Physio 360 Gold or Junk??

[Darryl Meister]

I was thinking about the number of cylinder and sphere cut combinations plus the blanks. (And it was an off the top of my head estimate)

For a semi-finished lens with a traditional back surface, the number of unique designs can be equal to no more than the number of Base and Add combinations for a given lens material. Further, in many cases, there may be only a single unique design that has simply been "scaled" for different Base curves and Add powers; that is, there is really only a single unique progressive lens design for "mono-design" progressives.

The Shamir Rep was a dispensing optician for 13 years. The Essilor Rep sold cell phones.

I understand that this can be frustrating.

I know the guy just doesn't understand it himself, and finds it that much harder to explain it to other people, but for 8 months now I've been trying to figure this Physio stuff out and finally a rep said something to me that made sense! (The shamir rep)

But did the Shamir rep truly explain Essilor's technology, or even the basic principles of wavefront aberrations in general, or just the "wavefront party line" for his/her own company (Shamir)? My point earlier was that optical sales people often explain things from the perspective of their own company, usually using their company's marketing language and storyline, which may or may not be consistent with the technologies of another company -- or even reality, for that matter. Though a good sales person will appear to know what he/she is talking about. ;)

[AWTECH]

EyeFitWell Said:

3. We currently only have an account with essilor labs, and they cannot get the autograph for us.
So, the idea is, if all goes well with the Creation, maybe I can get Doc to open an account with a nonessilor lab and try out the autograph!

Tell your Doc it is easy and benefical to open an account with another lab. It is quite simple to open an account with ICE-TECH Advanced Lens Technologies. You pay your bill and you continue to get the best lenses.

Ask the Doc if you can send me some copies of invoices for the Shamir products and I will prove to you that our quality for the price is unbeatable. We can make products others can not such as a 68ED lens for a Dior frame with a polarized PAL.

[Bobie]

EyeFitWell , Varilux Comfort is the most successful PALs and is still great PALs in the same price. We can say like Comfort still the best PALs of Essilor if you compare with $ per performance. :D

The Varilux Comfort wearer who have to pay 30% more for Physio and expect about the same performance will be quite happy but if they expect that Physio must be better than Comfort for overall performance , will be not happy at all. :D

In the end , Physio is better than Panamic more than Panamic better than Comfort. :D That's all.

[Fezz]

Bobie,

I enjoy your posts and thank you for your insight.

You mention that one lens is better than others. But, how much of being better is subjective? And as a lens company, does subjective response really play any role into your analysis of various lenses?

[Bobie]

Thank you for your comment , Fezz
We will recommended our wearer to switch to another PALs unless it is much better , no other.

In case that our wearer have to pay more , they must get more performance , if not we can not charge them for any $.

In fact , every PALs have good point and bad point and some PALs is good for some wearer , some are not.

Our mission is to really understand how to choose the right PALs to the right wearer.

• The eye movement wearer will suit for harder design PALs.
• The head movement wearer will suit for soft or semi-soft design.
• In case that the wearer have conflict about habbit / hobbies and jobs. We have to choose Free Form PALs or will recommended the wearer to have more than one PALs.

We mention one lens is better or much better than others in some case , because the PALs Empire try to inform the world that , their PALs is better than others brand for all cases but that is not true.

In the end , we always believe in what the wearer comment how good or how bad in all PALs.

In Thailand , the PALs Empire have to answer my question that , why you say your PALs is the world's best but when our wearer don't like , why we can not get money back ? Where is the adaptation guaranteed ? Why we have to pay in very expensive price of PALs that can not used ?

Instead to answer my quesiton , the PALs Empire choose to shut down my comment by calling my dad and mum and make my parents fear. This is what the PALs Empire do in Thailand. ( Hope they dont do like this in the US and Canada. )

In Thailand , when we are fitting PALs, We always guarantee the same performance in the same price , better performance in more price , much better performance in much more price and totally better in the most expensive price.

Fezz , What you will do when your wearer who trust in you and pay 10 times more for some PALs but the performance is poorer than the 10 times cheaper PALs and it is the old one. ( In Thailand , we give money back to the wearer if they need or make the new one untill they are realy happy , without any discussion ). :D

[Pete Hanlin]

Regarding the original post, it seems rather peculiar that a lens that has performed so well in clinical studies- and in offices around the world- has managed to perform so universally poorly in your office. In fact, I would find it peculiar if 8 out of 8 pairs of ANY progressive lens design failed. I'm no longer actively dispensing, but since the launch I've personally ordered Varilux Physio 360 lenses for 6 relatives and colleagues- all of which performed just great (guess its just the luck of the draw).

I won't waste your (or my own) time attempting to explain how the design works. After all, apparently the Shamir consultant is comfortable explaining Essilor technology, and a competitive sales representative is obviously a completely objective source for information regarding other company's products. Nor will I try to troubleshoot the failed lenses you've experienced (since your post doesn't appear to indicate an interest in understanding why the problem occured, and you are apparently looking forward to using Shamir's products).

Best wishes with your future patients- perhaps you will have better success with Shamir's products.

Happy Holidays,
Pete

[MarySue]

Hang on Pete

I didn't say it consistantly performed poorly - I said, originally - that the lens was expensive and wasn't an improvement on other designs in the market place.

Interesting how things get misunderstood when only a font speaks.

Mary Sue

[Darryl Meister]

I didn't say it consistantly performed poorly - I said, originally - that the lens was expensive and wasn't an improvement on other designs in the market place.

I think he was referring to EyeFitWell's original post, not yours.

[mike.elmes]

I am very dissaspointed with the performance of this Physio 360! I've done about 8 total pairs now (in addition to TONS of regular Physios). I've used the 360 only on patients with higher powers and every single one of them has been returned.
In the lensometer, they don't look crisp but I was told not to worry about that. (The first pair I ordered I sent back to the lab three times before I mentioned it to Doc, and he said it's probably just the lensometer that can't read it).
The most recent one, for example, the right lens was -7.75 sph. In the lensometer, it definately was most clear at 7.75 (more so than a little above or below) but no matter what I did, it never looked completely crisp. I calibrated my lensometer just to be sure (I'm the only one who uses it) and still, doesn't look crisp. I spun the axis wheel to look for waves and didn't find anything. So I dispensed them, and a week later she's back wanting a Rx check/remake. She can't see.

Why am I selling an outrageously expensive, "more accurate than anything before" lens that they can't even get on power??? Is there something I should know about these wavefront lenses? I thought the whole point of the digital surfacing was more accuracy, and yet every other lens in any material looks better in the lensometer...

I'm looking forward to my appointment with the shamir rep.

To be fair to Essilor, what did you do for the 8 people that brought back their Physio 360's?? What lenses did you use specifically?
Many of the problems with these difficult progressive wearers can be cured in the chair of the doc that wrote the RX. The goal of Optiboard is not to bash companies, it's to solve problems such as the ones you experienced with the Physio 360. I thought your thread title was unprofessional. gold or junk? I can think of many lenses that deserve the moniker of Junk, certainly not the physio 360.

[mike.elmes]

Gread post , Mary Sue :bbg:
Let we find out the truth of all PALs to protect our patient from the empire of PALs who always try to sell their PALs in too expensive price if compare to other PALs from other company. :bbg:

Bobie, I hope you don't compare all products by price alone...$ for $ new lens technology always costs more. When Nikon introduced the i, we charged the consumer a premium price for this newer technology and the consumer gladly paid a premium.
The happy consumers who paid the premium for the new technology sent me friends, neighbors, co workers and the word of mouth spin off was considerable. The market is littered with old technology that consumers get a deal on....the same is true of computer parts and tv's.
At our office we promote the premium lenses( Nikon W, physio and 360,Ipseo, and the Hoya ID.) as well as the more economical older technology that we have better margins on. It all depends on what the budget is. All this new technology by all the lens companies will bring lower prices later on and the consumer benefits now and later when we raise the bar so to speak.

[Bobie]

Thank you for your comment , mike
My point is to compare the same level technology of PALs like Hoyalux iD vs Ipseo vs Physio 360 vs Shamir Autograph vs Rodenstock Multigressiv ILT vs Rodenstock Impression ILT to find out which one the best if compare about the price.

I agree with you that the happy comsumers who paid the premium PALs will recommend theire friends , neighbors , co worker to buy that premium PALs , because our club also does it in Thailand for many years.

But we used to have many customers who do not satisfy in very expensive PALs , because some point is better , some point is not. Yes, the expensive PALs can be used , but not totally better than the old PALs they have.

We never have any problem with Rodenstock Impression ILT or Multigressiv ILT and we are very impressed about the totally better performance of the old PALs.

Once again , when the customer have to pay 10 times more they must be able to get totally better PALs , not some point better , some point worst and I dare to say , we still have many expensive premium PALs in unreasonable price ( if compare to each other ) and I mean some premium PALs is cheaper and better. Yes , sometimes the customer have to pay for the name , but they have the right to know that , they can pay less and get better performance if they are going for another primium PALs. :bbg:

[EyeFitWell]

To be fair to Essilor, what did you do for the 8 people that brought back their Physio 360's?? What lenses did you use specifically?
Many of the problems with these difficult progressive wearers can be cured in the chair of the doc that wrote the RX. The goal of Optiboard is not to bash companies, it's to solve problems such as the ones you experienced with the Physio 360. I thought your thread title was unprofessional. gold or junk? I can think of many lenses that deserve the moniker of Junk, certainly not the physio 360.

I am sorry you thought it was unprofessional. I am not an essilor basher. I have used ONLY essilor products for the whole time I've been doing this. But I sort of feel like I'm starting to wake up and smell the coffee-that other companies make good lenses too. As for the Physio 360, I have just had a really bad experience with them.
We used them on a range of different patients, all coming out of a Comfort. At first, I though they were having a hard time making the lenses on power because the first couple didn't read correctly in the lensometer. I've heard people say it should, others say it shouldnt... so that leaves me at a loss. I dispense them to my patient, they don't look quite right to me in the lensometer. If they don't give me an adjusted power to verify with, I might as well not even look at them-just trust essilor. And that bothers me. I work here for a reason, you know?
All the patients were satisfied going with either a physio (regular) or a comfort, 6 with NO RX CHANGE.
I am the only one doing fittings and dispensing, and we have a very consistant low remake rate. So, I don't think I forgot how to measure/adjust progressives. We looked at EVERYTHING we could to try to determine the problem. At the end of the day, why sell it if it's going to be such a dissapointment to me and my patients?
Thus my title. I didn't say Essilor, Gold or Junk... just the P360 has been a bummer.

I'm just saying, essilor comes into my store, tell me:
1. there's this GREAT new lens out!
2. I can put anyone in this progressive, because it's designed for folks who couldn't wear them before!
3. It's great for high prescriptions!
4. It's got a wider corridor!

Then, my experiences tell me:
1. People who had tried progressives and hated them still hate the P360. Oh well.
2. The P360 (designed for high prescriptions) doesn't even come in very high prescriptions.
3. I cannot even verify that the lenses are made correctly! I wonder if the 8 patients I've tried this with were just made off power, but how can I check? I've talked to my reps, lab managers, and no one can tell me how to read the Rx on these.
4. Not one person has reported an improvement in the corridor. Granted, some folks went up on their add and into a physio w/o complaining of any loss of width. But not one person has said, "wow."

So where does that leave me? I'm pretty young, and relatively new at this (3 years), but this is the first time I've felt like I just can't get a straight answer out of anyone. I do know this: I tried it with the best of hopes and excited customers. We tried it in the same conditions we've successfully used other lenses for years and years. Everyone complained about them, specifically how blurry the distance, intermediate, and reading were! That it wasn't "crisp". (But the very thing essilor was advertizing about these is that they would be crisp!)

I'm not going to throw out the baby with the bathwater. But for this lens at this time, I'm frustrated and stumped.

[Bobie]

EyeFitWell ,
Let we get the Physio 360 naked! :D



Anyone join us ? show me your hands.

[Pete Hanlin]

At the end of the day, why sell it if it's going to be such a dissapointment to me and my patients? Thus my title. I didn't say Essilor, Gold or Junk... just the P360 has been a bummer.

Based on the information you have provided, I can understand your frustration with Varilux Physio 360. To clarify a few points you've raised:

I cannot even verify that the lenses are made correctly! I wonder if the 8 patients I've tried this with were just made off power, but how can I check? I've talked to my reps, lab managers, and no one can tell me how to read the Rx on these.

I can tell you how to read the Rx on Varilux Physio 360. You should be able to read the power you ordered in the lensometer, since this is not a compensated product. If the product isn't reading as you ordered, there may have been a problem in fabrication.

The P360 (designed for high prescriptions) doesn't even come in very high prescriptions.

Varilux Physio 360 is available up to a -4.00 cylinder out to somewhere around a -12.00/+9.00 sphere (in the Thin&Lite 1.67) up to a +4.00 ADD. While there are certainly individuals with higher Rxs out there, that range covers over 99% of the Rxs ordered. Unless you are working at a low vision clinic, I would imagine you don't have too many patients beyond the availability range.

Basically, the Varilux Physio 360 is the exact same lens as the Varilux Physio- the difference being the back side is Digitally Surfaced to match the patient's distance Rx to the progression. It sounds as if- for one reason or another- you may have received some bad product.

If you happen to have any of the lenses you ordered which did not work, feel free to contact me by email, and I can arrange to have them sent to someone who can determine whether the product was fabricated properly (additionally, I can provide a voucher for two regular Varilux Physios to make up for your frustration). I authored most of the technical training materials for Varilux Physio- so I can probably help you with any technical question you may have on the product.

Best regards,
Pete Hanlin
phanlin@essilorusa.com

[MarySue]

Would the technical materials you wrote be available in Australia/New Zealand? Our Essilor people provide great training and product information but very little technical data. It would be good for us to see something a bit more technical - rather than marketing driven.

Using words like "nano-technology" and "wave-front" technology with our patients isn't always the best idea - as there are still many technophobes in the progressive market sector.

I'd love to understand the depth of corridor, width of mid range before .25 of unwanted astigmatism appears - and a prescription range for best fitting. For example - a RE: -1.00 with a +2.00 add would work with almost anything, but add a -2.50 cyl to that and what occurs?

Thanks for your information.
Mary Sue:hammer:

[Sergio Muñoz]

Dear all,

I have tried Physio in Spain with a not very good result.
I usually works with Shamir lenses; expecially Genesis and Autograph with great adaptation in my patients.
Have you ever compared a Physio lens with an Autograph? Let's assume that in far sight vision both lenses are free of distorsions (what is not correct). But in near sight vision we have a field 50% wider in Shamir lens.
After all, the best way to test is the result on patients.
BR

[Pete Hanlin]

After all, the best way to test is the result on patients.

I could not agree more thoroughly with this statement- which is exactly why I am confident in the performance of Varilux Physio and Varilux Physio 360. Clinical trials are an integral part of the design process for all Varilux designs (this isn't marketing hype, its a fact realized in the form of a design process called the Dioptric Loop).

The Dioptric Loop process starts with the wearer data generated by all the wearer studies Essilor (and independent institutions- mostly Colleges of Optometry) have conducted over the years. The R&D team develops a list of criteria for the new design and then calculates a design based on the clinical data and the criteria.

A series of test lenses are then created based on that design (an expensive and time consuming process), and the design is tested on wearers in rigorous clinical settings to determine how well the design matched up to the expected performance. Based on the input from the clinical subjects, the design is then altered in an effort to better meet the criteria.

A new series of test lenses is then created and the process repeats until the finished design is proven to a.) offer a significant advantage over previous designs, and b.) meet the criteria originally set forth.

Once a final design is accomplished, the result is tested again on a broader scale to ensure actual performance. In the case of Varilux Physio, over 2,000 wearers were fit in clinical settings against both previous Varilux designs and competitor designs. There was a clear preference for Varilux Physio in nearly all aspects tested across all participant segments (myopes, emmetropes, hyperopes, high ADD, low ADD, etc.). In some studies, one or two criteria (e.g., criteria includes- but is not limited to- distance vision clarity, distance vision width, intermediate vision clarity, intermediate vision width, near vision clarity, near vision width, dynamic vision, static vision, ease of adaption, overall satisfaction). Regarding overall satisfaction, Varilux Physio was clearly preferred against all other designs tested.

So, while I certainly welcome the opportunity to troubleshoot when Varilux Physio isn't working for someone, I'm not too worried about reports that "such and so progressive works so much better." When you remove all the variables in a clinical setting, Varilux Physio is the best PAL overall. That's simply what I believe- having seen the data. Naturally, others are free to- and will- draw their own conclusions.

Progressive lenses work (period). If you are experiencing more than 5-10% non-adapts with ANY PAL design, you should seriously try to eliminate variables (start with fitting- is the pupilometer calibrated, are my fitting techniques optimal, then the lab- are the lenses being processed correctly, etc.). Given a proper fit and fabrication, any PAL- and certainly Varilux Physio- should provide solid performance.

Regarding "width of zone," and other static measures, another finding of clinical studies is there are far more important design considerations than the spherical size of the channel & zones. Binocular balance, smoothness of progression, astigmatic alignment, etc. are all factors that do not yield a "wider spherical zone" but do contribute more to wearer satisfaction.

I'm not trying to be arrogant or overly defensive- I'm simply stating that (to my knowledge) there are only two ophthalmic manufacturers in the world which conduct rigorous wearer tests as part of the design process. Essilor is one of them, and (again, to my knowledge) Essilor spends more in R&D (as both a function of % of gross revenue and in actual Euros) centered around vision & progressive design than any other company.

Therefore, its fairly safe to assume the product is not "junk." I would also be confident is suggesting that nearly all the products out there from the major manufacturers are not "junk" (not to pick on that term- merely to note most manufacturers practice a certain amount of care in providing quality products).

[Sergio Muñoz]

Thanks a lot for the answer Mr. Hanlin.
I am not informed about the processes that other labs follow in the achievement of their designs but I have not doubt that Essilor uses one of the most accurated.

"Regarding "width of zone," and other static measures, another finding of clinical studies is there are far more important design considerations than the spherical size of the channel & zones. Binocular balance, smoothness of progression, astigmatic alignment, etc. are all factors that do not yield a "wider spherical zone" but do contribute more to wearer satisfaction."

I can not agree 100% with this. Take a serious look to the several studies from Mr. Sheedy (Ohio Univ. - Optometry'06 77 - Pag.23-39). Sorry but I am not able to find any of Essilor PALs in the top list.
I mean that Comfort was for sure a great progressive, but today there are several options that leaving aside all previous job works even better than Physio.
We could start discussing about "wearer satisfaction", but I prefer something I can measure; and considering smoothness and binocular balance also, Physio is not the most advanced design.

and (again, to my knowledge) Essilor spends more in R&D (as both a function of % of gross revenue and in actual Euros) centred around vision & progressive design than any other company.

... And it's not important how much you spend; importance is on the result, and I have not doubt that Essilor is the one that spend more money in some other fields, except (to my knowledge) in salaries. :bbg:

I would be very pleased to read something more about the initial process of the designs (something you commented above). I mean it should be great if you can post a link to any kind of study or pdf with this information.

[Darryl Meister]

I can not agree 100% with this. Take a serious look to the several studies from Mr. Sheedy (Ohio Univ. - Optometry'06 77 - Pag.23-39).

To Pete's point, Dr. Sheedy's report only evaluated the "spherical size" of the central viewing zones. Once other lens design features are factored in, even in Dr. Sheedy's evaluation, the scores for lenses can change dramatically (look at how his scores change for lens designs in the "with astigmatism" tables). Further, Dr. Sheedy's report will favor older progressive lens designs, which are generally harder and have wider zones of clear vision, since no measures of image swim, distortion, binocularity, etcetera are considered.

[Sergio Muñoz]

Great, so I must assume that one of the most important points in the PAL analysis, like is the spherical measure is not taken in consideration just because Essilor and Zeiss are not in the top ten list?.
By the way, some of the oldest designs like Comfort are not in the top positions of that analysis.
I am not defending Shamir lenses, but I am just trying to understand optically why Physio should be better than competitors PALs when everyhting is pointing in the opposite direction. And when I reach this question the only answer drives to unmesurable things that depends in many cases from the patient (that by the way and in my case did not get used to Physio lenses).

[Darryl Meister]

Great, so I must assume that one of the most important points in the PAL analysis, like is the spherical measure is not taken in consideration just because Essilor and Zeiss are not in the top ten list?

Both Essilor and Carl Zeiss Vision (ZEISS/SOLA/AO) have been making some of the industry's most successful progressives for decades, so I'm fairly confident in our understanding of progressive lens design and wearer satisfcation.

But I'll pose a question to you: Is binocular vision important? Essilor and Carl Zeiss Vision think so. Yet there are obviously no measures of binocular vision in Dr. Sheedy's evaluation. And what about dynamic vision? Another aspect that is clearly absent from the study. Further, Dr. Sheedy makes no claims as to how large any particular viewing zone really needs to be in order to provide sufficient utility.

Unfortunately, Dr. Sheedy has limited resources and lens analysis tools at his disposal, at least compared to companies that have already made significant investments in R&D and lens design. These tools include the means to more accurately reconstruct progressive lenses (in order to model their performance in the position of wear) and to evaluate those lenses more precisely using optical ray tracing software.

That said, I think Dr. Sheedy should be commended on his efforts to objectively evaluate progressive lenses in order to better match them to visual lifestyles. We have pursued a similar philosophy in our own lens design for many years now, which is why we have a range of progressive lenses available. While I think his methodology could be improved upon (I doubt he would argue that point), there is no overlooking the potential value of his work.

[Pete Hanlin]

I can not agree 100% with this. Take a serious look to the several studies from Mr. Sheedy (Ohio Univ. - Optometry'06 77 - Pag.23-39). Sorry but I am not able to find any of Essilor PALs in the top list.

I've become very familiar with the research to which you refer- in fact, I visited the author of that study an OSU symposium and brought up the following observations...
1.) Spherical width is demonstrably not the most crucial factor in the visual comfort or utility provided by an ophthalmic lens. If it were, no patient would ever leave a FT35 or FT28, since even the "widest" PAL comes nowhere close to a 28mm wide spherical zone at near.
2.) Length of Progression is likewise flawed as a primary indicator- after all, a blended bifocal changes to near in about 1mm- yet PALs are obviously a better visual solution and are preferred by wearers.
3.) Furthermore, the measures do not account for binocular balance, smoothness, or regularity of design- not to mention even considering whether the design is multi- or mono- in nature. In fact, the study tends to employ criteria which were used by PAL designers in the 1980s (which is why some older designs score quite favorably).

Not that spherical width and length of progression are completely irrelevant, but the general consensus of the various manufacturers represented at the aforementioned symposium was that a.) PAL designers have realized there are design characteristics which are far more important, and b.) the various manufacturers are not willing to share all the criteria they use- since sharing criteria tends to expose proprietary design technologies which are gained by R&D. Therefore, there are other criteria that are more relevant (either in combination or by themselves) than spherical area and progression length.

I mean that Comfort was for sure a great progressive, but today there are several options that leaving aside all previous job works even better than Physio.

I don't think I would argue that Varilux Comfort (which is about 12 years old now- but is still referenced as the Gold Standard of PAL design... at least if you look at competitor's ads, which reference it pretty consistently) is a great progressive. Nor, by extension of your argument, that there are technologically superior designs to Varilux Comfort now on the market (including two Varilux designs). Regarding your analysis of Varilux Physio's performance, if you can show me significant independent wearer studies which contradict the superiority of Varilux Physio, I'd take your assertion more seriously.

We could start discussing about "wearer satisfaction", but I prefer something I can measure; and considering smoothness and binocular balance also, Physio is not the most advanced design.

How disappointing! After all, you were the one who said "the best way to test is the result on patients," which is precisely what clinical wearer tests do.

Since you mention Shamir, I would note that- according to Shamir's website- the primary tool used to design Shamir progressives is a program called Eye-Point Technology. Essilor uses ray tracing programs as well (obviously not Eye-Point Technology), but makes wearer clinical studies an integral part of the design process as well.

Do I doubt you are experiencing great success with Shamir PALs in your practice? Not at all, I've repeatedly noted that most PALs should work extremely well. Given what I know of the various designs, all I can say is- were I fitting patients in a practice on a daily basis, I would expect Varilux Physio to provide performance superior to any other PAL option available to me. If it did not, I would investigate to understand why a design that has been so thoroughly proven on wearers is not performing well for my patients.

[Pete Hanlin]

That said, I think Dr. Sheedy should be commended on his efforts to objectively evaluate progressive lenses in order to better match them to visual lifestyles. We have pursued a similar philosophy in our own lens design for many years now, which is why we have a range of progressive lenses available. While I think his methodology could be improved upon (I doubt he would argue that point), there is no overlooking the potential value of his work.

Extremely well said, and I would be negligent if I did not point out and agree that Dr. Sheedy is pursuing a very valid area of study, with both the best of intentions and the perhaps the best outcome given the resources at his disposal. Dr. Sheedy has requested cooperation between the various manufacturers- however, given the proprietary nature of PAL design tools and philosophies, very few manufacturers have indicated an interest in cooperating (which I would argue is understandable).

[Fezz]

That said, I think Dr. Sheedy should be commended on his efforts to objectively evaluate progressive lenses in order to better match them to visual lifestyles. We have pursued a similar philosophy in our own lens design for many years now, which is why we have a range of progressive lenses available. While I think his methodology could be improved upon (I doubt he would argue that point), there is no overlooking the potential value of his work.

Darryl,

Very well said. I admire his efforts, flawed or not. I think the value of what he is trying to do is wonderful!

[Sergio Muñoz]

How disappointing! After all, you were the one who said "the best way to test is the result on patients," which is precisely what clinical wearer tests do.

Sorry Mr. Hanlin I ment that for analysing in deep the difference between progressive lenses, the only thing I can mathematicaly check is the spherical values. Of course, in optometry, the most important is how does it fit in the patient.

...the primary tool used to design Shamir progressives is a program called Eye-Point Technology. Essilor uses ray tracing programs as well...

Coming back to this point. Do you know the differences between the Eye-Point and your ray trace software? Obviously, as you say, the only difference in the result of designs is to consider the outside paraxial rays using these programs. So do you think we have reached our top in PALs research?

Is binocular vision important? Essilor and Carl Zeiss Vision think so. Yet there are obviously no measures of binocular vision in Dr. Sheedy's evaluation. And what about dynamic vision? Another aspect that is clearly absent from the study.

We should make a big difference between the optometric and optic values. Optically speaking, binocular vision and dinamic vision are not important.
If we talk about optometry (in most of cases is much more a kind of philosophy), there is a big impact of those two values in the comfort of the patient.
But if your question is: Do you prefer a free distorsion progressive lens or a very well balanced one? My answer is the free distorsion lens.
Why? Because I can work with the prescription and the prisms in order to make a more comfortable PAL without having any other problem, but in the opposite way I will have a very comfortable and unuseful lens

Maybe I am wrong, but the wrost problem of all manufacturers and designers is the lack of transparency. The 'normal' optician demands to understand clearly why PAL x is much better than PAL y; and the only thing we can measure is the spherical values. We are totally bored of hearing the "swim" effect and the prismatic balance. Show us some kind of studies like Mr. Sheedy's one; even if it consider only the small piece of the cake. If it's truth you invest so many money in R&D you should have done it.