Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: The truth about Camber

  1. #1
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    MI
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    281

    The truth about Camber

    Does anyone remember when progressive lenses used to be sold on the merits of their design? "This lens will give you wider intermediate," "That lens provides you with the most add power," "The other lens wont work with a seg over 17," etc.

    Does anyone remember when a new lens hit the market, it would be availble in one or two lens materials only? Other materials and photochromics and polarized versions would come out "eventually."

    The promise of freeform lenses was that we would have better correction for unwanted astigmatism and all materials available on all lens designs immediately. Period. That was the promise.

    The more complex the design gets on the front surface OF A FRONT SIDE MOLDED PRODUCT, the more limitations you have in product availability and advancement. Also, the SIGNIFICANTLY higher overhead costs to labs who must stock the various complex options available.

    Can someone explain to me why camber lenses are being presented as a huge step FORWARD? I fail to see based on any information presented that camber is any improvement over, say, a Hoya lens, or the physio 360. No one lens design works best for everyone, and yet the camber lens seems to present a one size fits all lens via its elephant trunk molded lens. At least the Individual 2 adjusts corridor lengths based on many perameters, and Autograph offers multiple fixed corridor lengths.

    So said another way, I guess I'm asking if anyone can explain how camber isn't just a front molded progressive with backside optimization.

  2. #2
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    OptiBoard Silver Supporter

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Maryland
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,101
    Because it is a plano blank not one with a molded add. It is different because of this. Any number of progressive designs could be cut on the backside in theory. The blank would have a different base curve for the DV rx and the NV RX, all on the same plano blank. In theory optimizing this - especially for hyperopes. I've had meh results though others (such as Craig on here) have said they have great results. I think it comes down to what designs are being used - I probably used the wrong labs who chose poor designs (cheaper?)

    I haven't been won over by it for the same reasons of higher overhead / lack of extra "wow" results. However labs would only have to stock "camber blanks" in base curves not base curves AND adds. But yeah.

  3. #3
    OptiWizard
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    382
    All other front side molded PAL's besides the Camber have areas of converging and diverging curves(front to rear relative).

    The Camber is converging across the entire surface, and is horizontally spherical.

    It's not a front side molded PAL, it's just a special aspheric lens, that was designed to help optimize free form PAL optics.

  4. #4
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,175
    It is our lens of choice. We only offer the Camber and use another if we have no choice but the compensation and zones are our favorite.
    Best Lens Made and only one the is actually an improved design of the blank!

  5. #5
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ft Lauderdale, Florida
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    160
    Camber is a step forward because it helps address many of the concerns found in single vision frontside Digital PAL's, it allows for flatter curves in plus powers, better thickness profiles, and wider fields of view. By combining the two surfaces (the front is a continuously variable surface not a PAL) together patients experienced easier adaptation, better near visual performance, and overall better comfort (these were the results of our wearer trial) Advantages for the ECPs are availability and flexibility, the designs can be decentered, its available in materials from CR-1.67 polarized, Trans, and clear. The principals behind it are not new, they are based in science that is well accepted in practice, we just applied the Tscherning ellipse to a digital platform. Camber lens technology can be used with 4 different lens designs each developed for lifestyle selection in mind, with corridors in one MM steps with a minimum fitting height of 14. If you'd like more information give me a call and I will send you some more information and answer all your questions. Kurt Gardner 336.529.9284 (Im with IOT)

  6. #6
    One eye sees, the other feels. OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,168
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy View Post
    Can someone explain to me why camber lenses are being presented as a huge step FORWARD?
    Flatter moderate plus lenses with a full backside PAL surface for hyperopic absolute presbyopes without a positive ocular curve or the use of high refractive index low Abbe lens materials.

    No royalty fees to Zeiss.

    Quote Originally Posted by hyperoptic View Post
    Camber is a step forward because it helps address many of the concerns found in single vision frontside Digital PAL's, it allows for flatter curves in plus powers, better thickness profiles, and wider fields of view. By combining the two surfaces (the front is a continuously variable surface not a PAL) together patients experienced easier adaptation, better near visual performance, and overall better comfort (these were the results of our wearer trial) Advantages for the ECPs are availability and flexibility, the designs can be decentered, its available in materials from CR-1.67 polarized, Trans, and clear. The principals behind it are not new, they are based in science that is well accepted in practice, we just applied the Tscherning ellipse to a digital platform. Camber lens technology can be used with 4 different lens designs each developed for lifestyle selection in mind, with corridors in one MM steps with a minimum fitting height of 14. If you'd like more information give me a call and I will send you some more information and answer all your questions. Kurt Gardner 336.529.9284 (Im with IOT)
    Hello Kurt. I have a few questions.

    Is Camber optimized for position of wear with full Rx optimization over the entire lens?

    If true, is there design optimization (zone configuration, periphery design, corridor length, etc.)

    Is there an Rx tweak at the distance and near reference points? If so, I would expect to see a compensated Rx.

    What are the maximum plus powers (max distance plus near) for Trivix and 1.60?

    Best regards,
    Last edited by Robert Martellaro; 12-22-2015 at 10:28 AM.
    Roberts Optical Ltd.
    Wauwatosa Wi.
    www.roberts-optical.com
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

    It is easier to fool a man, than to convince a man he has been fooled. -Mark Twain

  7. #7
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ft Lauderdale, Florida
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post

    Is Camber optimized for position of wear with full Rx optimization over the entire lens?

    If true, is there design optimization (zone configuration, periphery design, corridor length, etc.)

    Is there an Rx tweak at the distance and near reference points? If so, I would expect to see a compensated Rx.

    What are the maximum plus powers (max distance plus near) for Trivix and 1.60?

    Best regards,
    Camber is a compensated lens using Digital Ray Path Technology (www.digitalray-path.com) we are maximizing the fields of view along the entire surface of the lens using default or provided POW measurements, we take the personalization further by allowing the selection of a design that can be matched to a persons lifestyle, (Larger distance, balanced, larger reading zone, and a softer design for first time PAL wearers) This will mean that you will get a compensated Distance Rx and add power.

    Maximum powers can vary slightly and we are always trying to make a lens more efficient, I would contact your Camber lens provider (if you dont have one visit camberlens.com for a list) and they can let you know their power restrictions.

    Thanks

  8. #8
    One eye sees, the other feels. OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,168
    Quote Originally Posted by hyperoptic View Post
    Camber is a compensated lens using Digital Ray Path Technology (www.digitalray-path.com) we are maximizing the fields of view along the entire surface of the lens using default or provided POW measurements, we take the personalization further by allowing the selection of a design that can be matched to a persons lifestyle, (Larger distance, balanced, larger reading zone, and a softer design for first time PAL wearers) This will mean that you will get a compensated Distance Rx and add power.
    Thank you.

    I see that the inset is calculated for work distance as well as IPD, vertex distance, and Rx. I would expect to see that from a FBS PAL; there's no reason not to implement that calculation unless it's a low end design. After all, some of the premium semi-finished lenses have some degree of inset and corridor length optimization for base curve and add power.

    A couple more questions if I may.

    If we map a plano sphere +2.50 add PAL, and a +1.50 -3.00 x 45 PAL, many PAL design cylinder plots take on a significantly deformed appearance. Does the Digital Ray-Path® technology modify the PAL optics so that the intended PAL design is reasonably true across a very wide range of RXs and fitting parameters? If so, is it calculated in real-time?

    WRT the distance, balanced, and near designs, could you describe the tradeoffs made when going from one design to another, specifically the distance and near zone widths and their associated corridor lengths.

    Maximum powers can vary slightly and we are always trying to make a lens more efficient, I would contact your Camber lens provider (if you dont have one visit camberlens.com for a list) and they can let you know their power restrictions.
    I'll do that (Walman is my primary lab). I understand that it's hard to pin this down unless we know a little about the frame shape, size,and decentration, primarily with plus powers.

    Best regards,
    Roberts Optical Ltd.
    Wauwatosa Wi.
    www.roberts-optical.com
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

    It is easier to fool a man, than to convince a man he has been fooled. -Mark Twain

  9. #9
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ft Lauderdale, Florida
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    Thank you.

    I see that the inset is calculated for work distance as well as IPD, vertex distance, and Rx. I would expect to see that from a FBS PAL; there's no reason not to implement that calculation unless it's a low end design. After all, some of the premium semi-finished lenses have some degree of inset and corridor length optimization for base curve and add power.

    A couple more questions if I may.

    If we map a plano sphere +2.50 add PAL, and a +1.50 -3.00 x 45 PAL, many PAL design cylinder plots take on a significantly deformed appearance. Does the Digital Ray-Path® technology modify the PAL optics so that the intended PAL design is reasonably true across a very wide range of RXs and fitting parameters? If so, is it calculated in real-time?

    WRT the distance, balanced, and near designs, could you describe the tradeoffs made when going from one design to another, specifically the distance and near zone widths and their associated corridor lengths.

    I'll do that (Walman is my primary lab). I understand that it's hard to pin this down unless we know a little about the frame shape, size,and decentration, primarily with plus powers.

    Best regards,
    It has been our experience that not as many modern designs to actually vary the inset, or if they are now it is a recent development, the same goes for design decentration.

    The maps we typically see are the Plano with a 2 or 2.50 add when we make the Rx more complex the power map changes, that will happen with a compensated or non compensated lens because the lens is now taking into consideration a more complex Eye Lens system, so using a power map they will look different but the way the patient perceives light would be consistent. I hope that made sense...All Camber (and IOT for that matter) designs are calculated in realtime at the local lab, even something like changing the frame or Seg can cause slight changes in the calculation (usually .010 or less but still a change)

    I am happy to describe the difference between the designs, essentially we have designs that put focus on different focal lengths, the Distance focused design will be clear above the 180 line, but that forces the remaining unwanted astigmatism down and creates a slightly smaller reading zone, the near focused PAL does the same but in reverse. Its important to note that a person wearing the distance will still be able to comfortably read a book, or computer, or whatever else, and the near focused wearer can still safely function out doors. What having these choices allow the ECP is the ability to fine tune the wearer experience so that for the patient who says "I wish I had just a little more reading" can have it, and vice versa for the distance wearer.

    If by width you are referring to the width of the intermediate, this is one of the ideas that is more marketing than science, look at the Minkwitz Theorem, essentially the width is proportional to the length, the longer the corridor the wider the intermediate will be.

  10. #10
    One eye sees, the other feels. OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,168
    Quote Originally Posted by hyperoptic View Post
    It has been our experience that not as many modern designs to actually vary the inset, or if they are now it is a recent development, the same goes for design decentration.
    Not many, but as stated, the premium designs are more capable. Ovation from the late 90's modified the corridor length by base curve, so not so much of a recent development. No doubt, we usually get what we pay for.

    The maps we typically see are the Plano with a 2 or 2.50 add when we make the Rx more complex the power map changes, that will happen with a compensated or non compensated lens because the lens is now taking into consideration a more complex Eye Lens system, so using a power map they will look different but the way the patient perceives light would be consistent. I hope that made sense...All Camber (and IOT for that matter) designs are calculated in realtime at the local lab, even something like changing the frame or Seg can cause slight changes in the calculation (usually .010 or less but still a change)
    See the image below. It's from http://www.opticampus.com/files/prog...presbyopia.pdf

    My question is, if the intended design is the first image, and a complex Rx is introduced, do I get a map that's closer to the second image, or closer to the third image?

    I am happy to describe the difference between the designs, essentially we have designs that put focus on different focal lengths, the Distance focused design will be clear above the 180 line, but that forces the remaining unwanted astigmatism down and creates a slightly smaller reading zone, the near focused PAL does the same but in reverse.
    Thank you, that's what I was looking for, the redistribution of the unwanted astigmatism.

    Its important to note that a person wearing the distance will still be able to comfortably read a book, or computer, or whatever else, and the near focused wearer can still safely function out doors. What having these choices allow the ECP is the ability to fine tune the wearer experience so that for the patient who says "I wish I had just a little more reading" can have it, and vice versa for the distance wearer.
    Right. However, if I order a balanced design for example, a myope will need a shorter corridor than a hyperope, especially with the higher dioptric powers. Do we manually reduce the corridor length, or does the software make any contribution?

    If by width you are referring to the width of the intermediate, this is one of the ideas that is more marketing than science, look at the Minkwitz Theorem, essentially the width is proportional to the length, the longer the corridor the wider the intermediate will be.
    No, as stated, the distance and near zone widths, but specifically the distance zone. IMO, from personal wearing tests and several manufacturer's trials, a good PAL design should first and foremost have a generous distance zone, with options for a higher near zone without upsetting to any significant degree the distance functionality.

    Thank you for taking the time and effort to answer my questions. I can't promise I'll try your lens, being a moderate myope, but emmetropes through high plus with strong adds should take a strong look at what Camber brings to the table, another tool in our toolbox of solutions.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Optimized PAL Cyl plots.jpg  
    Last edited by Robert Martellaro; 12-17-2015 at 07:14 PM.
    Roberts Optical Ltd.
    Wauwatosa Wi.
    www.roberts-optical.com
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

    It is easier to fool a man, than to convince a man he has been fooled. -Mark Twain

  11. #11
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter rdcoach5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Rossford, Ohio
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,598
    I'm wearing the camber. It's better for near but is it worth the cost? I can't justify the increase.

  12. #12
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    MI
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by rdcoach5 View Post
    I'm wearing the camber. It's better for near but is it worth the cost? I can't justify the increase.
    worth the cost compared to what?

    I'll respond to the other posts when I have more time...sorry been crazy busy...thank you everyone for the replies thus far.

  13. #13
    One eye sees, the other feels. OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,168
    Quote Originally Posted by rdcoach5 View Post
    I'm wearing the camber. It's better for near but is it worth the cost? I can't justify the increase.
    Better how? Compared to what? What is the Rx? Include additional details if you have time. Thanks.
    Roberts Optical Ltd.
    Wauwatosa Wi.
    www.roberts-optical.com
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

    It is easier to fool a man, than to convince a man he has been fooled. -Mark Twain

  14. #14
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Seattle
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    248
    We've been using Camber lenses from Identity in IL and have been very happy with them. In fact they are appreciably less expensive than the conventional lens we had been using.
    They've been extremely versatile and I'm not having to hop around from lens to lens and lab to lab to get just the right product.

    cs

  15. #15
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter rdcoach5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Rossford, Ohio
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,598
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy View Post
    worth the cost compared to what?

    I'll respond to the other posts when I have more time...sorry been crazy busy...thank you everyone for the replies thus far.

    My Rx -9.50 +1.00 x 115 +2.75 add
    -9.25 + 1.25 x155
    Previous wore Ind 2 and another IOT design and GT2 3D

  16. #16
    OptiWizard
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    West Scranton, Pa
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    323
    Dunno, I've had as many hits as misses with camber. It makes so much more sense from a surfacing standpoint for hyperopes instead of myopes. Interesting stuff, but better? Physics has laws instead of guidelines for a reason.

  17. #17
    One eye sees, the other feels. OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,168
    Quote Originally Posted by rdcoach5 View Post
    My Rx -9.50 +1.00 x 115 +2.75 add
    -9.25 + 1.25 x155
    Previous wore Ind 2 and another IOT design and GT2 3D
    Thanks rdcoach5. We've both been around long enough to know that there's no single design that's optimal for all RXs and individuals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason H View Post
    Dunno, I've had as many hits as misses with camber. It makes so much more sense from a surfacing standpoint for hyperopes instead of myopes.
    Yup. Working the steepest curve makes the most sense, and that's why a spherical front with the progressive optics on the back works better with minus, but hard to do with plus (expensive to work both surfaces). Camber looks like a nice in-between work around, that is, only a moderate increase in cost, due to the proprietary blanks, without significant optical compromises compared to surfacing the progressive optics on the front of the lens.
    Roberts Optical Ltd.
    Wauwatosa Wi.
    www.roberts-optical.com
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

    It is easier to fool a man, than to convince a man he has been fooled. -Mark Twain

  18. #18
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Seattle
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    248
    This was a nice breakdown on the tech.
    http://www.2020mag.com/ce/TTViewTest...essonId=111613

    cs

  19. #19
    One eye sees, the other feels. OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Sphinxsmith View Post
    This was a nice breakdown on the tech.
    http://www.2020mag.com/ce/TTViewTest...essonId=111613

    cs
    Anyone else having a problem with the statement that non-camber FBS PAL designers use up their design tools to correct optical problems created by a single vision front surface?
    Roberts Optical Ltd.
    Wauwatosa Wi.
    www.roberts-optical.com
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

    It is easier to fool a man, than to convince a man he has been fooled. -Mark Twain

  20. #20
    OptiWizard
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    West Scranton, Pa
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    323
    Again, minus curves ought to be on the concave surface.

  21. #21
    OptiWizard
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    West Scranton, Pa
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    323
    And a -5.00 with a +2.00 add is still minus all the way around

  22. #22
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,175
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    Anyone else having a problem with the statement that non-camber FBS PAL designers use up their design tools to correct optical problems created by a single vision front surface?
    He is speaking of prioritizing the design and it makes sense to me. I learned that the diopter drop is 2 from the distance and actually 1 above the MSRP; did not know that.

    We use this lens 100% if we can and all wear it as well.

  23. #23
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    MI
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    Anyone else having a problem with the statement that non-camber FBS PAL designers use up their design tools to correct optical problems created by a single vision front surface?
    Yes. It is grossly apparent that the person writing the article has never been involved in 3D modeling or calculations. There is no such thing as "using up" design tools.

    I'll write more later.

  24. #24
    Master OptiBoarder optical24/7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down on the Farm
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,493
    I glanced over the above 20/20 article. What I didn't see was how the Camber lens addresses the vertical cyl induced outside the umbilic by increasing the BC from top to bottom. Maybe Kurt could tell us here.

  25. #25
    One eye sees, the other feels. OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,168
    It's vertically oriented, something that Essilor showed to be less upsetting to the wearer than an oblique orientation.

    I hope they don't have to use up all of their design tools compensating for the more complex aspheric surface though.
    Roberts Optical Ltd.
    Wauwatosa Wi.
    www.roberts-optical.com
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

    It is easier to fool a man, than to convince a man he has been fooled. -Mark Twain

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. I-deal vs. Camber
    By lightbender27 in forum Progressive Lens Discussion Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-13-2020, 04:02 PM
  2. Has anyone tried IOT's new camber PAL
    By rdcoach5 in forum Progressive Lens Discussion Forum
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 10-24-2014, 12:29 PM
  3. The truth: PDs!
    By alf1734 in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 07-17-2012, 03:03 AM
  4. who's telling the truth?
    By eyes4u in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 04-16-2012, 11:12 AM
  5. Truth
    By ziggy in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 08-26-2006, 09:05 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •