I'm not the only one to notice that some lab drop down lists have added the Auto II+ and eliminated the Auto II.
So many questions!
1. Did Shamir upgrade the Auto II to Auto II+ in order to bump it to a higher price category? Isn't the Auto III selling well enough?
2. Some labs apparently tell accounts that Auto II is discontinued. Others say Shamir reps say "not so".
3. Isn't this just a software upgrade?
(More questions, next window.)
More questions:
https://www.shamirlens.com/products/...raph-ii-%C2%AE
Please peruse this. Note that one salient feature is that they are talking about new inset technology.
It seems that before with the AutoII, there was an "inset" formula probably based on things like lens power (you know, less inset for minus power lenses because the eyes don't need to converge as much due to inherent BI prism) and whatever else. (Digression: on traditionally molded front surface PALs, they could always vary the inset based on the base curve of the lens--which predicts the final lens power to be fabricated--but not as precisely as can be done when the final lens power is known, like with individualized PALs).
But if I'm reading it right, they didn't account for this factor.
Observe:
Binocular distance p.d. = 70. Binocular near p.d. = 66. Ergo, total inset should be 4 mm. Given that info, you'd put half of the inset in one lens (2 mm) and put half in the other (2 mm).
Binocular distance p.d. = 55. Binocular near p.d. = 52. Ergo, total inset should be 3 mm. Given that info, you'd put half of the inset in one lens (1.5 mm) and put half in the other (1.5 mm).
So what am I saying? That big-heads need more inset than small-heads (assuming they don't have longer arms, but that's getting way into the weeds). In other words, higher p.d.s need more inset than lower p.d.s.
We've known this. I think the venerable Varilux used 2 mm inset per eye, and we'd gripe that the French have Neanderthal heads and we don't. (The Neanderthals were from central Europe, I'm pretty sure. They're good at soccer, too.)
Sooooo.....didn't Shamir allow for this in their Auto II inset formula, before? Now they are? Whoop-de-do.
Here's what the Israeli's are saying:
The amount of convergence required and achieved influences near visual performance during close work tasks. Today’s lens designs are “universally optimized” for near viewing, with an average inset value, which is fine in most cases. However, when it comes to any irregularities, near vision may be unfocused or narrow.
Ok. That's what I'm saying.
Please note, though:
1. I used extreme examples above, did you catch that? How many 70 mm noggins do you see, and how many 55 mm noggins do you see? Not many.
2. The effect? Meh. At extremes, it's a 1/2 mm per eye. Does that matter?
3. What's the margin of error of a corneal reflex pupillometer? THAT'S RIGHT. On order of a 1/2 mm anyway! So it's precision that we can't use.
But, to their point:
1. If it's a pretty high add, that narrows the near zone. We need all the help we can get with +2.00 add and up. (Although Shamir would agree that their design is nice and wide in the first place, and what's more, being an individualized design, it's optimized meridian-by-meridian so that the near zone is always close to "intended".)
2. There's more! It may be the answer to an ancient mystery that I'll dig for and post.
Last edited by drk; 05-23-2018 at 11:15 AM.
p.s.: ^^b.s.a physiological trait that varies from person to person, convergence is particularly significant regarding progressive lenses.
Does this seem back-asswards to anyone? Or am I crazy? Minus lenses have more inferior displacement than plus lenses?
OK, I've thought long and hard in the past about asymmetric convergence.This advanced lens design technology creates lenses that meet individual differences, such as distance between pupils, reading distance, or asymetric convergence,
I've said it doesn't exist. And I'm right, but I may be also wrong.
People converge as much as they need to. Doesn't matter whether they converge with normal ease, excessive ease, or less ease. They have to converge or be double. So, there's no "individual amounts of convergence"...everybody with the same p.d. (that aren't looking through spectacle lenses) converges the same amount. Whether it's easy or difficult.
But that's considering the convergence in total. That is, considering the binocular value of convergence. As in my big-head/small-head example above, I used binocular pds.
BUT WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE THAT HAVE CROOKED FACES!?
It is said that symmetry is beauty. Beautiful people are probably a nice 30/30 on their p.d.s. But poor Sarah Huckabee Sanders gets a lot of guff about her looks, and it's because her p.d.s are way asymmetric. (There are mean people on the internet, if you search around. In case you didn't notice.)
From the looks of it, her right eye is hypo and I think a larger MONOCULAR p.d. She'd be something like, 33/30, right?
So let's do the monocular inset in her case, using the Optiboard Secret NPD Formula (Don't ask. It can and probably will fall into the wrong hands):
OD dpd = 33, npd = 31.35
OS dpd = 30, npd = 28.5
So, the best inset would be:
OD 1.65
OS 1.50
See the big difference?! See how Sarah is suffering when she gets to +2.00?!
I don't either.
What's the difference if she gets the "averaged binocular inset" of 1.57 mm OD/ 1.57 mm OS or the fancier, individually Autograph II+ method of 1.65/1.50? It's only 0.7 mm off in the left and 0.7 mm off in the right!
(And notice, if the older method were used, the right would be under-inset, and the left would be over-inset, both by 0.7 mm and the patient would compensate simply by turning their head slightly to the left. Does this matter? How many degrees of head turn does this involve? I don't know.)
Last edited by drk; 05-23-2018 at 11:25 AM.
As you say, it's backwards. But note that the second illustration implies that they can change the ray path to compensate, which to the best of my knowledge is mostly untrue. The corridor length can be lengthened or shortened though.Originally Posted by drk
Does this seem back-asswards to anyone? Or am I crazy? Minus lenses have more inferior displacement than plus lenses?
I saw my Shamir rep a couple of weeks ago and the most important change was the ability to specify the inset, or more specifically zero inset. I always assumed that the inset was calculated by power and absolute distance PD. Anything more than that smells and looks like smoke and mirrors, but I'm willing to listen to anyone who can convince me otherwise.
The Varilux One had a 2.5mm inset for a 14" near object distance.
I don't know if the old version is discontinued. If true, we'll need to order pairs only.
Best regards,
Robert Martellaro
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.
Maybe she's an alien and can look at two different people at the same time on opposite sides of the room?OK, I've thought long and hard in the past about asymmetric convergence.
I've said it doesn't exist. And I'm right, but I may be also wrong.
People converge as much as they need to. Doesn't matter whether they converge with normal ease, excessive ease, or less ease. They have to converge or be double. So, there's no "individual amounts of convergence"...everybody with the same p.d. (that aren't looking through spectacle lenses) converges the same amount. Whether it's easy or difficult.
But that's considering the convergence in total. That is, considering the binocular value of convergence. As in my big-head/small-head example above, I used binocular pds.
BUT WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE THAT HAVE CROOKED FACES!?
It is said that symmetry is beauty. Beautiful people are probably a nice 30/30 on their p.d.s. But poor Sarah Huckabee Sanders gets a lot of guff about her looks, and it's because her p.d.s are way asymmetric. (There are mean people on the internet, if you search around. In case you didn't notice.)
Maybe she's an alien and can look at two different people on opposite sides of the room at the same time?
From the looks of it, her right eye is hypo and I think a larger MONOCULAR p.d. She'd be something like, 33/30, right?
So let's do the monocular inset in her case, using the Optiboard Secret NPD formula (don't ask. It can and probably will fall into the wrong hands):
OD dpd = 33, npd = 31.35
OS dpd = 30, npd = 28.5
So, the best inset would be:
OD 1.65
OS 1.50
See the big difference! See how Sarah is suffering when she gets to +2.00! I don't either. What's the difference if she gets the "averaged binocular inset" of 1.57 mm OD/ 1.57 mm OS or the fancier, individually Autograph II+ method of 1.65/1.50? It's only 0.7 mm off in the left and 0.7 mm off in the right!
(And notice, if the older method were used, the right would be under-inset, and the left would be over-inset, both by 0.7 mm and the patient would compensate simply by turning their head slightly to the left. Does this matter? How many degrees of head turn does this involve? I don't know.)
Robert, can you think of an advantage to zero seg inset? Monocular patients?
Yes -- monocular patients.
Good questions drk.
Your point #3 caught my attention. "just a" in particular. That could potentially 1000's of people hours. Personally, I think of the different FF lens designs as software. There is good software, and there is bad software, and thus good and bad FF lenses. Software is the end result of everything before it. Studies, calculations, whiteboard sessions, testing it and so on. I'm pretty certain it can be quite an insurmountable task to produce solid software that is capable of producing a great lens.
El Jefe and Roberto:
Do you think the specified yoke prism thinning amount can be varied by power in order to achieve the fine-tuning of the image displacement?
In other words, on a minus lens (that gives BD in downgaze) can they grind more BU prism thinning, in order to increase the downgaze to the preferred 30 degrees? And on a plus lens (that gives BD in downgaze) can they grind more BU prism thinning, to not add too much more inferior displacement, so they can hit the 30 degree mark?
(I think you can grind all sorts of goofy prism thinning...I read Darryl's article, once, but didn't internalize the various scenarios.)
^^^^Spoken like a true Austinite.
Ha.
True what you say. I didn't mean to minimize it.
I said it that way in order to remind ourselves that there aren't boxes and boxes of Autograph II+ blanks shipping overseas on Maersk ships. Some Shamir tech guy comes in and upgrades a program, I'm guessing.
That means:
1. It probably replaces the Auto II in their system. No longer available, and that's why it's off VSP's and EyeMed's drop-down list (or whatever).
2. It probably explains why reps would say the Auto II is still available...at those labs that haven't paid for the upgrade, yet.
Is this right?
Don't know the answer (We pretty much deal in Auto III), but I need to email our rep so I'll ask him. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say a Shamir License/Agreement between the lab and Shamir would require them to upgrade to the latest design, because they wouldn't want older technology tarnishing their brand.
That was fast, answer is : Auto II is still available but removed from both VSP and EyeMed as of May 1. But Auto II is still available from lab.
Good work!
How it's affected us recently: we have a patient who would benefit from an individualized PAL (high power and moderate cyl and high add), and as of the day before May 1st (when our EyeMed "overage information" was printed), he could get an Auto II as a "tier 3 PAL" (which means he pays $xx).
But when ordering, alas, no Auto II, but only Auto II+. And guess what? Auto II+ is now "tier 4" which means the patient pays U&C minus some percentage.
A win for our office? I guess.
A win for the dude? Well, I hope he enjoys that precision near p.d. for the extra cash!
(Actually, we had to downgrade him, but such is live in the Big EyeMed City. They're all cheap patients, anyway. Drag an EyeMed membership card through a trailer park and straight into your office...)
Ditto, plus possibly for fixation disparities.
Your loose cannon fingers typed it wrong for plus- BU in the downgaze and BD to compensate.
WRT yoked prism (not more than about 2∆) to compensate for object displacement, I don't know if the manufacturer's utilize it for that reason, probably because it would only be effective in lower powers, considering that a -6.00 DS lens is inducing about 6∆ BD in the near zone, not including compression effects from minification that influences object position in a similar manner. I would just shorten or lengthen the corridor and call it a day.
The Auto 2+ and Auto 3 uses Shamir blanks, Auto 2 can use generic blanks.
Best regards,
Robert Martellaro
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.
Hmmm...maybe that's another reason for the price hike.
Sounds like something a 51% Essilor-owned company would foist.
Very special blanks, indeed.
I wonder if it's to prevent counterfeiting- one could dial in a unique value and type of asphericity on the blank precluding others from using their software illegitimately.
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.
For the life of me, I don't understand why people dont want to see their best. We all know the pt. used his downgrade "savings", left the office and spent it on a steak dinner!
I hear you. Smart consumers usually know better; they save up and buy one really well made device, piece of furniture, etc., and keep it a long time. Others buy crap and keep doing so over and over again without thinking. Perplexing.
http://theweek.com/articles/478445/i...inyl-music-fan"Steve Jobs was a pioneer of digital music. His legacy is tremendous," said iconic rocker Neil Young at an All Things D technology conference on Tuesday. "But when he went home, he listened to vinyl." Jobs was reportedly working with Young to develop a new file format that approximated vinyl's sound quality, with 20 times the fidelity of a standard mp3. The Apple visionary was shocked that consumers were so willing to "trade quality... for convenience or price," said All Things D journalist Walt Mossberg, who interviewed Jobs before his death.
Best regards,
Robert Martellaro
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.
Just to inform, patients that have high phorias that can fuse larger contours of objects (like a page), but not well enough to achieve robust foveal binocular vision with a nice stereopsis on minute objects (like a letter on a page) can indeed "slack off" a little, and that's called "fixation disparity" or "associated phoria".
It's really just a "near miss" with alignment, be it intermittent or constant. They would exhibit good stereovision down to a certain level; that is, they can see depth up close, but not as precisely as the next guy (and probably close to normally at distance).
I'm of the opinion that fixation disparity is sooooo minute, angle wise, that no compensation in corridors would matter. Usually it requires a prism diopter or two to correct, but that's it.
I'm confused about this.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks