More Optical Dynamics

[chip anderson]

I really would like some more input on this subject. Shelton Green is an old and good friend. I do not want to put this product down. I do want to hear from many more opticians and competitive product manufacturers, not just other molding systems . Are you out there Varilux, Rodenstock, et.al. Tell us why we should be conviced your product is better. Cut throught the mumbo jubo, we know about the bottom line. We are interested in proveable illustrations of product superiority.

Chip

[Steve Machol]

The real question is what quantifies as "proof" of superiority. Just look at the multitude of progessive lens designs, each one claiming some unique value that makes it superior to the competition. I'm afraid that asking for proof in this context is not going to resolve this question.

Perhaps the way to do this is to send surfaced lenses from several manufacturers along with Optical Dynamics lenses in equal powers to an independent testing laboratory such as COLTS Labs. They could then provide a non-biased analysis of the optical and cosmetic properties of the lenses.

[karen]

Steve, that is a great idea!! If anyone decides to do this I would give at least part of my left arm to know the results.

Chip- I have an account that uses this system and they are pleased with it. My dad actually owned one of the Innotech systems and if resin was still available he would be using it today. He really liked the progressive design, found it stood up to most of the heavy hitters. I think it is an option that should be considered because the product seems to be viable and inexpensive to produce- J&J has put A LOT of money into their version of this technology. There are a lot of factors to consider-the quality of the resin, is the product uniformly good, can you get good results most of the time, do you have the staff and time to generate the product, it is really cost effective for your particular practice?
As you know, I am a lab rep and obviously would prefer people to get things from me but I can honesly say that the people I have spoken with using this technology for the most part have been very satisfied.

[Bradmain]

I would like to put my 2 cents worth in on this subject. I spent 8 years with Innotech / J & J and installed their molding system in hundreds of practices literally around the world. I feel that the ODC system is far superior in all respects to the Innotech "Excalibur" technology. Incidentally, I work for neither company now, but rather the second largest lens manufacturer in the world and second largest lab network in the U.S.

The suggestion has been made to have COLTs independently test surfaced, brand names lenses along side the ODC product. That has already been done and ODC did quite well. So their quality is nothing to sneeze on. They do offer a compelling price savings on cost of goods and the company is continuing to invest in R&D and bringing out new products. They also do a very nice job of helping the eye care practitioner market their products and services.

But here is the catch, in my opinion: once you have bought into the system you must use it as often as possible to get your return on investment. And often times that means not giving the client the option of all the new and wonderful lens products that are popping up all over the place. This may not be a problem for certain types of practices, i.e. high volume, "bread and butter" products.

My suggestion to anyone looking at molding or other in-office lens fabrication equipment is to carefully look at your current mix of lens products that can be produced in a particular system and "run the numbers". And if it does make $ sense, make sure everyone in the business who will be the least bit associated with this investment (operators, dispensers, etc.) also buys into it. Because if you don't, it could be a big mistake.

Brad Main
Roanoke, VA:cheers:

[valmanso]

Brad is correct when he states Optical Dynamics' lenses stacked up well against polycarbonate and CR 39. In fact our molded lenses (Yes, I work with Optical Dynamics) will always be superior to any surfaced lens.

Think a moment ... we, the optical industry, are the only industry I know of that 'shaves' plastic. We take a liquid, we form it extra thick, and then we 'surface' it to the desired curves. One of those thoughts that make you go Hmmm!

Ask yourself, given the choice would you use a semi finished or finished lens? I believe we would always reach for the finished lens. Why? A finished lens is molded to the final RX and the surface quality is far superior to a surfaced lens.

Just another thought to consider.

Valerie

[John R]

Originally posted by valmanso
Why? A finished lens is molded to the final RX and the surface quality is far superior to a surfaced lens.

Just another thought to consider.

Valerie

Can this be proved, not knocking it but where is the proof on this point.

[valmanso]

John, take a 500 times maginfied look at the back surface of a lens that has beed ground and polished. Then take the same look at a molded lens. What you see on the surfaced lens are millions of imperfections.

Valerie

[John R]

While brousing around i found this site, looks like another onsite caster.
http://www.lenscasting.com

valmanso, I would but don't know of any UK places that do this yet, so i will take your word for it then for now. :D

[Bradmain]

John R. There a lots of casting systems in operation all over the UK. Many of the Vision Express smaller stores use (or did) the Innotech system and are considering replacing them with other casting technologies since Innotech went out of business. Spec Savers and Boots have also tried one or more of the casting systems at one time or another. Mainline Optical in Driffield have been distributors for one or more systems, as well.

Brad
:drop:

[chip anderson]

O.K. we have established the surfaces are smoother. This may or may not be better as we try to break up surfaces to remove reflection (AR). But are they more or less regular (less or more aberrated)? i.e. are the optics better or worse or the same?

Chip (who always wants to know more) Anderson


If you have to ask, "What's aberration?" as the research people at Ciba did, you in de wrong business.

[valmanso]

Chip, molded surfaces have less defects (aberrations) than lenses that have been ground and polished. In fact the clarity index (how we see through a given material) of finished polycarbonate is better than the clarity index of surfaced polycarbonate; the clarity index of finished CR39 is better than the clarity index of surfaced CR39, and so on.

The surface is of course, only one factor that contributes to the clarity index of a given material. (However the comparisons between the same finished and surfaced lens material clearly shows tha part played by molding.)

Another critical factor to consider is the transmittance of a given material. Many resins, especially high index and polycarbonate have low transmittance values.

Valerie

[Jim G]

Val, I certainly don't disagree that a surfaced lens is rougher than a cast lens but, so what? Has anybody out there seen a higher rejection/dissatisfaction rate with surfaced vs. finished lenses? If this is a factor in "clarity," I'd guess that it ranks 24th or 62nd in importance.

Also, I believe the Optical Dynamics lenses, as well as many/most surfaced lenses have a scratch-resistant coating applied on top of the smooth or rough surface obviating the whole issue.

Hi to Pete.

[chip anderson]

Perhaps it is because most of my "upbringing" in optics was origionaly contact lenses and I remember how molded lenses never had the optics of lathed (those that were done well) There always seemed to be something lacking between the mold and separation. And as an ocularist, I know how difficult molding of true copies is. It just seems to me that the reason that all precision (and I am not sure progressives or most opthalmic plastic can be called this) lenses were ground. One does not mold, optical instrument, telescope, or microscope lenses (at least above the dime~store quality). Am I missing something. My first job was at Modern Optics (a'la Virgil Hancock) where I started out polishing bifocal segments. We checked the things by Newton's rings. This means that they we ground and polished to a very fine surface.

Molded things take the surface quality of what they are molded against. This means if the template was ground the molded surface cannot be better or possibly as good as the template.

What am I missing?

Chip
:hammer:

[JRS]

Greetings Chip,

My grandfather also worked at Modern Optics, before he started his own lab. He was also involved in the development of the "Modern Arc" - only us old-timers remember that!
Both he and my father were great friends of Virgil. I too met him (way back) as we both, Virgil & I, serious coin collectors. One of those "you show me yours and I'll show you mine" events. You might have known my grandfather - Carroll Smith or my dad Bob. And who knows, we may have even met once. Been in optics for 36 years now.

And I have to agree with you regarding the original thread - never see high quality scopes made of cast lenses. But they are multi-lens systems, so there could be other factors..... like the need to produce very sharp images.

Take care.

J.R. Smith