A different progressive for every height?

[Metronome]

Delete.

[allanon]

The Compact Ultra is basically a blended round :) As much as I bashed the J&J Definity here, I recently gave the newest version a second chance and have been quite successful down to 14mm.

[DragonLensmanWV]

The Compact Ultra is basically a blended round :) As much as I bashed the J&J Definity here, I recently gave the newest version a second chance and have been quite successful down to 14mm.

We have had good luck with the Definity in 15+mm fits.
While we enjoy about a 98% acceptance rate, our success rate with the Compact Ultra was 1 success out of 14 pairs fit.

We no longer use the CU.

[ayoco]

see web site www.profitoptix.com Calligraphy free-form has three corridor lengths.

[MarcE]

Andro, I would disagree. The reason that your patient had to tilt her head back in the Ellipse is because there is essentially no intermediate, not because the corridor is too long. She has to use the add power to get a wide enough corridor to see the computer screen.
I actually think going the other way is more satisfying. Fit a Piccolo or Minuo at 19mm high and you get a very large reading area and a happy patient. Then maybe they need computer specs later

A longer corridor will give a larger intermediate. Maybe I don't disagree. If you switched her to 16mm MFH lens, the intermediate will be larger, so she will not have to look all the way to the full add to see the computer - maybe.

[oblique]

Andro,

I believe that you should choose a design that is shorter than the measured seg ht for most patients. And the only way to know what design would be best is if you know how long is the corridor or how many mm below the fitting cross does the full add power start. It is tough to go off the manufactures min seg ht because there is no standard amount of near zone depth. If you choose a design that is to long then of course the near zone, which is the main reason a patient is getting a PAL will be edged off.

The Autograph II with Freeframe technology will use the longest corridor that will still allow a reasonable amount of reading zone based on the frame shape, PD and seg ht of the particular patient.

The corridor of a general PAL is designed to get that patient thru most intermediate situations. It is not ideal. The shorter the corridor the less ideal for intermediate work. I feel that every presbyope should be presented with the option of purchasing a variable near focus lens along with their regular PALs, it should be manditory with short corridors! If a patient is fit with a variable near focus lens then I seriously doubt they will complaign about the function of their regular PALs.

[Uncle Fester]

I believe all Autographs 2's heights are based on a minimum 6mm area of full reading power. So the 11mm high has a 5mm corridor. The 18mm has a 12 etc.

That said let the debate begin over the definition of where full begins. As Harry Chilling notes we are not privy to the exact calculations that are used to determine the corridor and reading areas power so we are taking on faith, that stamp/tape they come with, to "see" near power zones?

Please feel free to correct me if I'm misstating anything.

[Barry Santini]

Think about it:

Make 3 pairs of *exactly* the same *shaped and sized* eyewear (be generous with the "B" dimension)

Then, make the same Rx into each one, but decrease the corridor length(from normal height of say, 20mm) by 1.5mm to 2mm respectively.

Then, wear (or have someone else) wear them.

Qs:
1. Will they have a preference?
2. Will they severly like or dislike either at the extremes?
3. Will they think they'll all be fine?

IMHO, attempting to *always* optimize the corridor length for the given shape *is not* in the best interests of each client.

Think about it...

Humbly,
Barry

[oblique]

Think about it:

Make 3 pairs of *exactly* the same *shaped and sized* eyewear (be generous with the "B" dimension)

Then, make the same Rx into each one, but decrease the corridor length(from normal height of say, 20mm) by 1.5mm to 2mm respectively.

Then, wear (or have someone else) wear them.

Qs:
1. Will they have a preference?
2. Will they severly like or dislike either at the extremes?
3. Will they think they'll all be fine?

IMHO, attempting to *always* optimize the corridor length for the given shape *is not* in the best interests of each client.

Think about it...

Humbly,
Barry

I believe the more corridor lengths, materials and designs we have at our disposal, the better we are able to prescribe for our patients. I also do not believe that we should always optimize the corridor for each clients frame unless we chose the frame after deciding all of the lens perameters needed. We can not put our optical brains on a shelf and fit a patient into an 11mm seg height with a +3.50 add just because the patient wants that frame, especially when thier previous PAL is a long corridor design.

I will stick up for Shamir with the new Autograph II designs. The have the optimized varible corridor design in 1/10mm increments or 4 fixed mininum fitting hts of 11mm, 13mm, 15mm and 18mm. Talk about a lot of tools for the optical tool box.

Barry, you are correct if a patient tries 3 corridor lengths in the same rx they will like one better than the other two. Our job as professionals is to determine thier optical personality and perscribe what we think will be best for thier needs. I wish we could afford to apply your 3 pair corridor test on every patient, the results may surprise us all.

Oblique

[john-atlanta]

Lets not forget that a short corridor that quickly gets into the full add power and has a wider near area will work GREAT on the computer in lower adds up to around 1.50 or 1.75 depending on working distance.

On the flip side a short corridor that blows into a 2.50 or higher add very quickly on a patient with a computer working distance of 30 inches will make for a very unhappy patient.

_________________

As an aside, I have a GT2 and Auto II in the same seg height and the intermediate performance of the Auto II blows away the GT2 (at least for me). Rx and add power is the same in both lenses.

Also, as a new progressive wearer, I have come to have a new appreciation for just how important minimizing vertex distance and having appropriate panto is to maximizing the performance of my progressive lenses.

[Metronome]

Andro, I would disagree. The reason that your patient had to tilt her head back in the Ellipse is because there is essentially no intermediate, not because the corridor is too long. She has to use the add power to get a wide enough corridor to see the computer screen.
I actually think going the other way is more satisfying. Fit a Piccolo or Minuo at 19mm high and you get a very large reading area and a happy patient. Then maybe they need computer specs later

A longer corridor will give a larger intermediate. Maybe I don't disagree. If you switched her to 16mm MFH lens, the intermediate will be larger, so she will not have to look all the way to the full add to see the computer - maybe.

Delete.

[Fezz]

I might have confused you-or maybe I'm confusing myself. What I thought I was asking was, since the Ellipse has a minimum height of 14, then at 16 high you'd be giving the patient 2 mm less corridor length than the frame would allow. Not much maybe, but does 2 mm make a difference?

You could also ask:

Does on millimeter make a difference?

The reason: The Ellipse does have a minimum height of 14. But, the Ellipse 360 has a minimum height of 13!! WHY?

Funny thing these progressives and minimum seg heights.

I suggest that you look into the Shamir Autograph II series of lenses. You can go as low as 11mm and I have had very good results going that low. The Autograph has varying designs based on various frame measurements.

[Barry Santini]

The reason: The Ellipse does have a minimum height of 14. But, the Ellipse 360 has a minimum height of 13!! WHY?

That's easy: The minimum ht for both is 13.5mm, and marketing influenced the *rounding*

FWIW

Barry

[Fezz]

That's easy: The minimum ht for both is 13.5mm, and marketing influenced the *rounding*

FWIW

Barry

Hey, whats a 1/2 mm between friends?

;):cheers::D

[KStraker]

For short corridor pals I would choose Essilor Smallfit, Scopus Micra, or Hoya Summit CD. In my experience they all are more successful than the Brevity, Compact Ultra, Ellipse, or AO compact. I still do not see how the ground view advantage does not detract from the overall reading area on the Definity short. Thoughts on that anyone?

I use our owner/mgr to evaluate these short corridor lenses. She does a considerable amount of work on the pc. She has been wearing Hoya's Summit Cd. When the Scopus rep came to see me I used the CD as reference point to evaluate the Micra. The Summit CD is a great design and has done well for us. She reported that they both have a wide reading area, but that the Micra was also very good on her pc screen. We tested the Smallfit in a similar fashion and it was also well recieved. We had a free pair of Gradal Brevity that went into the Lion's donation box. For clear cr39 we prefer the Scopus Micra for it's excellent price vs. performance ratio and easy customer acceptance.

[Metronome]

For short corridor pals I would choose Essilor Smallfit, Scopus Micra, or Hoya Summit CD. In my experience they all are more successful than the Brevity, Compact Ultra, Ellipse, or AO compact. I still do not see how the ground view advantage does not detract from the overall reading area on the Definity short. Thoughts on that anyone?

I use our owner/mgr to evaluate these short corridor lenses. She does a considerable amount of work on the pc. She has been wearing Hoya's Summit Cd. When the Scopus rep came to see me I used the CD as reference point to evaluate the Micra. The Summit CD is a great design and has done well for us. She reported that they both have a wide reading area, but that the Micra was also very good on her pc screen. We tested the Smallfit in a similar fashion and it was also well recieved. We had a free pair of Gradal Brevity that went into the Lion's donation box. For clear cr39 we prefer the Scopus Micra for it's excellent price vs. performance ratio and easy customer acceptance.

Delete.

[john-atlanta]

I suggest that you look into the Shamir Autograph II series of lenses. You can go as low as 11mm and I have had very good results going that low. The Autograph has varying designs based on various frame measurements.

Fezz,

Can you elaborate on the Auto II in the shortest seg heights please? I mean one could barely do a flat top at 11mm. I am a HUGE shamir fan but was really thinking of not using this lens below 14 or so. Any insights would be appreciated.

Also, have you used the Seiko Succeed WS much? I know you are enjoying the price/performance of the standard Succeed and wonder how you are doing with the WS.

Thanks!:cheers:

John

[MarcE]

Hey, whats a 1/2 mm between friends?

;):cheers::D

Well if that's all you've got - then A LOT

[MarcE]

This sounds like good advice, thanks. Is the Ellipse a worthwhile lens at all, then?

Yes, a very good lens. Before the Smallfit and Minuo (2006), it was the only short corridor I trusted (didn't have good luck w/ the Piccolo). We have changed to these later two almost exclusively and see great results, at a decent savings over the Ellipse.

Regarding my first post, I was confused. I guess I would answer this way. There is always a trade-off between Distance, inter, and near. You can only maximize 2 of the 3. If you fit an Ellipse at 16, you will have a larger reading area than at 14, but of course computer area doesn't change. So I don't like fitting lenses at their minimum.
My favorite lens that I wear is the Definity short fit at 19. It has a very large reading area. Would I like a Definity Long better for the computer if it were fit at the same height? I don't know for sure; maybe, but the reading area would be smaller. So it is a trade-off.
I think it is so lens specific and patient specific that you would just be second guessing the patient's preference.

[Fezz]

Fezz,

Can you elaborate on the Auto II in the shortest seg heights please? I mean one could barely do a flat top at 11mm. I am a HUGE shamir fan but was really thinking of not using this lens below 14 or so. Any insights would be appreciated.

Also, have you used the Seiko Succeed WS much? I know you are enjoying the price/performance of the standard Succeed and wonder how you are doing with the WS.

Thanks!:cheers:

John

I have only used a handful of the Autograph II. They have not been available all that long. That being said, I do have a few people wearing very successfully at 11 and 12mm! The majority are new prog wearers (which helps), but a few are past wearers.

As for the WS-I have yet to use one (maybe one..or..two?). The times I wanted tor try, it wasn't available yet, or the material-power, etc wasn't compatible.

The July 20/20 had a CE course about the Shamir Autograph series. It was a well written course! It explained the fixed corridors and the variable corridor.

www.2020mag.com (Prescriptions-The Way they were Intended)

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

[Metronome]

Yes, a very good lens. Before the Smallfit and Minuo (2006), it was the only short corridor I trusted (didn't have good luck w/ the Piccolo). We have changed to these later two almost exclusively and see great results, at a decent savings over the Ellipse.

Regarding my first post, I was confused. I guess I would answer this way. There is always a trade-off between Distance, inter, and near. You can only maximize 2 of the 3. If you fit an Ellipse at 16, you will have a larger reading area than at 14, but of course computer area doesn't change. So I don't like fitting lenses at their minimum.
My favorite lens that I wear is the Definity short fit at 19. It has a very large reading area. Would I like a Definity Long better for the computer if it were fit at the same height? I don't know for sure; maybe, but the reading area would be smaller. So it is a trade-off.
I think it is so lens specific and patient specific that you would just be second guessing the patient's preference.

Delete.