Deleted.
Deleted.
Last edited by Judy Canty; 10-02-2015 at 07:58 PM.
I'm not an Essilor fanboi, but fair is fair. I'll judge the lens performance by wearing it, reading the patents related to the design, if any, read the white papers, and the clinical research/double blind testing.
Speaking of patents...http://www.essilor.com/en/Group/Inte...gyCenters.aspx
Varilux was the first commercially successfully PAL. Comfort was the best selling PAL. I think it would be more accurate to say that other companies have caught up to Essilor. Are they on a black hole business trajectory? I don't see it, yet.
There are sound optical reasons to put the progressive optics on the front, especially for moderate to high plus. If either surface is generated on a free-form manufacturing platform, and the lens is optimized in any way (not just simple spherical and toric curves), it's accurate to call this a free-form lens.
The Physio Enhanced is a variable corridor. In some materials the Physio Short starts out with a semi-finished Physio blank. IMO, a variable corridor design is a compromise, not a benefit.
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.
Here is more information regarding the new Varilux S Series Lenses. Click: Varilux S Series
Last edited by Judy Canty; 05-26-2012 at 08:44 AM.
Totally agree. Especially the part about using front side adds on moderate - high plus Rx's. That category doesn't like totally backside PAL's as well. With total backside designs, my thoughts are that you're creating a bi-convex design in the umbilic of the lens that can't follow the center of rotation as well as a concave/convex design for plus distance Rx's. That's my personal experience along with years of try them on patients. Sometimes split designs work best, ( Definity and other E designs, Hoya has one similar, not as good imho..) So E does have some things I won't leave out of my tool box.
My rule of thumb on who won't get a totally backside PAL; No hyperopic's and if they aren't myopic enough that their distance power is 1/2 equal to their add power. (Their spherical equivalent.) YMMV.
Maybe the S stands for something else---------------------------> = STUPIDThere is absolutely no possibility to make or have have a progressive reading addition without major distortions unless you believe in Saint Essilor's marketing towards the consumer and optical retail of......................re-making...........re-naming ..........re-packaging.........re-hashing..........re-inventing................re-birthing...............re-believing,........................... so the S must be standing for what it says above.
another example, read my latest post and give some comment at: http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...a-lens-cleaner
I wonder why anyone would say anything is impossible..
Pdersonally I seldom sell any essilor lenses, but they are good lenses as a whole. If this lens was far & away better I would consider selling it as I would any lens. I, for one, don't hype lenses to my patients so I couldn't care less what the pre-release ad hype is.
We received a marketing piece from E today about the S series that said absolutely nothing.
Gee This post has enough vim, vigor and vitrol to the point where I don't have say anything.
Chip
There are a lot of things I dislike about Essilor. The quality of their progressive designs is not one of them.
Welcome to Optiboard Big V
I agree, its marketing poohy. One of the reps here is billing the lens as having NO distortion. Impossible even in SV as even SV creates distortion.
Any lens with a variable power will inherently create some kind of distortion.
Although Edge to Edge clarity is possible in one zone, its not possible in all 3, especially as the add power increases.
My early guess is that its some combination of the Definity and Shamir designs, and will be a very soft design. It may have usable focus in a large amount of area, but it either compromise by a loss of straight on VA or a lot of geometric distortions.
I don't consider the Exec to be distortion free either, that ledge renders a large area of the lens unusable. As well, the image jump is huge.
Its impossible to have an add power and eliminate distortion. With Free-form I can reduce distortion, I can move it, and I can choose whether it appears as geometric or off-focus areas, but in every lens there is inherent distortion, even Single Vision. Any lens that has an add power will inherently have some kind of distortion where the power varies, even if the zone is clear, it will still contribute to geometric or spacial changes.
There is a benefit to moving some of the add to the front on high plus powers, as a Backside FF lens had to drift farther from an ideal base curve with the add on the back in power over a +3-4. However, any concave curve on a convex surface (front side add) increases distortion at a relatively higher rate than a convex curve next to another convex curve on the back. You do lose some center of rotation on a backside add in a myope, but you also lose an enormous amount of distortion over the alternative, a concave curve on a convex front. In most cases the trade off of backside add reduces distortion significantly for myopes and low power hyperopes even with a loss of central rotation.
I don't think anyone hates the lens DrHass, its the marketing of a progressive as "distortion free" that we find objectionable. I hope its a good lens personally, most of the last few Essilor launches have been disappointing. I do know it can't live up to the hype, since we haven't made a SV vision lens that's distortion free, its hard to imagine that Essilor has somehow made the jump to distortion free progressives.
Doesn't Hoya also market their new digital lenses as "Distortion Free Optics"?
My frustration with Essilor and also with the new Unity lens from VSP is that NO ONE can articulate to me why these lenses are so awesome. My Hoya rep can tell me about the science behind his product, he knows about my lab background. So does my Shamir Rep and my Zeiss Rep. They all talk to me like I am an Optician, not a sales person. I pressed the Unity Rep for more information regarding the design and the fabrication of his product and he ended up having a actual hissy fit (I kid you not!) and stormed out of my lab in a huff saying, "Well if you don't want to fit it, then fine! Don't!"
Really? REALLY?
I don't have a particular beef with Essilor, per se, but I get tired of being fed marketing instead of actual fact and science. I end up doing the research on my own only to find that I will be just as well served to keep fitting my patients in the product I fully understand like the Individual, The Autograph II, or the iD Lifestyle, and many others. We understand technical product here- even if we do wear skirts!
"Strictly speaking, there are no enlightened beings; only enlightened activity." -Shunryu Suzuki
Im surprised they still havn't launched this lens yet, first saw it quite a while ago. For anyone in a lab you'll see it's called the Gx or G7 as a trade name. No engravings on the lens except for 2 'x' marks at the very edge either side. Quite an odd lens I have to say, definately not a normal pal that's for sure.
My rep just told me yesterday that they stand by this technology so much that if the patient isn't fully satisfied and feels like the lens doesn't stand up to what we tell the patient, they'll get a refund from Varilux. Those are pretty big words!
I can't wait for this series to come out.
It is impossible to have a progressive with zero distoriton. However, they may try a VERY soft design combined with a steeper base curve and the result would be that a lens that was usable in large areas in low adds and low myopes, however, there would be a lot of geometric distortion and people would feel like the lens was hunting for focus, it would feel strange. Everything would be slightly blurry, just slightly blurry by the same amount. It would result in a thousand zones all with a slightly different focal point or range.
QUOTE=gmc;425308] But from what I've learned about progressive lens designs from many sources, including our ophthalmic optics guru Darryl Meister's work, I don't think what they claim is possible.
[/QUOTE]
But it uses advanced nanotechnology! I think that's something to do with the crystal that built Superman's Fortress of Solitude. But hey I'm looking forward to trying it. Bet we won't get it in Oz for a a year or 3 though.
Chris Ryser calls the S in the design STUPID and this is considered professional. Many of the Shamir designs have a 0.5 to 1 level of optical distortion which was considered a new generation. E bought Shamir so they may have built on, improved, or saw a new direction to half that level of optical distortion which seems well witin a realistic scenario.
So if they created a design that offers a 0.25 to 1.0 optical distortion then for a 2.00 add the lens would experience a 0.50 D of optical distortion. According to mapping stadards that 0.5 defines regions. So any add below a 2 add could cocieveably be defined as having no distorted regions.
Thats just me thinking, not to mention they are providing a more custom horizontal optical modulation by taking into account the effects of both lenses as a pair. Let the professionals here chew on those thoughts for a while.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks