Physio 360 Gold or Junk??

[AWTECH]

Sergio Muñoz said:

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.

I believe you are looking for a very comprehensive independant comparision of progressive lenses. Unfortunately such a project will require a great deal of time and the employment of very sophisticated technical equipment. The reason I say unfortunately is that all of this testing and evaluation must be paid for. If a national opticians association was to invest in such a study it could possibly be properly done without bias. I suspect the only way to fund such a project is from donations and these donations will likely come from lens manufactures who will put pressure either directly or indirectly on the results.

The proof by comparision that you are looking for in progressive is very complex for many reasons. One is the number of lens powers possible. Comparing all possible powers in a number of lenses is quite a challenge. Then there are variables in surfacing that would have to be considered. Example: One design may preform better when the surfacing is off by an amount within specs. while another one that is off power with specs may not perform as well.

[Bobie]

I am with you 100% , Sergio Muñoz :cheers:
, and I look forward to more whitepaper of Physio & Physio 360 from Pete.
If the Physio & Physio 360 are the great PALs , we would want to know how great they are. :bbg:

Pete , please inform us that below ;

• Physio & Physio is good for eyemovement or headmovement or balance.
• How many does design of Physio have ?
• How many variable inset of Physio?
• Did Physio 360 have custom inset by P.D. or not ?
• What is the coridor length of Physio & Physio 360 ?
• How different is it between Physio 360 vs Hoyalux iD vs DEFINITY ?
• How many does front base curve of Physio have?
• How many does front base curve of Physio 360 have?
• Where can we get info about front base curve selection of Physio & Physio 360 ? :bbg:

[Darryl Meister]

We should make a big difference between the optometric and optic values.Optically speaking, binocular vision and dinamic vision are not important.

But we're not designing camera lenses, we're designing spectacle lenses. And factors such as binocular vision and dynamic vision are critical to successful progressive lens wear.

Do you prefer a free distorsion progressive lens or a very well balanced one? My answer is the free distorsion lens.

I assume by "distortion free" that you are referring to a more spherical-like (or "harder") progressive lens with wider viewing zones of astigmatism-free vision. Some of the oldest lenses currently on the market provide wider viewing zones, including AO Truvision and SOLA VIP, but I doubt your patients would prefer these lenses to a well-designed, modern progressive.

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

I don't know that there is much your prescription and prism will contribute to improving the overall utility and comfort of the lenses, though an incorrect prescription can certainly compromise the optical performance of a progressive.

]Maybe I am wrong, but the wrost problem of all manufacturers and designers is the lack of transparency.

Refer to my example regarding older, "harder" progressive lens designs.

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.

I disagree with this statement. Image swim, skew distortion, prismatic imbalance, etcetera, can also be measured; they just weren't in Dr. Sheedy's evaluation. Dr. Sheedy evaluated what he, personally, could measure with the tools at his disposal using his personal understanding of progressive lens optics (which, while very impressive, does not necessarily match the understanding of the lens designers and vision scientists of a large progressive lens company).

If it's truth you invest so many money in R&D you should have done it.

I, personally, spend a great deal of my time analyzing dozens of progressive lens designs for dozens of optical measures. Perhaps I'll post an example of a typical analysis (though it would be inappropriate for me to show the product name under these circumstances).

[vikramg]

There is no doubt in my mind that both Zeiss and Essilor would love to keep the opticians in the dark in order to keep taking the progressive prices in an upward direction by pure marketing b*** talk.

Now when someone like Prof Sheedy comes along and starts measuring and comparing the usefull available widths in various progressives, what is the typical reaction of both these companies ...

It is not important.. Quoting Pete Hanlin..

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.

Pete did you figure most people are moving to progressives for only visual comfort ?

Also,perhaps the next Essilor design should have ZERO useful sperical areas , (not the most crucial factor !!!) and perfectly balances areas of binocular vision on the the distorted areas, (yes ..customers care more for the vision through the distorted areas ???) Pardon my sarcasm.

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.

Well said Sergio, :cheers:

If these large manufacturers had any respect for the opticians ability to understand technical issues ,THEY would be giving out the data that is being provided by Prof. Sheedy.. instead of trying to put down his research as being basic and irrelevant.

[Bobie]

vikramg ,
I like your post.
India and Thailand not so far.
Let me know when you come to visit Thailand , and we will can exchange our knowledge.

:cheers:

[vikramg]

vikramg ,
I like your post.
India and Thailand not so far.
Let me know when you come to visit Thailand , and we will can exchange our knowledge.

Thanks Bobie ..

WE have got our own Progressive Mapper from Rotlex , the same one Dr Sheedy uses for his analysis and can there fore really see the insignificant differences that exist between progressives .
Anytime you are visiting India do come and meet me too .:cheers:

[Darryl Meister]

There is no doubt in my mind that both Zeiss and Essilor would love to keep the opticians in the dark in order to keep taking the progressive prices in an upward direction by pure marketing b*** talk.

Yet the premium lens of your brand of choice, Shamir, costs more than Zeiss's premium lens from many labs...?

And I would argue that our companies have done considerably more to educate the marketplace on progressive lenses than most lens manufacturers. If you visit the OptiBoard File Archives, for instance, you will find no less than six papers I have submitted on the optics and dispensing of progressive lenses that were produced at Carl Vision Zeiss.

Now when someone like Prof Sheedy comes along and starts measuring and comparing the usefull available widths in various progressives, what is the typical reaction of both these companies ...

Rest assured, if we felt that it was in the wearer's best interest to do so, we could design a lens today that beats every other product in Dr. Sheedy's list.

In fact, let's put our arguments to the test. Consider the following two progressive lenses, which both have the same Add power and similar corridor lengths (within 0.5 mm of each other):



These are plots of surface astigmatism measured at the 0.50 D boundary, which is comparable to the test methodology used in Dr. Sheedy's evaluation to measure the size (or "spherical-ness" as you might call it) of the central viewing zones.

Now, looking at viewing zone size only, which is the better progressive lens?

Would it surprise you to know that Lens A is a modern progressive lens from your personal brand of choice? Lens B is a progressive lens designed by American Optical over 20 years ago, which is a hard, mono-design, symmetrical lens.

If these large manufacturers had any respect for the opticians ability to understand technical issues ,THEY would be giving out the data that is being provided by Prof. Sheedy.. instead of trying to put down his research as being basic and irrelevant.

I disagree that reading a list of progressive lens rankings in Dr. Sheedy's evaluation is really trying to "understand technical issues." If anything, the eyecare professional is avoiding technical issues by using a list that someone else has put together based on his understanding of technical issues.

I think that eyecare professionals who are truly interested in the "technical issues" will familiarize themselves with the optics of progressive lenses, in general, and then make product selections based on their own technical expertise, not someone else's. For instance, Dr. Sheedy has written several informative articles on the optics of progressive lenses, like this one, which I suspect most eyecare professionals are much less familiar with than his list of progressive lens rankings.

[HarryChiling]

And I would argue that our companies have done considerably more to educate the marketplace on progressive lenses than most lens manufacturers

I don't think you would have to argue. I for one have received more info from Darryl and our Zeiss rep than ANYONE. His site has information for free, he contributes articles on this board, he writes programs that address the needs of many on this board. His company would have stoped him long ago if their intentions were to stop the flow of information.

I think that eyecare professionals who are truly interested in the "technical issues" will familiarize themselves with the optics of progressive lenses, in general, and then make product selections based on their own technical expertise, not someone else's.

Hah, I have been useing the AO Compacts for a while now and go to them as my personal favorite lens, it does not do so hot on the sheedy report, but my office does well with it and so it is our go to lens.

This slew of contour maps that have been poping up here are just regurgitated picture from pamphlets, I have noticed that none of them have any consitency in color or look. So if it is technical to scan someones brochure then post the graphics, then we have just seen a slew of technical minded opticians on this board pop up out of no where.

I am curious to know how much importance anyone gives to the axis of astigmatism on these contour plots? For example if your patients Rx was off 7 degrees on a 0.50 cyl you could dispense that pair (meets ANSI), but on the cyl of the same power if the axis was 90 degrees off you would be wrong to dispense that. The contour plots that are shown don't show this. I would be interested in seeing a contour plot of the prescription analyzed with the regions seperated into (meets ANSI) and doesn't.

I would also like to point out that the book Darryl authored with Dr Sheedy is probably one of the best books I own (thanks again Darryl). I am sure when Dr Sheedy did his research he had such a rough time finding funding because of all the big bad lens companies. I would like more technical info, but in the US their aren't enough opticians that are educated enough to understand some of the info, so it would just be wasted resources right now.

[Samuel Jong]

Darryl :cheers: Harry :cheers: .

[Darryl Meister]

I for one have received more info from Darryl and our Zeiss rep than ANYONE. His site has information for free, he contributes articles on this board, he writes programs that... I would also like to point out that the book Darryl authored with Dr Sheedy is probably one of the best books I own (thanks again Darryl).

I certainly appreciate the positive feedback, Harry.

The fact is, I consider Jim Sheedy a friend, an exceptional clinician, and a heck of a nice guy. Having worked closely with Jim on several projects, I have no doubt that he has forgotten more about ophthalmic and physiological optics than most of us will ever know. Although I've stated that his progressive lens evaluation could be improved upon, especially with the use of more sophisticated lens analysis tools, I am also the first to applaud his efforts and his desire to increase the awareness of the optics and applications of progressive lenses among eyecare professionals.

[HarryChiling]

Although I've stated that his progressive lens evaluation could be improved upon, especially with the use of more sophisticated lens analysis tools, I am also the first to applaud his efforts and his desire to increase the awareness of the optics and applications of progressive lenses among eyecare professionals.

I am sure the analysis will improve, I think all this talk that is comin up about progressive lenses may be due to a few people getting a hold of some new and snazzy toys. I am sure that as these same toys become more widely available they will be factored into the newer research on progressives and I have no doubt that Dr. Sheedy will be at the fore front of it.

I certainly appreciate the positive feedback, Harry.

You poke a lion with a stick and you run the risk of getting an arm bite off. :)

[OPTIDONN]

I think that I know what's going on here. Bobie may have stumbled into something very, very deep. This goes all the way to the top and includes not only top government officials but many secret societies. They have all combined efforts to to controll and manipulate the masses of ECP's to believe that thier PAL's are the best. Well now that we have freedom fighters like vikramg and Bobie a regular Mulder and Scully who know the 'truth is out there' we have hope. Just kidding guys! :p

There is nothing wrong with understanding today's technology but I think you are looking too much into this. Why do you seemed so shocked that marketing people are talking about how great thier product is? That's business. Every comercial and ad that you see does the same thing. Do you get suspicious when a cofee comercial comes on claiming to be made from the best beans? The point is you guys are not getting the whole information. You are picking up pieces here and there and trying to match them together. If you are going to investigate PAL's do it in a uniform and scientific way. Instead of picking of marketing materials here and there and trying to patch them together.

[HarryChiling]

I think that I know what's going on here. Bobie may have stumbled into something very, very deep. This goes all the way to the top and includes not only top government officials but many secret societies. They have all combined efforts to to controll and manipulate the masses of ECP's to believe that thier PAL's are the best. Well now that we have freedom fighters like vikramg and Bobie a regular Mulder and Scully who know the 'truth is out there' we have hope. Just kidding guys! :p

You know too much, I would sleep lightly if I were you. The PAL goons like to get you in your sleep.

[Fezz]

I would also like to point out that the book Darryl authored with Dr Sheedy is probably one of the best books I own (thanks again Darryl).

I will second that. This book is easy to understand, very thorough, and comprehensive. I for one, am way glad to own it.! Thanks for all your hard work and dedication , Darryl. Many of us truly appreciate it.

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

[Darryl Meister]

Many of us truly appreciate it.

And I love all five or six of you. ;)

[HarryChiling]

And I love all five or six of you. ;)

But we count like dog years so its actually 35 to 42 of us.

[Samuel Jong]

OPTIDONN:cheers: . FEZZ:cheers: .

[Fezz]

But we count like dog years so its actually 35 to 42 of us.

LOL.

[Robert Martellaro]

If these large manufacturers had any respect for the opticians ability to understand technical issues ,THEY would be giving out the data that is being provided by Prof. Sheedy..

I like to think of it as "faith based aberration control".

Seriously, the best way I've found to compare these designs is to wear them, and if you're to young to do so, use an older staff or family member to be the "guinea pig" or test subject.

Regards,

[KStraker]

You'll like Shamir better

Good luck with that. My lab has accounts with Essilor, Hoya, Younger, Carl Zeiss, and many of the other manufacturers. I tried without success to open an account with Shamir. It took three calls to them to get any response what so ever. I was informed that in order to maintain their high level of customer service they were not able to open any new accounts right now. If their current low level of service is any indication of business, things must be booming indeed. Many manufacturers have products that function well, but their service is definately not equal. I recommend using someone else. my .02, your mileage my vary.

[For-Life]

Shamir has cheapened themselves by hooking up exclusively in Canada with the Shopper's Optical chain.

[mike.elmes]

I have a Shoppers Optical in the same mall as i'm in. TheA/R lens coatings they use have been unbelievably poor....No matter how good a lens is, if it scratches or peels, the consumer rates it as JUNK...which has been incredibly good for my business.:cheers:

[rdcoach5]

We have dispensed many dozens of Physio 360's in our office with an almost universal "wow" response. You should get sharp readings in your lensometer if you use auxillary prisms to center your target. . You can get crisp readings anywhere on the lens by using prism to center your target and adjusting for axis. I don't know if the Physio is as forgiving for being slightly crooked or off P.D.,but I don't let those pass. It's always been critical for myself, being a high myope, that my lenses are dead on. I would bet that's your problem with the 360. Your local labs will try to tell you that it's okey to have your progressive 5 degrees crooked when you would never allow that on a flattop. Same thing with P.D.
Bob Taylor

[For-Life]

I have a Shoppers Optical in the same mall as i'm in. TheA/R lens coatings they use have been unbelievably poor....No matter how good a lens is, if it scratches or peels, the consumer rates it as JUNK...which has been incredibly good for my business.:cheers:

Exactly, that is my point. Shamir has allowed their lens to go through all of that.

[EyeFitWell]

We have dispensed many dozens of Physio 360's in our office with an almost universal "wow" response. You should get sharp readings in your lensometer if you use auxillary prisms to center your target. . You can get crisp readings anywhere on the lens by using prism to center your target and adjusting for axis. I don't know if the Physio is as forgiving for being slightly crooked or off P.D.,but I don't let those pass. It's always been critical for myself, being a high myope, that my lenses are dead on. I would bet that's your problem with the 360. Your local labs will try to tell you that it's okey to have your progressive 5 degrees crooked when you would never allow that on a flattop. Same thing with P.D.
Bob Taylor

You do have an excellent point, and I'm sure that would cause problems.
However, I've dispensed many progressives and very, very rarely have my measurements been determined to be inaccurate. Besides, I leave my lenses marked up for the dispense and visually triple check the measurements at that time. We order edged from our lab, but I verify every single job with a fine toothed comb. I do look for twist, vertical imbalance, PD's dead on, etc. If my lab ever said "oh, it's okay for it to be that way" I wouldn't be pleased. I am also a strong believer in accuracy down to the details.

All the 360's are coming from TX, right? So you're getting them from the same lab I am. Mine routinely haven't been crisp in the lensometer, or it is on one eye and not on the other. But I kept reordering the first few pair asking them to get it to read properly, and they continued to come in reading wrong. Several of them definately had about a quarter of cyl in a lens that was supposed to be spherical. Finally, after waiting 2 months and remake after remake, I contacted my reps who told me it should not read properly. Then, I thought, Ok, let's give it a try (Doc said to go ahead and dispense them) so I did, and they all came back complaining of terrible vision.
What am I missing?