Did you know this secrets:

[OCP]

It is not mandatory to supply those values, if you felt that your method of ABC lens design would work why not just implement it, send out a memo to all your accounts that in the future all orders will require A, B, or C values for tilt and then define what they mean. I don't think you'll see a huge change in the remakes honestly you might actually see an increase because you are adding a level of ambiguity to your ordering system. I would personally not use your lab and I know of many other offices that are just getting used to the whole tilt and compensation thing to try and throw a A, B, C into the mix.

Or if new technology is that much of a pain just throw in the towel and sell only traditionaly surfaced lenses.

Well we are just a wholesaler and not a lab, and mostly of our customer knows our stance on this issue, so we does not have adaption issues here.
This thread is not about how we are doing it, but how the industry are tackling this. What I want with this thread is only to put focus on this, and who knows.? Ideas start often from forums like this.

[Darryl Meister]

Send them MY way! ;) How can you NOT see the difference between the two?!?! It's rather huge-ish

It really depends upon several factors, in particular the screen size and viewing distance. On a large screen at a short viewing distance, the difference in resolution between NTSC (480p) and hi-def formats (720p/1080i) should be very noticeable. On a small screen at a long viewing distance, however, the difference in resolution may not be perceptible.

[HarryChiling]

My take, if your having a hard time with these additional parameters don't fudge them, leave them out of the equation all together and the software will use global variables instead of user supplied data. If the design is solid and the lab has good quality control standards, your patients will still see some benefits from these individualized designs. Of course if your not measureing these additional variables then the premium category of FF which offers these dynamic variables might not be cost effective, try similar designs with static variables since the cost should be lower and the benefits the same.

[Mr. Finney]

For Mr. Finney. Please read all the post before you call my statements ridiculous. I have just like Darryl been analyzed progressive lenses for more than 15 years, but more in a practical view than in a technical view. I can´t take your post serious.

Mike, I did read your entire post. In fact, I've read every post in this thread. I'm not calling all of your statements ridiculous, just the one. My point is that you are saying that if a measurement is off even a little, that the finished product will be unusable ("If your power is -6D and you measure 2 mm wrong, the lenses will NOT work") & ("it will only give optical improvement if you measure both values 100% correct"), and that is just simply not correct. The product will not be as it could be, but it certainly would be useable, and more than likely would be of as good as or better optical quality as a standard non-compensated product.

Bryan

[Uilleann]

It really depends upon several factors, in particular the screen size and viewing distance. On a large screen at a short viewing distance, the difference in resolution between NTSC (480p) and hi-def formats (720p/1080i) should be very noticeable. On a small screen at a long viewing distance, however, the difference in resolution may not be perceptible.

I dunno - perhaps you're right. But my myopic eyeballs can spot it across a store showroom floor - 50+ feet or so. I hope most people are viewing their TV's a bit closer than that! :D (but not TOO close now!):p I must say, that even in bed, watching my 24" monitor across the room, roughly 18 feet, without my peepers on, I can still tell a marked difference between blu-ray and a standard DVD.

I hope the re-release Jaws in high def with the ol red/blue specs. That would truly be movie-vana! hehe

Cheers Darryl! :cheers::cheers::cheers:

[Mr. Finney]

I dunno - perhaps you're right. But my myopic eyeballs can spot it across a store showroom floor - 50+ feet or so. I hope most people are viewing their TV's a bit closer than that! :D (but not TOO close now!):p I must say, that even in bed, watching my 24" monitor across the room, roughly 18 feet, without my peepers on, I can still tell a marked difference between blu-ray and a standard DVD.

I hope the re-release Jaws in high def with the ol red/blue specs. That would truly be movie-vana! hehe

Cheers Darryl! :cheers::cheers::cheers:

Geez, like half a diopter myopic? :bbg: At 18 feet with no glasses, I can't tell the difference between the tv on or off! Of course, when you can't see, you can't hear either, so don't try that old "Can't you at least hear the tv?" stuff on me:p

[Barry Santini]

My take, if your having a hard time with these additional parameters don't fudge them, leave them out of the equation all together and the software will use global variables instead of user supplied data. If the design is solid and the lab has good quality control standards, your patients will still see some benefits from these individualized designs. Of course if your not measureing these additional variables then the premium category of FF which offers these dynamic variables might not be cost effective, try similar designs with static variables since the cost should be lower and the benefits the same.

Agreed!
:cheers:
Barry

PS And be careful of ALL FF backside progressives with adds +2.75 and over. My experience is that they are, as a group, NOT as good because of manufacturing problems as a good front-side design.

Barry

[Uilleann]

Geez, like half a diopter myopic? :bbg: At 18 feet with no glasses, I can't tell the difference between the tv on or off! Of course, when you can't see, you can't hear either, so don't try that old "Can't you at least hear the tv?" stuff on me:p

hehe I'm only minus that half in one eye (the other is a bit worse!) I didn't know that the eyes affected hearing like that...but it explains a LOT! And here I thought it might have been the business end of all those Lear 35's when I was working out on the ramp yeas back. :D

[Barry Santini]

It really depends upon several factors, in particular the screen size and viewing distance. On a large screen at a short viewing distance, the difference in resolution between NTSC (480p) and hi-def formats (720p/1080i) should be very noticeable. On a small screen at a long viewing distance, however, the difference in resolution may not be perceptible.

You, Darryl, have obviously *not* viewed an NTSC picture on a 480p 32" CRT Bang & Olufsen AVANT TV.

That TV's picture, now residing in my basement den, is STILL THE MOST LIFELIKE PICTURE I HAVE EVER SEEN ON ANY TV.

I view that TV from 11 feet away.
I view my LR 50" HD Plasma from 9 feet away (also a B&O).

The AVANT, on STD definition (which is all it can display) is still superior and sharper than the plasma.

Qualitative differences do count. Everyone whose ever seen the Avant agrees.

Same applies to FF lens designs, like Zeiss ( A truly EXCELLENT FF), IMHO.

Barry

[Mr. Finney]

You, Darryl, have obviously *not* viewed an NTSC picture on a 480p 32" CRT Bang & Olufsen AVANT TV.

That TV's picture, now residing in my basement den, is STILL THE MOST LIFELIKE PICTURE I HAVE EVER SEEN ON ANY TV.

I view that TV from 11 feet away.
I view my LR 50" HD Plasma from 9 feet away (also a B&O).

The AVANT, on STD definition (which is all it can display) is still superior and sharper than the plasma.

Qualitative differences do count. Everyone whose ever seen the Avant agrees.

Same applies to FF lens designs, like Zeiss ( A truly EXCELLENT FF), IMHO.

Barry

Proof that Opticians in licensed states make more $$ than those in non-licensed ones:bbg:

[Uilleann]

Sweet Barry! I got the popcorn, cold pizza and beer covered. Jaws at your place right?! We can wax poetic about Televue eyepieces during the boring parts. ;)

[Barry Santini]

Proof that Opticians in licensed states make more $$ than those in non-licensed ones:bbg:

This is true. And further, Optician owners/partners make more as well.

But we work harder too!

There's just me and my partner Bob. We do ALL the:

Dispensing
Sales
Repairs(including hidden hinges and soldering)
Orders
Fabrication (including drilling and wraps)
Queries
Bookeeeping and bill paying
Payroll
Displays attention.

There are no other helpers. Business gross last year was $895K.
(this year will be less)
We earned it every day!
And we learn so much each day from Optiboard!

Thanks for a great "pub" to meet in, Steve!

Barry

[Barry Santini]

Sweet Barry! I got the popcorn, cold pizza and beer covered. Jaws at your place right?! We can wax poetic about Televue eyepieces during the boring parts. ;)

Do you know Tele Vue?

Barry

[Mr. Finney]

This is true. And further, Optician owners/partners make more as well.

But we work harder too!

There's just me and my partner Bob. We do ALL the:

Dispensing
Sales
Repairs(including hidden hinges and soldering)
Orders
Fabrication (including drilling and wraps)
Queries
Bookeeeping and bill paying
Payroll
Displays attention.

There are no other helpers. Business gross last year was $895K.
(this year will be less)
We earned it every day!
And we learn so much each day from Optiboard!

Thanks for a great "pub" to meet in, Steve!

Barry

Wow Barry, that's awesome! We do about that in our office with 7 employees! Now mind you, all of my attempts at creating more efficiency are met with an old-school, "that's not the way we've always done it" mentality, but I would think we could do more with less, as you and your partner prove.

[Barry Santini]

Wow Barry, that's awesome! We do about that in our office with 7 employees! Now mind you, all of my attempts at creating more efficiency are met with an old-school, "that's not the way we've always done it" mentality, but I would think we could do more with less, as you and your partner prove.

Oh, I forgot one more person..
.
Our right hand gal friday/receptionist/master-get-out-of-here"er", Mo!

B

[Uilleann]

Do you know Tele Vue?

Barry

Are you kidding me Man??? Hansen Planetarium - 10 years. (+ 3 as a docent volunteer), and Telescope/eyepiece retail for another three after that. If I could afford them - I'd practically breathe Tele Vue! I love them almost as much as my poly lenses and Essilor! :D:D:D (blowing a kiss in Fezz's general direction!)

[Mr.Goggle]

Fascinating Mike, thanks for posting!

[Pete Hanlin]

He forgot to say:

"When viewed through polycarbonate lens material,............."

While the above statement is funny (brought a smile even to my lips), it is unfortunately another example of disinformation. Fact is, in independent clinical evaluations, subjects prefer polycarbonate over Trivex (which is supposed to provide "superior clarity"). Not by statistically significant margins, but the point being polycarbonate provides vision that is every bit as good- if not better- than most other ophthalmic materials. Not picking on Trivex (even though I personally can't for the life of me understand why this material exists, professionally speaking I am employed by a manufacturer of this material).

Unfortunately, there is a ton of disinformation that has been scattered throughout our industry regarding material properties, design characteristics, etc. These snippets are treated as "fact" and repeated by people in the field who have neither the experience nor education to "know better" (I'm not including anyone on this post in that group- but the fact is, most opticians in the US are not formally educated or apprenticed).

I think this is the point behind the initial response to this thread. Making blanket (and untrue) statements that customization to position of wear is inconsequential- or that polycarbonate is somehow an inferior ophthalmic material- spread disinformation in an environment where speculation is often mistaken as fact.

To clarify- position of wear for an ophthalmic lens (particularly a progressive) does play a measurable role in visual perception.

Polycarbonate is like any other ophthalmic material: when processed and fit correctly, it provides excellent vision. Incorrect processing and/or fitting reduces its performance.

[HarryChiling]

He forgot to say:

"When viewed through polycarbonate lens material,............."

While the above statement is funny (brought a smile even to my lips), it is unfortunately another example of disinformation. Fact is, in independent clinical evaluations, subjects prefer polycarbonate over Trivex (which is supposed to provide "superior clarity"). Not by statistically significant margins, but the point being polycarbonate provides vision that is every bit as good- if not better- than most other ophthalmic materials. Not picking on Trivex (even though I personally can't for the life of me understand why this material exists, professionally speaking I am employed by a manufacturer of this material).

Unfortunately, there is a ton of disinformation that has been scattered throughout our industry regarding material properties, design characteristics, etc. These snippets are treated as "fact" and repeated by people in the field who have neither the experience nor education to "know better" (I'm not including anyone on this post in that group- but the fact is, most opticians in the US are not formally educated or apprenticed).

I think this is the point behind the initial response to this thread. Making blanket (and untrue) statements that customization to position of wear is inconsequential- or that polycarbonate is somehow an inferior ophthalmic material- spread disinformation in an environment where speculation is often mistaken as fact.

To clarify- position of wear for an ophthalmic lens (particularly a progressive) does play a measurable role in visual perception.

Polycarbonate is like any other ophthalmic material: when processed and fit correctly, it provides excellent vision. Incorrect processing and/or fitting reduces its performance.

PAL designs require that a patient view off axis to read and the fitting cross is anywhere from 2 to 6mm above this point with the majority at 4mm, the optical center being surfaced at the PRP or in the case of prism thinning lower than the PRP, if the average min seg hgt is 18mm minus the 4mm seg to PRP we have a length of 14mm off axis to plug into our Ch Abb equation. In the distance with no prism thinning we would have a 4mm off axis point, not significant IMO. This off axis viewing could create issues and in most cases I believe people attribute it to the design rather than the material but this is just me speculating. I think prism thinning would allow for less of a problem in the reading while increaseing the effect on distance. With shorter corridor progressives if the problem did truly exist the way I imagine it, it will be less of an issue.

Ch Abb alone is not significant enough of an issue, but most of the literature available on most abberations will lead the average joe to believe that each is a seperate entity and has no effect on the other, a more educated optician would realize that the compound effects of poor material properties, ANSI, and other design flaws can add up to significant errors. Nothing wrong with poly especially now that FF exists less aberration from design or manufactureing flaws means that the material has less to make up for.

To add a note, the foundation of good lens design starts with the material, in every text I have read the material selection is a part of lens design so to play down poly's attributes isn't the way Ido things, that being said I used to dispense more poly than any other maetrial in all the offices I worked because in the majority of cases when teh pros and cons were weighed out it made sense, but when the patient performance suffered I took that into consideration and used other materials. I still think there is a place for spectralite, evoclear, and the other mid index lenses. I like the variety in choice it keeps up sharp, now if I had a preference I would replace poly with 1.60 not trivex. Honestly I still thin trivex is more a novelty.

[Barry Santini]

PAL designs require that a patient view off axis to read and the fitting cross is anywhere from 2 to 6mm above this point with the majority at 4mm, the optical center being surfaced at the PRP or in the case of prism thinning lower than the PRP, if the average min seg hgt is 18mm minus the 4mm seg to PRP we have a length of 14mm off axis to plug into our Ch Abb equation. In the distance with no prism thinning we would have a 4mm off axis point, not significant IMO. This off axis viewing could create issues and in most cases I believe people attribute it to the design rather than the material but this is just me speculating. I think prism thinning would allow for less of a problem in the reading while increaseing the effect on distance. With shorter corridor progressives if the problem did truly exist the way I imagine it, it will be less of an issue.

Ch Abb alone is not significant enough of an issue, but most of the literature available on most abberations will lead the average joe to believe that each is a seperate entity and has no effect on the other, a more educated optician would realize that the compound effects of poor material properties, ANSI, and other design flaws can add up to significant errors. Nothing wrong with poly especially now that FF exists less aberration from design or manufactureing flaws means that the material has less to make up for.

To add a note, the foundation of good lens design starts with the material, in every text I have read the material selection is a part of lens design so to play down poly's attributes isn't the way Ido things, that being said I used to dispense more poly than any other maetrial in all the offices I worked because in the majority of cases when teh pros and cons were weighed out it made sense, but when the patient performance suffered I took that into consideration and used other materials. I still think there is a place for spectralite, evoclear, and the other mid index lenses. I like the variety in choice it keeps up sharp, now if I had a preference I would replace poly with 1.60 not trivex. Honestly I still thin trivex is more a novelty.

Gee Harry, sounds like stuff in my ABOM paper...

B

[HarryChiling]

Gee Harry, sounds like stuff in my ABOM paper...

B

Yes Barry you have been assimilated. :bbg: I have Darryl's paper too and a few others. I like reading and I like smart folks. You know when Darryl and Pete reply in a thread it's gotta be a good one. Your not to shabby either. ;)

[OCP]

[QUOTE=Darryl Meister;323372]


According to your post, your company's Autograph II lens is not fully customized for the position of wear anyway, which would exclude it from the class of lenses including ZEISS Individual and Rodenstock Impression ILT.
QUOTE]

Darryl.
Happy holliday to all here on this board.
I´m realy curious about this point of view.

So what you actually write is, the more measures you got, the better optical solutions you get?

Did you know that shamir philosophy is a bit different?
-and that sometimes "simple is better".
Maybe thats why someone cant use Individual and prefer Gradal Top?

You can actually destroy a great optical lens design with all these data that can go wrong for simple reasons: The frame is not FIXED, and the client change lifestyle.

Thats the main reason that Panto and Vertex is uninteresting measures.
The same with lifestyle examination etc.

It´s all about handling of abberations, so the lenses will never be better than the software programmer in the end. Thats another fact.!

I don´t say that Impression and Individual not are great lenses, they certain are, but I think someone, in the name of evolution, are forgetting what it´s all about.

Thats the reason I think Autograph II is a step ahead other manufacturer because they have already admitted this a long time ago. It´s not a question about who make the lens most individual, but simply who got the best programmer? (We all know Israel got some of the best programmer out there). :cheers:

Mike

[Barry Santini]

I think the failure of any POW measured and compensated PAL correction is less about the accuracy and/or validity of the obtained (or assumed) POW values, and more about the following things (in order of importance):

1. The Rx you begin with.
2. The assumptions made in *any* given POW compensated algorithym.
3. The limits of FF manufacturing, particularly in highers adds (over +2.50)

FWIW

Barry

[AWTECH]

I think the failure of any POW measured and compensated PAL correction is less about the accuracy and/or validity of the obtained (or assumed) POW values, and more about the following things (in order of importance):

1. The Rx you begin with.
2. The assumptions made in *any* given POW compensated algorithym.
3. The limits of FF manufacturing, particularly in highers adds (over +2.50)

FWIW

Barry

What problems with over +2.50 ADDs do you have?

[Barry Santini]

in the cases where the client was wearing comfort or Physio, we're seeing decreased utility, and comments such as a narrower intermediate and reading zone. When we return them to their original lens style, in the new Rx, they immediately check the intermediate and reading and pronounce it "OK"

FWIW

Barry