Digitally Surfaced PALs (Free Form) Clarified

[TLG]

Wow, it's amazing how confusing this category of lenses has become. I resist even calling them 'Free Form' anymore as some manufacturers have used some iteration of the term to describe their technology and I think it just adds to the confusion. Can we work together to try to lend some clarity to how each brand is created? It is seemingly easy to determine exactly which technology is used by reading the marketing hype, but when you dig down you will find that misleading terms and phrases abound.

I've identified what I believe to be the primary surface types to consider - please offer any additional or contrary ideas:
1. Standard Surface - the only thing we knew a few years ago.
2. Digitally Surfaced - Lenses that have been digitally surfaced directly to the lens surface itself. These could be on the front, back or both surfaces.
3.Digital Molds - Digitally surfaced molds that the lens is cast from. Are these always the front surface?

Following is a list of lens brands.It would be nice to know just how each one is made. Let's put our heads together and offer what we know. I will offer what I think I know on a few and leave space for you to add what you know.

Accolade Freedom -
AO Easy HD -
Autograph/Creation/Piccolo - Digital Mold
Compact Ultra HD -
Definity -
Definity Short -
Essilor '360' -
Excede -
EyeMADE -
Gradal Individual/Short i -
Hoyalux ID -
Hoyalux ID Lifestyle -
Ipseo -
iZon - Digital Surface/back
Multigressiv/XS -
Perfas -
Precise Short - Digital Mold
SOLAOne HD -
Succeed -
Unique -

Most product information includes which surface (front, back, both) is optimized so I don't think it's necessary to note that here, but feel free if you like.

You can make it easy on yourself if you hit the 'Quote' button when you reply so all the lenses will be listed in your reply. Simply remove the bracketed "QUOTE" tags before and after the text, highlight and delete the extranneous text and enter your response after the hyphen.

[AWTECH]

Wow, it's amazing how confusing this category of lenses has become. I resist even calling them 'Free Form' anymore as some manufacturers have used some iteration of the term to describe their technology and I think it just adds to the confusion. Can we work together to try to lend some clarity to how each brand is created? It is seemingly easy to determine exactly which technology is used by reading the marketing hype, but when you dig down you will find that misleading terms and phrases abound.

I've identified what I believe to be the primary surface types to consider - please offer any additional or contrary ideas:
1. Standard Surface - the only thing we knew a few years ago.
2. Digitally Surfaced - Lenses that have been digitally surfaced directly to the lens surface itself. These could be on the front, back or both surfaces.
3.Digital Molds - Digitally surfaced molds that the lens is cast from. Are these always the front surface?

Following is a list of lens brands. Let's put our heads together and offer what we know. I will offer what I think I know on a few and leave space for you to add what you know.

Accolade Freedom -
AO Easy HD -
Autograph/Creation/Piccolo - Digital Mold
Compact Ultra HD -
Definity -
Definity Short -
Essilor '360' -
Excede -
EyeMADE -
Gradal Individual/Short i -
Hoyalux ID -
Hoyalux ID Lifestyle -
Ipseo -
iZon - Digital Surface/back
Multigressiv/XS -
Perfas -
Precise Short - Digital Mold
SOLAOne HD -
Succeed -
Unique -

Most product information includes which surface (front, back, both) is optimized so I don't think it's necessary to note that here, but feel free if you like.

You can make it easy on yourself if you hit the 'Quote' button when you reply so all the lenses will be listed in your reply. Simply remove the bracketed "QUOTE" tags before and after the text, highlight and delete the extranneous text and enter your response after the hyphen.

I know there is quite a bit of confussion on this subject, but the digital mold is new marketing hype for products that have been produced this way for years.

In addition you can not assume all lenses made with digital surfacing are going to come out the same. Even the same design can be processed on different equipment with different success.

Poly for example is very difficult to process using digital surfacing compared to CR39.

I can process a poly lens today on the same equipment I had two years ago. Without polishing: Today you can edge it without polishing (and if the back wasn't so darn soft non hard coated), and you can use the lens. Two years ago even after polishing and hard coating there were issues that could be seen.

Remember there is more to this digital surfacing: Three types of software are involved. Lens design software. Machine control software and Lab intergartion software. Just in the machine control software there are 100,000s of combinations for cutting. In addition to software there is the tooling used for the cuts. How often do you replace your tools, either PCD or natural diamonds? etc. etc. etc.

The best advise I can give all of you looking into using digitally surfaced lenses, is make sure that the producer really knows and understands what they have gotten themselfs into. Make sure they have the resources to manage the challenges to making these lenses.

[TLG]

....as of this post, 94 'views' of this thread and no response other than Allen's.
Are we all completely confused?
Or does everyone else know but me and I look stupid(er) for asking?
Too much work to offer what you know?
Don't care?
????

[Fezz]

Great post! I really think that it comes down to mass confusion(created by the lens co's.) and dispenser apathy, or overload, or lack of knowledge. Lets face it, other than a real strong core group of active participants here on Optiboard, there is a relatively small number of people who actually understand what is going on with this technology. Hopefully we can get some others chiming in here as well.

[Fezz]

n different equipment with different success.

Poly for example is very difficult to process using digital surfacing compared to CR39.

I can process a poly lens today on the same equipment I had two years ago. Without polishing: Today you can edge it without polishing (and if the back wasn't so darn soft non hard coated), and you can use the lens. Two years ago even after polishing and hard coating there were issues that could be seen.

Allen, thats very interesting. What is different now? Is it a change in the lab intergation software, or the machine control software?

[AWTECH]

Allen, thats very interesting. What is different now? Is it a change in the lab intergation software, or the machine control software?

I can tell you it is the result of multiple changes with multiple issues, not just software. Unfortunately I can not go into too many details, as much of our strength comes from the result of this R&D. Our technology is not for sale and we do not discuss the technology in too much detail.

There are hundreds of thousands of possible combinations for cutting the same lens design.

[Robert Martellaro]

Tony,

This is about a year old but has some of the information that you need.

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.p...tmwbxx&thumb=4

Download, save to file, and open with an imaging program to enlarge the text. Or, send me your email address and I'll email it back to you.

[TLG]

Robert,
Thanks for the link, it's a great start for sure. Any idea where this chart originated from?

[Robert Martellaro]

Robert,
Thanks for the link, it's a great start for sure. Any idea where this chart originated from?

I got it from a lens rep- can't remember which one, maybe Shamir.

Another detail that would be nice to know about PALs (and other lenses) is whether the lenses use flatter/aspheric base curves. Hoya and Zeiss are companies that do, others do not, including many of the very expensive direct to surface PALs.

[AWTECH]

I got it from a lens rep- can't remember which one, maybe Shamir.

Another detail that would be nice to know about PALs (and other lenses) is whether the lenses use flatter/aspheric base curves. Hoya and Zeiss are companies that do, others do not, including many of the very expensive direct to surface PALs.

You indicate that the fact that many of the very expensive, I assume you would include the ICE-TECH lenses in this do not use front side aspheric designs using direct to surface. An aspheric design, means non-spherical it does not mean a lens is going to be thinner. Our technology uses a spherical front and a non-spherical backsurface individualized design. Our design technology allows us to produce much thinner lenses using a spherical front surface than can be had by the companies you mentioned using their front side molded PAL designs.

[hipoptical]

....as of this post, 94 'views' of this thread and no response other than Allen's.
Are we all completely confused?
Or does everyone else know but me and I look stupid(er) for asking?
Too much work to offer what you know?
Don't care?
????

Personally, I am not confused at all. I don't think you look stupid for asking. I don't believe it's too much work to post information. I think that most people just don't care.
I have questions that have yet to be answered regarding these types of lenses. Until someone can give a non-marketing answer for my questions, I will continue to not care AT ALL.

[gemstone]

I would like to know the process for the different lenses. For example, I have strong reason to believe the Definnity is a cut and coat process. I know some are polished.

[AWTECH]

I would like to know the process for the different lenses. For example, I have strong reason to believe the Definnity is a cut and coat process. I know some are polished.

As with my company ICE-TECH I think you will find very little interest in companies explaining in any detail how they are digital surfacing. The cost for digital surfacing equipment is very large and if one producer can figure out how to process in 1/2 the time of a competitor, (as an extreme example), why would they want to let the competition have easy access to this information?

[gemstone]

As with my company ICE-TECH I think you will find very little interest in companies explaining in any detail how they are digital surfacing. The cost for digital surfacing equipment is very large and if one producer can figure out how to process in 1/2 the time of a competitor, (as an extreme example), why would they want to let the competition have easy access to this information?

Oh, so you are using the cut and cote process too? I thought they were the only ones.

[Robert Martellaro]

You indicate that the fact that many of the very expensive, I assume you would include the ICE-TECH lenses in this do not use front side aspheric designs using direct to surface.

I said a flatter/aspheric base curve, with the emphasis on flatter. I assume that asphericity is required to keep the lens best form, as it is with traditional lenses. Are you saying that with direct to surface you're able to use flatter non-aspheric BCs without optical compromise?

An aspheric design, means non-spherical it does not mean a lens is going to be thinner.

True, unless it's a minus power and the asphericity is on the back of the lens. But in plus powers, flatter BCs will certainly be thinner and lighter, along with less magnification, better looking cosmetically, especially in rimless and drill mounts, and fit better in full titanium frames.

If I'm filling a +3.50DS Rx, and it was available in a +8.00BC and a +6.00BC, I'll always choose the flatter curve as long as it was best form. Heretofore, that required aspheric BCs.

Our technology uses a spherical front and a non-spherical back surface individualized design. Our design technology allows us to produce much thinner lenses using a spherical front surface than can be had by the companies you mentioned using their front side molded PAL designs.

The companies I mentioned don't use molded front PALs in their freeform lenses, although some companies do, most notably the Physio 360. Using the above example of a +3.50DS Rx, are you saying that your lens will be thinner than the 360 assuming the same material? If the BC is +6.00, then the back curve must have decreasing curvature off-axis. I would question how this would result in a thinner plus lens than an aspheric front curve, unless you used a greater than normal amount of asphericity, possibly resulting in a non-best form lens, with a convex back surface at some point in the periphery. I would think that you would want to manipulate the steepest curve, where there is more to work with. Regardless, the software and programs must be exceedingly complex and expensive when both surfaces are aspheric/atoric, and might explain why some companies have chosen a less complex design.

[AWTECH]

I said a flatter/aspheric base curve, with the emphasis on flatter. I assume that asphericity is required to keep the lens best form, as it is with traditional lenses. Are you saying that with direct to surface you're able to use flatter non-aspheric BCs without optical compromise?

True, unless it's a minus power and the asphericity is on the back of the lens. But in plus powers, flatter BCs will certainly be thinner and lighter, along with less magnification, better looking cosmetically, especially in rimless and drill mounts, and fit better in full titanium frames.

If I'm filling a +3.50DS Rx, and it was available in a +8.00BC and a +6.00BC, I'll always choose the flatter curve as long as it was best form. Heretofore, that required aspheric BCs.

The companies I mentioned don't use molded front PALs in their freeform lenses, although some companies do, most notably the Physio 360. Using the above example of a +3.50DS Rx, are you saying that your lens will be thinner than the 360 assuming the same material? If the BC is +6.00, then the back curve must have decreasing curvature off-axis. I would question how this would result in a thinner plus lens than an aspheric front curve, unless you used a greater than normal amount of asphericity, possibly resulting in a non-best form lens, with a convex back surface at some point in the periphery. I would think that you would want to manipulate the steepest curve, where there is more to work with. Regardless, the software and programs must be exceedingly complex and expensive when both surfaces are aspheric/atoric, and might explain why some companies have chosen a less complex design.

Yes; The previous optical aspheric is combined with a backside spherical curve.

With our technology we can design a very thin lens with a spherical front curve. Each lens is designed for the frame selected, not one size fits all like a front side molded lens.

[Uncle Fester]

Great post! I really think that it comes down to mass confusion(created by the lens co's.) and dispenser apathy, or overload, or lack of knowledge. Lets face it, other than a real strong core group of active participants here on Optiboard, there is a relatively small number of people who actually understand what is going on with this technology. Hopefully we can get some others chiming in here as well.

I feel the technology is getting to the point of what I call my laundry detergent analogy so every few years "New + Improved Tide" comes along. Yes the chemists at Tide can prove the formula now used will create a cleaner load of laundry but to me the last version got my clothes to my eye just as clean. Does this make sense:hammer:

I know a lot of time and technology goes into each new design but I have come to realize that changing patients to these very expensive lenses doesn't guaranty success. I also think that not enough explanation is given to the fact that as the add increases the unwanted peripheral astigmatism also increases. And the Ryser Equation for the success of progressives is always present.

Lastly I'm going over to the Pro's only forum now to start a thread that I think will also explain some of the frustrations we in the trenches deal with with a percentage of patients. It will prove to be pretty funny too because I'm sure I'm not alone in what this will deal with.:)

[hipoptical]

I feel the technology is getting to the point of what I call my laundry detergent analogy so every few years "New + Improved Tide" comes along. Yes the chemists at Tide can prove the formula now used will create a cleaner load of laundry but to me the last version got my clothes to my eye just as clean. Does this make sense:hammer:

I know a lot of time and technology goes into each new design but I have come to realize that changing patients to these very expensive lenses doesn't guaranty success. I also think that not enough explanation is given to the fact that as the add increases the unwanted peripheral astigmatism also increases. And the Ryser Equation for the success of progressives is always present.

Lastly I'm going over to the Pro's only forum now to start a thread that I think will also explain some of the frustrations we in the trenches deal with with a percentage of patients. It will prove to be pretty funny too because I'm sure I'm not alone in what this will deal with.:)

:cheers:

[AWTECH]

I feel the technology is getting to the point of what I call my laundry detergent analogy so every few years "New + Improved Tide" comes along. Yes the chemists at Tide can prove the formula now used will create a cleaner load of laundry but to me the last version got my clothes to my eye just as clean. Does this make sense:hammer:

I know a lot of time and technology goes into each new design but I have come to realize that changing patients to these very expensive lenses doesn't guaranty success. I also think that not enough explanation is given to the fact that as the add increases the unwanted peripheral astigmatism also increases. And the Ryser Equation for the success of progressives is always present.

Lastly I'm going over to the Pro's only forum now to start a thread that I think will also explain some of the frustrations we in the trenches deal with with a percentage of patients. It will prove to be pretty funny too because I'm sure I'm not alone in what this will deal with.:)

In your post quoted above you mention"unwanted peripheral astigmatism also increases".

This is one of the main benefits that our backside PAL technology addresses. We manage astigmatism and power error much better than a molded front side lens can. ICE-TECH PAL Technology has more the 2.5million individual designs. Each design has to address the astigmatism and power error. In a molded lens the 60+ molded blanks are all that can address these issues.

In any New product, (as you mentioned laundry detergent, it can mean new and improved to the manufacturer, such as same level of clean but they figured out how to make the detergent for less). This is new and improved but to who?

Our PAL technology offers full side to side distance and approximately a 30% wider corridor than a molded design. This is new and improved for the patient.

[JMSV]

The Autograph is a total back side digital surfaced lens. Even the Navigator is now a digital surfaced glass moulded lens.

[RT]

If I were a Marketing guy for a lab, I'd point out that since Gerber introduced the SG8 Surface Generator in 1987, that almost every lens has been "digitally surfaced" in recent years.

It is a meaningless term.

[TLG]

It is a meaningless term.

Got a better one?

[TLG]

The Autograph is a total back side digital surfaced lens. Even the Navigator is now a digital surfaced glass moulded lens.

Welcome to OptiBoard. :cheers:
Thanks for caring enough to offer up some help. You're gonna like it here...

[AWTECH]

Got a better one?

I would stick with Digitally Surfaced. Opticians who are really keeping current on new technologies will figure out the difference between molded lenses and more individualized digitally surfaced lenses.

The main difference is a lens produced with mold that was produced using digital surfacing technology vs. a digitally surfaced lens in its final form.

[samsoptman4940]

Sorry I am new here, but your list is missing one that I use often at Sam's Club. The Nikon Eyes Customized, is a direct to surface digitaly surfaced lens. The nice thing about it is that the there is no set pattern to start with, because they start with an aspheric Single vision blank and can literally cusomize it down to .0625 diopters if needed. Of course this would not nessicarily be practical, but it is possible. This coupled with an elimination of the standard 1.5mm add inset to base it on the prizmatic effect of the RX (which varies up to 1mm from a high + to a high -) enables them to make the glasses based on the patients need not the limitation of equipment.

I am not saying that this lens is the best Ok because I really don't know what lens is, but I have switched people out just about any lens, put them in this one and they get more out of it no matter what they spent on their last pair.

Maybe old news but yes Sam's Club and Wal-Mart do use Nikon Lenses as well as others that many don't realize. We are really trying to get away from the wrack-em-up and shot-em-out style of dispencing that so many retailers are known for. If it has been a while since last you went into a Wal-Mart or Sam's Optical, go in and take a look now and look back in about 6 months I think you will see changes that will supprise many.

By the way I am not trying to start a debate or pitch Sam's or Wal-Mart in any way so if you don't like us please don't gripe at me. I just wanted to add a little info to the thread.

Thanks.