLOGY DOES NOT PROVIDE A USABLE RX OR LENSES THAT GIVE BETTER VISION (in my experience with 100's of pairs)- this is in SV or Progressives. I have more non adapts from the SV and Progressive from Ophthonix than all other lenses combined over the past 8 years. I do 98% progressives in my 3 stores and have never told a person they can't wear a progressive until we started using the Izon lens.
PLEASE LET ALL BUYERS OF THE $30,000 MACHINE AND THE $305 LENS ( YOUR COST) KNOW OF ALL THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS TECHNOLOGY AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS.:finger:

In my experience, the aberrometer is the most accurate "auto-refractor" that I have ever seen. It is so close to the manifest that most of the time the docs I know prescribe right off of the Z-View. It is highly repeatable when done right. Most of the time, if the exams are coming out differently on the same patient, it is because the technician is not careful enough to watch for changes in patient positioning and alignment or when they fail to instruct the patient to blink at the right times....and then waiting 2 seconds AFTER the blink before taking the measurments. The lens surfaces must also be kept perfectly clean at all times. The room must be dimly lit. We all get sick of performing patient work-ups and it is this apathy that leads to incorrect measurements. The Z-View measures over 11,000 points of data over a 6 mm pupil compared to 400-600 for typical auto-refractors. I'm really sorry that you had such a lousy experience with Ophthonix. Mine continues to grow better and stronger each week.

[eyepod]

You may want to retract this comment, I have a box full of Izon non adapts- 30 pairs at last count. This was after trying to work with Ophthonix; to no avial. I sent back 3 machines and they have received more back in the past quarter than they shipped; not a good trend. By the way, my friend Greg Allen fixed the Hubble as the lead optical PHD type and he would not be happy to be associtated with anything from Opthonix. The Hubble actually failed because he quit prior to completion of the project and NASA called his new employer, Kodak in Rochester, NY and demanded he be loaned back to General Dynamics until it was fixed. He left the same day as the call came in and a few months later, it was fixed. Ask Opthonix how the technologies have any similarities; the answer is there is none and they are all "smoke and mirrors". Good Luck with all the unhappy clients who paid a fortune for lenses that don't work as advertised.:finger:

You are right in the sense that I probably don't know how the hubble telescope went wrong or how it was eventually repaired. I don't claim to be an expert in this area or have a PHD in optics like others on this site. I do know that Ophthonix bought the technology from the government for one dollar so it has to be related in some way....I would think.

[Barry Santini]

It is so close to the manifest that most of the time the docs I know prescribe right off of the Z-View.

Gee, when I asked the OD whose givin' all the Ophthonix presentations at the shows about this, he said the refractionist *still* has to perform a binocular-balance test (red-green?), still the Ophthonix device does not take this into account.

Anyone know differently?

Barry

[eyepod]

Gee, when I asked the OD whose givin' all the Ophthonix presentations at the shows about this, he said the refractionist *still* has to perform a binocular-balance test (red-green?), still the Ophthonix device does not take this into account.

Anyone know differently?


Barry

Barry,

You are correct. Duochrome testing and balancing is stil performed. The sphere can be adjusted as needed w/ IZON lenses but they generally work better if you do not alter the cyl and axis readings made by the Z-View. Now, if your cyl/axis is much different than the patient is currently wearing than that has to be taken into account. Trial framing is helpful in this situation but this type of patient is probably not the best IZON candidate.

[eyepod]

You might want to contact all the former sales reps for the company and the reasons they have left , the remaining are polishing off their resumes.
The company had more units returned than sold in the past quarter; does that tell a story that might interest potential buyers.
LET THE BUYER BEWARE OF GETTING INVOLVED IN A TECHNOLOGY COMPANY WITH NO RETAIL OPTICAL EXPERIENCE

Everybody's got to start somewhere. At one point in time, all of the retail optical companies were brand new.

[DragonLensmanWV]

Boy, there's a lot going on here. But one thing seems to be true and repeated many times by the Opthonix people is that:
There are many people who are not candidates for the I-zon lens.

I ask- what good is a lens that ordinary people are not a candidate for? Especially single vision. Who among us would tell a customer that the supposedly best lens is not right for you.

Sure, someone that's a plano -.25 doesn't need 1.70 index, but these I-Zons are supposed to create better vision, who cannot benefit from that?

[eyepod]

Boy, there's a lot going on here. But one thing seems to be true and repeated many times by the Opthonix people is that:
There are many people who are not candidates for the I-zon lens.

I ask- what good is a lens that ordinary people are not a candidate for? Especially single vision. Who among us would tell a customer that the supposedly best lens is not right for you.

Sure, someone that's a plano -.25 doesn't need 1.70 index, but these I-Zons are supposed to create better vision, who cannot benefit from that?

About 65% of patients will be IZON candidates. There are limitations right now on high powers and high cyl. Also, sometimes there is so little high-order aberration that the lens cost does not justify the small amount if VA improvement. Other times there is so MUCH HO aberration that the lensees can't compensate for it all. You want to fit people who fall into the "sweet spot" for the most success. Pathology within the eye can also rule a patient out. We can't do much for a person w/ mac degen or other retinal abnormalities, dense cataracts, corneal dystrophies, scarring, etc.

Hope this helps.

[eyepod]

About 65% of patients will be IZON candidates. There are limitations right now on high powers and high cyl. Also, sometimes there is so little high-order aberration that the lens cost does not justify the small amount if VA improvement. Other times there is so MUCH HO aberration that the lensees can't compensate for it all. You want to fit people who fall into the "sweet spot" for the most success. Pathology within the eye can also rule a patient out. We can't do much for a person w/ mac degen or other retinal abnormalities, dense cataracts, corneal dystrophies, scarring, etc.

Hope this helps.

One other thing: I have fit people with ocular health issues (keratoconus etc) with the understanding that they might not get the improvement they are hoping for. About 90% of these patients, based on my own personal experience, DO gain some improvement. The lenses may not get rid of all the HO, glare and halo's, but they do tend to make a discernable difference to these patients. First of all, these people tend to be highly motivated because they desperatly want to see better. However, you take a chance on fitting these patients because Ophthonix does not offer the adaptation guarantee on patients who the Z-View determines not to be candidates. You must proceed w/ caution and make sure the patient knows what to expect. PATIENT COMMUNICATION is essential! If anything, you will gain a lifetime customer because you have shown them that you will do whatever you can to improve their vision and that they are important to you.

[DragonLensmanWV]

About 65% of patients will be IZON candidates. There are limitations right now on high powers and high cyl. Also, sometimes there is so little high-order aberration that the lens cost does not justify the small amount if VA improvement. Other times there is so MUCH HO aberration that the lensees can't compensate for it all. You want to fit people who fall into the "sweet spot" for the most success. Pathology within the eye can also rule a patient out. We can't do much for a person w/ mac degen or other retinal abnormalities, dense cataracts, corneal dystrophies, scarring, etc.

Hope this helps.

Well, suggest an appropriate Rx range for them, please. I have no plans to dispense these, but am interested.
Even my newest lenses still create a lot of distracting abberations, though overall my vision is better than my last pair.
i just wish some brilliant person could come up with an effective treatment for floaters, of which I am mightily plagued.