Anyone has any more info on this beyond their brief press release?
Would like to know performance across different prescriptions and materials.
Anyone has any more info on this beyond their brief press release?
Would like to know performance across different prescriptions and materials.
Can you link?
Another re-marketed aspheric digital lens? I thought this was "new" decades ago. Zeiss makes a nice lens, but the snippets on their site smack of nothing but marketing fluff in search of more $$$$$. I'd be curious to see any white paper also.
Zeiss Clearview
Latest evolution of finished single vision improving peripheral performance, while maintaining flatter and cosmetically desirable profiles. It’s a hybrid, using free form tech in a finished SV lens.
B
Thanks for that, Barry!
Connect the dots for me..."Hybrid---FF tech in finished lens". Does that mean this is the first step towards having finished lenses you can purchase for your own in-office edger, but they've free-formed the backside?
Question: is it merely digital surfacing of the same curves that they'd put on the lens the traditional way? OR...do they use some mathematical voodoo to improve the view (a la atoricity)? Sure sounds like it. Is atoric finished lenses a new thing? What about that old "Resolution" stuff?
Another question: It's pretty obvious, but there's a limit as to how "individualized" they can make a single lens that would be rotated to the correct axis, decentered, and then blocked up and cut, right? What would you lose? Certainly any kind of POW stuff. Certainly any "design by pair" type shenanigans. Also the mysterious-to-me "floating fitting height that we can put anywhere but put the thinnest part of the lens at the datum point" super-voodoo.
Right? Wrong?
My understanding was that the old atorics were primarily used on old PAL designs that were all front molded designs. Aspheric is certainly nothing at all new - and neither is digital surfacing. I had tried their Individual SV lenses years ago, but for my meager Rx (approx a buck minus in each eye) I didn't notice any difference whatsoever from any of our stock shelf lenses. *shrug* This sounds like some sort of re-brand of old tech to me, and certainly wouldn't be the first time that's happened in this industry. The white paper would certainly help to clear the air somewhat however.
I've read somewhere that the optimization was based on better modelling of the eye movements of myopes and hyperopes. I think it was promotional material for Zeiss Canada.
How is it possible to account for eye movements on a static lens one wonders? Additionally, when the glasses slip down say 1mm on the nose, or the pt puts them on slightly crooked, are all the claimed micro benefits obliterated completely?
You guys are mincing words. Every atoric surface is manufactured in a free form method. If it is a finished stock lens then the mold is made using free form technology. The main difference is when it when it is done at the lab level it can be customized any way that you would like.
Not a white paper, but I did find this press release that pretty explicitly details them as freeform atoric finished SV. https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/vi...earview-en.pdfOriginally Posted by drk
AFAIK atoric finished is new, I don't know anyone else who does it.
Resolution lenses are something different, they are just an improved molding process to reduce aberrations in traditional polycarbonate.
You have a perfect understanding of the situation Drk, there will be none of that. Merely atoric.
I wonder what niche Zeiss envisions for these lenses. If they are well-priced, about the same as traditional finished aspherics, they would be a great improvement anywhere finished lenses are used. But if they are more expensive as I expect, then what? To give high-volume finishing labs a claim to "freeform" technology, or drop the bar of entry to freeform even lower? There will be limited cases in which a customer could really use an improved lens design but cannot afford custom freeform, and then a practice might enjoy having the lower cost option. But for any Rx that would significantly benefit from freeform design, I cannot see myself using them instead of a custom surfaced product. So who are they hoping to sell all these lenses, that are already made (the pitfall of stock anything, vs made-to-order)?
Haven't seen a proper technical white paper yet. But our practice has been using these since July.
The Lab here essentially forced everyone over. So all the stock FSV lens range essentially got replaced by Clearview FSV.
and the old Spherical Grind Range has been replaced by Clearview Grind.
So far so good. The peripheral blur is greatly reduced. (You need to remember to take heights using the rule for aspherics)
They are much flatter profile in the FSV range than before, 1.5 looks so much better and you can get away with using it more than the old SPH FSV range.
I've seen some very nice looking +2.50 jobs with 1.5 index FSV.
The only downsides IMO for the FSV, is that they are too thin in 1.6 for using on nylo jobs in some + powers, whereas the old spherical FSV would have worked.
Also since they have a flatter profile some very solid frames (Like some Oakley's) with a base curve towards 6 will need to go to grind costing the PX more if they need 1.6 index.
Wow, so many good responses on here.
DanLiv: what is the market? Maybe Apar's answer?
Apar: is what your saying essentially that having aspheric/atoric finished lenses is better than having had finished spherical lenses? I think that's your take-home point.
P.S. Apar, what IS the "rule for taking heights with aspheric"? Is it: don't drop 3mm for POW/pantoscopic tilt compensation like we normally do with a spherical lens, and with an aspheric simply dot the pupil center and leave it at that?
There is no rule that will apply all the time for the height of an aspheric lens. It depends on the design characteristics of the lens. If it has a spherical area in the center then you probably want to put that area at normal gaze. If it does not have a spherical area then you should not fit a specific height. When you raise the height you are decentering up and making the lens thicker surely not what the patient is expecting.
Aspheric lenses allow flatter profiles with decent peripheral optics (DO NOT SAY DISTORTION!)
Atoric lenses allow flatter profiles while improving the peripheral performance of sphero-cylindrical Rxs in the primary meridians.
Clearview lenses allow flatter profiles, improved peripheral performance in both spherical and sphero-cylindrical Rxs, and…
Optimize the optics in the transition (aka blend) areas between the primary meridians, as only a free form surface topography can.
Because of this, Clearview lenses expand the total area of top level correction to as much as 3 times greater than any other finished SV designs.
B
Last edited by Barry Santini; 12-29-2022 at 07:07 AM.
A lens can be aspheric on the convex side and atoric on the concave side or aspheric on both sides if it is a sphere.
Thank you Barry!
It just depends on cost. If in Apar's case the lab just switched them over and hopefully didn't jack the prices up too high, then yes having atoric freeform finished lenses at close to normal stock prices is amazing! I would absolutely use them, even when only marginally more beneficial than spherical stock.
However, if they are priced higher than currently available premium aspheric stock lenses (as I presume is the case), they will be approaching the cost of a custom generated fully optimized freeform lens, and at that point I would rather just jump to the custom option.
I expect these to be a way for the low end and discount chain opticals to hype their "advanced digital technology" that's "just as good as the other guys", without truly providing that technology. They will be happy to have something better yet still cheaper than investing in true freeform technology, and they will be able to deliver the volume a lens maker needs to justify filling warehouses with 10x more lenses than they would need to provide true freeform.
I would imagine if you had a dozen locations with edgers it would be less expensive than with one central location with a free-form generator and all the razz-a-matazz?
Last edited by drk; 12-31-2022 at 12:54 PM.
And how do you present that to the patient? What very precisely is "3 times greater"? Three lines better? Three times the retinal resolution? Three times what? What does that mean to the patient? Color me extremely jaded after all these years, but it still feels like the marketing dept is on overdrive, and they're trying to parse some infentismal fraction of a percent improvement that most typical brains/eyes won't be able to percieve in any real and meaningful way.
Happy to be proven wrong, but I've *never* *ever* had a patient make a comment that their lenses were two or three TIMES better than their last version. Ever. At all. No matter how fancy/expensive the lens. *shrug*
Last edited by Uilleann; 12-30-2022 at 11:47 AM.
Clarification: *Area* of excellent vision increased as much as 3x conventional finished lenses.
Agreed: The Wow is rarely overwhelming.
But…if they switch back…the whoa is unbelievable!
Trust me: I’ve been doing it this way for almost 50 years.
B
Last edited by Barry Santini; 12-30-2022 at 06:30 AM.
Yes it's these kind of larger scale economics that drive those product decisions. And I presume few of us here are representatives of operations at that scale. My two-optician two-doctor mom&pop shop that only buys 100 pairs of premium stock lenses a year is not where Zeiss is going to make their money.
Though since the lenses exist and sound good, I will investigate pricing. I won't be a blip on their radar, but if the price is equivalent I wouldn't mind switching those premium stock pairs I do to Clearview.
Hi Barry, 50 years has me beat by a couple years. I was reassigned on Halloween 2021.
https://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php/24453-Bi-Aspheric-lenses?p=199357&viewfull=1#post199357
I was utilizing Vizio at the end of the 20th century, before custom made free-form SV lenses were available in the US. Best performance requires closely spaced base curves, hence big inventories/expense. I suspect most folks wouldn't mind waiting a few extra days to get the same lens that's optimized for position of wear, offering additional optical refinement.
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.
That's the one...Vizio. Did Optima make that?
Sola, as noted in the link in the above post.
Fundamentals of aspheric/atoric lenses per D. Meister.
https://www.laramyk.com/wp-content/u...ens_Design.pdf
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.
I am happy to send the white paper to those that are interested, send a note to Brent.mccardle@zeiss.com
Standard SV includes spherical, aspherical, and double aspheric, which can be stock(FSV) and/or surfaced.
A free form SV lens will globally optimize the surface for gaze angles based on vertex distance, pantoscopic and wrap angle. For example if you look 7 degrees temporally the distance from the center of rotation to the back of the lens will be a different distance than if you look 7 degrees nasally. ZEISS SmartLife Individual SV also optimizes the lower portion based on a near gaze distance of 30 cm while also considering pantoscopic angles.
ZEISS calculated the RMS blur at many gaze angles of various standard SV lenses, first by measuring the lens using a CMM, then simulating eye rotation with eye lens model to determine the amount of blur at particular areas of the lenses. These blur areas were broken down into four categories.
Tschnerning's ellipse shows that you can produce a conventional lens with minimal blur in the periphery, but, you need to have a different base curve for all different prescriptions and the base curves required for each prescription are steeper than most ECP's or consumers would accept. For example a -5.00 would be placed on a 4.64 D base curve while a -4.00 would be placed on a 5.22 D base curve. Since the 1900's companies have developed SV lenses to reduce peripheral blur using different design philosophies, such as point-focal, Minimal-T, Percival, etc.
For ClearView to achieve low areas of blur, without any parameters other than the sphere and cylinder, ZEISS optimizes one quadrant of the lens and mirrors this optimization over the other quadrants. This allows the lens to be rotated to the given axis without additional peripheral blur.
ClearView is another advancement in the standard SV category.
ClearView is not a re-branded atoric, aspheric or double aspheric, it is a brand new SV design and a new design process to make stock lenses.
The overall goal of ClearView was to create a lens that was flatter and thinner with reduced areas of blur in the periphery in both FSV and surfaced.
The optician does not need to do anything different. It is still fit and dispensed as with your current SV, but they will be getting a better design and it is flatter and thinner.
Throughout 2023 we will be replacing our current FSV and moving current standard surfaced SV to ClearView with pricing remaining similar in these categories.
Yes, the FSV's are molded using free form molds that are calculated for one quadrant and they come surfaced using the same method without the molds.
It much more advanced than an atoric
It is not an "individualized" lens, a truly customized SV lens is still the best optimized SV you can have.
Happy to send to you.
Lenses can be calculated for each eye rotation using an eye lens model. The lens can be calculated using the provided tilt angles and vertex distance(the vertex is then added to the calculated center of rotation to get a center of rotation distance). With ClearView we do not take any tilt into account with the calculations, we do use center of rotation in conjunction with average vertex distance.
I would not say the benefits are "obliterated", they may change slightly as they would if and glasses slipped down.
They are not micro benefits, individuals who wear these lenses may not be able to say they are so much clearer, but they have reported that they just feel better throughout the day compared to their other lenses.
These are not a niche solution, they are meant to upgrade what is currently available in standard SV. The majority of SV lenses used are of the standard variety, so if the consumers are not willing to or cannot purchase a free form SV then give them a better option than the current conventional SV or aspheric SV with similar pricing.
The benefits are not only reduced blur, but the lenses are also flatter and thinner, which most consumers will like.
This is a great summary!
Was this what 2C Optics was doing with their molded sv lenses from 20(?) years ago?
Is this what made Rodenstock lenses so good as well?
What a difficult time I remember having trying to get people switched when they stopped servicing U.S. accounts!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks