*grin*
That's because what you receive is the end result of those wearer trials. If the lens performs anything other than perfectly, they tweak the design until they get the results they want, and there's nothing wrong with that approach. No lens company is going to produce a lens with high rates on non-tolerance as they won't make any money.
I would respectfully disagree, I am working myself on a theorem that would demonstrated that free-form lenses (true 100% free-form) where the add is digitally processed can offer substantially reduced TDP (Total Potential Distortion is my own definition, but its a combination of unwanted irregular cylinder, unwanted prism, and offers focal point away from the macula). The key is first knowing which lenses are 100% free-form (some are hybrid, and not fully free-form), and then where those lenses are focusing their improvements. For example, an Auto II will not provide as wide a reading as an old fashioned Comfort so your reading patient may be disspointed. Years ago in the 1990's we began extensive follow ups with patients who received Free-form lenses (the term wasn't even used then) and we found that they had a substantial reduction in trouble driving at night, and that was with the old free-form designs. I can document higher patient satisfaction (when dispensed correctly), less trouble driving at night, less swim or sway, through extensive post dispensing interviews we did with early Free-form. Free-form though is like having a $1000 Titanium and Moon Rock #1 golf driver, I still have to use it with skill, and I will not get good on results if I try to putt. I would be better off with the putter from a mini-golf course.
I have broken down a lot of Free-form maps into groups, or styles. There is far more variety among free-form lenses than their is with Grinders, as their should be. I have sent my progressive guide to a few people on this forum, and it would better if they commented on whether my guide will reduce this issue reasonably. We can learn a lot more about Progressive lenses and then dispense them with far more precision than we realize.
The more variables you allow, and the higher the RX range, the more materials, etc, the more point files you will need. Total variations will be way over 10,000 quickly when you consider customized POW measurements so those lenses are most often rendered individually. Ever wonder why some brands stop at a certain RX even when you know its possible to surface in power beyond that? They are limiting their point files (and to some degree, improving their yield). Its simply a cost vs. return factor in many of those cases.
I've not seen a lens off any DAC generator that didn't require further treatment. My understanding is that Chemat bought the machine in order to integrate it with a cut-to-coat system (coating was their business prior to buying the DAC ophthalmic equipment) wherein the coating obviates the need for polishing.
It CAN be done, however, the time required to do it exceeds the time to generate and polish. It would require a single point cutter and an absurdly long cycle - 1-3 passes to hog, then a pass to fine, and a final pass to clean up. This is how a lot of high precision glass is made these days, albeit with an external polish cycle. Some exotic glass materials can be used straight off the generator.
Require air spindles turning at 50,000 rpm for the final pass.
Got $750K?
I have been using IOT software "inhouse" designs from a certain Pittsburgh based lab for the last 6 months. I have seamlessly switched over Zeiss/Varilux traditional and high end digital (everything but Varilux S / Individual 2 - which we haven't used)
The patient response to price / function has been great. No non-adapts that seem to be based in the lens design. As of right now the only lens I feel I should add to the portfolio I use in the lab is the Seiko Surmount because it sounds so much different than anything else.
Am I just wanting this to work, or have I stumbled onto a goldmine? Have these lenses gotten WAY better in design/fabrication in the last few years?
I stand by my original assertion that design is still king over process.
From a patient "capture" perspective, it is merely a matter of targeting the strengths and weaknesses of a given lens design, and addressing them. If a previous zeiss/varilux wearer walks in and their CC is "these glasses were too expensive last time," then addressing the cost issue may garner a sale.
On a side note to Shanbaum, thank you for articulating what I've never tried to explain before. I really appreciate your insight and obvious experience.
I have ,my boss wearing the new Camber lens by Younger. He loves it so far, gets a lot of intermediate. Perfecta is another fav of his.
I personally don't think names matter a lot on a true free form. I will say though, as with all progressives, it is the fit that matters most.Start with a good fitting frame and do a good job on the lenses and bingo, happy customer.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks