Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 34 of 34

Thread: Zeiss i.Scription - Innovation or Nonsense?

  1. #26
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    6,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    Kudos to Zeiss for putting their hardware and software to the test. The majority of the lenses were prescribed for mild refractive errors, so I doubt that the favorable result is due strictly to POW and atoric/aspheric optimizations. However, as idispense reminds us, the law of diminishing returns comes into play, with varying results between individuals. Underpromise, as much as possible.

    FWIW, I also have a few clients who require Rx tweaking, recently a high astigmat who self-tests with my trial frame, preferring axes that deviate from the Rx by three to five degrees, and has consistently done so over the years from different prescribers. That discrepancy on a 4 DC is roughly equal to .75 D.

    Best regards,

    Robert Martellaro
    I’d bet my license this occurs because of differences in pupil sampling.

    B

  2. #27
    OptiWizard
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Bow NH 03304
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    380
    I had my last Rx prescribed w the iProfiler. I got a pair of Zeiss Drivesafe and I was completely underwhelmed . I then had my lab make a Camber Steady, IOT Alpha 45, FEA Constitution and Seiko GX3, last 2 being cheapo lenses and all of them were as comfortable as the Zeiss. I entered all of the Rxs as prescribed down to 0.01D and all were further compensated to wrap tilt and VD.
    Money carefully refunded

  3. #28
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    27
    I'm a little worried now as if I do repeat iprofiler measurements, the cyl axis and amount might vary by 5 degrees or 0.25, especially on lower cyls. When you then let the software calculate the iscription, you can get quite different results. I've now changed the settings on the iprofiler just today so it now does 10 instead of 3 wavefront readings per eye. It only takes 30 seconds more in total or there abouts. This seems to give more repeatable results. But anyway like I said, a work in progress for now.

  4. #29
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Mitten State
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    713
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Metzger View Post
    I had my last Rx prescribed w the iProfiler. I got a pair of Zeiss Drivesafe and I was completely underwhelmed . I then had my lab make a Camber Steady, IOT Alpha 45, FEA Constitution and Seiko GX3, last 2 being cheapo lenses and all of them were as comfortable as the Zeiss. I entered all of the Rxs as prescribed down to 0.01D and all were further compensated to wrap tilt and VD.
    So, you saw no difference between IOT, Zeiss, and the rest?

  5. #30
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Mitten State
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    713
    Quote Originally Posted by obiwan View Post
    I'm a little worried now as if I do repeat iprofiler measurements, the cyl axis and amount might vary by 5 degrees or 0.25, especially on lower cyls. When you then let the software calculate the iscription, you can get quite different results. I've now changed the settings on the iprofiler just today so it now does 10 instead of 3 wavefront readings per eye. It only takes 30 seconds more in total or there abouts. This seems to give more repeatable results. But anyway like I said, a work in progress for now.
    Interesting. Thanks for the info. Please, keep us updated. Wow, 5 degrees. That's huge. If I take my difficult patient from the last thread with 4.75 DC, that would be a massive shift. It would basically ruin the Rx. (Plus he's a picky $&#%!. I swear he can tell if something if off by 0.12 D)
    Last edited by Lelarep; 03-31-2019 at 04:07 PM.

  6. #31
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In Flux
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,615
    I believe the larger axis differences only occur on low cyl powers.

  7. #32
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Mitten State
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    713
    Quote Originally Posted by idispense View Post
    I believe the larger axis differences only occur on low cyl powers.
    The questions is, how certain is that?

  8. #33
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    6,008
    Depends on topography of cornea, profile of lens and pupil size

    B

  9. #34
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Mitten State
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    713
    Quote Originally Posted by obiwan View Post
    I got an iProfiler a week or two ago. Bought it second hand, the optometrist I bought it off has just bought the Rodenstock DN Eye equivalent. I believe the Rodenstock version does distance and near wavefront aberrometry and distance and near refraction. Zeiss only does distance. The lenses prescribed from the Zeiss iProfiler (iscription) can't reduce higher order aberrations because the eye isn't always looking through the centre of the lens. It simply modifies the prescription so when looking at a point source at night you have the best chance of seeing the least flare. So I'm not sure if this will translate to say less than perfect reading vision just to give better night time distance vision. Time will tell. For the first week I've just been getting my head around it's use, its an amazingly accurate autorefractor, it's a decent topographer (not as good as my Medmont) and I'm yet to learn how often I'll use the iscription option with it. Nearly every patient so far, when I look at the point spread function, it shows only marginal simulated benefit. In coming days I guess I'll start to get some patient feedback once lenses start arriving. I got the device so cheap, I don't care if iscription doesn't work, it's such a great autorefractor I'm already looking redundant, and with topography, keratometry and aberrometry, it'll have enough uses. But yes, ask me in a few weeks what the patient feedback is :)
    Any further insight after having it for nearly 3 weeks?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. What is this nonsense?
    By chaoticneutral in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-25-2014, 05:36 PM
  2. I Scription By Zeiss
    By Mr.Powers in forum Progressive Lens Discussion Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-19-2014, 10:29 AM
  3. zeiss i.scription opinions?
    By rdcoach5 in forum Progressive Lens Discussion Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-07-2012, 08:10 AM
  4. Zeiss i-Scription
    By Bobie in forum Progressive Lens Discussion Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-23-2008, 09:19 AM
  5. Zeiss i.Scription
    By john-atlanta in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-22-2008, 12:49 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
  •