Progressive Lens Design: Where do we go from here?

[Steve Machol]

What's new in the world of Progressive lenses? Are there any truly revolutionary concepts yet to be discovered, or has this technology reached its practical limits?

Let's see your thoughts on this subject.

[chip anderson]

Away from them and back to the glass panafocal! Where else but to go backwards and call it a new discovery?

Chip:hammer:

[Carol D]

I would like an "occupational progressive" similar in function to the double segs we use for mechanics and electricians. I want a LARGE central distance target with a mid-range and near beneath and a large intermediate above. Something useful for pilots, mechanics, people running large commercial printing presses, etc..
Not like the old AO technica or the Overview. Anybody got something in the works?

Carol D

[John R]

I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of new designs waiting to be brought out. The main problem at the moment is saturation there are too many diffrent suppliers with very similar products.
As Carol has said there are plenty of people who could use diffrent designs for their jobs but would there be a big enough market for it.
Maybe a casting system that would allow you to specifey your own lens design.

[Steve Machol]

While an 'occupational progressive' is certainly an interesting option, I was more interested in whether or not you think that the 'standard' Progressive len designs can be improved, and if so, how?

[Joann Raytar]

A standard progressive with the intermediate and near widths of one of the office lenses wouldn't be a bad creature. I am not sure if that wouldn't cause too much distortion in the distance though.

[Jackie L]

Every time a lens manufacturer boasts a wider intermediate and near, another comes along that is even wider. The Western World demands it. Aaahhh, just imagine a PAL lens design with full fields in distance, intermediate and near vision.

[Steve Machol]

But the nature of the beast is that when you make one of the zones wider, you have to give up something elsewhere. For this reason I wonder if we've reached the practical design limits for PALs. Physics seems to dictate that not much more can be done, other than redistribute the unwanted astigmatism in new ways.

[Joann Raytar]

I know Enigma SV didn't fly but one of the reasons was the Rx limitations. Is there a reason why the technology behind Enigma couldn't be applied to a PAL? If Enigma was available in a PAL, we probably would have moved them in a snap.

[judyseyes]

Steve

New equipment is on the horizon which will customize RX based on PD, seg height, vertex, as well as RX. Semi-finished lenses will become "hockey pucks", much like Gas Perm Buttons. No more backorders! Also, endless options for materials. Patients will benefit by having a more precise finished product, and ECP's will benefit by having better replication through their labs. Every manufacturer is searching for new ways to capitalize on baby boomers. ;)

[Steve Machol]

By the vote, a lot of people think that more can be done with PAL designs. However, except for variations of current design concepts (and Jo's interesting Enigma PAL idea) I don't see any truly new ideas concerning progressive lens designs.

I knew I shouldn't have made this into a Poll. The problem is that people just vote and don't post. :p

If you voted that you think much more could be done with PAL designs, please post telling us what your thoughts are.

[Specs]

I think that your comment that not much more can be done, is perhaps true with the technology of fabrication that is available today. However, not true for our future. I bet the Ben Franklin light bulb was about as good as technology allowed at that time. Now we have UV bulbs, flourescent lights, grow lights, natural full spectrum bulbs, mercury vapor bulbs, sodium bulbs, even randomly blinking Christmas lights, etc, etc. Our industry won't stand still either. The technology may not be right around the corner, but I guarantee you that the progressives will improve in all of the obvious areas, reading width, peripheral distortion, etc. Our progressives of today will one day be antique designs. As in most industries where there are substantial dollars to be made in capturing a decent size of a market, there will always be someone trying to build a better mouse trap. In this case a progressive lens. Mark my words, we may or may not see it in our lives, but it will happen.

[Steve Machol]

It's not the technology that is the limiting factor - it's the laws of physics. After all, PALs are largely designed on the computers these days and computers aren't constrained by manufacturing technologies. The truth is there's is only so much than can be done by manipulating the surface.

Now if you're thinking of alternate materials and indices, then perhaps something can be done. However even in this case the optics will be constrained by the laws of physics.

[Joann Raytar]

We are all thinking in terms of front surfaces, I believe. What about the new Johnson & Johnson lens? From what I understand that lens design involves doing something different with the back surface. What differences does altering the back surface make?

[Steve Machol]

Jo said:
What differences does altering the back surface make?

Good question. Other than being an interesting concept, does this really provide any optical benefits? And if so, what are the advantages and how significant are they?

To my knowledge many, if not the majority, of PALs sold today are lenses that were designed more than 10 years ago. For most people, these lenses work just as well as newer designs. Why is that?

[Alan W]

I don't think Smart Seg Technology has been fully explored. And, with the advantage of lathe/3 axis/and "needs based" designs, I am convinced that what we see as a progressive lens "all in one" may someday give way to more customized lenses. The computer programming part . . . Computer Aided Lens Design and Manufacturing that can drive high tech machines seems in my mind to be the area we have not seen nearly the likes of.

[Ron]

Check out the CFL-atoric progressive lens from Optical Dynamics. It's molded and is very high tech. Only molding can produce a double sided aspheric lens and it's available today.

[Steve Machol]

Ron said:
Check out the CFL-atoric progressive lens from Optical Dynamics. It's molded and is very high tech. Only molding can produce a double sided aspheric lens and it's available today.

But what exactly are the advantages of a double-sided aspheric lens?

[Alan W]

I would like to see more about the lens.
I think a closer look at 3 axis motion control computer driven lens making may reveal how a mold is made.
The Schneider Generator from Zeiss is in use in 5 locations here in Houston. I have contacted three of them and saw one system. It can do anything and creates back surfaces exactly as the computer design instructs it to do . . . aspheric, parabolic, etc. In fact , it creates back surface progressives using programming technology that is well regarded. I think we both will agree that back surface progressives have some fine advantages.
Nevertheless, there's room for all kinds of new technology. I just wonder, and would like to know what the economics are. So, if you have some additional information in that regard, please, by all means share it. I can be reached at:

specsupport@ev1.net

Thanks

[harry a saake]

:D My thoughts are until we relate all aspects of any refraction and fitting, some of the best designs may not work as planned. First we must have phoropters that are more conducive to how a patient sees with there glasses. No one sees out of a pair of glasses the way they see through a phoropter.
......Next has to be how the actual frame fits on the patient. Until you know what the as worn postion of the particular frame is, how do you decide on a lens design.
..... Also, until vertex distance is measured from cornea to back surface of the lens, how do you compensate,especially with your high rx patients.
...... In summary, i think until we change the way we do things, and do each on a custom basis, we will never be as good as what we could, and the best lens designs in the world will not work as they could.

[Clive Noble]

Yes, I'm sure there can be ways to better the way the over 40s can see, but rather than tackling it by trying to improve Progressive Lens Design, which we've all agreed may have reached a peak at present, maybe we should be looking at the problem from a different perspective..... it's called 'lateral thinking'

We've all seen over the years how TV manufacturers have attempted to get better and more efficient designs for the 'tube'
I don't think it can get any better today.
I can recall in the 50s, we had the tube of our tv overhauled then replaced, it was the regular thing to do in those days after a couple of years use.

In a few years time, the regular tube will be a museum piece, as will the glass monitor for the computer...... a bit of lateral thinking has produced the Flat Plasma Screen.

So, let's go away from the idea of how to design a better lens, think laterally, the ultimate goal is how to give the patient clear vision from 30 cm to infinity.

I wish I could come up with an answer!

[Alan W]

Years ago someone invented a device that stimulated nerves on the back in a pattern that emulated what a camera saw. It was for blind people.

Then, someone invented a device that was implanted in the ear and stimulated the nerve directly, a cochlear implant. For the hard of hearing from nerve damage or insufficiency.

What's the dudes screen name on Star Treck who's blind without those Maui Jim cool looking ocular nerve stimulating type framastinger doodads?

We need to develop a CCD, like muchomegamegapixels, in a contact lens format with a microwire that goes around to the back of the eye and stimulates the ocular nerve. It can be controlled by cerebral signals like an artificial limb. Made by Kodak . . . OK . . . Olympus! Comes with lifetime supply of conductive Liqui Tears.

Damn . . . . I gotta run down to Radio Shack. If I'm not back in 1/2 an hour, call Steve M.

[Alan W]

PROBLEM: You can no longer eat potato chips cause the sharp edge might sever the microwire.

ADVANTAGE: The conductive Liqui Tears can also be used with a defibrillator.

[Texas Ranger]

All studies indicate that the three most important factors of pal fitting are 1. the fitting skills of the optician, 2. the prescription, and 3. the lens design. From a "fitting skills" aspect, I think that monocular pd's and monoc. seg hts are critical, so is expertise in frame styling for the proper depth of lenses to accomodate pals, not redesigning pals to accomodate too shallow frame styles. 2. when I see an rx in plus cyls, I cringe. I believe plus cyl phoropters cause a great too many rx problems, and it is impossible to imulate the that eye exam with minus cyl lenses, and it's made even more difficult for presbyopes since you cannot compensate for their axis rotation at the near level in glasses that cannot be duplicated even in a trial frame. After fitting four generations of pals, I think the new ones are the best, but they are more "all-around" wear better. we need to do a better job of educating folks about the need and availability of specialty lenses, like for the computer, etc. per capita spending for eyewear lenses in america is about 1/6 of what we spend on shoes....people just tend to think something on their feet is more important than what's on their face, pretty sad..... so, MD's, get rid of those out-dated plus cyl phoropters! that's a start...

[Steve Machol]

I think the suggestions on fitting techniques for PALs is one area of potential improvement. However in spite of 15 votes stating that 'much more could be done' with PAL designs I still haven't seen a single response that indicates what exactly that is. Perhaps I worded the question poorly.

Let me ask it another way:

What PAL lens is the current 'State of the Art' and why do you think so? In particular, what optical advantages does it have over older designs?