Originally Posted by
optical24/7
The costs associated with installing a digital surfacing lab are extremely high, plus you have the added labor ( medicaid, SS, ins, ect), maintenance, space, electricity, ect) . You limit yourself on lenses that are available and that come available on the market. If you have enough money to go this route, you probably have a large enough practice to negotiate substantially lower lab bills. I don't pay near list from my labs as example.
]
I respectfully disagree. As example, hyperopes prefer dual side PAL over concave side only designs. I've yet to see any house AR perform as well as the Crizal or Hoya family of premium ARs either.
There are such few designs on the market for a dual sided PAL, I can think of 4; Kodak DSII(replaced the Unique DS), IOT Camber (VSP's Cascade), Hoya's IDS and Varilux's S-Design. The problem with these is you have to use their specific SF blank that is not available is all materials or treatments (like an xtractive). Full backside digital designs must compete with all these and the top progressive designs on the market- plus you pay top dollar for these name brands. Granite you can use a flatter base curve for the higher hyperopes but as long as you use a hi index material then you can go flatter on the base curve.
As for the Crizal and Hoya AR, as long as your AR recipe is a multi-layer stack and use a good super-hydrophic top coat it can compare if not outperform these name brands.
Also, when everything is done in house you loose an extra layer of checks and balances on the quality of product. Don't get me wrong, some places are well served with their in house surfacing lab. I know several. But it certainly is not for everyone for a myriad of reasons.
Bookmarks