Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Transitions XTRActive and AR

  1. #1
    Rising Star
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    92

    Transitions XTRActive and AR

    Would it be better to use a backside AR or front-side AR on XTRActive lenses?

  2. #2
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    usa
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    512
    Why not both?

  3. #3
    Rising Star
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwill212 View Post
    Why not both?
    My thoughts are: If we use a front-surface AR, then we would be increasing light transmission through the lens which would "decrease" the sunglass lens effect of the XTRActive. If we use a back-surface AR only, then the patient may not see as sharply because there is not an AR coating on the front. I suppose the main reason for not doing both the backside and front-surface is what I wrote in the first sentence. Is that a valid concern?

  4. #4
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    usa
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    512
    I would do both sides and can't think of any reason not to.

  5. #5
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Neophyte Optician View Post
    My thoughts are: If we use a front-surface AR, then we would be increasing light transmission through the lens which would "decrease" the sunglass lens effect of the XTRActive. If we use a back-surface AR only, then the patient may not see as sharply because there is not an AR coating on the front. I suppose the main reason for not doing both the backside and front-surface is what I wrote in the first sentence. Is that a valid concern?
    I don't think it is a valid concern, I would and always do both front and back. Yes it increases light transmittance, but that comes with more utility for the patient that AR brings. One of the main reasons people get transitions is for the utility.

  6. #6
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    845
    There is never a reason not to do back surface AR. Front surface is optional but usually preferable from an optical perspective. Cosmetically tinted lenses sometimes look better with no front surface AR.

  7. #7
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter lensmanmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Maryland
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    962
    Quote Originally Posted by Neophyte Optician View Post
    Would it be better to use a backside AR or front-side AR on XTRActive lenses?
    AR on photochromics works well. Just do it on both sides. Unless it is a "blue blocking" coating, it will not negatively impact the properties of the photochromic.
    I bend light. That is what I do.

  8. #8
    Master OptiBoarder DanLiv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by lensmanmd View Post
    AR on photochromics works well. Just do it on both sides. Unless it is a "blue blocking" coating, it will not negatively impact the properties of the photochromic.
    Agreed, both sides, except as Robert_S said in case you favor the "plano sunglass" aesthetic of a reflective front surface.

    Simply reasoning, I would think frontside AR would actually increase photochromic performance. Photochromics activate in proportion to light hitting the photo layer. Untreated lens surfaces reflect away 5% or more incoming light, preventing it from hitting the photo layer. AR will increase transmittance through the front surface delivering more light to the photo layer, which will activate more and block that additional light. The lens will darken more and the wearer will receive no additional light. Win win?

  9. #9
    OptiBoard Professional Excel-Lentes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Hartford, CT
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Neophyte Optician View Post
    My thoughts are: If we use a front-surface AR, then we would be increasing light transmission through the lens which would "decrease" the sunglass lens effect of the XTRActive. If we use a back-surface AR only, then the patient may not see as sharply because there is not an AR coating on the front. I suppose the main reason for not doing both the backside and front-surface is what I wrote in the first sentence. Is that a valid concern?
    I had a physics professor prove to me that antireflective coatings do not allow more light pass through a lens. I will admit I really didn't fully grasp the math he used but the concept stayed with me. He said the marketing material claiming 99.9% light transmission was false. He said the coatings used constructive interference to “cancel” out the reflections at the surface.

    I wear Trans XTRActive and Sensity Dark with AR front and back. Also Drivewear with AR front and back. Love it all. My eyes are quite spoiled. Coat those lenses front and back!

  10. #10
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    845
    Quote Originally Posted by Excel-Lentes View Post
    I had a physics professor prove to me that antireflective coatings do not allow more light pass through a lens. I will admit I really didn't fully grasp the math he used but the concept stayed with me. He said the marketing material claiming 99.9% light transmission was false. He said the coatings used constructive interference to “cancel” out the reflections at the surface.

    I wear Trans XTRActive and Sensity Dark with AR front and back. Also Drivewear with AR front and back. Love it all. My eyes are quite spoiled. Coat those lenses front and back!
    That's really interesting. But, it can't be true, or there wouldn't be an advantage to ARC on camera lenses, or microscope lenses etc... because if AR didn't increase light transmission, it would be redundant. It certainly isn't there for cosmetics... Or is the purpose simply to reduce ghosting?

  11. #11
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Mitten State
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    587
    Well, the best way to settle this is to have a fixed, lab quality full spectrum light source, measure it with a calibrated visible light photometer of appropriate sensitivity at a fixed distance, and then again at the distance that represents the given thickness of the lenses being tested. Use a plano lens of a resin that is pure with well documented, consistent properties at the predetermined thickness at the premeasured fixed point. Then measure using the photometer directly behind the lens once it is at the appropriate fixed position. Repeat for at least 2 more lenses from the same batch. Afterwards, put frontside AR on one, backside AR on one, and front and backside AR on the last one. Repeat the above procedure for those 2 lenses. Compare results.

    This isn't a perfect setup, but it should show any significant differences easily.

    Or we can just trust this page:

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...t/antiref.html

    Interestingly, if the index of the coating is lower than the index of the lens, you increase transmittance. If the index of the coating is higher than the index of the lens, you decrease the transmittance. So, it's not a simple case of just increase or decrease, it is dependent on the index of the coating, or if a stack, then the indexes of the coatings. Also, according to this page, the optimal index for a single coating is the square root of the index of the material being coated. I had no idea it was that simple. The calculation for a stack seems nastier the more complex it is.

    It's probably a guarantee that the stacks used today are all optimized to increase transmittance, as they say.
    Last edited by Lelarep; 09-26-2020 at 01:53 PM.

  12. #12
    Rising Star
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    California
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    58
    Remember Transitions is activated by UV not visible light. Most materials block uv except cr and many AR coating are formulated to do the same. So the goal is to not block uv.

  13. #13
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Mitten State
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    587
    Quote Originally Posted by Lensman11 View Post
    Remember Transitions is activated by UV not visible light. Most materials block uv except cr and many AR coating are formulated to do the same. So the goal is to not block uv.
    With regard to XTRActive, you are incorrect. XTRActive is activated by both UV and visible light, as per this PDF from transitions.com:

    https://trade.transitions.com/resour...eetandFAQs.pdf

  14. #14
    Rising Star
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    California
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    58
    They indeed react to visible light but not the the full spectrum. They do not activate to their full potential in a car because the uv is blocked. If they reacted to the full spectrum they would not lighten indoors during the day.

  15. #15
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter lensmanmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Maryland
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    962
    Quote Originally Posted by Excel-Lentes View Post
    I had a physics professor prove to me that antireflective coatings do not allow more light pass through a lens. I will admit I really didn't fully grasp the math he used but the concept stayed with me. He said the marketing material claiming 99.9% light transmission was false. He said the coatings used constructive interference to “cancel” out the reflections at the surface.

    I wear Trans XTRActive and Sensity Dark with AR front and back. Also Drivewear with AR front and back. Love it all. My eyes are quite spoiled. Coat those lenses front and back!
    Your physics professor is partially correct. Let's say that in a perfect environment, physics will hold true regarding the throughput of light in controlled environments. However, the physics does not take into account the reflection that is inherent to each index of refraction in real world environments.

    There is not enough room here to dissect this, nor do I have enough time for a dissertation. Take it for what it is.

    Destructive interference, which is what AR coatings are designed to do, reduces unwanted reflection, both externally and internally, providing truer light transmission through the material. Energy reflected is energy wasted. The added transmission may be a negligible 2%, or a more significant 10+%, based on the material.
    I bend light. That is what I do.

  16. #16
    One eye sees, the other feels. OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Excel-Lentes View Post
    I had a physics professor prove to me that antireflective coatings do not allow more light pass through a lens. I will admit I really didn't fully grasp the math he used but the concept stayed with me. He said the marketing material claiming 99.9% light transmission was false. He said the coatings used constructive interference to “cancel” out the reflections at the surface.
    Destructive interference. Where does the cancelled energy go? Through the lens, increasing light transmission, satisfying the conservation of energy law.

    https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/am...ed/t5_1_3.html

    Best regards,

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

  17. #17
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    7,976
    Robert and lensman are right above. At least that's what I always thought I knew.

  18. #18
    OptiBoard Professional Mauro.Airoldi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bologna Italy
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    119
    these are the measured transmissions of a CR39 lens and the same lens with an AR on both faces.
    The transmission increases and a lot
    Shimtzu UV2600 spectrophotometer instrument with integrating sphere
    sorry for the different wavelength scales

  19. #19
    OptiBoard Professional Mauro.Airoldi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bologna Italy
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    119
    second

  20. #20
    OptiBoard Professional Mauro.Airoldi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bologna Italy
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    119
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Cattura1.JPG 
Views:	17 
Size:	35.1 KB 
ID:	14785

  21. #21
    OptiBoard Professional Mauro.Airoldi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bologna Italy
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    119
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Cattura2.JPG 
Views:	17 
Size:	35.2 KB 
ID:	14786

  22. #22
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Mitten State
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    587
    I would say that is the proof in the pudding.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Younger Optics releases Transitions XTRActive FT28 in polycarbonate composite
    By YO Aimee in forum Younger Optics – The Optical Lens Innovators
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-03-2018, 03:27 PM
  2. Transitions XTRActive lenses now available in BROWN from Younger Optics
    By YO Aimee in forum Younger Optics – The Optical Lens Innovators
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-23-2015, 11:48 AM
  3. Try new Transitions XTRActive lenses in brown for free!
    By YO Aimee in forum Younger Optics – The Optical Lens Innovators
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-22-2015, 07:52 PM
  4. 1.50 Transitions XTRActive
    By WFruit in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-04-2010, 01:02 PM
  5. Transitions XTRActive Availability (PAL)
    By TLG in forum Progressive Lens Discussion Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-31-2010, 07:56 PM

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
  •  
OptiBoard is proudly sponsored by:
Younger Optics and Vision Equipment