In-house Free Form's and Point files -vs. The Big Boys (Shamir, ect)

[AustinEyewear]

Hi OB's,

Trying to learn more about Free Forms. Curiosity has gotten the best of me and I'm wondering what the difference is between labs that offer in-house free forms and what makes them different than say a Shamir Lens? This particular article has me wondering if these labs are just purchasing point files from Shamir or whoever, and re-branding, or possibly, Shamir offers point files generated using older technology, maybe a few years older or something. This seems like it would make sense, because it allows the big boys to command higher pricing for their name brands ..... Anyone happen to know what is really going on here?

http://www.eyecarebiz.com/article.aspx?article=50669

"The problem is that the computer has to have instructions on how to do the calculations for each lens being produced. This brings up another term the industry is learning: Point files.


At least one major lens manufacturer currently sells highly complex point files that instruct and guide free-form generators in surfacing a brand name progressive lens. Point files are only used once since each file must be programmed to the patient's precise prescription. Labs purchase point files in batches, and the purchase gives the lab the right to sell the lens as a brand name customized progressive. This all sounds futuristic, but it is happening right now."

[shanbaum]

To the extent that the article leads one to believe that labs that run freeform lenses "stock up" on "point files", it is misleading - but then, that is a very old article, written at the dawn of the freeform era (though I don't see a date on the webpage, I recall seeing the article years ago). All freeform lenses are produced via interaction with a "lens design system" (LDS). The interaction usually occurs between the LDS and the lab's "lab management system" (LMS). The files mentioned (surface definition files or "SDF") are produced on demand for each order. They're used once and discarded because they generally wouldn't be appropriate for any other order. That last statement is not perfectly true; it's not hard to imagine that the same minus Rx, using default fitting parameters, could produce exactly the same SDF for many orders. To my knowledge, no one recycles SDF files, though there is concern among LDS providers that this could be done, which is why the industry is moving in the direction of encrypting SDF files.

[AustinEyewear]

Thanks for your reply shanbaum. It did seem like it was an older article. Some of what you said is over my head. My take on it is the Free Form manufactures really are just producing complex software algorithms/programs that generate Point Files (Point File Generators) The Point File Gen Software is maintained by the freeform manufactures, tweaked, upgrade over time by them, but they never sell the actual software to anyone. But.... a lab can enter into a contract with them to purchase point files from them - this is where they got the term "batches" from.

If this is true, then I envision it happening something like this (assuming freeform manufacture and lab have their batch contract all set up):

1. Pt arrives with Rx - all specific measurements are taken.
2. Measurements, Rx and frame info are sent to lab.
3. Lab forwards this info to FreeForm manufacturer
4. Freeform manufacturer sends back a point file
5. Point File loaded into CNC machine.
6. Lens is cut.

I'm guessing the LDS/LMS you refer to take place at steps 3,4 above? And the SDF is used in steps 5,6?

Is this more or less the process that is actually occuring at the labs? I had previously been under the impression that the labs had access to the point file generator software, but this article got me thinking the Freeform manufactures never let this out of their control, its just too valuable???

[shanbaum]

Yes, that's a pretty good description of the process.

Some LDS providers locate their software locally, in the labs; some locate it centrally and the LMS accesses it over the Internet. All providers protect their software in some manner.

[AustinEyewear]

So if a lab has the financial resources to purchase the CNC machine that is capable running the Point File and cutting these lenses, are they pretty much good to go out of the gate, or does it take tons of experience to produce a freeform lens properly? Seems like I read somewhere that there are still a lot of variables to handle that one would not think of, its not as easy as popping the program in, letting the machine go to work, and wala! done. But is sure seems like it could be pretty easy?

[shanbaum]

It takes some knowledge and/or experience to make lenses in the traditional way, too. In terms of automating the process, I think the freeform systems are now developed to a point at which one is at least as likely, if not more likely, to succeed at making lenses using freeform gear as traditional.

I can say this: if I were to open a lab tomorrow, I wouldn't consider any route but freeform.

[AustinEyewear]

Thanks for all the clarifications. My head isn't as dizzy thinking about the whole process now. BTW - I didn't mean to underplay the difficulty in creating a traditional lens. I guess I really meant to ask if it was that much more difficult than a traditional lens, or if someone who knows how to create a traditional lens can step right into making freeform's, or if they have a lot of new training ahead of them.

[DanLiv]

This still leaves the question, to which I would likwe to know the answer as well, where do labs get their in-house desgins? They surely don't design the lenses themselves (or do labs keep optical physicists on staff?). Are they being supplied with maybe less sophisticated designs by the big makers themselves, or are no-name companies coming up with their own generic designs and simply selling amatuer stuff as "free form" and hoping opticians convince customers to wear them?

[AustinEyewear]

It sure does Daniel. I'll bet that is a closely guarded secret. If I was a betting man, I'd say they are allowing older technology to be used for in-house brands. I don't think they would compromise their latest technology and allow someone to slap their own name on it w/o very high cost, which would make a house-brand just as expensive. I also don't think it would make financial sense to develop special software for in-house brands, too costly. The most cost efficient route would be to allow older technology to be applied to in-house brands. This would also helps feed their R&D budget to produce the next generation of technology. Its likely that someone like Maui-Jim is using Shamir's latest technology, and re-branding it as Maui-Jim, but they don't provide any discount either! That's just my hunch, as my logical mind takes over the creative side, I really have no clue, but would love to know the true answer.

[shanbaum]

There are in fact independent companies (of which you've probably never heard) providing lens designs, some of which are sold as "in-house" designs - just as there have been, for many years, independent companies selling semi-finished progressive blanks sold as "in-house" designs. Selling such designs under the producer's name wouldn't make a while lot of sense - they have no value as "brands" at this point. Are they certain to be less sophisticated than the designs produced by "the big boys"? Well, the "big boys" certainly spend more on R&D, and marketing, than do the little guys - but that doesn't mean that the little guys are "amateurs." Do the (putatively) more sophisticated, more extensively marketed designs "work better" - do patients see demonstrably better; are non-adapts fewer? Sometimes? Always? I can't answer that. I do know that from my own personal experience wearing various progressives, the "big boys" have produced both usable and unusable lenses, as have "the little guys." But maybe that's just me.

[RT]

Part of R&D and Marketing with regard to lens designs involves wearer trials and feedback/redesign loops. There is a very good chance that in-house designs would skip the wearer trial phase, and instead rely on a small number of anecdotal cases (ol' Ralphie says he can see pretty good with these new ones). While it may be getting to easier to produce a lens with a complex surface, that doesn't necessarily imply that the lens can be used to actually correct anybody's vision.

[racethe1320]

There are in fact independent companies (of which you've probably never heard) providing lens designs, some of which are sold as "in-house" designs - just as there have been, for many years, independent companies selling semi-finished progressive blanks sold as "in-house" designs. Selling such designs under the producer's name wouldn't make a while lot of sense - they have no value as "brands" at this point. Are they certain to be less sophisticated than the designs produced by "the big boys"? Well, the "big boys" certainly spend more on R&D, and marketing, than do the little guys - but that doesn't mean that the little guys are "amateurs." Do the (putatively) more sophisticated, more extensively marketed designs "work better" - do patients see demonstrably better; are non-adapts fewer? Sometimes? Always? I can't answer that. I do know that from my own personal experience wearing various progressives, the "big boys" have produced both usable and unusable lenses, as have "the little guys." But maybe that's just me.

As noted, there are tons of designs from major players and some obscure ones that in many cases work to supply brands you know well. The key is finding a good design and a lab that has the ability to measure the accuracy of the product against the design intended.

My lab uses a Dual Lens Mapper to measure the topography of the lens against the file to insure the digital machines are calibrated and producing quality. Companies like Shamir will share it Essilor will not. I wouldn't buy it from a lab that doesn't measure it's own in house product. Essilor makes labs send in lenses daily to France. Crazy, but they don't want their secret recipe's getting out I suppose.

[jefe]

There are in fact independent companies (of which you've probably never heard) providing lens designs, some of which are sold as "in-house" designs - just as there have been, for many years, independent companies selling semi-finished progressive blanks sold as "in-house" designs. Selling such designs under the producer's name wouldn't make a while lot of sense - they have no value as "brands" at this point. Are they certain to be less sophisticated than the designs produced by "the big boys"? Well, the "big boys" certainly spend more on R&D, and marketing, than do the little guys - but that doesn't mean that the little guys are "amateurs." Do the (putatively) more sophisticated, more extensively marketed designs "work better" - do patients see demonstrably better; are non-adapts fewer? Sometimes? Always? I can't answer that. I do know that from my own personal experience wearing various progressives, the "big boys" have produced both usable and unusable lenses, as have "the little guys." But maybe that's just me.

In addition to the so-called no-name companies selling their designs, Seiko has a lens design which is sold to labs to use as their house free-form lens. This lens is not the same as the Supercede, Succeed, or Surmount.

[AustinEyewear]

As noted, there are tons of designs from major players and some obscure ones that in many cases work to supply brands you know well. The key is finding a good design and a lab that has the ability to measure the accuracy of the product against the design intended.

My lab uses a Dual Lens Mapper to measure the topography of the lens against the file to insure the digital machines are calibrated and producing quality. Companies like Shamir will share it Essilor will not. I wouldn't buy it from a lab that doesn't measure it's own in house product. Essilor makes labs send in lenses daily to France. Crazy, but they don't want their secret recipe's getting out I suppose.

Do they use the Dual Lens Mapper on each lens or do they just use it periodically to ensure calibration?

[Elvis Is Alive]

I've had little success in squeezing any info out of my lab regarding their in-house "hybrid digital free form" lens. I find that is a decent design, appears to be a soft to semi-soft design. Channels appear a bit narrower than some of the higher priced digitals (Autograph II, Physio 360, etc) with a little more cylinder in the periphery. Price point is fantastic, much cheaper than most older cast designs. It has a butterfly shaped ID marking on the nasal side.

I think too much emphasis can be put on the surfacing type sometimes though. Digitally surfacing a bad PAL design doesn't improve your patient's vision. A good design has to be chosen first.

[DanLiv]

I think too much emphasis can be put on the surfacing type sometimes though. Digitally surfacing a bad PAL design doesn't improve your patient's vision. A good design has to be chosen first.

Yes, that's what makes me skeptical about off-brand free forms. I've talked to a few lens designers who say a serious problem with digital surfacing is that the power of the technology makes it possible to make the poorest lenses ever produced. The financial burden of producing huge volumes of blanks, which traditionally kept most lens production in the hands of the more reputable designers, is eliminated. Now anyone who can buy, or even just rent time on, design software can sell free form lenses and claim the latest and greatest technology, when their designs might be no better than a 4-year-old's finger painting.

The only way I would risk a no-name free form progressive on a patient is if it happened to be the cheapest option available, then I wouldn't mind offering it as a budget lens. That's where the no-names can make some headway, merely offering their lenses as cheaper than traditional progressives, but not trying to claim they are as-good-as-or-better. I'd be willing to opt for a no-name free form progressive instead of a VIP or Image as an entry-level lens if the price was equivalent. From some labs the Element is already beating mid-level traditionals in price.

[Barry Santini]

For all the reasons cited above, I think it makes sense not to move completely away from your favorite progressive lens design, if it has proven reliable and successful for your practice.

Barry

[eyemanflying]

I think too much emphasis can be put on the surfacing type sometimes though. Digitally surfacing a bad PAL design doesn't improve your patient's vision. A good design has to be chosen first.

With the addition of DS processing into cheap, outdated inferior designs, the Big 'E' revitalizes by turning 'cheap trash' into 'premium trash' - Digital Adaptar?? The recycling of old hard outdated designs must be part of their going green program.

DS is not free-form, so don't be dooped.

[Barry Santini]

As noted, there are tons of designs from major players and some obscure ones that in many cases work to supply brands you know well. The key is finding a good design and a lab that has the ability to measure the accuracy of the product against the design intended.

My lab uses a Dual Lens Mapper to measure the topography of the lens against the file to insure the digital machines are calibrated and producing quality. Companies like Shamir will share it Essilor will not. I wouldn't buy it from a lab that doesn't measure it's own in house product. Essilor makes labs send in lenses daily to France. Crazy, but they don't want their secret recipe's getting out I suppose.

I'm not sure having a "dual lens mapper" ensures optimal processing of these lenses. All the labs I've ever used have had lensometers, and we all know how well that's worked out!

B

[sharpstick777]

This still leaves the question, to which I would likwe to know the answer as well, where do labs get their in-house desgins? They surely don't design the lenses themselves (or do labs keep optical physicists on staff?). Are they being supplied with maybe less sophisticated designs by the big makers themselves, or are no-name companies coming up with their own generic designs and simply selling amatuer stuff as "free form" and hoping opticians convince customers to wear them?

You are correct, they don't usually design the lenses in house.

IOT located in Spain (now owned by Younger Optics) is a big supplier of Free-form designs and the largest maker of "house brand" lenses. For example they designed the VSP Unity lens. They have a few off the shelf designs someone can buy, or they can customize something.

Another is Wear-lite out of Switzerland. I have tried their early lenses and would consider them decent, but a notch below IOT. They provide various levels of service like IOT. http://www.wearlite.ch/en/ However, their newer lenses offer some design possiblities no one else on the market does, but I can't say more.

A third is Pro-Fit out of Texas. They have multiple levels of design service but also sell you the software so you can design your own. I have not tried any of their in-house designs. http://www.profitoptix.com/

Opto-Tech out of Germany also sells Progressive design software, but does not offer any design or testing service the last I checked.

Many of the Lab Management Software comes with its own Progressive designs you can rebrand, but those designs usually come from one of the companies above, but you may never know which one. It's usually included with cost of the machinery, or for a small add-on package. Here is one announcement here: http://www.opticalonline.com/ldca.shtml

Chemat sells DAC's lathe and is is offering software when you buy their digital lathe, some of it will allow you to do lined bifocals on the back of the lens in custom shapes and sizes. They sky is the limit, there are some crazy possiblities there. Free-form 9 x 39 Tri-focals? Possible.

[TLG]

I've had little success in squeezing any info out of my lab regarding their in-house "hybrid digital free form" lens.

As someone who has spent a lot of time parsing "market-speak" when it comes to progressive lenses, I would be real suspect of this lens being a true freeform lens. My brain's stuck on "hybrid"; why would a freeform lens be labeled 'hybrid' (unless its a dual add design ala Definity - and others)? Have you checked to see if the front surface is spherical or has the PAL design? I'm wondering if this lens might be a front-side molded lens that is 'digitally surfaced' on the back. Could it be that's why they don't want to talk about it? Augen does this with their product; promote it as 'freeform' because the mold they make the front-side design from is made freeform and the backside is digitally surfaced. That does not make for a 'freeform lens' (I'm not saying Augen makes bad lenses, in fact I've heard the opposite. But the marketing terms are at least confusing).

[racethe1320]

I'm not sure having a "dual lens mapper" ensures optimal processing of these lenses. All the labs I've ever used have had lensometers, and we all know how well that's worked out! B

Processing has to do with the operators of the equipment. However, even when that is spot on, if the equipment maintenance or calibration is off, without a lens mapper you can not confirm 100% accuracy of what was the intended progressive file is vs what was actually produced. A lens mapper looks at up to 1600 data points not just one. I can say that I have near zero surfacing related issues with the ones I sell and are run through this system. If I have a remake need due to quality, it's typically finish related. Your mileage may vary.

[racethe1320]

IOT located in Spain (now owned by Younger Optics) is a big supplier of Free-form designs and the largest maker of "house brand" lenses. For example they designed the VSP Unity lens. They have a few off the shelf designs someone can buy, or they can customize something.

I would be very interested in seeing your proof that IOT designed their current lens. I know that not to be the case but am interested in your findings. You said you will be at VEW, perhaps you should meet with VSP and inquire just to confirm.

[rdcoach5]

My local lab has just put in their own free-forms from Shamir software and I have tried 2 of their designs. One I compare to the Kodak Unique -very smooth dist but not real good for int and near. The other design is at least as good as my GT2 3d .

Oops. It is an IOT design, not Shamir and has been very well received.

[sharpstick777]

Here is another company that designs Free-form lenses:

Digital Surfacing Advisors of Indianopolis IN. There website doesn't work so I am not sure if they are still in business though.

Also Race, do you have proof that you don't use the IOT design?