Essilor confusion!

[HarryChiling]

Today, the definition of MFH has more to do with functionality than optimization of reading area. The question asked by the ECP has changed to “how low CAN I fit this PAL?” Given this definition of MFH, the answer for most PALs is probably around 17-18mm. Yes, some reading area has been cut off, but the patient should have an area adequate to meet his/her near vision requirements.

Given this response, how can anyone even possibly justify fitting a patient in a free form design.

Traditional surfaceing = Adequate
Free Form = Optimal

In my opinion and I have stated it before, given the loosening of the standards (I know I'm going to get it for this one) and the accuracy of design with free form processing, why is adequate still in the vocabulary?

Ah...ok?

So is it 13 or 14?

Depends on which ring the dart lands in. :D

Harrychilin.,

We got one of these mappers ,

Posting here the Map of the C*****t from evil empire ..

You can see it takes a full 33 mm along the corridor to get to the addition of 2.01

Please let me know if you need anymore

I would love to see contours of various designs, absolutely I would love to see more. I would think that various contours of a design are needed:

Plano Add+2.00
Plano -2.00 x 090, 180, 045, 135 Add+2.00

That's 5 lenses per design minimum, I can offer to send you various designs if you would map them and share your images.

[MarcE]

I could be wrong, but didn't Shamir lenses come out looking like gold in the Sheady Study?? and they were they only ones that funded it right???

money talks.

They did look good. But the Image did too, especially considering price. It's interesting that Shamir makes lenses for other companies. My guess is that the Illumina is made by Shamir (I don't know this to be true, though). Illumina has a 17mm MFH. Shamir doesn't have a lens that has a 17mm MFH. Why not, it would make them more competitive than the Genesis. It's because they have a different definition of full add.

Sheedy says the MFH of the Piccolo is 15mm, Shamir says 16mm
Sheedy says the MFH of the Ellipse is 15.5 (I think), Essilor says 14

Sheedy says the MFH of the Genesis is 18, Shamir says 19
Sheedy says the MFH of the Panamic is 18.5, Essilor says 18

It's just a different definition of what is acceptable as an add.

I noticed in the Sheedy report, that Essilor more than any mfg tended to report their MFH consistantly shorter than what Sheedy determined it should be.

Conversely, Shamir tended to report their MFH consistantly higher than what Sheedy determined it should be.

This sounds like I don't like Essilor lenses. Not true, I use them lots and have little problems with them. My patients seem to prefer the Smallfit to the Piccolo, as an example.

My favorite is a 16mm MFH lens fit at 20mm. That's a nice reading area. Like a Comfort at 23, but you don't have to drop your eyes as much - more natural.

[blackbirdy4444]

Disclaimer... i work for HOYA.

Upon reading your opinion on fitting heights, i am quite sure you would love HOYA progressives. As i stated in another thread, HOYA is the only lens manufacturer out their that publisheds corridor length based upon reaching 100% of add. Everyone is using the standard 85% of add mentality.

If you are happy with 4mm of vertical reading corridor. Then you could fit a Summit CD or LIfestyle CD at 15 and achieve that. Our Summit CD was the first compact design to acheive a 'measurable' intermediate as well.

I don't know for a fact, because Essilor likes to keep consumer's in the dark, but I have heard for over a decade that Essilor has very little to do with designing their own lenses. They are more of a distributor and markertor than a true lens manufacturer. They market what makes them profitable, not what is good for vision.

[vikramg]

I would love to see contours of various designs, absolutely I would love to see more. I would think that various contours of a design are needed:

Plano Add+2.00
Plano -2.00 x 090, 180, 045, 135 Add+2.00

That's 5 lenses per design minimum, I can offer to send you various designs if you would map them and share your images.

Dear Harry ,

I would love to get these lenses mapped and share it with everyone .Please have it sent as "samples" to our Mumbai address given below .

You can send as many as you like and we will map them all.

Vikram Gupta
Plot-7 , Cama Industrial Estate
Goregaon-E , Mumbai. India . 400063
Ph +9126866262

[For-Life]

They are more of a distributor and markertor than a true lens manufacturer. They market what makes them profitable, not what is good for vision.

Wouldn't providing good vision make them profitable?

I know I will not, and have not dealt with companies that offer poor lenses. One reason why I have dealt with Essilor and Hoya is due to quality.

Also, marketing should not be a dirty word. Please see the following thread to understand the true definition of marketing:

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24695

[Laurie]

Hello Everyone, (especially Blackbirdy4444)

Dr. Sheedy's report was not funded by Shamir Insight, nor any other lens company to my knowledge. Interestingly, at the beginning, the folks at Shamir had not even heard of the report, or Dr. Sheedy, until their lab customers were calling them, congratulating them on the qualitiy of the findings of their lenses.

I attended a meeting at Shamir's headquarters where Dr. Sheedy presented his findings, explained his methodology, etc. This was on the first study...I know that he has done subsequent studies, icluding clinical trials.

Not that Dr. Sheedy needs to be 'stood up for', however, he is very well respected for his work and research, and has sincere motives. It is insulting to put out there that he was paid off in any way.

: )

Laurie

[HarryChiling]

I would love to see contours of various designs, absolutely I would love to see more. I would think that various contours of a design are needed:

Plano Add+2.00
Plano -2.00 x 090, 180, 045, 135 Add+2.00

That's 5 lenses per design minimum, I can offer to send you various designs if you would map them and share your images.

Dear Harry ,

I would love to get these lenses mapped and share it with everyone .Please have it sent as "samples" to our Mumbai address given below .

You can send as many as you like and we will map them all.

Vikram Gupta
Plot-7 , Cama Industrial Estate
Goregaon-E , Mumbai. India . 400063
Ph +9126866262

I have ordered the following lenses and will surface and send them to you.

1. AO Compact
2. AO Pro
3. Instinctive
4. Essilor Natural
5. Essilor Ovation
6. Sola Solamax

I will try to get a few more designs in and over to you. Maybe the Adaptar, and more if I can get a hold of a few other designs. I'll let you know when I send them and how hopefully by the end of this week if time permits. Thank you once again for the offer I can't tell you how many times I have offered, but the labs within the US have so far been of no help, the only concern seems to be "what's in it for me". I think that it is really a for the greater good type project so of course it falls under the answer of "theirs nothign in it for you". Other than a thank you very much. I will include my e-mail address to send the images to.

1. Ploycore Futurise
2. Polycore Mini

Thanks Judy ;)

[KStraker]

I just received a bunch of literature about the new Smallfit pal. They list some specs on competitors lenses. They list Hoya's Summit CD as having a 15 minimum fit ht. All Hoya's literature says 14.

We have recently done a few pairs of Polycore Futurise lenses. The results have been very good so far.

[Judy Canty]

Thank you!...Thank you very much!!!!

[RT]

I have ordered the following lenses and will surface and send them to you.

Won't the final contour plots depend upon the quality of your surfacing work? Since you are proposing to do some cyls at various angles, won't any axis errors show up as "something" in the contour plots?

For that matter, so would any power rounding errors resulting from using rounded lap curves. Or if your backside curves were actually non-toric, even slightly, because of any calibration or lap quality issues.

I think you'd really have to prove the accuracy of the backside before purporting to make any bold statements about the lens design based on through-power measurements.

[AWTECH]

Won't the final contour plots depend upon the quality of your surfacing work? Since you are proposing to do some cyls at various angles, won't any axis errors show up as "something" in the contour plots?

For that matter, so would any power rounding errors resulting from using rounded lap curves. Or if your backside curves were actually non-toric, even slightly, because of any calibration or lap quality issues.

I think you'd really have to prove the accuracy of the backside before purporting to make any bold statements about the lens design based on through-power measurements.

These are excellent point made by RT:

I know Harry is trying to provide proof against hype but unless the controls for the study are very accrate you still will not be able to accurately compare the designs. If they all are produced on the same generator and polisher by the same person, you do have some consistancy, however unless you know the tolorences for the equipment being used, you can not accuately know the answers. Having performed valid comparison lens studies I can tell you that the efforts and time required is quite considerable.

How good are the front surfaces? If made in glass molds, how close to the end of the mold life cycle is one companies lens vs anothers?

Good luck with this endevor, just try to make sure you consider all of the variables.

[HarryChiling]

Won't the final contour plots depend upon the quality of your surfacing work? Since you are proposing to do some cyls at various angles, won't any axis errors show up as "something" in the contour plots?

For that matter, so would any power rounding errors resulting from using rounded lap curves. Or if your backside curves were actually non-toric, even slightly, because of any calibration or lap quality issues.

I think you'd really have to prove the accuracy of the backside before purporting to make any bold statements about the lens design based on through-power measurements.

I definately see you points and their are more than just what you mention that would come into play. Progressive lenses will have slight variances from lens to lens that would probably throw off the contour plots as well.

RT,
The point isn't to see which desing is better or which design works the best, the point is to get the data that is necessary to determine what we are using. Everyoptician on this board uses many of these progressives and more, every optician on this board has seen the material they get which includes contour plots of the design, and most opticians question wheather these plots are for real or not. I myself am curious if these plots are accurate from the manufacturers.

I don't understand why everyone seems so hessitant to provide this material in a format where opticians can compare apples to apples. The excuse I hear all the time is that most opticians would not be able to interpret these plots, which to me sounds liek a cop out. If your desing is flawed or you have something to hide you use excuses liek this. If the desing is truly all it is cracked up to be then you release thedata and show people how to interpret the data. After all not many understand the optimizations applied with free form processing, yet the companies are talkign every opportunity to shove it down our throats and that includes various CE's, lecture, and articles int al the rade rags.

I don't have the money to purchase a hundred of each lens to rule out any duds, so 5 right lenses with various Rx's will do, I use a gerber SGX with foam tools so thetools will be accurate. I am about ready to send my tool out to be retrued so I would even be able to say that the tool is fresh and I will calibrate the equipment before generating. Heck if you want it any more accurate put your money where your mouthis and make it happen.

I was told by many manufacturers that they already have available various contour plots of their desings and their competitions desigs, heck the shamir rep travels around with them. If accuracy is a concern any manufacturers here that feel as though I may not be doing their design justice please send me a surfaced lens in the powers requested for mapping.

[HarryChiling]

These are excellent point made by RT:

I know Harry is trying to provide proof against hype but unless the controls for the study are very accrate you still will not be able to accurately compare the designs. If they all are produced on the same generator and polisher by the same person, you do have some consistancy, however unless you know the tolorences for the equipment being used, you can not accuately know the answers. Having performed valid comparison lens studies I can tell you that the efforts and time required is quite considerable.

How good are the front surfaces? If made in glass molds, how close to the end of the mold life cycle is one companies lens vs anothers?

Good luck with this endevor, just try to make sure you consider all of the variables.

I appreciate the suggestions, but again I must point out that I am doing this more out of frustration then science. Your companies may have the resources to worry about the variables, but so far most of the lens manufacturers have ignored these variables and placed maps of their product in their marketing brochures after being touched up with photo editing software. Now I am not saying that they are doctored, but I am saying that it's hard to tell, much harder than if I was to havethe data created myself.

It is nice to hear about variables from manufacturers who consitently have muddyed the waters when it comes to how these products are produced or how they are desinged. In another thread on this board a simple question of which lenses had been processed with free form technology, digital molding or traditional slumping, not one reply produced any useable data. The replies were mere obfuscation, I am just a tired lab rat who consistently has to deal with an idiot lens rep who comes into our office and drops rederick about their lenses to the staff and then leaves with me cleaning up the mess. Most venture into the offce without a clue as to how their product works.

I will be making no judgements, just provideing data.

[hipoptical]

Regarding the "suggestions" made about the lenses being sent for evaluation....
Why would it be considered prudent to search for a lens that was made with a "perfect" mold or to make several until you come up with ONE that has no surfacing flaws whatsoever? Finding the ideal lens, and making sure it is in the ideal condition is not how lenses are made and delivered, and don't even pretend that "your" lab does. All labs get lenses in, put them on the shelf, process them, and send them out the door. That's the lens that I want tested and evaluated- the kind delivered to the wearer. The other type- the ideal lens- that's the one the manufacturer wants to test. Ideal lens, ideal results. We have done work for (certain companies) and have seen them send in many samples to get one lens that yields the result they wanted, and have seen that one result get published.
I am interested in seeing what Harry gets back- and have talked with some friends to see if I can get them to send some other types of lenses to be evaluated along with Harry's. I want common results- not ideal.

[HarryChiling]

Regarding the "suggestions" made about the lenses being sent for evaluation....
Why would it be considered prudent to search for a lens that was made with a "perfect" mold or to make several until you come up with ONE that has no surfacing flaws whatsoever? Finding the ideal lens, and making sure it is in the ideal condition is not how lenses are made and delivered, and don't even pretend that "your" lab does. All labs get lenses in, put them on the shelf, process them, and send them out the door. That's the lens that I want tested and evaluated- the kind delivered to the wearer. The other type- the ideal lens- that's the one the manufacturer wants to test. Ideal lens, ideal results. We have done work for (certain companies) and have seen them send in many samples to get one lens that yields the result they wanted, and have seen that one result get published.
I am interested in seeing what Harry gets back- and have talked with some friends to see if I can get them to send some other types of lenses to be evaluated along with Harry's. I want common results- not ideal.

Thanks hipoptical, the nice thing about putting your money where your mouth is, is that I can do it even if the manufacturers don't want to help. I have purchased a few designs and will be moving along no matter what I hear. The idea is to get the flow of information moving again. It is interesting the idea of an ideal lens and at first I must admit I was a little offended by the thought that my surfacing might not be up to par, but so far I have meet resistance with this project at every twist and turn, so it must be a good idea right.

[hipoptical]

Thanks hipoptical, the nice thing about putting your money where your mouth is, is that I can do it even if the manufacturers don't want to help. I have purchased a few designs and will be moving along no matter what I hear. The idea is to get the flow of information moving again. It is interesting the idea of an ideal lens and at first I must admit I was a little offended by the thought that my surfacing might not be up to par, but so far I have met resistance with this project at every twist and turn, so it must be a good idea right.

I agree.

(I had to edit this post, because I added a signature line, and it looked like the statement went with my new post. Just had to clear that up. I feel better now.)