samsoptman,
OptiBoard is nothing but opinions, yours is as good as anyone else's - doesn't matter where you work. Welcome! I appreciate you taking the time to offer an addition to the list. I will check it out, but am guessing that it may be a lens sold only to Sam's. Such is the case with the Zeiss Experience which is sold only to Walmart. If not, I may hit you up for whatever specs you may have :D
-Tony
Thanks for the welcome...
If this lens is being sold only to Wal-Mart and Sam's it is just known under a different name else where. You may want to research the Nikon Ovation with Harmonix Technology this might lead you in the right direction. It is the forerunner for this new lens.
Thank you for the welcome. If I have any info to share I will do it gladly.
I do have a question. Does any one know where I can get a list of identifier marks to tell what progressive my patients bring in to me?
Thats an easy one! Start with the website of the author of this thread! TLG has a great resource at: www.thelensguru.comOriginally Posted by samsoptman4940
You may want to check out a site by another Optiboarder, Keith Benjamin, at Laramy- K: http://www.laramyk.com/tools.html
These are great reference tools by some very dedicated optical professionals.
The OLA(Optical Laboratory Assoc) has a softcover booklet with this info as well. Your OLA lab should be able to give you a copy, or go direct to the OLA and order one: http://www.ola-labs.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=43
Hope this helps!
Last edited by Fezz; 08-26-2007 at 06:43 AM.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I hope-for the sanity of us all-that Essilor has not really released a lens under the Nikon brand with exactly the same name as one of their Essilor brands. :hammer:I've done a little research and can't find any reference to Ovation with Harmonix. For some reason the Accolade with Harmonix is repeatedly compared to their Ovation lens in product brochures and marketing stuff. Could you be confusing it from those references?
-Tony
I really don't think that this is just another Essilor re-release. for the simple fact that all of our support for the lenses are Nikon direct representitives and each lens has a numbered Nikon Certificate of authenticity. I could be wrong and it really could be a essilor lens but if it is it's the best lens that I have ever used. And is liked by two of my patients better than the Hoyawide.
Like I said before It might not be the best lens in the world but I get more oooohhhs and aaahhhs then any I have used or changed out of.
As for the last question I have too much literature for there to be any confusion as what they are talking about. So no I really don't think this is an essilor replica nor do I think that it is made for us by essilor. But I will look into it further and let you know.
who makes "nikon" lenses then?So no I really don't think this is an essilor replica nor do I think that it is made for us by essilor. But I will look into it further and let you know.Must be real then.Nikon Certificate of authenticity.
Who makes this lens for Sam's?
Essilor's Dallas Processing Center (Avisia)
The Shamir Autograph is digitaly surfaced. The Creation is cast from Digital molds.
My understanding is that Nikon has had a bit of a falling out with Essilor. That is why there is confusion. The Avisia lab produces a Nikon coating on Essilor lenses. A Nikon lab produces a Nikon coating on Nikon lenses, which is where the difference is. Essilor sells Nikon product, Nikon sells "Nikon Eyes". The latter is better than the former in my opinion. Nikon Eyes is what everyone was so impressed with over the years. (MY ASSUPMTION: Essilor got greedy and Nikon said they could market Nikon COATING, but no longer could have the name Nikon Eyes as a brand, since they were not properly producing it. You should know that my assumptions are always based on the facts that I have.)
Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither. C.S. Lewis
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason. C.S. Lewis
I have found all the new lens terminology to be very confusing and some of it misleading. Some of the reps use terms like pixels and high definition to describe the lenses. I don't buy into those terms. Saying that you can surface a lens to within 1/100th of a diopter is great, we still measure in 1/4 D.
One of my concerns has been for those "digital" progressives that are made from SV blanks. I ask the reps if they use aspherical blanks as well as sperical, and what happens to the plus Rx. The kodak rep actually told me to use another lens for patients over +2.00 if using the Unique lens.
There are so many considerations to take into account these days when selecting a lens that it makes my head spin.
What have some of you done in terms of deciding on a brand of lens?
Do you dispense a family of lenses, or pick and choose based on all the criteria?
Thanks
I agree with you about the confussion, I don't really understand the question regarding using individualized spherical front curves vs. aspherical front curves. With our ICE-TECH Advaced Lens Designs we use a spherical front curve for all designs. We can manage the optimization of each design with back surface optimization only. As far as plus patients, we fit many plus patients with +2.50 to +2.75 for example with Adds of 2.50 to 3.00. We recently did a +5.00 with a 2.50 Add in both a sunglass using an 8 base front curve and a dress wear lens using a 6 base front curve. The maximum lens thickness on the 8 base wrap was less than 7mm with a 60mm A size 33mm B.
Some of the confussion comes from good intentions not properly understood by the reps in the field and some comes from designed marketing to confuse the issue.
If you would like to Private Message me I will be happy to provide additional information to help you better understand what can be accomplished with these technologies.
I trialed most of the premium PALs and found they all had their advantages and disadvantages - like any other product. My rule of thumb was by simple observation (not scientific) that myopes have different preferences than hyperopes so I ended up with certain go-to PAL's depending on the rx. It's best to just play around with them, get the info on the lenses like how many bc's are offered, is it spherical or aspherical, corridor length and soft or hard design and materials available. You're always going to have non-adapts because vision is subjective. The R&D these companies do don't take into account the psychology of some of our patients :D
Sometimes it was hard getting technical info because the reps didn't have an optical background - but I was lucky to find Optiboard and the Petes, Allens, Darryls and others like them who live here and helped me out.
I tried the different free-forms and now understand the "hi-def" description after looking through one. Rx for rx things just looked sharper. We don't see in 1/4 diopters.
If I were to have to choose a family of lenses, I would want the family with the most diverse members. What's important to you? there aren't really any bad lenses per se, so I went with materials and coatings as my hot buttons. What are your criteria?
Just some food for thought:
< Begin Soapbox >
1. "Digital surfacing" is really a bit of a misnomer. Any lens surfaced on modern generators is "digitally surfaced," since these machines are all computer-numerically-controlled. But, right or wrong, consumers have come to assume that the word "digital" must mean "good." On a side-note, this trend began in the music industry with the advent of CDs, which encode analog sound waves using discrete (or "digital") sampling. However, it isn't really the "digital sampling" aspect that makes CDs sound better than cassettes; in fact, before the sound ever gets back to your ears from a CD, it must first be converted back to analog wave forms.
2. "Free-form" surfacing isn't really the "end-all, be-all" of lens manufacturing. Traditional lens casting can actually produce more repeatable results in many cases. While a free-form generator may arguably replicate a progressive lens design more accurately in some cases, surface characteristics are still modified in undesirable ways by the soft lap polishing process, especially if the polishing process hasn't been carefully engineered and controlled. The real benefit of a free-form production platform to the actual wearer is the ability to design and customize progressive lenses in "real time" based on information specific to the individual wearer. The number of free-form suppliers that are actually doing this type of real-time lens design is a matter of much debate, however. Otherwise, you're just paying an added premium for a semi-finished-like progressive lens.
3. I find it more than a little suspicious that many free-form lens suppliers fail to disclose the technical details of their lens designs. And many progressive lens manufacturers are emphasizing the benefits of the free-form surfacing process more than the actual product that the process is producing. Since these same manufacturers generally use a similar free-form surfacing process, this marketing approach doesn't seem to differentiate their products in any meaningful way, in my opinion. Further, many lens manufacturers advertise basic prescription optimization for their free-form lenses, which -- when done correctly, at least -- ensures that the desired optical performance is maintained, regardless of the prescription. However, if the performance of the initial lens design is mediocre to begin with, the free-form version of that lens design will simply ensure the same mediocre performance for every wearer.
In any event, the term "free-form" doesn't necessarily mean that a given product is any better than a comparable semi-finished lens. You should be confident in the performance of a given lens design before investing in a "free-form" version of the same product. And, frankly, the more vague a lens manufacturer is regarding the details of the implementation and design of their free-form progressive lenses, the more cautious you should probably be when evaluating their sales and marketing materials. After all, if they're just surfacing a standard progressive lens, you could save yourself -- and your patient -- a lot of money by buying the regular, semi-finished version, instead. Unfortunately, it's relatively easy for a lens manufacturer to hide behind the latest "free-form" buzzword, in lieu of disclosing any real technical details regarding their lens design or its actual performance.
</ End Soapbox >
Darryl J. Meister, ABOM
I can confirm the above post by Darryl Meister: Freeform alone does not mean better.
The term has been expanded to include lenses that are molded.
To further the confussion now you have molded PAL front surfaces cut using freeform equipment, but cut just like a traditional hard lap, front molded lens.
I think it is difficult for the optician working in a retail setting to have access to equipment that can actually compare the designs. The best way to understand how these lenses will perform is check with other opticans that have fitted many of these designs.
Any lens can be and soon enough will be Digitally surfaced. By definition: surfaced using a more controlled .. many times aspheric back surface vs. the simple spherical curves applied to non-digital lenses.
The Accolade, Physio 360 (all the 360's) are traditional molded lenses which are digitally rather than traditionally surfaced. Same lens different rear surface. check the markings.
Autograph, Succeed, Unique, Individual: start with spherical SFSV lenses where the entire PAL surface is fabricated on the inside surface of the lens. All of the Spherical, Cyl, Add, and prism power are cut .. creating the changes in magnification comprising the PAL. The front remains untouched/spherical.
Definity - a blend.. a cast PAL where the add is split allowing additional add power to be fabricated on the back.
A note to those that believe "Digital" is only hype or an excuse to charge more. The fact is: Most lenses will be processed using this method we today call Digital @ some point. Why? Because, in the future Labs will not invest in technology that does not deliver the ability to manufacture these significantly more accurate cotrolled surfaces. As 3 axis generators improved upon the simple spherical curves of 20 years ago..todays Digital, Freeform capable machines further improve the Rx accuracy, Design control, and functionality of todays lenses.
Digitaleye -
Great to have you on board and looking forward to your contributions! Don't forget to go for the membership -
Optiboard. Membership has it's rewards.
Yes! Welcome...and nice post :cheers:
-Tony
My criteria is not so different. I want material choices and a good power range. Polarized, transitions and coatings too.
Part of my consideration has to do with the lab. While I can get anything but Hoya from my lab, the outside vendor stuff takes longer is over priced. I have accounts with Hoya and such to go direct in those cases. I don't really like using so many labs, so I would rather use the product that they offer. Essilor lab in my case, so I want to use that family of lenses.
After a year of dispensing these new progresives there is not really a stand out product to me, but there are issues such as this lab thing that narrow the field for me.
It sounds to me that you have identified the problem, but just want to wait until Essilor can offer you a better products. Unfortunately if you wan to take advantage of the technologies that are out there you will have to use multiple vendors. At our company, (ICE-TECH Advanced Lens Technologies), we only produce products using digital surfacing. Our front curves are spherical, coupled with a great lens design and our individualization makes for a cosmetic fit that is exceptional.
lenses (esp prog) is that, when you have a "problem" and you finish the normal "CSI-ing" of it, you never feel confident enough to *exclude* the customization as a factor in the equation of unhappiness.
Perhaps other new technologies will come to the for to help us in this regard.
Barry
excluding Ziess & Rodenstock, most of these "free form" and "Digitally Surfaced" products can be explained as "SAME S&!T DIFFERENT SIDE"
the marketing opportunity's combined with reduction in processing costs, after capital costs are recovered for equipment, are HUGE.
the sad part is these manufacturers are sucking us in with mostly standard designs and little advantage to the end user, OUR PATIENTS !!!! (unless you feel a 1.5mm reduction in vertex distance is an advantage)
Do you have any basis for the above statement? Why do you think Zeiss & Rodenstock are excluded from your statement?
Yes...EPCD, for short...and we have re-figured this lab's name to read:
Every
Person
Confused &
Dazed
B
ZEISS and SOLA utilize full optical optimization for their free-form lenses. This process provides a truly unique lens design that has been designed in real time using optical ray tracing for each wearer in order to minimize the aberrations produced in the as-worn position by the wearer's specific prescription.Do you have any basis for the above statement? Why do you think Zeiss & Rodenstock are excluded from your statement?
Some (but not all) other free-form lens suppliers provide only "dumb" free-form lenses, which simply represent the sum of a traditional progressive lens design and a traditional prescription surface. In other words, the wearer's prescription curves are simply added mathematically to a fixed progressive lens design, which is then either placed on the back surface or perhaps split between the front and back surfaces. This process essentially replicates the performance of a semi-finished progressive lens design, offering only minimal benefit to the wearer -- aside from the small reduction in skew distortion and slightly wider fields of view that you might attain by moving the progressive optics completely (or even partially) to the back surface.
I won't get into finger-pointing or further speculation here though. A review of the relevant patents from each company will provide some indication of their capabilities as well as the potential sophistication of their free-form lenses.
Last edited by Darryl Meister; 10-12-2007 at 01:39 PM.
Darryl J. Meister, ABOM
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks