Pete Hanlin, Question ...

[Joann Raytar]

Seiko and J&J have both rolled out backside progressives. Essilor is usually a front runner in the tech race; why aren't we seeing a similar product from Essilor? Is the techonology more hype than benefit or is Essilor doing its own thing and putting its energy into other designs?

[jofelk]

Not Pete However:

This is a toppic being discussed in the lab.

J&J and Zeiss and etc. also offer this style lense but can not be done by our lab, YET!

We are always looking at new technology. The equipment being manufactured now for surface labs will be able to generate the progressive style surface on the back side of the lense.

As the process becomes more prevalent I would think more lense manufacturers would license their lense designs to the lab.

This "appears" to be the future in the industry.

[Joann Raytar]

Joseph,

Would lab upgrades involve actually having to purchase new equipment or just software upgrades?

PS - Thanks for the vendors. I originally typed in B&L when it was Johnson & Johnson I meant. :)

[Pete Hanlin]

Well, since you asked... I will offer my (obviously biased) opinion.

"Backside" PALs (called by various names- of which FreeForm is one of them) is the latest gee-whiz feature in progressive lenses these days.

Up front, it should be noted that there are TWO reasons for a manufacturer to have an interest in backside PALs...

The first relates to a logistics issue. Namely, if you can create the progressive surface on the backside, you can greatly reduce the number of SKUs required to stock a product. Basically, for the typical PAL, you go from 144 skus down to maybe 5 or 6! Instead of having to create skus that look like this:
1.50 base/ 1.00 ADD Right
1.50 base/ 1.00 ADD Left
1.50 base/ 1.25 ADD Right
1.50 base/ 1.25 ADD Left
...and so on

You can create semi-finished blanks that are pretty much exactly like SFSV blanks, and just have 1.50, 2.50, 4.00, 5.50, 7.50 blanks- from which can be created any Rx, ADD, R/L combination desired. Obviously, the advantages to the manufacturer and laboratory are numerous!


The SECOND rationale behind backside PALs concerns the design. Namely, you can theoretically optimize the design for each patient. This is the feature that most manufacturers seem to be attempting to market for backside. However, if you really look at a lot of the backside PALs currently available, few of them really do much to individualize the progression for the patient.

For example, the Seiko- which you mentioned- is "individualized" for the frame, not the patient. In other words, if you have a low fitting height, Seiko uses a harder design with a shorter progression- whereas a higher fit might get a softer design with a longer progression.

Shamir- from what I understand- customizes the Autograph the the distance Rx and ADD. In other words, myopes get a shorter progression than hyperopes and higher ADD powers receive a greater inset than lower ADD powers. Of course, this is already done on several "front side" PALs on the market (its called "true multi-design"). I suppose there might be some slight optimization of the cylindrical curves (aka atoricity) with this design, but I would speculate it mainly optmizes the progression length and inset.

Regarding the Essilor "backside" design (which yes, will soon be coming out into test markets), the PAL will be customized to both the Rx and the wearer's viewing tendancies. In other words, the Essilor design will take into account the distance Rx and ADD (like the Shamir design), and will also incorporate a measurement taken by the eye care provider using specialized equipment. This equipment will measure the tendancies of the wearer regarding his or her viewing habits (sorry, can't go into more detail at this point).

Finally, some manufacturers would like you to believe that there is an optical advantage in putting the progressive surface closer to the eye. This, in my opinion, is ridiculous. After all, even if you move one refractive surface (i.e., the progressive surface) closer to the eye, the other surface (i.e., the front surface) is still part of the refractive system of the lens- and is now further out. If you didn't have to use both sides of the lens at the same time, some of the designs out there (like J&J Definity) might make some sense. Unfortunately, its really difficult to look through just one surface of the lens at a time!

Also, splitting the unwanted astigmatism associated with a progressive surface of the lens across both sides is no advantage either. This is because astigmatism is additive in nature. In other words, you cannot use astigmatism on one side of the lens to cancel out astigmatism on the other. When Definity talks about wider intermediates and less astigmatism, this is due to the fact that they have a longer progression that is very soft and pushes astigmatism up into the distance and down into the near zones- not because of the "dual-ADD."

Anyway, yes- Essilor will have a backside PAL available in the future. Also, the above represents my personal opinion regarding backside PALs and processes and should not be taken as an official statement from Essilor (how's that for a CYA?). I'm sure folks from the other manufacturers will disagree with some of my opinions- that's fine.

One final note... what device do you have in your offices to ascertain whether the progressive surface created by the backside processes is an accurate rendition of the manufacturer's design? Well? On traditional PALs, the progression is tightly controlled via the molds used to cast the front side. All the lab is left with is the creation of a sphere and cross curvature on the backside- which can be challenging enough. One of my concerns regarding these relatively new backside processes (FreeForm creates a rear surface that is not optical quality until it is covered by a scratch coat) is the consistency and repeatability of the PAL design. I think this is one of the things that has kept Essilor out of the backside market until now- we've been doing a lot of work to ensure absolute repeatability.

[Joann Raytar]

Pete Hanlin said:

Regarding the Essilor "backside" design (which yes, will soon be coming out into test markets), the PAL will be customized to both the Rx and the wearer's viewing tendancies. In other words, the Essilor design will take into account the distance Rx and ADD (like the Shamir design), and will also incorporate a measurement taken by the eye care provider using specialized equipment. This equipment will measure the tendancies of the wearer regarding his or her viewing habits (sorry, can't go into more detail at this point).

I knew Essilor had to be working on a new design. It is good to see the company testing the product before rolling out full steam. With a lens that will take wearing habits into account, it would be a shame to roll out the lens before its time and risk losing the initial wow factor. Once you start taking wearing habits into consideration, is there much more you can do with a progressive?

You do know that your 'teaser" has definitely sparked my interest. We better get an announcement when the time is close so we can stop by the booth at Expo.

[Jerry Thornhill]

Pete,
In European Lenses and Technology it says that Essilor Varilux has just launched a new lens Ipseo using the Free Form technology.

Jerry

[Pete Hanlin]

Yep, that's the one... Ipseo. Coming to America soon!

During my recent visit to France, I observed the production process and the equipment used to measure wearer habits. It was pretty impressive. I'm looking forward to providing technical support for this product!

All in all, however, I still think the U.S. market has really missed the boat on Panamic. The theory behind this design is just awesome- a completely different approach (marketing types might call it a "Global Design") from previous PAL designs. Unfortunately, eye care providers in the U.S. are still selling more Comfort than Panamic (I suppose its the old "if something isn't broken...").

Oh well, enough of the commercials- I'll let you know when you can start ordering Varilux Ipseo (of course, I assume you will probably notice the announcements related to the official launch- but I'll be happy to provide additional info when we launch here in the U.S.).

[Joann Raytar]

Pete Hanlin said:

All in all, however, I still think the U.S. market has really missed the boat on Panamic. The theory behind this design is just awesome- a completely different approach (marketing types might call it a "Global Design") from previous PAL designs. Unfortunately, eye care providers in the U.S. are still selling more Comfort than Panamic (I suppose its the old "if something isn't broken...").

I don't think so Pete. I think many of us got information about Panamic through a third party and got stuck on how it was being marketed to us. In other words, the information we are getting about just what exactly Panamic "is" can be confusing.

The Essilor marketing we received through trade magazines, early on, presented Panamic as a new generation premium lens with low peripheral distortion. As time went on, third parties pushed the lens more often when we were ordering lenses with a low fitting height. Our office started to associate Panamic with a short corridor progressive. Unless we are fitting into a smaller frame or want 1.67 Index, we often don't go with Panamic first.

The funny thing is, I think we may have had one or two patients who were Panamic non-adapts, who we put back into Comfort. In fact, early on in the roll-out, we had a new progressive wearer who was not happy with Comfort so we put in Panamic and now she won't wear any other progressive.

Somewhere in between, we just developed a mental block concerning using Panamic in anything other than a smaller frame.

Maybe, we just need to be re-introduced to Panamic.

[Jerry Thornhill]

Pete,
The Vision Print system looks interesting to track the eye and head movements.

But what is Stylis high-index?

Jerry

[Lisa Lingard]

I just received a pair of Zeiss Gradal Individual lenses today and I have to say they are AMAZING! I have worn many different types of PALs with no problem but this lens is by far superior. Such clear optics in all fields! I will be anxious to see what Essilor produces and how it compares. I think the advances in technology are Wonderful!

[Pete Hanlin]

Panamic can be fit at 18mm (just like Comfort), but is not a "short-corridor" PAL. In fact, I would argue that most so-called "short-corridor" PALs are not really all that short...

The "deal" with Panamic centers (pun intended) around the periphery. A concept called "Global Design Management" really does produce terrific peripheral vision when the design is centrated perfectly in front of the patient and when the patient is capable of good binocular fusion.

As for Stylis, if I'm not mistaken, that's the European name for Panamic (or one of the Varilux PALs). There is also a lens called "Expert" and I believe one called "Evolis." I'll have to look up some documents to make sure about the naming conventions, however. Also, the materials have different names in Europe and elsewhere.

As for backside designs that produce terrific peripheral vision, I'm going to posit that the peripheral vision is more a product of the PAL design than the fact that it was ground onto the rear surface of the lens. Just my thoughts, however...

[Oha]

Pete,

To add my 2 cents, All the info I've received about the Panamic - from my rep, and some ABO seminars Ive attented - has all been contradictory. In fact the last seminar I went to - which was called "The Varilux Panamic" completely reversed everything I had heard about the lens before - from Essilor!.

I'm not too bright to keep learning things - but UN-Learning them is near impossible.

[call me al]

pete,
With free form lenses how will the labs be able to process
different manufacturers' products?

Or will some labs be able to process only one or two PALs and other labs be able to only process other PALs?

Also, how does the lens get its engravings?

Do you think the Varilux product will be available only from ESLOA
labs?

Thanks,

[Pete Hanlin]

Concerning Panamic, it is unfortunate that so much disinformation exists out there. If I may, let me offer this simplified explanation of what Panamic does by using a (hopefully) brief comparison of general lens types. Bear with me here...

Single Vision- easiest lens to fit, because it only concerns itself with one focal length. You can fit the lens upside down (the axis will be the same), and most patients would have no problems!

Flat-Top- easiest multifocal, but requires a bit more precision than SV. After all, with that line you can't really fit the lens "upside down." However, you don't have to be too awful precise with seg height or NPD, cause you have 28mm to work with.

Tri-focal- now you're getting to the point where seg height is more crucial (after all, too high and the intermediate impinges on straight ahead gaze- too low and you can't get to the reading).

Channel-based PALs- because of the relative small reading and intermediate areas, precision is required to place the zones where the eye can find them. However, if you are off by 0.5 to 1.0mm, the better designs seem to "forgive" the error- probably because PALs have gotten so soft over the years. All the lens is trying to do is get rid of the line and get you to your reading area as quickly as possible without too much distortion.

Global Designed PALs (like Panamic)- extreme precision is required, because the lens is now attempting to provide not only clear near and distance vision, but improved binocularity and peripheral vision as well. To acheive this, every point in the design is coordinated to the its companion lens to provide similar visual experiences between right and left eye regardless of the angle of gaze. For this to work, however, the lenses must be situated perfectly in front of each eye and the wearer must have good binocular function.

Sorry for the length, but the point is this- if a PAL is "easy to fit" (meaning, great precision is not required) it cannot have peripheral balance as a key design feature. We just demonstrated that- as a lens attempts to provide higher degrees of optical function- greater precision is required to acheive proper lens function. Most PAL designs out there are still channel-based designs (regardless of what their marketing claims). We can all haggle over how "wide" the zones are, but- unless we can find a PAL with a 28mm near zone- we are never going to have wider reading areas through a PAL than through a bifocal. What we can do is use the progression to provide balanced vision throughout the lens, and this is what advanced PALs will attempt to do.

Unfortunately, this is where we hit a speed bump in the road of optical progress. As long as we have dispensers who are either unwilling or uncapable of taking the care required to ensure good measurements, advanced PALs will suffer from "non-adapts" and dimininshed interest from the field. This is not to blame the eye care provider, and it is not some political statement regarding the trends of the industry. It is merely an observation that good fitting technique is not followed by a significant segment of the industry.

I would like to know where you heard the seminar on Panamic, and who gave it- please email me at phanlin@essilorusa.com if you have the time and inclination.



Regarding labs and FreeForm surfacing. Most tri-axial generators are capable of producing an aspheric (or progressive) surface on the rear surface of a lens. Given enough datapoints, many generators could produce a PAL design. The trick is in polishing this surface- since hard spherical or toric tooling is used. In backside PALs (FreeForm is a trademarked name used by one of the companies who produce the equipment and process), the polishing is acheived using a flexible tool of some kind (some systems use a spongy type tool, others use inflated rubber devices). Theoretically, the independent (non-manufacturer owned) laboratory could purchase the polishing equipment and the computer program for the generator and produce a backside PAL. With this model, the manufacturer may charge a "royalty" each time the design is created (similar to how LASIK is billed by the companies that designed the equipment and program).

The difficulty I see is this. Having visited many laboratories, it has been my experience that even the best of them have glitches from time to time with their equipment. Now, most of the time, these glitches (polish temps stray a bit high, generator is slightly off calibration, polish baume dips, etc.) are not catastrophic to the lens surface. With backside processing, however, the PAL design is being created by the surfacing. In fact, the true surface is being created by the scratch coating placed on the back of the lens (even with the "soft" polishing techniques, extensive polishing of the aspheric surface is impossible without distorting the design). In my opinion, the resulting PAL surface will not be as consistent as one which can be reproduced using traditional molding of the front and surfacing on the back.

There are distinct design advantages to a rear surface PAL, however- IF the rear surface is being used to create a PAL design especially suited to the wearer's needs. Therefore, most manufacturers will probably come out with this technology- and will produce it using very tightly controlled equipment in very tightly controlled environments. This means the resultant lens will be neither cheap nor mainstream, at least for a while.

So, yes- the independent lab will probably be able to do some backside PALs (I believe Shamir's business model is to make the technology for their PAL available to the independent). However, the technology is going to be tricky and may or may not produce a profitable, and consistent, product at the end of the day (could be wrong here...).

As for the availability of Essilor's future backside PAL- I believe it will be available through any Varilux distributor laboratory (independent or ELOA). However, production of the lens will be carried out at one or two Essilor facilities. There are other products on the market that are already successfully delivered in this fashion (1.67 index Crizal products, for instance).

Again, sorry for the length...

[Susan Henault]

To answer the question about engravings ... it depends upon which manufacturers' technology you are talking about. Some will engrave the spherical "blanks" with progressive markings (which means the blanks will be more expensive than typical SV semi-finished lenses). Other companies are going to make equipment available that will allow the laboratory to engrave the lenses in house. Some venders may offer both options.

Make no mistake, the equipment that enables a wholesale lab to supply back surface progressive technology is spendy enough. Therefore, if given a choice, I seriously doubt that many labs will opt to pay the additional expense of having in house engraving capability. It is just another (very expensive) step that could potentially result in breakage.

[Joann Raytar]

Pete Hanlin said:
Concerning Panamic...

Unfortunately, this is where we hit a speed bump in the road of optical progress. As long as we have dispensers who are either unwilling or uncapable of taking the care required to ensure good measurements, advanced PALs will suffer from "non-adapts" and dimininshed interest from the field. This is not to blame the eye care provider, and it is not some political statement regarding the trends of the industry. It is merely an observation that good fitting technique is not followed by a significant segment of the industry.

So Mr. Hanlin, I will give you that we have relatively low Panamic non-adapts (Actually, non-existant when you compare the percent to our total progressives dispensed. Not a surprise because we have the same success with Comfort; I guess the two lens designs share the same track record.) I will also give you that my opinion of my personnal pair sounds like a fitting issue after what you have just said.

With that in mind, do you have any fitting tips or can you point us to an Essilor webpage with fitting tips?

[Pete Hanlin]

Hi Jo,

I know you already do all this, but I'll give the fitting recommendations because 1.) you asked, and 2.) it never hurts to review.

First, adjust the frame. I was personally guilty of putting this off until the dispensing on many occasions. However, as you know, the fit of the frame can change dramatically once the frames are properly adjusted- thus nullifying any measurements taken before the adjustment. Make an effort to fit the frames as close to the eye as possible without contacting the patient's eyelashes. Determine how the frames will actually sit once they are dispensed. If the patient insists on wearing them low, find that out beforehand and take it into account when you fit. Assure decent face wrap, and try to get the pantoscopic tilt around 10-12 degrees (there are PD sticks that have this angle on them- Marchon made them, I believe).

Fit to the dead center of the pupil (especially with Panamic). I know that sounds pretty basic in this day and age, but you would be amazed (I know I was) to see how many fits are not to pupil center. Recently, two of my employees had the occasion to review a couple thousand Rxs submitted to a wholesale lab. The thing that jumped out at them was the number of PAL orders without binocular PDs- 33%!

Even if you are going to the trouble to take monocular PDs, I would highly recommend verifying the calibration of your pupilometer. Basically, set the CRP to "60" (30mm each eye). Flip the machine so you are looking at the side the patient looks at. Now, measure the distance between the wires that bisect each window. They should add up to 60mm. Finally, check the distance from each wire to the side of the opposite window. Both of these measurements should be equal. If any measurement is off by >1mm, send the unit in for calibration (I can get info on where to send it).

Assuming the PD is correct, measure from the lowest portion of the frame to the center of the pupil. I've heard countless "tricks" and "formulas" Opticians use to fudge this measurement- all of which will mess with the design. Put the cross in the center of the pupil! The only exception (and I wouldn't try this with Panamic- just Comfort) is when the patient insists on a fitting height of 16-17mm. In this case, raise the fitting height by 2mm, and increase the pantoscopic tilt by 3-4 degrees. This will be a better solution than a "short corridor" PAL (yes, Varilux will be coming out with a short corridor soon- this will still probably be my recommendation). This will be a MUCH better solution than "bumping the ADD" (don't even get me started on that).

Finally, leave the markings on the lenses until after you verify the fit on the patient (another item on which I was guilty of transgressions in the past).

That's about it. For the "official" version of what I just described, you can visit this site

Varilux Fitting Information

[LENNY]

Good morning Pete!

Is replying on Optiboard in your Job description?:bbg:

[Pete Hanlin]

Actually... not really- but I suppose it does fit within the parameters of my role in Technical Services. Fortunately, Essilor has taken a positive view towards OptiBoard (the thought being it is better to address questions and comments and build positive rapport rather than ignoring ECP and consumer inquiries). Towards that view, I've been encouraged to address product issues on this forum (which I've been a part of long before joining Essilor).

Unfortunately, I know there are representatives of other fine companies who are not allowed to defend, represent, or discuss their products on OptiBoard. This is unfortunate, since it deprives us all of valuable insights- especially since some of these folks are among the best and brightest of our industry!

Anyway, I try not to turn into a commercial for Essilor/Varilux and to provide somewhat objective information- always keeping in mind, however, that I'm very proud to see the tilted "e" on my mousepad (and my paystub)!

[LENNY]

Pete!


The reason the other lens company dont allow their emploees to discuss on optiboard is YOU.
They all afraid of Pete Hanlin:idea:

[Joann Raytar]

To catch all of you up on my opinions on Panamic. I purchased a pair last year and never seemed happy with them. I posted that here on OptiBoard under one of the other Varilux topic threads. It seems I need to update that opinion and I now owe Pete a favor thanks to his above reply on the importance of a good frame fit.

I have already sent Pete a private note but I might as well share it with you guys so you know what happened:

(Note: I am blushing and scratching an imaginary line in front of me with my right big tow in embarassment.) I sort of fixed that after reading your post this morning about the importance of a good frame fit. I put my first Panamic in a semi-rimless. It turns out that the semi-rimless don't hold an adjustment as well as their other lines (They hold it even less after you run over them with a lab stool. )

I cut my Panamics into another frame since I was close to throwing the whole pair of glasses off a bridge anyway. The second I put them on there was a very noticable difference. All of that distortion in the nasal area when I looked left or right was gone and my vision at all distances was actually pretty crisp. They're even comfortable here at the PC.

After saying how much I wanted my Comforts back a couple of months ago, it turns out I actually really like my Panamics. Thanks for making me stop and think about how well my frames really fit Pete. I owe you one! :shiner:

You see, the frame I had originally fit had nosepad arms which came down from the bridge as opposed to being sodered to the eyewire. I have a habit of forrowing my brow when I am thinking which makes the top of the bridge of my nose pop out a bit. (Note: I work with a friend who often creates situations that cause that expression of consternation.) Because of my facial expressions, I had to adjust the nosepads so the metal sat away from my bridge because it drives me nuts when the pad arms hit my bridge. Then of course I ran over the glasses with a stool. On top of that the lenses had a habit of rotating off axis even though they were tight. All in all, the frame ended up being a horrible fit. (shame on me)

Yes, I know I sound a bit nuts but I'm not really. At least no more or less insane than anyone else in this business.