Can they be serious? Is this a reflection on the state of the optical professionals, or a reflection on the state of essilor?
https://www.essilorpro.com/resources...ilux-xr-series
Can they be serious? Is this a reflection on the state of the optical professionals, or a reflection on the state of essilor?
https://www.essilorpro.com/resources...ilux-xr-series
UUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH.
(For what it's worth, I adore the Varilux X Design, and will try this gladly--given a voucher, naturally.)
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
https://www.essilorpro.com/resources...ilux-xr-series
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access this resource.
https://www.essilorpro.com/resources...ilux-xr-series
Second try did work. Go figure
When the X series came out I'm on record saying I was going to wait for the Y series to come out along with a Shamir "Superior Intelligence" progressive.
The race is on to see who can use a billion AI assisted data points.
Last edited by Uncle Fester; 06-29-2023 at 09:37 AM. Reason: second thought...
The resort to buzz words is just dumber than usual. It's getting worse, not better.
I realize we don't have legions of intelligent optometrists, opthalmologists, and opticians. I realize that legions of samesuch would not be in Essilor's best interests.
I think they just want sheep vision care people, stupid-direct-to-consumer marketing, and have no interest whatsoever in elevating/educating their industry.
Do they see us as just customers? Because you sure wouldn't treat a partner like this.
Nothing but a load of marketing speak with no real info. Notice all the "improvements" were done with a case study of only 73 wearers.
Might be a great design but that info is a bunch of snake oil. They created their own category of "broadband vision" of which the parameters are listed in the legal at the bottom of the page.
The page reads more like a 4K TV with quantum dots, OLED, HDR, etc.
I just saw my Essilor rep about this yesterday. The X design has been good for me as a top end lens option, so I'm willing to try to XR. However, I doubt anyone but dedicated lens enthusiast will be able to tell the X apart from the XR IMHO. The cost increase is minimal on my end so I might swap the X out for the XR to see how it goes.
This is where I am at too, the cost is really minimal, very little downside to jumping in. I really like the X design, I have put most of my family members in it with success. I saw the comparison between the X Design and the XR as far as how wide the channel is and where the aberrations started and I am willing to jump in head first. That is what they need to show opticians, the amount of usable space in the lens and leave the marketing for the masses.Originally Posted by ODoS_HBB
From what I understand they replaced SynchronEyes (integrates prescription data from both eyes into each lens, optimizing binocular visual fields) first found in the Varilux S with the digital twin model. The rest of the technology I believe is the same as the X. I'm definitely interested to see how our long term Varilux X customers like it.
Also curious to hear what other Essilor offices thought of the presentation? @DanLiv
Seems like slipping a lens voucher to a long-time Varilux X wearer with a challenging prescription (cough cough ME cough cough) would be a good move on Essilor's part.
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
two things:
1. Essilor is doing this mega-lab thing that is highly annoying. If you have special instructions for lenses or any extra consideration to be made, forget it.
2. My rep came in and told me about this lens. Said "we can legally call it the best lens in the world". I asked him why and he said "it was tested by some company yada yada". I ask him which companies and what test. He had no answer of course
This is the same rep when asked "hey what is the corridor range of the X Design" he told me that it's infinite. So if you have a 35mm seg, he believes you'll get a 35mm corridor. It's fun when you can't get good answers for things.
Essilor stopped hiring knowledgeable opticians for reps years ago. All you need now is a background in sales. The last good one I had was in 2002 when mine retired. The last Essilor rep I dealt with gave me nothing but deer in the headlights looks when asked technical questions. ( she was a former pharmaceutical rep, zero Optical experience…She stopped coming by my office after her 1st visit.
You deflated that ex-Pharma rep faster than an F-22 on a Chinese spy balloon.
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.
Carl Zeiss was doing the same for quite a while. They eventually figured it out and hired a smart optician, but in the meantime they had gone through two complete top-to-bottom rebrands of their entire PAL portfolio, and their reps' inability to explain what the new lenses actually did drove my office far away from them.
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
Completely agree, but to be devil's advocate for the companies, I'm sure a good sales rep is far more productive to them than a technical adviser (someone who is both would of course be best, but good luck). With the dearth of technical skill and experience in opticianry, I bet technically-minded reps get the same deer in the headlights looks from most opticians when they dive into design details. A few of us would appreciate it, but not enough opticians have that deep of an understanding (or interest) to make use of the info. However, handing opticians professionally pre-packaged marketing mumbo-jumbo, which has certainly been focus group tested for impact on real-world consumers, and then asking them to just regurgitate it and dazzle their customers, sadly that makes money.
I don't like it, but I can understand that if the companies have to choose one or the other, hiring for sales skill rather than technical ability is going to be more beneficial to them.
Would it be too much to do both? That is, discuss and educate professionals on lens design, and also have silly marketing to the masses? I think other lens companies do a significantly better job than little e.
In other areas of the economy, I'm aware of companies that take it upon themselves to develop talent for their industry. What have we gotten?
I'm not trying to touch "the third rail" but in the absence of formal education (and maybe that's a good thing, opticians, these days) how about some OJT from the industry itself? Can't Big Optical be a steward of optical?
Or do they just not give an F and want to make all the money they possibly can like a pack of pirates?
Could Essilor do more in the industry to make opticians more than just shills for their products? They have no monetary motivation to do so. Though it would be nice if all the major lens companies got together and funded an organization to get more opticians licensed in their states/ABO.
Some might be slightly better than others, but I certainly don't see the "significantly better job" that you do. I think lens companies are adjusting to the reality that opticianry is a job and not a career, instead of daring to dream of what it COULD be.
You think Zeiss and Hoya aren't out like a pack of pirates to make the most money possible? They don't draw your ire because they aren't as blatant or as big as Essilor, but it's the same thing just on a smaller scale.
When I hear a load of marketing I ask to see the white paper. Who cares how it is marketed, does it work? I encourage everyone to do the same on the XR ask your rep for the white paper. For as much as they are hated they do know how to make a good progressive.
Look for all knowledge to come from courses that are created by guess who.
I get my CE's from Jobson (owned by guess who) and they actually can be pretty informative.
https://opticaltraining.com/
The web site changed last month and now looks a lot like courses I take from our new partnered with entity.
I feel like I am part of an algorithm now.
01110111 01100101 01101100 01100011 01101111 01101101 01100101 00001101 00001010
Finally got my hands on this. I haven't done a detailed comparison of papers, but it sure sounds the same as the X Series. But now with 50% more AI!
XR White Papers
Guess what? I got a fever! And the only prescription...is more AI.
They get scores of applicants for these jobs. I have been one of them many, many times. There have to be people who fit both criteria. More than that, it has got to be easier to train someone in sales than in optics, particularly if you're touting your company's technological excellence.
I was a finalist for three different Zeiss jobs in Virginia only for them to hire two consecutive non-optical salespeople, both of whom flamed out in less than a year and then subsequently cost the company however many thousands to re-list, re-interview, and re-hire. Oh, and all three times Zeiss neglected to notify me that I hadn't gotten the gig. They finally have an excellent rep in our area, and she's (spoiler alert) a well-trained optician who transitioned into territory sales.
Last edited by AngeHamm; 07-11-2023 at 12:20 PM.
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
This is the difference between the X Design and the XR. If this is true, I don't really care how many AI iterations they used to get it--it will be an improvement for the user.
I like this game we are playing though, who can make the most racket about AI before Pete Hanlin himself comes on to talk about the XR
Last edited by NAICITPO; 07-12-2023 at 12:46 PM.
But what kind of RX is used in that picture comparison? Are those with high precribed astigmatism? Minus or plus sphere powers? What add is in that example?
Again, short on facts even in the white paper.
I am sure that it is an improved design but the lack of transparency is frustrating to me.
There is more technical info on IOT's website about their progressive designs than the XR white paper.
Just take a look at the Neochromes technical info: https://www.iotlenses.com/Discover-o...eochromes.html
I've never seen Transitions publish any info similar to this. All we basically were told was fadeback improved to 4 min in Gen 8 compared to 7 min in Gen 7 and not much else.
I would assume this is from an emerging presbyope with a baby add. I'm pretty cynical about it, I don't think this is going to solve the world's problems. After having heard the presentation on it, the lens sounds to me like it is the X with better binocularity. The AI digital twin model replaces their last attempt at it, Synchroneyes (sp?).
For the cost difference of what the lab is charging us for the XR I see no reason why if you currently sell the X why you wouldn't sell the XR. It's a very low risk proposition to me.
The mapping is of a -2.00 -0.25 x 175 and the astigmatism with a +2.00 add.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks