Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 138

Thread: Did you know this secrets:

  1. #76
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    USA
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Santini View Post
    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
    I believe this is a more a generation of FF design rather than a FF processing itself. For the most part the current FF designs have been optimizing the distance zone, where the molded lenses have come to a point where each manufacturer offers their best interpretation of a compromise between distance, intermediate and near. I believe that designs are starting their evolution all over again with FF, maybe not from the start, but definately not from where they left off in some cases.

    It will get better.

  2. #77
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    6,008
    Quote Originally Posted by YrahG View Post
    I believe this is a more a generation of FF design rather than a FF processing itself. For the most part the current FF designs have been optimizing the distance zone, where the molded lenses have come to a point where each manufacturer offers their best interpretation of a compromise between distance, intermediate and near. I believe that designs are starting their evolution all over again with FF, maybe not from the start, but definately not from where they left off in some cases.

    It will get better.
    Interesting point. I'm gonna keep my eyes and mind open to what may be comin' down the pike.

    Thanks

    barry

  3. #78
    Master OptiBoarder Darryl Meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Kansas City, Kansas, United States
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    3,700
    Darryl. Happy holliday to all here on this board.
    Hi Mike. Happy holidays to you, too.

    So what you actually write is, the more measures you got, the better optical solutions you get?
    Yes. The use of more dimensions of measurement generally improves the accuracy of the outcome, regardless of the context.

    But here is another vision care analogy that may resonate a little more: Just as a high-order vision correction can offer crisper vision than a sphero-cylindrical correction; and a spherocylindrical correction can offer crisper vision than a spherical correction; and a spherical correction can offer crisper vision than no correction at all.

    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
    I think I actually addressed this point in several earlier posts in this thread and others, but a bit of consideration would reveal how invalid this argument is:

    1. Lens designs optically customized for the position of wear do not suddenly stop working when the lens is moved slightly out of position. On the contrary, since the lens design was calculated for the patient's actual position of wear, changes due to any small movments should have less impact on optical performance because you started off closer to the true "target" values in the first place.

    2. Many semi-finished lenses are optically optimized for a specific position of wear. I believe Shamir refers to their version of this technique as "eye point technology." Consequently, using your rationale, many premium semi-finished progressive lens designs should suffer from the very same deteriorations in optical performance whenever the lenses shift slightly.

    Lenses do not "fail" to work when the position of wear changes. The optical differences introduced by changes to the position of wear will vary as a function of lens power and lens tilt or movement.

    and that sometimes "simple is better".
    I don't disagree that simple is better. But that's not what we're really discussing here.

    Your (Shamir's) solution doesn't require any less work on the part of the eye care professional, since position of wear measurements can still be supplied with Autograph II. Further, neither Shamir Autograph II nor Zeiss Individual requires these measurements, if the eye care professional chooses not to provide them.

    But what Zeiss Individual does with those measurements once they have been provided seems to differ significantly from the approach used for Shamir Autograph II. Well beyond basic prescripiton optimization, the actual lens design is manipulated on a point-by-point basis during the optical design process using these position of wear parameters.

    Itīs all about handling of abberations, so the lenses will never be better than the software programmer in the end. Thats another fact.!
    I didn't really understand your point here.

    Thats the reason I think Autograph II is a step ahead other manufacturer because they have already admitted this a long time ago.
    I may have misunderstood you again; they're a step ahead because they are doing less?

    Itīs 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
    Actually, programming isn't the difficult part at all, which is why many industries in the US now out-source programming projects to cheaper labor in other countries. There is nothing special about the code.

    Figuring out what to program, on the other hand, is the real challenge. Optical design and advanced mathematics are the essential elements of free-form calculation software that does more than just add Progressive Surface A to Prescription Surface B.

    I understand that you are a Shamir distributor, but you seem to be trying to convince people that if Shamir doesn't do something, or can't do something, we must be better off without it. This may be hard for a lot of people to swallow.

    In any case, Shamir must see some sort of value in position of wear measurements, since they recently developed a tool to measure these and you can submit the values when ordering several of their products...

    Darryl J. Meister, ABOM

  4. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Denmark
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by Darryl Meister View Post
    Hi Mike. Happy holidays to you, too.


    Yes. The use of more dimensions of measurement generally improves the accuracy of the outcome, regardless of the context.

    But here is another vision care analogy that may resonate a little more: Just as a high-order vision correction can offer crisper vision than a sphero-cylindrical correction; and a spherocylindrical correction can offer crisper vision than a spherical correction; and a spherical correction can offer crisper vision than no correction at all.


    I think I actually addressed this point in several earlier posts in this thread and others, but a bit of consideration would reveal how invalid this argument is:

    1. Lens designs optically customized for the position of wear do not suddenly stop working when the lens is moved slightly out of position. On the contrary, since the lens design was calculated for the patient's actual position of wear, changes due to any small movments should have less impact on optical performance because you started off closer to the true "target" values in the first place.

    2. Many semi-finished lenses are optically optimized for a specific position of wear. I believe Shamir refers to their version of this technique as "eye point technology." Consequently, using your rationale, many premium semi-finished progressive lens designs should suffer from the very same deteriorations in optical performance whenever the lenses shift slightly.

    Lenses do not "fail" to work when the position of wear changes. The optical differences introduced by changes to the position of wear will vary as a function of lens power and lens tilt or movement.


    I don't disagree that simple is better. But that's not what we're really discussing here.

    Your (Shamir's) solution doesn't require any less work on the part of the eye care professional, since position of wear measurements can still be supplied with Autograph II. Further, neither Shamir Autograph II nor Zeiss Individual requires these measurements, if the eye care professional chooses not to provide them.

    But what Zeiss Individual does with those measurements once they have been provided seems to differ significantly from the approach used for Shamir Autograph II. Well beyond basic prescripiton optimization, the actual lens design is manipulated on a point-by-point basis during the optical design process using these position of wear parameters.


    I didn't really understand your point here.


    I may have misunderstood you again; they're a step ahead because they are doing less?


    Actually, programming isn't the difficult part at all, which is why many industries in the US now out-source programming projects to cheaper labor in other countries. There is nothing special about the code.

    Figuring out what to program, on the other hand, is the real challenge. Optical design and advanced mathematics are the essential elements of free-form calculation software that does more than just add Progressive Surface A to Prescription Surface B.

    I understand that you are a Shamir distributor, but you seem to be trying to convince people that if Shamir doesn't do something, or can't do something, we must be better off without it. This may be hard for a lot of people to swallow.

    In any case, Shamir must see some sort of value in position of wear measurements, since they recently developed a tool to measure these and you can submit the values when ordering several of their products...
    Hi Darryl.

    Sorry for my lack of englinsh knowledge.
    Because of that it is sometimes a bit difficult to write perfect, for you and other to understand the meening correctly.

    The Auto II do need the same measurement just as Individual and Impression does and Shamir are handling the data just as you do with the Individual.
    Shamir calculate the data with a software tool called "Eye Point Technology" just as you said, and you use your specific software. There is no different about that.

    I say it again. All I write is my personal opinions, and not Shamir.

    I will try to explain my opinion in a pedagogic manner:
    If you test Individual on 100 persons, will you then get a higher succes rate by measure Vertex and Panto on 50 persons, and use default on the rest 50.?

    Iīm sure you will claim YES, but realy, I think you donīt have the answer. The only answer you got is an THEORETHICAL answer.

    You are not stupid at all, and know a lot about lenses in a technical way, but what about customising lenses in real life? Have you ever dealed with the issues out there?

    Again, because of my lack of english writing, I realy donīt think you understand me, or maybe you just donīt want to understand me, because you prefer to let Individual look more advanced than Auto II.?
    I tell you. Itīs not. Itīs fine with me you donīt think. You and I will never agree on that ofcause.

    This is, somehow, your forum, so I will not publish bad informations about Individual, as you do with Auto II. I will get banned from here, and I donīt want.

    I will stop discussing more in this thread. Itīs pointless

    Happy new year.

    Mike

  5. #80
    Master OptiBoarder sandeepgoodbole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Amravati, Maharashtra, India
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    533

    Address of the Visual Satisfaction

    The Rx Power = The Planet orbiting around the Sun of the Vision. The facial Wrap= The Altitude. The Pentascopic Tilt = The latitude. Vertex Dist = The Longitude. The Frame = The House number. Any error in any of these would cause the user feel "NOT AT SWEET HOME."

  6. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    USA
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    385
    Eye Point Software = Creates the design, incorporateing may of the variabels discussed here and more. http://www.shamirlens.com/ecp/ecp.aspx
    Prescriptor Software = Controls the digital processing, incorporating frame data as well to ensure proper aesthetics. http://www.shamirlens.com/ecp/freeform.aspx


    Either Zeiss Individual or Shamir Autograph II will provide a greater degree of accuracy to a patients personal needs. Their are protocals in place for a simple optician and a more advanced optician to use these designs. Without the additional data the lens can still be optimized to a degree using global variables for the missing data and optimizing the base curve and resulting aberrations to the prescription. With the supplie data the same optimizations occur, but now the design is optimized as well to match the patients prescripton as well as fitted data. The simpler is better philosophy isn't necessarily a break through that Shamir thought of since it provides a more accurate or just as close product, it is more to deal with the varying levels of optician/fitter skills. This roadblock is so consistent that this thread is now pages long with some still not understanding some of the basic concepts of how this new breed of lens works.

  7. #82
    Master OptiBoarder Darryl Meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Kansas City, Kansas, United States
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    3,700
    If you test Individual on 100 persons, will you then get a higher succes rate by measure Vertex and Panto on 50 persons, and use default on the rest 50.? Iīm sure you will claim YES, but realy, I think you donīt have the answer.
    Yes, we have actual wearer data and clinical studies to support this claim for Zeiss Individual, including a large scale study conducted in Europe. In fact, we expect to have more positive results to share quite soon. That said, I have yet to see any clinical evidence that disproves the benefits of customization for the position of wear.

    You are not stupid at all, and know a lot about lenses in a technical way, but what about customising lenses in real life? Have you ever dealed with the issues out there?
    I'm not sure what you mean by "dealing with the issues out there." Nevertheless, since I provide technical support and training to our customers and to our sales force, yes, I must constantly deal with these issues in the field.

    You ... know a lot about lenses in a technical way... The only answer you got is an THEORETHICAL answer
    In my job, anything I say regarding product performance must be capable of withstanding a high degree of scrutiny in order for our attorneys to approve it. Unlike others, who may get away with "smoke and mirrors" marketing claims, I don't have the luxury of making wild or vague product claims based upon opinion and anecdotal evidence or that otherwise lack some scientific basis.

    This is, somehow, your forum, so I will not publish bad informations about Individual, as you do with Auto II. I will get banned from here, and I donīt want.
    1. This is not my forum, and you are welcome to say what you want, at least within the posted guidelines of OptiBoard. I do not even moderate the Progressive Lens forum. And I have yet to see any of the moderators of this forum ban someone for endorsing a product.

    2. Actually, I generally refrain from product-specific discussions, unless I am simply answering a question. It is only your constant insistence upon questioning the merits of a legitimate technology -- optical customization for the position of wear -- to endorse your own product that has prompted me to respond in the first place.

    3. I haven't provided any information about Shamir Autograph II, "bad" or otherwise. If you review this thread carefully, only those individuals associated with Shamir, particularly yourself, have implied that the product offers more limited optical customization.

    Mike, whether I agree with your points or not, I can assure you that I welcome you here at OptiBoard. And I am sure that the other members feel the same way. In fact, since Shamir has had surprisingly little representation here, I would actually encourage you to continue participating.
    Darryl J. Meister, ABOM

  8. #83
    Optical Educator
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,044

    As Worn/Validity

    Hi Guys (and Gals),

    Hope you are having a great holiday so far, if I forget to say it later, "Happy Happy New Year!"

    Mike, Darryl, I think you are both closer to opinions/schools of thought rather than far apart.

    Some ECP's think that position of wear/as-worn measurements don't matter, but we are approaching a new paradigm shift here, our patients/clients will have the last word. I think there are alot of visually-sensitive patients/clients out there who can tell the difference.

    While my full time job is opticianry education (Go HCC!), I also do many CE seminars for opticians on behalf of Shamir. It has been my experience that the learning curve is actually quite larger than you would expect!

    Case in point: The difference between providing an OC height or a fitting height for a SV back surface FF, and understanding about Martin's tilt, ect... or, using optical common-sense in regard to frame curvature and high Rx's, ect... Or, even closing one eye at a time while taking measurements to avoid cross-parallax error while the dominant eye takes over!

    I'm not in a position to claim 'spokesperson status', however, I will be happy to share what I have learned, and points that need to disseminate to the ECP's, and ultimately, the patients/clients.

    The Shamir Autograph II series can be optimized for As-Worn (panto, tilt, VD)...we can debate the theoretical / Vs. / practical applications of this, however, if it looks better in theory, it is likely better in practice. If these measurements are not provided, the visual software (eyepoint technology/prescriptor) will default to global norms, still yielding a better visual product.

    Fully customized back surface, personalized PALs (and SV) incorporating position of wear are the wave of the future. Super computers allow us to do SO MUCH more than before! Instead of assuming (remember how to spell ***-u-me?) that opticians/ECP's can't handle the technical skills required to understand, measure for, explain, verify this new generation of lenses, lets get together and talk about the benefits:

    *Optics closer to the eye (back surface design)
    *Enhanced field of view (pin-hole effect)
    *Better aberration/power control with additional as-worn measurements
    *Real-time design...no more molds, where a range of Rx's are incorporated, if you are not in the middle of the mold bell-curve, your visual experience will not be as good as it will be with complete personalization
    *Many more material options, starting with semi-finished blanks.

    In addition to teaching/presenting seminars, I fill in/dispense for a friend w/a high-end optical boutique in Tampa...we fit ALOT of Auto II's... our patients/clients comment on the 'wow-factor' all the time.

    And, in addition to eyepoint technology and the prescriptor calculations, the ECP can send the frame to the lab for tracing for further optical enhancements, 'free-frame technology', which considers the position of wear, and the placement of the pupils, near PD, along the convergence line to dynamically place the near-zone to full capacity, not simply calculating it on the frame 'B' dimension

    Whats not to love about all of these options?

    We have ALOT of work ahead of us educating ECP's and patients on these new technologies and opportunities.


    : )

    Laurie

  9. #84
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    USA
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by Laurie View Post
    Hi Guys (and Gals),

    Hope you are having a great holiday so far, if I forget to say it later, "Happy Happy New Year!"

    Mike, Darryl, I think you are both closer to opinions/schools of thought rather than far apart.

    Some ECP's think that position of wear/as-worn measurements don't matter, but we are approaching a new paradigm shift here, our patients/clients will have the last word. I think there are alot of visually-sensitive patients/clients out there who can tell the difference.

    While my full time job is opticianry education (Go HCC!), I also do many CE seminars for opticians on behalf of Shamir. It has been my experience that the learning curve is actually quite larger than you would expect!

    Case in point: The difference between providing an OC height or a fitting height for a SV back surface FF, and understanding about Martin's tilt, ect... or, using optical common-sense in regard to frame curvature and high Rx's, ect... Or, even closing one eye at a time while taking measurements to avoid cross-parallax error while the dominant eye takes over!

    I'm not in a position to claim 'spokesperson status', however, I will be happy to share what I have learned, and points that need to disseminate to the ECP's, and ultimately, the patients/clients.

    The Shamir Autograph II series can be optimized for As-Worn (panto, tilt, VD)...we can debate the theoretical / Vs. / practical applications of this, however, if it looks better in theory, it is likely better in practice. If these measurements are not provided, the visual software (eyepoint technology/prescriptor) will default to global norms, still yielding a better visual product.

    Fully customized back surface, personalized PALs (and SV) incorporating position of wear are the wave of the future. Super computers allow us to do SO MUCH more than before! Instead of assuming (remember how to spell ***-u-me?) that opticians/ECP's can't handle the technical skills required to understand, measure for, explain, verify this new generation of lenses, lets get together and talk about the benefits:

    *Optics closer to the eye (back surface design)
    *Enhanced field of view (pin-hole effect)
    *Better aberration/power control with additional as-worn measurements
    *Real-time design...no more molds, where a range of Rx's are incorporated, if you are not in the middle of the mold bell-curve, your visual experience will not be as good as it will be with complete personalization
    *Many more material options, starting with semi-finished blanks.

    In addition to teaching/presenting seminars, I fill in/dispense for a friend w/a high-end optical boutique in Tampa...we fit ALOT of Auto II's... our patients/clients comment on the 'wow-factor' all the time.

    And, in addition to eyepoint technology and the prescriptor calculations, the ECP can send the frame to the lab for tracing for further optical enhancements, 'free-frame technology', which considers the position of wear, and the placement of the pupils, near PD, along the convergence line to dynamically place the near-zone to full capacity, not simply calculating it on the frame 'B' dimension

    Whats not to love about all of these options?

    We have ALOT of work ahead of us educating ECP's and patients on these new technologies and opportunities.


    : )

    Laurie
    Thank you that was a great post and it's nice to see someone with knowledge about the Shamir products here. Most of the information I have is from patents and research.

  10. #85
    Master OptiBoarder Darryl Meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Kansas City, Kansas, United States
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    3,700
    Hi Laurie. Hope all is well with you and your family down in Florida.

    Shamir Autograph II series can be optimized for As-Worn (panto, tilt, VD)... Real-time design...
    If you are stating that they re-design each lens based upon the prescription and position of wear measurements, as opposed to simply compensating the prescription for lens tilt, this is actually a pretty significant claim. And certainly at odds with some of Mike's statements. Have any of the technical guys at Shamir ever actually confirmed this for you?
    Darryl J. Meister, ABOM

  11. #86
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Denmark
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by Darryl Meister View Post
    Hi Laurie. Hope all is well with you and your family down in Florida.



    If you are stating that they re-design each lens based upon the prescription and position of wear measurements, as opposed to simply compensating the prescription for lens tilt, this is actually a pretty significant claim. And certainly at odds with some of Mike's statements. Have any of the technical guys at Shamir ever actually confirmed this for you?
    There is no difference in what Laurie said and what I said. What you dont want to understand is simply that, in my oppinion, you do have two measures, Panto & Vertex, that actually doesīt give the optical improvement you say it will.
    As long you dont have the refracted AND the fited Vertex and the power is below 5D you will have only get theoretichal improvements. Not in real time.
    -and no one can measure these two values correct anyway.

    If what you claim are correct, Individual must be the best lens in the market, and should be the lens that would solve all progressive adaption issues.!!!

    If you realy got balls, you should ask Optiboard to make a poll: Have you ever had adaption issues when fitted Individual.?

    You know just as anyone else here on this board, that Individual is NOT the answer of perfect vision and perfect adaption every time.! Well actually I will think you got more WOW from Auto II than from Individual. Lets make a poll of this as well.


    Laurie, thanks for your great post, and you are all right, because itīs all about education. -not to forget education of which parameters that are important and which are not.

    Mike

  12. #87
    Master OptiBoarder Darryl Meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Kansas City, Kansas, United States
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    3,700
    There is no difference in what Laurie said and what I said.
    I wasn't left with that impression after reading your posts.

    If what you claim are correct, Individual must be the best lens in the market, and should be the lens that would solve all progressive adaption issues.!!!
    I've never made any claims to that effect. Remember that we were discussing the merits of customization for the position of wear, not whether Zeiss Individual is the best progressive lens out there. I think that goes without saying. ;)

    Progressive lens adaptation problems are often due to a number of factors, many of which are unavoidable in progressive lens design. Fully customized lenses like Zeiss Individual maximize vision quality by freeing lens designers from the constraints of mass lens production using a handful of lens blanks. Customized lenses do not and cannot free lens designers from the mathematical constraints of progressive surfaces, which necessitate some degree of unwanted astigmatism and distortion over the lens surface.

    As for whether Individual is the best lens on the market, I can only report what I have observed: it just won the OLA's Award of Excellence in Lens Design, it has achieved some of the lowest non-adapt rates among all of our progressive lenses, it has done extremely well in clinical studies, and the designs generally look great against leading competitors.

    I have no doubt that some of Individual's success is due to its extensive optical customization (and not just power compensation). But I have also observed a great deal of success among several competitive free-form lenses as well. I'm sure that there are several products on the market that offer patients an improved visual experience.

    You know just as anyone else here on this board, that Individual is NOT the answer of perfect vision and perfect adaption every time
    Again, this conversation should focus on optics, not any one manufacturer's specific product. I was defending an optical principle, not a brand name. And I would prefer not to use this forum as a vehicle to promote my company's products; I save that stuff for the marketing pieces. Besides, I already have a big ZEISS shield next to my name to clarify my affiliation.

    As long you dont have the refracted AND the fited Vertex and the power is below 5D you will have only get theoretichal improvements
    I've already explained the difference between power compensation and design optimization, and provided graphical comparisons for you to review, so I will simply refer back to my earlier posts (in particular, see 13).

    Have you ever had adaption issues when fitted Individual.?
    As a matter of fact, I don't really need to conduct a poll. I get a monthly report from our lab network that details how many Individual lenses were returned as "non-adapts." For laboratories in the US, this number was at 0.8% as of last month according to the data from our laboratory management system.

    itīs all about education.
    I agree completely. But I wonder whether eye care professionals are truly being exposed to quality, unbiased education or just marketing propaganda...? Food for thought.
    Darryl J. Meister, ABOM

  13. #88
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Down in a hole!
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    13,078

    Great post Darryl!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Darryl Meister View Post
    But I wonder whether eye care professionals are truly being exposed to quality, unbiased education or just marketing propaganda...? Food for thought.

    Many of us have been wondering the same thing for a very long time! I feel that until I see some real unbiased education, I'll continue to assume that everything is marketing propaganda that I must wade through and draw my own conclusions!


    :cheers::cheers::cheers:

  14. #89
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Denmark
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    167
    I wasn't left with that impression after reading your posts.
    Iīm sorry for that misunderstanding. A lack of my english writing I guess.


    [/QUOTE] As for whether Individual is the best lens on the market, I can only report what I have observed: it just won the OLA's Award of Excellence in Lens Design, it has achieved some of the lowest non-adapt rates among all of our progressive lenses, it has done extremely well in clinical studies, and the designs generally look great against leading competitors. [/QUOTE]
    Congratulations with that :cheers:

    [/QUOTE] I have no doubt that some of Individual's success is due to its extensive optical customization (and not just power compensation). But I have also observed a great deal of success among several competitive free-form lenses as well. I'm sure that there are several products on the market that offer patients an improved visual experience. [/QUOTE]

    Nice to know. I wasn't left with that impression after reading your posts. (to use your own text)


    [/QUOTE] Again, this conversation should focus on optics, not any one manufacturer's specific product. I was defending an optical principle, not a brand name. And I would prefer not to use this forum as a vehicle to promote my company's products [/QUOTE]

    I agree


    [/QUOTE] I've already explained the difference between power compensation and design optimization, and provided graphical comparisons for you to review, so I will simply refer back to my earlier posts (in particular, see 13). [/QUOTE]

    You tell me that when changing the vertex 5-6 mm you get 1D difference in design compensation?? Have you ever wondered if this could be the reason someone gets adaption issues when changing to Individual? I must tell you, that I raise doubts about that claim (-and thatīs my problem I know).


    [/QUOTE] As a matter of fact, I don't really need to conduct a poll. I get a monthly report from our lab network that details how many Individual lenses were returned as "non-adapts." For laboratories in the US, this number was at 0.8% as of last month according to the data from our laboratory management system. [/QUOTE]

    Shamir can flaunt of this claim rate as well, and was not the question. It was about adaption ISSUES. Not that the client could not get used to the lenses.
    A poll is not usefull I agree, but funny to hear what a few anonyme members here are thinking.

    Happy new year

    Mike
    Last edited by OCP; 12-31-2009 at 04:48 AM.

  15. #90
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Denmark
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by Fezz View Post
    Many of us have been wondering the same thing for a very long time! I feel that until I see some real unbiased education, I'll continue to assume that everything is marketing propaganda that I must wade through and draw my own conclusions!


    :cheers::cheers::cheers:
    I fully agree.
    Many companies are selling/learning you a HISTORY about their lenses.
    Eye mover, lifestyle, previus lenses, etc, etc.
    Itīs more easy to sell a history than explain the philosophy behind the lenses, and itīs more easy to convince the opticians why this new lens is better than the other.

    So look at the informations as marketing propaganda and make your own conclusions. Not stupid at all.

    Mike

  16. #91
    Master OptiBoarder Darryl Meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Kansas City, Kansas, United States
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    3,700
    Nice to know. I wasn't left with that impression after reading your posts
    If you in fact interpreted one of my posts to suggest, either directly or indirectly, that "Individual must be the best lens in the market, and should be the lens that would solve all progressive adaption issues.!!!" please identify the post in question, and I will correct it immediately.

    Shamir can flaunt of this claim rate as well, and was not the question. It was about adaption ISSUES. Not that the client could not get used to the lenses.
    I guess I don't understand what you are asking then, if you do not consider the rate of progressive non-adapts to be an indication of "non-adapt issues." Or what any of this has to do with the position of wear.

    In any case, I don't expect anyone to wear any progressive lens without some form of "adaptation issue," at least with a non-negligible addition power, since the optical compromises inherent in the design of progressive lenses result in certain visual disturbances that are unavoidable. We can simply attempt to minimize these disturbances through thoughtful lens design.

    You tell me that when changing the vertex 5-6 mm you get 1D difference in design compensation?? Have you ever wondered if this could be the reason someone gets adaption issues when changing to Individual?).
    I didn't really understand this question at all or where your numbers are coming from. And you seem to have fused two separate terms, prescription compensation and design optimization, into one ambiguous term...?

    You seem to be suggesting that changes to the lens design as a result of compensating or optimizing for the position of wear can cause more non-adapts. Of course, this is in direct contradiction to your earlier claim that the position of wear has little if any visual significance in most cases. After all, if the changes in power due to changes in the position of wear are not significant enough to affect vision, how can the corresponding adjustments to the lens powers (which are of similar magnitudes) either improve or worsen vision?

    Itīs more easy to sell a history than explain the philosophy behind the lenses,
    After 4 pages of posts, I must say that I agree completely.
    Last edited by Darryl Meister; 12-31-2009 at 05:05 AM.
    Darryl J. Meister, ABOM

  17. #92
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,951
    Quote Originally Posted by Darryl Meister View Post

    If you are stating that they re-design each lens based upon the prescription and position of wear measurements, as opposed to simply compensating the prescription for lens tilt, this is actually a pretty significant claim. And certainly at odds with some of Mike's statements. Have any of the technical guys at Shamir ever actually confirmed this for you?
    I for one would still like to see an answer to this question.

  18. #93
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    6,008

    All right people...shake it off!...

    (acting as corner boxing coach/trainer here..)

    Let's not forget some not too trivial points that need to be restated regarding traditional, non-ff, non POW comp'd progressives:

    none

    NONE

    NONE

    NONE

    Of the best traditional progressives were ever designed or imagined to be used with zero panto tilt or zero face form. Reducing the obliquity of incidence for the lateral peripheral zones, as well as addressing the reading corridor, required deisgners to recommend 8-10 degrees of panto tilt and 5 to 7 degress of face form. In most cases, the vertex assumed was 13 to 14mm.

    So, even traditiional progressives has "assumed/default" values for the intended design's position of wear. In this way, I agree with Mike the these values, hovering around these assumed values, may not be the essential contributors to FF progressive success.

    However, underlying all the assumptions of POW compensation is a fundamental tenant about the accuracy/appropriateness of the refraction. Here lies, IMHO, the biggest potential derailment about the optical calculated arguements: Refractionist discretion and the essential lack of quality time that today's insuranced-based eye exams mandate in order for an eyecare business to live and survive.

    Darryl's (and others) global iteration/optimization, however, is another thing entirely.

    IMHO: It's not that the latest FF progressives are oh so good. It's that the traditional progressives, combined with less than terrrific refractions, and a public's appetite for instant gratification, make it so bad.

    If you *really* want to see what the optical promise and advancement is with the best of today's optimized FF lenses, try the SV.

    You'll be a believer. Just don't over promise with *any* progressive, FF or not.

    FWIW

    Barry

  19. #94
    Eyes eastward... Uilleann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,237
    Well put Barry! I'd give you a little greenie...but it says I can't. Guess I was lovin' on ya too much before or somethin. :shiner: Still, very well said Mate! :cheers::cheers::cheers:

  20. #95
    Master OptiBoarder Darryl Meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Kansas City, Kansas, United States
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    3,700
    So, even traditiional progressives has "assumed/default" values for the intended design's position of wear. In this way, I agree with Mike the these values, hovering around these assumed values, may not be the essential contributors to FF progressive success.
    You would be surprised how many traditional progressive lenses are not optically optimized for an assumed position of wear. Since most eye care professionals still expect to measure the prescribed powers correctly in a focimeter, this optimization is typically constrained significantly in the central viewing zones at the distance and near checking points, if it is applied at all. And, of course, these calculations must assume a single lens power for each base curve in traditional lenses.
    Darryl J. Meister, ABOM

  21. #96
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    6,008
    Thanks again, Darryl, for your input.

    It would seem that we ECPs have trained everyone, (including ourselves) to place too much emphasis on focimtery-verification of lenses.

    I ask: Just whom does this (misplaced?) emphasis serve?

    Us....

    or the patient?

    Discussion

    Barry

  22. #97
    Master OptiBoarder TLG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    S. California
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    814
    Quote Originally Posted by Darryl Meister View Post
    Itīs more easy to sell a history than explain the philosophy behind the lenses
    After 4 pages of posts, I must say that I agree completely.
    This has been a great thread (mostly) and this is REALLY funny.

  23. #98
    ATO Member HarryChiling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Nowhereville
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    7,765
    Quote Originally Posted by obxeyeguy View Post
    I for one would still like to see an answer to this question.
    According to patent# 7,322,696 B2, the simple answer Yes. The gaze angles and the power profile are taken into consideration before the design is computed. This guy mentions and I will mention that I provide this product but I don't speak for Shamir so if there are any inconsistencies in what I say they are mine not Shamir's. Great product and technologically advanced, I would still stand by the two most advanced lenses on the market today are the Zeiss Individual and the Shamir Autograph II.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails shamir patent.jpg   shamir patent2.jpg  
    1st* HTML5 Tracer Software
    1st Mac Compatible Tracer Software
    1st Linux Compatible Tracer Software

    *Dave at OptiVision has a web based tracer integration package that's awesome.

  24. #99
    Master OptiBoarder Darryl Meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Kansas City, Kansas, United States
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    3,700
    According to patent# 7,322,696 B2, the simple answer Yes. The gaze angles and the power profile are taken into consideration before the design is computed.
    This patent application doesn't describe a method of optically customizing a lens for the prescription and position of wear. Instead, it describes a method of customizing the addition power profile of a lens for different "viewing environments," so that you could have a lens with more near vision emphasis for office environments, for instance. Most of the major players have been working on this sort of concept for a few years now (e.g., Rodenstock FreeSign, SOLAOne Ego, etcetera).
    Darryl J. Meister, ABOM

  25. #100
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    152

    Borring

    If you want seam smart. take the simple, and make it hard.

    (Piet Hein)

    (Sorry for by bad english)

    its sad to see the ( theoredical ) fighting for the right to be smarter than the rest off us, theres a great difrence betwen, theoredical and pratice you dont see shoes come ind size 9,54721. you dont mesure peopels hight in nanometers. or say his PD is 64,35987621 mm, its mabey correct but there are mesurdment in this world that can be mesured but not make any difference in real life:hammer:

    in januar last year my office had a sale,
    we sold 43 pairs of indeviduels all whit the helps off the RVT Zeiss lent us.

    14 of them complaint the first 3 we tryid to sent to on to Zeiss rep
    they gave us 3 new pair off lenses for those custemers.

    2 of them stil complaint, ( i stopt to trust that product) :angry: i ordert Creation for the rest of the custemers that having being complaining, and theres was no problems whit any of them.

    KISS = Keep it Simple Stupid

    best regards

    Peter

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. One of the secrets to Lenscrafters success
    By mrmac in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 06-18-2012, 11:37 AM
  2. National Treasure Book of Secrets
    By opticat in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-31-2007, 10:30 AM
  3. Secrets
    By edKENdance in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-22-2003, 10:34 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •