Anyone here willing to share a good experience with a lab with private label individualized progressives or SV? There's an article about that in this month's rags. It seems to be a value niche.
P.S. Is the software just some tweak of the Shamir Autograph intellectual property with the serial number scratched out?
I'd share mine, but I seemed to have lost my optician "creds" on OptiBoard when I stopped dispensing.
No. There are several outfits designing individualized progressives independently.Originally Posted by drk
PM sent DR K
I have done the Trueclear and the Reveal. They are ok. No one has every put them on and said these are great. I am happy to see that the XTRActive come in a Verlux now, so I sell them. My pts seem to like them. I have never gone wrong w/ a Verlux.
I would recommend skepticism, especially with PALs. I would need proof of the design and optimizations, by patent, white paper, etc. The adages "The proof of the pudding is in the eating," and "You get what you pay for" comes to mind.
Regarding PALs, I would take it a step further, and suggest that a well designed (and fit), premium semi-finished lens could easily outperform a highly optimized mediocre progressive design made on a free-form manufacturing platform. Also see pig/lipstick.
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman
Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.
This discussion has taken place in the progressive lense section a while back. Some seem to suspect that in some cases it could be a big research firm (Shamir, ect) selling old generation software, or possibly latest gen software but tweaked. If I had to guess, I would say it would be previous gen software, that way it doesn't cost as much for a company like Sham to distribute, and allows them to collect dollars to pour back into their R&D so they can continue to evolve the current release of software.
Hi Shanbaum - Do you think that the big outfits don't get involved in this at all? Do you think these private labels FF come only from these independents?
You'll have PM
Joining the PM bandwagon, admittedly from a lab perspective.....
Hey, someone has to represent!
There are rules. Knowing those are easy. There are exceptions to the rules. Knowing those are easy. Knowing when to use them is slightly less easy. There are exceptions to the exceptions. Knowing those is a little more tricky, and know when to use those is even more so. Our industry is FULL of all of the above.
It sem like the same as private label contacts and private label frames. Now with the digital design technology, it is very simple to private label the progressives as well.
ECCA's MyFocal private label is an Essilor design from about '05 which is similar to the Liberty I hear.
Luxottica's new private label lens is also an Essilor design but a bit newer from around '07.
I appreciate all the posts, and especially the PMs. Thank you.
I've got both Autograph II and IOT. Both work equally well, but I can tell they are different designs. IOT and Seiko both have software that can be private labeled, Crossbows is all but dead, I hear Augen may have a lens coming.
I didn't mean to suggest that "the big outfits don't get involved in this." On the contrary, it is the case that the major lens suppliers are pretty much all in the business of providing lens designs that they have developed independently, and some of them are providing designs that are private-labeled. I thought that drk was suggesting that private-labeled designs are clones of the Autograph (or maybe some other "major" design).
Ah, gottcha. Thanks for the clarification. Are you saying the big boys actually have an independent team developing there own designs rather than using previous generation or retired designs? An independent group within the company seems cost prohibitive, seems like it would be more cost effective to just use a retired design?
The production of even an obsolete PAL design in the form of a surface definition file usable by digital surfacing equipment requires the creation of software, which will involve lens designers, programmers, and systems engineers. So, yes, I think that the big boys have teams (maybe largely the same individuals) producing the systems that produce the basic designs as well as the more advanced.
Agreed. This is why I suspect they use previous generation designs. A good analogy would be like using Windows XP (the previous generation) rather than Windows 7 (current generation). You don't have to add new features to Windows XP, you just have to fix bugs that you can't live with. So by using previous generation software, you can reduce the scope of work required, and thus costs. Its almost a pure cash cow, and it doesn't cannibalize too many profits from the leading edge generation of products.
In other words, the previous generation of software development is stopped. No further design refinements are made. But this software can still be used to create the point files, its just not going to be as good as the latest generation of software, nor will it ever be improved. And doesn't require a whole separate design team to create it. The engineers that are left on that project just maintain it to some degree, and often, want off of it so they can go do "real" design work. Most of this maintenance work would involve fixing a problem that was previously undiscovered and helping labs get it integrated so the lab can start making their private label FFs.
That seems how it would logically be done, from a financial perspective??
Do these labs and manufactures keep this a closely guarded secret? I know my lab won't tell me. But I'm not sure if the people I talk to there even know.
I think you may be missing one aspect of this: the original, now obsolete designs of which you're thinking were designed as semi-finished blanks, with the progressive design on the front surface. The "design" would be embodied in a fixed number of base curve and add combinations. That's a completely different process from the one required to produce back-side progressives. You couldn't make a "freeform version" of, say, the old Sola VIP with whatever software was used to design it in the first place; that software was not designed to combine the progressive and Rx components, which must be done in the case of freeform designs; not to mention the fact that a given front-side design is going to differ somewhat from its back-surface analogue.
I wouldn't expect labs to have intimate knowledge of the internal workings of lens design software, any more than they've had intimate knowledge of the process of designing semi-finished progressive blanks.
Ah! I definitely wasn't considering that. I was under the assumption that backside surfacing was on its 3 or 4th generation of software by now. What immediately comes to mind is Shamir Autograph?
They may not know about the internal workings, but you'd think they would at least have a sense of who services the machine, who they need to call, ect and clue them in on who the lens design originated from?
Most do only because they need to be careful about market overlap. They also don't necessarily see it as a selling benefit to say. Would knowing the brand behind the design really help? Perhaps but it could also not help. Also, many of the lenses are designs done custom for the client or perhaps could be simliar to other designs in the marketplace. In the end, let the customer whether that be a patient or a practice come to their own conclusion by fitting them.
In some cases however they absolutely do. I know my lab was intimately involved as I've discussed theirs with the higher ups in operations who were very integral in it's design. I know my sales rep as well knows because they are well versed and the details were shared as part of their education on the product.
The generators don't really matter much but I'm sure in some cases as with our lab, their reps know the design source. But again, it doesn't really matter. Just because a product is made for them by a specific manufacturer doesn't mean anything as it's often different than the other products marketed and has characteristics the client requested. Proof is in wearing it. One could use one of the AR Mappers to compare the design and it's characteristics to others though.
Interesting. Thanks for the input. Sounds cost prohibitive? Any idea how long does it take to create a custom design from start to finish?
That might depend upon whether you were planning on doing actual wearer trials to verify whether your design actually corrected anybody's vision.Sounds cost prohibitive? Any idea how long does it take to create a custom design from start to finish?
RT
I've heard people describe their private-label lens as the Shamir Autograph 2 (wink, wink), but of course that's always off the record. Read the descriptions of these lenses, look at the fitting height recommendations, and ask if there are POW measurements (if there are none, it couldn't be the Auto 2).
There are a few distinct feautures of the Auto II prism management and multi-zone distortion control that I have never seen in any other lens. Its unique.
Great meeting you in NYC jefe by the way!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks