Weather and AR...

[Uilleann]

Warrant it. Simple. Crizal will warrant theirs as many times as needed in the first 2 years. Just one example. Others do the same, or better. Conversely, lobster fishermen (or crabbers from down near my spot by the bay) aren't going to make up a massive part of your patient base. It's entirely possible to take the odd AR remake on the chin, and more than make up for it with the rest of your orders. Why wouldn't we do this? It makes NO sense at all NOT to.

[lensmanmd]

I was taught that a quality AR helps the transmission of light through high index lenses, improving vision, especially at night. Not to mention the reduction of glare. I wouldn't want to sell a high index lens without AR.

A basic lens comparison grid.

[Don Gilman]

I was taught that a quality AR helps the transmission of light through high index lenses, improving vision, especially at night. Not to mention the reduction of glare. I wouldn't want to sell a high index lens without AR.

Not to beat a dead horse but I will anyway. It always pi**es me off when someone says increasing the light thru a lens by +/- 7% improves vision. AR reduces reflections it does not per se improve vision.

[Tallboy]

AR reduces reflections it does not per se improve vision.

So colors seeming brighter and less visual noise to me = improved vision.

Every single +12 or greater lens I've dispensed has felt like it was easier to read with AR.

There is a reason low vision specialists recommend bright lamps for reading. Because it improves vision.

Obviously all of this goes out of the window if the patient can't or won't keep them clean. Greasy AR lenses are significantly worse than a nonporous hard coated lens.

[Uilleann]

I stand to be corrected, but I believe those reflectance numbers refer to a single surface/interface yes? And that the amount of light loss is doubled as light enters, and then exits again the lens material. But most individuals can easily see the difference 10% transmittance can make. In addition, there are the vastly superior scratch, olio, and hydro resistant properties to an un-coated lens, as well as the warranties offered by even the most basic AR processes.

But by all means, let's keep convincing ourselves that patients don't want it or need it, or that in some universe it creates more problems than it solves. LOL

[Don Gilman]

I stand to be corrected, but I believe those reflectance numbers refer to a single surface/interface yes? And that the amount of light loss is doubled as light enters, and then exits again the lens material. But most individuals can easily see the difference 10% transmittance can make. In addition, there are the vastly superior scratch, olio, and hydro resistant properties to an un-coated lens, as well as the warranties offered by even the most basic AR processes.

But by all means, let's keep convincing ourselves that patients don't want it or need it, or that in some universe it creates more problems than it solves. LOL

Olio, Hydro different subject for a another day. All the other..... yada,yada, yada and mostly BS.

[optical24/7]

Not to beat a dead horse but I will anyway. It always pi**es me off when someone says increasing the light thru a lens by +/- 7% improves vision. AR reduces reflections it does not per se improve vision.

Don, we see by contrast. Write your name on a white sheet of paper with yellow ink, then with black. Of course the black is more legible. just as in the dark/low light conditions we don't see as well. More transmittance = more light hitting the retina. Even though the below paper was sponsored by Big E, it's still a valid assessment.

https://www.essilorusa.com/content/d...activities.pdf

[drk]

It amazes me that we're even still having the discussion about the "option" of AR lenses for our glasses in America. Other countries get it, and it is as much a part of the finished glasses as is the lens material or frame. Think about it - if literally ANY camera company started selling lenses without AR on the lens elements, they would be out of business in under a year. It's just NOT done. Ever. And it doesn't matter if the lens costs $50, or $50,000. Why is that?

Oooh. Oooh. Mr. Kotter!

I know. It's the dominance of vision plans, which sell "covered lenses", and spiff you for all the upgrades.

Otherwise, we'd just put it all in one package for one price, and everyone would see better.

(That's not to say you couldn't have a "Omit AR, deduct $xx from package price, etc.)

[drk]

Not to beat a dead horse but I will anyway. It always pi**es me off when someone says increasing the light thru a lens by +/- 7% improves vision. AR reduces reflections it does not per se improve vision.

Not in the "recognition acuity" sense (optotypes on a Snellen chart).

But very arguably in the contrast sensitivity sense.

Which is underrated.

That would be a cool study.

I hope Essilux does one.

And then comes up with a new vision disorder that their lenses cure.

"Dyscontrastopsia" would work.

[drk]

Don, we see by contrast. Write your name on a white sheet of paper with yellow ink, then with black. Of course the black is more legible. just as in the dark/low light conditions we don't see as well. More transmittance = more light hitting the retina. Even though the below paper was sponsored by Big E, it's still a valid assessment.

https://www.essilorusa.com/content/d...activities.pdf

Dang I didn't read far enough, 24. Good post.

(Did I call that, or what?)

[Uilleann]

Olio, Hydro different subject for a another day. All the other..... yada,yada, yada and mostly BS.

Hahaha! I'm just glad Don isn't fitting MY lenses! He'd loose me as a patient (and my money) instantly! Yikes!

[King of the Lab]

Patients care more about the warranty on AR lens more than they do the actual benefits these days.

Also, how about those patients who have worn glasses forever without an AR and then decide to to finally get a good quality one and bring it back because they cannot get used to the better clarity they see.

[Uilleann]

Patients care more about the warranty on AR lens more than they do the actual benefits these days.

Also, how about those patients who have worn glasses forever without an AR and then decide to to finally get a good quality one and bring it back because they cannot get used to the better clarity they see.

A warranty has come to be expected. And on balance, I've always felt the best warranties are the ones you never need to use. Obviously there is no single super lens that will ever be impervious to all humanity can throw at it (spectacle, camera, or otherwise), but for the extreme minority of pts that need the warranty, your business is covered against the loss. As for a pt bringing a glass back for the AR being "too clear" - in 30 years, I've literally never had that happen. LOL

[lensmanmd]

Hey Bri

Correct about the single side. There is also the internal reflections to consider, but not quite double. AR will mitigate the internal reflections and allow more light to pass through by adding destructive interference.

[King of the Lab]

As for a pt bringing a glass back for the AR being "too clear" - in 30 years, I've literally never had that happen. LOL

Twas the strange case of the ever so obnoxious patient.

[Quince]

A basic lens comparison grid.

I'm assuming 1.6, 1.7, and 1.74 are comparable to 1.67? Does anyone have any further info on how close their numbers are?

[lensmanmd]

I'm assuming 1.6, 1.7, and 1.74 are comparable to 1.67? Does anyone have any further info on how close their numbers are?

Something to geek out over. 1=T+R+A Where T is light transmitted through the lens. R is light reflected from the lens and A is light absorbed into the lens. As long as you know the refractive index of a lens, the following formula will approximate avg transmission.

And yes, the higher the index, the higher the reflectance. See below for an average interpretation.

My basic math figures 12.5% reflectance for 1.7 and 13.8% reflectance for 1.74, which correlates well to the chart.

Hope this helps

Closer to 15.4% for 1.74. Amazing when one uses a real calculator and formulas instead of running numbers by relative comparison.

[Quince]

Thanks! I think that chart will make a great tool for explaining this concept to the opticians I work with.

[Tallboy]

Thanks! I think that chart will make a great tool for explaining this concept to the opticians I work with.

And if I am not mistaken that is only the reflectance from the front side of the lens, does not include additional reflectance numbers from backside and internal. I may be wrong here though.

[Pete Hanlin]

I believe the total transmittance lost due to reflections in a 1.50 lens is around 8% (around 4% per side).

As for studies, they already exist (conducted both by Essilor and others). Subjectively, over 90% of subjects prefer their quality of vision with ARC lenses compared to standard non-coated lenses. ARC also makes objective improvements to visual perception- primarily due to increased contrast perception.

As suggested earlier on this thread, the primary reason ARC improves vision is by restoring the contrast lost to spectacle reflection. Following are a couple slides from one of my presentations. The first shows contrast threshold values while wearing uncoated lenses both with and without the presence of glare- and while wearing ARC lenses in the presence of glare. The second shows why spectacle reflections reduce contrast perception. When you're looking at a cyclist at night, the image has a certain value of contrast (the difference between the darkest portions of the image and the brightest part). A spectacle reflection decreases the contrast by masking the dark portion of the image. Of course, increased light transmission also helps, but most of the gain is from contrast improvement.

[Uncle Fester]

moved to another thread