Free-Form Phanatics...Help?

[Fezz]

OK,ok...I'll admit it-I am not drinking the Free-Form Kool Aid! I have voiced my opinion on these forums enough for most to know my feelings. I have a patient in who I have tried several Free-Form, and Individual type lenses over the last few years with no WOW factor.

Rx as follows: Current

OD -3.00=-1.00 x 115
OS -3.00=-1.00 x 070
Add +2.50

2004-I fit him with Zeiss Individual. 1.60 w/ Carat
Previous, he had worn Varilux Comfort, Zeiss Top, and Panamic. His main complaint has always been the width of clear areas in intermediate and near. The Individual did not impress him. In other words, no noticeable difference. This guy is very bright, owns companies here and in Germany and can speak and under stand optics well. Frame=Elasta #7027 54-20

2007-I fit him with a "Free-Form" from a well known lab. 1.67 Labs AR
He was very un-impressed. He felt that the areas were the same or smaller. The AR coating failed (several times). Frame=Elasta#7027 54-20(same as 2004)

Today-This is where you free-form Gurus come in.
We are going with same frame style. He wants wider areas. He also wants to be assured that the AR will hold up better, or that we will stand behind it if it doesn't.

1.) My first thought was Shamir Autograph in 1.60. My concern here is the AR availability and warranty.
2.) Second, I thought about the Hoya ID Lifestyle in Trivex. Great AR and great warranty. But, I have had quite a few people try and not like, and it is not a true free-form so I don't think the goal of wider areas will be met. The regular ID is out because of cost versus other options.


So....what would you Free-Form Phanatics suggest? Why?

I think Craig will suggest Unique. I actually kicked that around, but am unsure of the AR warranties and durability.

Thanks!

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

[Jubilee]

I have had no issue with the Unique.. however ....

I LOVE MY AUTOGRAPH!


AR on 1.60 is no issue, Zeiss carat is the usual .. however I believe you can get the Crizal family of coatings on it as well (or at least I have in the past)


You mentioned lifestyle ID.. why not the Hoyalux ID.. (the true free form version)

Both the Autograph and the ID have produced that WOW factor in my patients.

[chip anderson]

Everyone who was knowledgable (OMD's and the like) that I have tried freeform lenses on has been unimpressed with everything but the price!

[Jacqui]

Try the Autograph

[RT]

Second, I thought about the Hoya ID Lifestyle in Trivex. Great AR and great warranty. But, I have had quite a few people try and not like, and it is not a true free-form

Actually, ID Lifestyle is true Free-Form. "Free-Form" defines the method by which the back surface is created. I can assure you that the ID Lifestyle is created using Free-Form techniques on really expensive equipment. And unlike using Free-Form to merely make conventional toric surfaces, the back surface of the ID Lifestyle is truly the type of surface that one associates with Free-Form techniques.

Maybe what you're trying to say is that ID Lifestyle is not a true "individualized" progressive. That would be a true statement. Some of the optical elements in ID Lifestyle are molded in and thus not able to be individualized. But some of the optical elements are created via true Free-Form techniques, and are thus individualizable.

However, I'm not sure I understand your linkage between either "Free-Form" or "individualized" and "wider areas". "Wider areas" would be a function of the design of the lens, not a function of how it is produced ("Free-Form") or how the key descriptive parameters are specified ("individualized"). I could very easily use Free-Form to create the world's narrowest progressive. Similarly, I could individualize that same narrow progressive to exactly your inset, frame size, pantoscopic tilt, etc.

If "true Free-Form" is your goal, then may I suggest you reconsider the Hoyalux ID (from my employer). On the ID, both the front and back surfaces are created via Free-Form. That makes it double Free-Form! Why settle for those measly "single Free-Form" lenses?

And to be just slightly combative, one common factor in this patient's previous lack of "WOW" has been, um, the guy fitting the lens. Even Free-Form production of a highly individualized ultra-wide design may not be enough to overcome fitting issues.

OK, sorry. That may have been a little more than slightly combative. But you get the point. It IS possible that the design is not the culprit here.

[Fezz]

Actually, ID Lifestyle is true Free-Form. "Free-Form" defines the method by which the back surface is created. I can assure you that the ID Lifestyle is created using Free-Form techniques on really expensive equipment. And unlike using Free-Form to merely make conventional toric surfaces, the back surface of the ID Lifestyle is truly the type of surface that one associates with Free-Form techniques.

1.)Maybe what you're trying to say is that ID Lifestyle is not a true "individualized" progressive. That would be a true statement. Some of the optical elements in ID Lifestyle are molded in and thus not able to be individualized. But some of the optical elements are created via true Free-Form techniques, and are thus individualizable.

2.) However, I'm not sure I understand your linkage between either "Free-Form" or "individualized" and "wider areas". "Wider areas" would be a function of the design of the lens, not a function of how it is produced ("Free-Form") or how the key descriptive parameters are specified ("individualized"). I could very easily use Free-Form to create the world's narrowest progressive. Similarly, I could individualize that same narrow progressive to exactly your inset, frame size, pantoscopic tilt, etc.

3.) If "true Free-Form" is your goal, then may I suggest you reconsider the Hoyalux ID (from my employer). On the ID, both the front and back surfaces are created via Free-Form. That makes it double Free-Form! Why settle for those measly "single Free-Form" lenses?

4.) And to be just slightly combative, one common factor in this patient's previous lack of "WOW" has been, um, the guy fitting the lens. Even Free-Form production of a highly individualized ultra-wide design may not be enough to overcome fitting issues.

OK, sorry. That may have been a little more than slightly combative. But you get the point. It IS possible that the design is not the culprit here.

Rt, Thanks for your input. This is exactly what I am looking for. Let me break your post down!

1.) Thanks for clarifying what I was trying to say. You got the point! Sadly, I think the lens companies have clouded the realities to the point of mass confusion. This is better left for another thread!
2.) My point here is that the lens companies have projected an aura around these lenses. They have implied that the lenses that are free-form, individualized, super-sized, and fantasized are somehow better than conventional progressives. Maybe you could clarify how they are better. If they do not provide wider areas, what do they provide? Maybe they provide better optics....how? Enlighten me, please.
3.) Your point about "double Free-Form" is great. Thats exactly what I would expect from a company man spouting off about the companies product that costs "double" what other lenses do. Does it offer "double" the width of areas? Does it provide "double" benefits somehow? Does it provide "double" the pleasure as well? How is it better? Enlighten me.
4.) No worries. I not only have a thick head as you have alluded to, but I have thick skin as well! I think you are right, the design is not the problem. I think the problem lies much deeper. I think a lot has to do with over hyped claims by lens manufacturers. I think some has to do with dispenser ignorance in believing the hype. I also think some may have to do with an educated dispenser, a educated patient, discussing current lens options and deciding to gamble on new technology. I must admit, I am not a great dispenser. I have a lot to learn. That is why I am here. Enlighten me.

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

[k12311997]

Fezz,

I wish I could offer something constructive but I'm a free form virgin. 2 things strike me

1. patient won't change frames over 4 years probably far to anal retentive to be WOWED by anything.

2. GASP the man, the myth , the legend dealing in Safilo!?!?

Good Luck :cheers:

[Fezz]

Fezz,

I wish I could offer something constructive but I'm a free form virgin. 2 things strike me

1. patient won't change frames over 4 years probably far to anal retentive to be WOWED by anything.

2. GASP the man, the myth , the legend dealing in Safilo!?!?

Good Luck :cheers:

:bbg:

A Free-Form Virgin, huh. Come on, everybody is doing it! Oh...it feels so good. Come on..try it. We won't tell!

1.) Very anal retentive! But, exactly the patient who I think would most benefit from supposed free-form, or individualized progressive lenses. Right? Also, having the exact same frame makes for a very good side by side comparison. When you compare apples to apples, it becomes very clear what differences exist! If any!!! Again, a very intelligent, sophisticated and educated consumer makes for a very good litmus test!!!

2.) Safilo is my go-to brand. *L*O*V*E* them!

;):cheers::D:cheers:;)

[jeanne2020]

give 'em hell, fezz!

[Fezz]

Actually, ID Lifestyle is true Free-Form. "Free-Form" defines the method by which the back surface is created. I can assure you that the ID Lifestyle is created using Free-Form techniques on really expensive equipment. And unlike using Free-Form to merely make conventional toric surfaces, the back surface of the ID Lifestyle is truly the type of surface that one associates with Free-Form techniques.

This is very interesting.

Are Essilor 360 series of lenses "free-form"
Are Indo lenses "free-form"?
Are Seiko lenses "free-form"
Are Shamir lenses "free-form"?
Would a Younger Image be considered "free-form" if the same equipment that was used to produce a Hoya Lifestyle ID, was then used to produce an Image?
Would a Hoya Wide be considered "free-form" if the lens was produced on the same equipment as the Lifestyle ID?

Maybe you could educate me, and hopefully others. What exactly is "free-form techniques"?

[Lee H]

I received an Autograph II about three weeks ago and absolutely love them. I have worn Panamic, Concise, Ellipse, and the Summit CD Lifestyle, and I can honestly ay this is the best pair I've owned. The vision is so crisp and there is such a smooth transition from distance to near. I do not have any issues with reading or intermediate width as both are plenty wide and clear. I have the Kodak Clear on them and it seems good so far. Cleans well however not as slick and easy to clean as my Avance' or SHV. I was told the Crizal isn't available on the Autograph.

Good luck!

[RT]

2.) My point here is that the lens companies have projected an aura around these lenses. They have implied that the lenses that are free-form, individualized, super-sized, and fantasized are somehow better than conventional progressives. Maybe you could clarify how they are better. If they do not provide wider areas, what do they provide? Maybe they provide better optics....how?

Then your answer is obvious. Find the oldest progressive design from before the era when those godless Marketeers took over, and use that.

3. Your point about "double Free-Form" is great. Thats exactly what I would expect from a company man spouting off about the companies [sic] product that costs "double" what other lenses do. Does it offer "double" the width of areas? Does it provide "double" benefits somehow? Does it provide "double" the pleasure as well?

If you honestly thought that my post was an attempt to sell a particular product, then I need to rethink my writing style. You were the one who wrote off a particular products because you believed it wasn't "true Free-Form". I tried to humorously extrapolate that. I admit my failure.

But you bring up points worthy of discussion. Are newer designs (and their really, really sexy means of production) superior from a cost/benefit standpoint for every patient? Undoubtedly not, or we would have discontinued the old designs. Is a newer design right for this patient? I don't know. I'm not on the sales side of things, so I won't even pretend to tell you how to choose progressive designs. But I can confirm for you which products are or are not made through "true Free-Form".

And I will note that even though you have managed to disappoint your patient the last 2 times he purchased from you, he came back again. So somehow, these over-hyped new designs shamelessly hyped by those godless Marketeers have not negatively impacted your ability to retain customers(or you're the only show in town).

[Fezz]

Rt,

So....

...............can you please educate me as to how "free-form" lenses are better?

I think that is a simple question. You have tried to belittle me. You have been sarcastic. You have tried to pitch your companies products. But, you have yet to tell me why these lenses are better.

Excuse me if this seems "combative".

[IndianaOD]

Everyone who was knowledgable (OMD's and the like) that I have tried freeform lenses on has been unimpressed with everything but the price!

:bbg: Sorry I got a laugh out of your statement that OMDs are knowledgeable on optics! :cheers:

[MarcE]

I got a few wows from the Definity. I have heard of people that have lots of wows from the Autograph. However, it is being discoed and replaced by the Autograph II. Hoya ID is my opticians favorite. Definity is my favorite.

If he wants wide intermediate, a computer lens is the choice for him.

I know what you mean by this being a good patient because he is used to better than 20/20 vision (I'm guessing), smart, very nit-picky, and aware of his optics. The problem my be that his vision is better than 20/20. There just isn't alot of improvement to be had.

You have ignored all lenses from the Empire? There is a good reason why they bought the Definity from J&J when they have a hundred good designs on the shelf.

My suggestion would be Definity (long corridor) in Trivex, w/Avance. With an explanation that this is as good as it gets. Mr Rententive, "A no-line multifocal is a lens designed to do everything. Because of this, it has certain compromises. The best choice for a wide reading and intermediate area is a separate specific indoor or computer lens."

[RT]

Are Essilor 360 series of lenses "free-form"

I believe that Essilor uses a different term to describe non-toric back surfaces.

Are Indo lenses "free-form"?

Unknown--I confess ignorance of the Indo brand in the US. But one could, of course, put a "free-form" back surface on an Indo lens, or one from any manufacturer. Whether the resulting lens could correct your patient's vision optimally is another question.

Are Seiko lenses "free-form"

Some Seiko progressive lenses are produced conventionally using toric back curves. Some are produced using spherical front curves and complex rear curves. And some Seiko lenses are not progressives. The 2nd group would be considered "free-form".

Are Shamir lenses "free-form"?

I believe that Shamir was the company that actually introduced the term "Free-Form" to the optical industry. Some Shamir progressive lenses are produced conventionally using toric back curves. Some are produced using spherical front curves and complex rear curves. The 2nd group would be considered "free-form".

Would a Younger Image be considered "free-form" if the same equipment that was used to produce a Hoya Lifestyle ID, was then used to produce an Image?

Since "free-form" describes the method of production, and is not descriptive of the design at all, the answer in my mind is bizarrely "Yes". You could put a non-toric surface on the rear surface of a Image progressive using "free-form" equipment. Again, whether or not the resulting lens would correct your patient's vision optimally is a different question.

Would a Hoya Wide be considered "free-form" if the lens was produced on the same equipment as the Lifestyle ID?

See previous answer.

The semantic argument here is that you have to separate the means of production from the design. And yes, the terms have been both obscured and misinterpreted.

It's sort of like the HDTV that I have that actually only shows a High Def picture if I have it connected to a High Def source. I could have gotten a cheaper non-hyped TV with similar performance in certain environments (i.e. a non-HD source). If my eyesight is no good because I bought the wrong lenses, does any HDTV make a difference over what I can see on conventional TV? Can I conclude that because in some environments or for some people HDTV shows no benefit over conventional TV, that HDTV is over-hyped?

There is an optical lab (independently owned) that offers a "free-form" round seg. It's not a particularly new or exciting design, yet you can pick up a trade magazine and see it "hyped" (oh, the humanity). It gets attention because the method of production allows the design to be used in cases where molded round segs aren't available (like photochromics). So...design = simple. Means of production = interesting.

[MarcE]

There is an optical lab (independently owned) that offers a "free-form" round seg. It's not a particularly new or exciting design, yet you can pick up a trade magazine and see it "hyped" (oh, the humanity). It gets attention because the method of production allows the design to be used in cases where molded round segs aren't available (like photochromics). So...design = simple. Means of production = interesting.

Also available: round segs in 1.67. 1.60 polarized, 1.70, Resolution Transitions, Canary yellow polar. . . Essentially anything that a SV SF blank is available. And the lab doesn't hype an increased optical experience, or thinner lens. only increased accuracy.

[Fezz]

The best choice for a wide reading and intermediate area is a separate specific indoor or computer lens."

Thanks for the info MarcE!

Mr. A. Retentive has many pairs of glasses. I have him in several wide trifocals. I also have him in several NVO, Computer-Only, and DVO SV setups. Again, this Dude is bright. He fully understands limitations, visual demands, etc. He uses the correct pair of eyewear for the task at hand.

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

[bob_f_aboc]

Fezz,

Have you thought about going old-school with this guy? Maybe back to VIP or XL instead of all the new-fangled stuff. If he has been in the Individual, Comfort, Panamic, and GT, maybe he just needs to go back to basics. I had a pt several years ago that had tried the newest and greatest lenses and hated them. I put him in a VIP and he loved them.

I know I will get slammed for this, but sometimes technology isn't always the best answer.

Otherwise, I'm with RT, if you want a freeform with good AR go with the HOYA ID with Super HiVision. I have fit this quite a bit and had good results. I have learned to set the seg about 1mm lower than normal for best results with my patients.

My 2 cents.

[Craig]

OK,ok...I'll admit it-I am not drinking the Free-Form Kool Aid! I have voiced my opinion on these forums enough for most to know my feelings. I have a patient in who I have tried several Free-Form, and Individual type lenses over the last few years with no WOW factor.

Rx as follows: Current

OD -3.00=-1.00 x 115
OS -3.00=-1.00 x 070
Add +2.50


I think Craig will suggest Unique. I actually kicked that around, but am unsure of the AR warranties and durability.

Thanks!

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

The warranty is something excessive and ensures it as long as the RX is current! They actually have a 100% return policy at this point on the Unique as long as your returns are not excessive. This certainly makes it easy to do business and eliminates some creative returns.
We do 100% non glare coatings and we have almost zero defects; it makes no difference if we use Hoya, Kodak, Crizal, Zeiss or Pech's in-house EZ-C coating. The main issue is the lens material and the scratch coating adhesion.

I have had less than 1% returns for non glare in the past 3 years. The only issue prior to that was on transitions 1.6 lenses.

As far as the Unique's new non glare coating it does have an anti-static property and a coating to ensure no slippage in finishing. The best part is they ship in an average of 2 days and the thickness on plus and minus lenses is very consistent. That is the key! Ordering a pair of lenses and having it show up consistently in 3 days as ordered. We are up to 75% Trivex and can't wait for the polarized to be released. THe weight difference over the nose is very impressive to patients and as far as the WOW factor: This combination of optics and lens material is as good as it gets.

We cannot create miracles for some people, but we can give it our best shot. But if you use any new design in free form the results are all pretty good. We just got a pair of the new Sola HDV for my lab person and it is fine; but not much different than the Autograph or Uniques that he also has.

Best of Luck!
Craig

[TLG]

Fezz,
You are the last person I need to direct to my site ordinarily as you graciously recommend it in post after post. However, you may want to check out my Digitally Surfaced lens page where I list each lens and describe how each lens surface (front/back) is created; digital surfacing, digital mold, std techniques etc.

I spent a ton of time researching as I am as confused as you (many more are also, we simply admit it). But I think I have it right for each lens listed. Check it out again at -> www.thelensguru.com/digitalChart.php and see if it lends any clarity to your questions.

[Jubilee]

The way I seperate things in my mind..."Free-Form" is digitally processed. No molding, just a straight to manufactured front. Creation, Definity, etc.

"individualized" is a segment of the "Free-form" lenses that compensates for the individual elements and position of wear. May not be necessary for Mr and Mrs Joe Schmo.. but for those who have less common Rxs or high visual demands.. the $$ can be worth it.

I explain it similar to AR. "normal" is looking out a window. You can see most detail, and the function is good. However when you step outside and look at the same scene, things are *that* much brighter, crisper, and clear. Not much.. and for many the window scene is fine.. however there are a good number of people who like the extra definition and contrast.

[chip anderson]

Got an E. Mail today from Optical Dynamics who claims to be making free form contact lenses. Can't see them working unless they have a plastic that exactly the same index and the cornea or tears.

Chip

[RT]

The way I seperate things in my mind..."Free-Form" is digitally processed. No molding, just a straight to manufactured front. Creation, Definity, etc.

Huh? Creation uses conventional toric surfaces on the back surface. The front surface is molded at the factory. Therefore, Creation is absolutely, positively, not "Free-Form".

[Jubilee]

The marketing and the hoopla I went through to get my "Certified free-form specialist" designation from them was all about how instead of traditional molding on the Creation, they use a digital process.. resulting in crisper optics and truer design. Where as the Autograph is Individualized for the wearer..

Creation is listed as a free form lens, along with the newer versions of Piccolo and Office.. (losing the molds...)