I am researching this product.
Digital providers Lab advantages are no flat back laps to maintain, no expensive progressive blanks to buy, take control of small customers (that can't afford the investment) therefore moving their profits to digital provider bank accounts. Others?
For consumers? Is anything better? Have any studies been done on these products? Surley they have. I'd like to hear the methods and outcomes.
There have been numerous white papers and clinical trials performed but only by the largest companies such as Hoya, Essilor, etc., since it requires substantial funds and time to complete. Obtaining the information may be difficult since its mostly proprietary and heavily guarded.Originally Posted by Speed
You may have a better odds asking PepsiCo for a copy of the secret KFC recipe.
Reduced aberrations equals improved VA and visual comfort, with some RXs, for some people. I've seen many of instances where premium semifinished PALs outperformed PALs manufactured on a free-form platform. However, in five years, all PALs will come from FF, instead of molds, making the comparison moot.
The question then becomes who has the better fundamental PAL design, and who is able to keep that design consistent through a wide range of RXs and fitting values. As HindSight says, read the white and patent papers, clinical trials, and if you're old enough, wear the lenses.
Last edited by Robert Martellaro; 01-15-2015 at 11:52 PM.
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.
No more Varilux Enhanced Lenses? Or will they be the one of the exceptions?
Thanks very much. By this I take that they compare for the most part along the same lines as conventional progressives. I would like to ask if the reduced aberrations and improved VA and comfort are things you can prove, of anyone has proved and not just marketing talking points you have heard? I am deeply interested to get to the bottom of this. ALL!? Five years, really? This puts a lot of people out of business.
No. FF surfaced SVSF, and NOS (new old stock) only. Unless the Zeiss patent is renewed, but I doubt that will make much of a difference either way.
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.
Mostly, especially in the lower powers, but read below.
Yes, it's proven, but it's a matter of degree. Low add and distance powers, less complex RXs, average fitting values, and average IPDs will see little improvement. Conversely, high adds, more complex distance RXs, outlying fitting parameters will see moderate to significant improvement, especially for those who are more sensitive to blur.I would like to ask if the reduced aberrations and improved VA and comfort are things you can prove, of anyone has proved and not just marketing talking points you have heard?
Much depends on the level of optimization- many FF PALs offer very little if any optimizations, so buyer beware.
We still need SVSF blanks, although most come from the far east and Mexico. They still need to be surfaced, coated, and finished, all done locally. I don't see where there will be any significant changes in workforce.ALL!? Five years, really? This puts a lot of people out of business.
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.
The surface department in a lot of labs takes up a lot of man hours
It's funny to be in this field at this time. Digital and freeform are in it's infancy. There are still reasons to use conventionally ground lenses - but the time may come that they are unnecessary as well. With cosmetic concerns, especially in hyperopic prescriptions, there is still a place for the old ways. People are willing to sacrifice VA for good looking glasses. It's not great opticianry, but it is good business. Like it or not.
What is the difference (in production stand point, not optical science) between a Physio Enhanced/Varilux S Blank and a Camber lens Blank or a Hoya Mystyle blank. Wouldn't these "specialty" blanks still be made?
Maybe qualified to First World?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/20...aya-mean-never
I wonder if I'll live to see genetic engineering or some new technology create a paradigm shift in the eye itself.
Should we fear or embrace the coming quantum computer???
Final word:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/20...die-the-finale
Last edited by Uncle Fester; 01-16-2015 at 10:44 AM.
Yes?
I started using FF atoric PALs about 14 years ago.
I love those kinds of lists.
http://www.abevigoda.com
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.
Digital surfacing requires less surface man hours due to not having to fine or use hard laps/tools.
A lot of the newer digital generators also support automation
I still have accounts that are just beginning to wade into the digital ff pool. Your foresight wasn't shared by everyone.
I understand now, thanks.
Do you think the difference will be significant? Another milestone we could compare this to is the introduction of finished SV.
In our favor, the population is aging, resulting in an increased eyeglass wearing population.
WRT robotics, the custom and complex nature of Rx lens production will still require fairly significant amount of people hours, I think. Moreover, older folks have more visual defects, and won't stand for low quality optics, typically found at labs filled with unskilled labor and increased levels of automation.
Apologies to the OP for wondering off-topic.
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.
It wasn't foresight per se, more of an early adopter with an existing need- I had moderate to high astigmatic presbyopes who would benefit from atoric PALs, and the Multigressiv fitted the bill. I had been using molded atorics from Sola since the late 90's, so it was natural for me to jump on the atoric PAL bandwagon.
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.
Given that most lab techs start out in the surface department, this is kind of good news to lab people who already work in the industry.
However, there are a few labs that run their digital lenses with about 80% automation, with the exception of coating.
Also, blockless edging is finally becoming economical to even medium sized labs.
the scary part, is if automation/digital surfacing is the real future. We could see hundreds to thousands of lab techs being replaced by a few process engineers and mantinence crew. While most of the optical people left will be stuck in either final inspection/mounting, customer service, or marketing.
That's what I have witnessed thus far in labs that have an automated digital surfacing section.
The biggest factor right now seems to be the initial investment of digital/automated machines, and the way lens manufactures control certain things, like what blanks can and can't be used for certain designs, and marketing.
The advantages of add power on back are huge, just like moving the cyl on the back in the 1950's through early 70s. Tillyers math on Cyl applies even more to add powers, since they are essentially double bi-directional cyls. This is only available today with Free-form and digital (Although Wearlite and 2C had variable back-surface micro casted lenses at one time)
With digital processing and good free-form design, you gain design choices and optimizations that otherwise would be impossible.
Ground progressive are only around out of habit and manufacturers inventory (they don't want you go all free-form, yet, they want you to wait till Seiko and Zeiss patents expire).
Conventionally ground progressives may be on the way out if the technology improves, but is it as close as you think? As long as there are vain hyperopes and out-of-range Rx's I'm not so sure.
This is only slightly off topic, but the applications of Free Form optics go WAY beyond eyewear: http://centerfreeformoptics.org/
It is this kind of thread that makes me REALLY miss Daryl.
Right now, we're more limited by what the machines can produce than we are by what the software can calculate.
Both economically and optically, the future is Free Form. How soon? Well, some lens manufacturers are already moving their entire design portfolio to back surface progressives. I wouldn't necessarily call these true Free Form designs, since it's merely putting the same design on the back surface, rather than the front. I think that's the way it's going to end up, with the "standard" designs merely surfaced on the back competing with the Customized and Personalized designs where each lens is pretty much unique. Either way, as long as it's a good design, it's going to be an improvement for the patients.
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.
Too true. Man, way too true.
Sincerely,
Chad Sobodash ABO-AC
Free-form is over 50% in Europe right now, a little higher in Japan. Given the cost of manufacturing standard lens blanks and the enormous inventory costs, there are a total of 67 material options right now (considering Trans and Polar colors in various materials) so as pressure mounts for more materials, Free-form is much lower overall cost.
Wait till the Seiko and Zeiss patents expire in a few years, a lot of traditional lenses will be discontinued the very next day.
Maybe once the Asian equipment manufacturers get involved providing the market with more reasonably priced setups there will be a large decline in conventionally produced lenses. I have always liked the idea of not having to maintain laps. There would be much less inventory needed to supply all kinds of lenses. You can easily see that the large lens manufacturer companies would want to control this process. If we could ever lose the click fees it would really take off.
What about glass? will there be no more glass? Is there a process for making a glass product?
Digital free form glass is already available.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks