Has anyone been experimenting with using wavefront analysis as a method for creating more perfect lenses for standard glasses?
Has anyone been experimenting with using wavefront analysis as a method for creating more perfect lenses for standard glasses?
No, nobody.
Do you mean the specticle lens itself or the eye?? If you mean the spectacle lens, Rotlex makes a wonderful unit to measure this. But I think Ophthonics or whoever gave up measuring the eye because every time the eye moves things change drastically.
Sorry, there are spelling errors. I can't seem to find out how to turn on the spell check with Ubuntu.
For eyeglasses, me thinks that if one could combine Enigma/contour optics with Trivex and some FF optimization...
You'd have just about the most perfect SV ophtalmic lenses.
B
This was the idea behind the IZON product (correcting higher-order aberrations)... didn't work out for them.
Barry, what advantage do you think there is in using Wollaston curves (as in the Enigma) over Ostwalt?
Honestly, wavefront analysis is ideally suited to precision optics and is used when crafting high precision optics for the military and space optics, where precision is measured in fractions of nanometers. But for spectacle lenses??? The human eye cannot differentiate that kind of precision, and the cost to manufacture lenses is beyond insane.
I have thought for years that there should be a way to use coherent light to exactly identify errors in the eye by refraction. I happened to stumble into information on wavefront analysis. I was just thinking it might be nice to have an absolute method to be sure a prescription was 100% right.
I'm horribly nearsighted, and can't ever seem to get two prescriptions that show a distinct progression in any direction. They always seem to vary by as much as a whole digit in any of four ways. It seems to me that a check against the actual eye is in order.
Also, getting the lens to a point of perfect beyond average man's ability to sense might not be a bad idea. Considering how bad off some patients (like myself) are, every little bit helps.
Jacqui: spell check should be active in firefox. Make sure the dictionary files are properly installed. Ubuntu is a good starter dist, but it's Debian based. Sucky totalitarian package management. As soon as you get comfy with configging linux, look at Slackware: higher education by trial. I've been running slack since 3.4. It *will* make you learn. Also, get an irc client and go to irc.freenode.net lots of help channels there.
Glass will solve your problems with repeat-ability...but with a high minus, you might be SOL.
BTW, what is your Rx?
For those of us into telescopes, like Dr Mike Morris who designed enigma, the optimized use of the wollston curves provided a wide-angle corrective element similar in principle to a spherical-based Maksutov corrector. Limitations in production molding and only the availability of poly made for Rx/cylinder limitations in the contour optics series.Originally Posted by shanbaum
I can tell you this: Essentially, these lenses functioned as if they had an infinitely wide optical center, i.e.e, at the intended design vertex from the eye, your line of sight at any gaze angle was essentially perpenticular to the front lens surface. This meant almost NO chroma effects in a poly lens...even within a 35 degree semi-field gaze angle.
With trivex and FF optimization, I think these lenses would be the best ever!
B
Mike: I can't tell you right now, I'm in the middle of a move. I told them the best thing they could do was supply the base scrip without notes in a business card form so I could carry it on me or in my day runner. That being said I think the day runner is in the semi, and should have my previous prescription in it. I recall going from 8.25 base out prism in one eye and 8.75 in the other to 8.00 in both.
Barry has actually seen one set of my lenses; he mounted them back to a set of polymils for me. He did an awesome job. Were I on that side of the Mississippi, i'd consider hiring him to do the job because the man is a genius. The hallmarks of a skilled man are apparent in any line of work.
I'm very nearsighted, and very active. I have to work to live, so in addition to weight issues (my lenses are easily 3/8 of an inch thick at the outside edge) I am struck often enough that glass would be a bad idea. I'd desperately love a chance to help these optic companies test their products. I'm in and out of the heat and cold, the dirt, petroleum, sweat... you name it. I've had the two 'best' coatings on my last two sets of glasses and they have been play-doh to my activities. That beautiful gold Zeiss coating flaked an scratched to nothing, and the Avancé Whatzis coating has wrinkled up like an old lady on me *twice*.
It took going to the next county over to determine that the blue and red ghosts I'm seeing day and night are an effect of the lenses and can't be fixed. I drew a picture and explained the problem clearly to the local OD, and he just shrugged the set before.
I still think that there's something up with my prescription because I can often not hit static targets with a shotgun, even with careful alignment and trigger control. I really think that things may not be exactly where I am seeing them due to my lens strength.
One, I've theorized since approximately 1996 that the eye could be measured directly, since 2000 that a set of frames could be realigned using lasers (much like aiming the headlights of a car), since 2002 or 3 that optometrists' offices should slave a television to a studio freeze buffer to allow people as nearsighted as myself to see what they look like while testing frames... this is laborious, but trust I have a book of ideas I can't afford to patent that range from fly paper optimized for use in a truck to a belt fed rocket launcher.
And two, I've always thought that double checking everything is a good idea. Checking fact and opinion (ie the actual eye, and 'which is better, number two or number three') will garner a better result.
I'd keep talking, but I must go haul 60 ton of hay into a mudhole.
Ok, have to correct myself: previous is 5• out left and right,
OD -8.00 -2.75x20
OS -8.75 -2.25x155
Have to locate my current, if I remember properly it was changes to 8.25 in both. I've had it vary from these before. Call me dumb, but except in the case of a sudden degenerative condition it seems that the condition of the eye should proceed along a mathematically definable arc.
"Wavefront" is used many different ways in this industry, some incorrectly, some for marketing puff. Could someone please define "wavefront" with regard to this great discussion? I've read it, understand it a bit, but I can't articulate it well. I don't want someone to follow this thread and confuse the technical term for the marketing term that is often incorrectly used. Great discussion by the way, I have not studied this area of optics thoroughly and look forward to increasing my knowledge. Thanks for the great dialogue.
Steve or Fezz, as good as it is, should this discussion be in Opthalmic Optics forum? or here for the time being?
heviarti, Welcome to Optiboard and thanks for starting a great discussion.
Its not uncommon for people with your RX to suffer from some irregular astigmatism, which is not correctable using spectacle RXs. There is a type of laser surgery that can correct assymetrial curves on the cornea to some degree, but its limited. They call it "Waveform" but its not a pure definition of the term. The most effective means though is using hard contacts to reshape the cornea, but prism in not correctable using contacts.
What is your best corrected visual acuity? It its less than 20/20 it could warrant having corneal topography done. Do you have any other underlying pathologies that affect your vision?
I would normally offer that if you don't have a topographer handy, but have a full RGP fitting set, you could have screened using that. If someones DVA improves dramatically in Hard Contacts its one indicator of irregular astigmatism. You will not get binocular vision of course through RGPs with your prism, so it won't work for you in your power regretabbly.
As per the OptiBoard Posting Guidelines:
This forum is for Eyecare Professionals. Consumers are allowed to post in the Just Conversation forum and non-optical topics only. Please be aware that any questions involving optics or eyecare may be removed. These kinds of questions should be discussed with a qualified eyecare professional who has examined you and is familiar with your situation.
OptiBoard Administrator
----
OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks