Shamir Autograph 3 now available...

[Judy Canty]

Shamir Autograph III lens is now available.

Here are some new terms to add to your optical vocabulary:
1. EYEPOINT TECHNOLOGY III
2. NATURAL POSTURE
3. INTELLICORRIDOR
4. AS-WORN QUADRO

See details for Shamir Autograph 3 here.

[AustinEyewear]

Thanks Judy!

[Judy Canty]

You're welcome!

[Jacqui]

Thanks Judy It's just what I need, another ----- freeform to understand

[Judy Canty]

It's the least I could do.

[Optician1960]

Jacqui:
The good news is, for those following Shamir, several terms should not be new:
1. EYEPOINT TECHNOLOGY III: Eyepoint Technology has been used by Shamir designers for years and this is the latest and greatest version of the tool
2. NATURAL POSTUR: Most opticians have been discussing this forever
3. INTELLICORRIDOR: If you know the InTouch lens, this will not be a new concept
4. AS-WORN QUADRO: Ok, so there is something completely new

[Barry Santini]

As worn Quadro, as I understand it, is Shamir's design weighting to:

Deliver the same ultility for progressives independant of Rx and fitting height. In other words, as a progressive wearer, your personal experience in field of view, eyedepression angle and overal global balance should be similar between differing Rxs and frmes. Your longer ab dimension sunglass should not be a fundamentally different progressive visual experience compard with your Shorter B dimension "regular" eyewear.

More on this from other Optiboarders?

B

[Jacqui]

Shamir Autograph III lens is now available.

Here are some new terms to add to your optical vocabulary:
1. EYEPOINT TECHNOLOGY III
2. NATURAL POSTURE
3. INTELLICORRIDOR
4. AS-WORN QUADRO

See details for Shamir Autograph 3 here.

Sent you a PM about this, here and FB both.

[Jason H]

As a point of interest that may resonate with some frequent posters here. I attended a seminar on the Auto 3 a short time ago and it seems (although not explicitly stated) that Shamir is aware of the growing idea that Auto 2 was an excellent lens for myopes but had plenty of detractors for hyperopes. Auto 3 seems to be an attempt to correct that. Just one man's opinion, mind you, and I'll reserve my reccomendations untill I feel I know that they have or have not delivered. But, I can't help wondering also if the kind of comments posted here on Optiboard may have had something to do with their awareness of this issue to start. How infleuential is our little group anyways?

[Robert Martellaro]

that Shamir is aware of the growing idea that Auto 2 was an excellent lens for myopes but had plenty of detractors for hyperopes.

Their menza-like scientists are all myopic!

Auto 3 seems to be an attempt to correct that. Just one man's opinion, mind you, and I'll reserve my reccomendations untill I feel I know that they have or have not delivered. But, I can't help wondering also if the kind of comments posted here on Optiboard may have had something to do with their awareness of this issue to start. How infleuential is our little group anyways?

Just a guess, but part of the reason (unavailable heretofore) may be that processing power, in real time, has increased enough in the last five years to make it possible to add more parameters (corridor width and length based on the Rx).

The concept is not that new- the Ovation had a variable corridor and possibly zone widths based on the Rx (specifically the base curve). Some premium semi-finished PALs have quite a few optimizations based on the Rx, and can work very well indeed.

It would be nice to know that lens designers take input from folks in the field, including Optiboard!

[AustinEyewear]

As a point of interest that may resonate with some frequent posters here. I attended a seminar on the Auto 3 a short time ago and it seems (although not explicitly stated) that Shamir is aware of the growing idea that Auto 2 was an excellent lens for myopes but had plenty of detractors for hyperopes. Auto 3 seems to be an attempt to correct that. Just one man's opinion, mind you, and I'll reserve my reccomendations untill I feel I know that they have or have not delivered. But, I can't help wondering also if the kind of comments posted here on Optiboard may have had something to do with their awareness of this issue to start. How infleuential is our little group anyways?

Jason - can you list a few of the Auto II detractors for hyperopes that you are refering to?

[optical24/7]

Jason - can you list a few of the Auto II detractors for hyperopes that you are refering to?

Me! Not just Auto II but every single total backside FF in existence! Auto III is next on my hit list to try.

[AustinEyewear]

Me! Not just Auto II but every single total backside FF in existence! Auto III is next on my hit list to try.

Thanks! Just found this awesome thread : http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...hit-Autograf-2

[Robert Martellaro]

Hyperopes see the world magnified, resulting in narrower field of vision compared to myopes. Look at the picture of the the piano in the link Judy posted.

Myopes encounter some degree of base down prism when viewing near objects; objects are displaced upwards towards the apex, requiring a sharper power profile to reduce chin lift.

The Auto 2 has a quicker change in power, with full power higher in the corridor than most if not all general purpose PALs- ideal for myopes, bad for hyperopes, who have some degree of base up prism at near, shifting the image lower towards the apex, requiring a slightly longer corridor. The Auto 2 has a narrower intermediate and near zone, bad for hyperopes, who, because of magnification, need slightly wider zone widths.

[optical24/7]

Excellent Robert. There's no way I could describe the reasons Auto II (and all) total backside designs fail us hyperopes better than this. It's exasperated (as Robert has noted before) on high adds (+2 and up).

[MakeOptics]

Hyperopes see the world magnified, resulting in narrower field of vision compared to myopes. Look at the picture of the the piano in the link Judy posted.

Myopes encounter some degree of base down prism when viewing near objects; objects are displaced upwards towards the apex, requiring a sharper power profile to reduce chin lift.

The Auto 2 has a quicker change in power, with full power higher in the corridor than most if not all general purpose PALs- ideal for myopes, bad for hyperopes, who have some degree of base up prism at near, shifting the image lower towards the apex, requiring a slightly longer corridor. The Auto 2 has a narrower intermediate and near zone, bad for hyperopes, who, because of magnification, need slightly wider zone widths.

Actually the hyperopic eye suffers from a minified world, we put a magnifying lens in front of the eye to neutralize the effect. The effect that hyperopes suffer from is a smaller apparent field of view. This is due to the prismatic effect of a plus lens bending rays towards the center the eye must rotate to a greater degree through a plus lens in order to view an object than without.

[Jason H]

Yes Austin, I wouldn't point my finger at anyone specifically but I can tell you I am a detractor. 100% backside digital lenses seem to exaggerate thickness and compromise optics in hyperopic rx's. It's my job to work through fitting issues countrywide and I can tell you this is a commonly held belief. Other, smarter, Optiboard posters can get down to specifics.

[Jason H]

Thanks to optical 24/7, Robert and PhiTrace for the backup and explanation. In your debt.

[Craig]

A friend of mine made a set and could not see out of them comfortably. He is high cyl but has never had a problem with another lens.

How much more are they charging for the new version?

I will stick with IOT for 1/3 less until I am shown the difference justifies the cost.

[Robert Martellaro]

Actually the hyperopic eye suffers from a minified world, we put a magnifying lens in front of the eye to neutralize the effect.

Make it "hyperopes wearing corrective lenses" then. The lenses correct refractive error, the magnification is just an unwanted side effect. But you know this!?

The effect that hyperopes suffer from is a smaller apparent field of view. This is due to the prismatic effect of a plus lens bending rays towards the center the eye must rotate to a greater degree through a plus lens in order to view an object than without.

The smaller field of view is due to magnification, not prism. The induced prism causes object displacement, requiring different near zone positions depending on the direction, and to some degree the amount of prism induced.

[MakeOptics]

Make it "hyperopes wearing corrective lenses" then. The lenses correct refractive error, the magnification is just an unwanted side effect. But you know this!?

The smaller field of view is due to magnification, not prism. The induced prism causes object displacement, requiring different near zone positions depending on the direction, and to some degree the amount of prism induced.

I see where your going with this, your discussing the effects of the lens on the eye not the eye itself. As a myope I can tell you the world looks a lot larger until I put my glasses on, which minify things.

And yes the near zone does get displaced differently or should be displaced differently depending on the Rx. Hyperopes seem to do better with front surface designs from my experience as well, but the best form correction applied in all meridians coupled with precise insets out weights this effect IMO so I still default to backside designs in most instances.

Also like Craig I am a fan of IOT since the beginning, especially since many of the features of the lens were taken from the thread here on this board and applied to their new designs. Its basically designed by optical professionals for optical professionals.

[sharpstick777]

Jason - can you list a few of the Auto II detractors for hyperopes that you are refering to?

All 3 hyperopes I work with HATE the Auto II

[kwbutts]

How do you feel about Autograph III vs. Physio Enhanced for a first time progressive wearer?

[NCspecs]

Kwbutts, Sharpstick will tell you (more succinctly than I can) that the Auto III and the Physio Enhanced have two different corridor styles. The Physio Enhanced, in my opinion is sort of a reinvention of the wheel. The same ole hourglass corridor just bedazzled, so to speak.

If I was fitting a first time PAL wearer with a lens optimized for a hyperope and for some strange reason I couldn't use a Seiko Surmount then I would choose the Auto III. If that patient was a long time PAL wearer and they came in wearing a Physio Enhanced and they expressed satisfaction I would leave them alone and not try to fix what ain't broke.

[kwbutts]

Thanks for your input. ;)