low 16 height progressive

[Chris Ryser]

mrba said:

Its all "good $hit" right? so stay higher than the rest, and enjoy it while you can bud.


Harde har har har he he he ha ha ha

Whatever you are smoking, if the trend of shorter corridors continues you are going to end up with a zero corridor and you are back to the straight line.............equal............straight top and perfect reading.

If poeple can't read properly, they have been ill advised and the optician who knows the basics will be the ultimate successful one.

[keithbenjamin]

Jediron,

So people can't read properly in a straight top?

Intermediate isn't always important. They probably couldn't read because they were a fit with a Sola as a short corridor and wound up with the add cut off (as mrba pointed out). I'd be willing to bet if they had been fit properly with a Brevity, XS, Summit CD, or Piccolo, they would have had no problems. I've known lots of people to have success with these lenses.

-KB

[mrba]

Chris Ryser said:
Whatever you are smoking, if the trend of shorter corridors continues you are going to end up with a zero corridor and you are back to the straight line.............equal............straight top.

OH GOD! Not that! You strike me as someone who thinks that any trend shorter at all will end in its extreame? Ok Kojak, find me a company planning on the 4 hi or a 10 hi or a 13 hi progressive.

If poeple can't read properly, they have been ill advised and the optician who knows the basics will be the ultimate successful one.

I know the basics of short corridors, when they work and when they don't. Intermediate is not nessecary for everyone, especially an emerging presbyope.

I agree with everything KB said except for the summit cd. Been there done that. Doesn't work at 14 or 15 maybe 16... XS is such a better desighn. Piccolo good. Brevity very good.

HAVING NEVER HAD A REDO AND REPEAT CUSTOMERS WITH SHORTYS I WILL CONTINUE TO USE THEM UNTIL I DIE. THANK YOU AND GOOD MORNING.

The Sonny Clark is just so on today...

[Pete Hanlin]

I agree with everything KB said except for the summit cd. Been there done that. Doesn't work at 14 or 15 maybe 16... XS is such a better desighn. Piccolo good. Brevity very good.
I just didn't want to miss the opportunity to agree with you on something. Based on the power progression profile of the design, the Hoya Summit CD probably doesn't perform all that well at 14-15mm. On the other hand, the Rodenstock Life XS is a rather short- if extremely hard- design, so it should work better at lower fitting heights. In fact, wearer studies Essilor has performed comparing the Life XS and Varilux Ellipse show that the Rodenstock product performs pretty well (Varilux Ellipse scored better, but the Rodenstock product wasn't bad).

[mrba]

Agreement with me is appreciated, but not your true agenda.

Ok kids,
What was Pete's real agenda in agreeing with me? Answer will be posted later.

Hint: He restated what I said referencing an Essilor funded study that said; Essilor=Good Hoya=Bad (What a suprise)

and then there was Rodenstock=almost as good

as if Rodenstock is a competetor or something...



:shiner:

[keithbenjamin]

Oh, c'mon now mrba. Pete may work for the French company and be somewhat biased, but he's still a nice guy. Of course, he threw in the Ellipse, it is after all his job.

[Chris Ryser]

keithbenjamin said:
..............Of course, he threw in the Ellipse, it is after all his job.

At least he is alway's present. What I would like to see some of the other manufacturers have some spokesman come on the Optiboard and explain their side.

[Cowboy]

MRBA,

With regards to Pete's response and your perception of his agenda, the fact is, it is your agenda that is prohibiting you from seeing the truth. He simply gave a statistical observation as well as agreed with your points. I have met Pete outside of this forum and I find it hard to believe that he would just simply give a random point of view without having a way to back it up.

For All...

I believe that I have posted a couple times regarding the 'low height' issue. We all have our favorites because they work. Some are better than others and may not produce any "redo's", However, it does come down to the validity of short corridor pal's and the effectiveness it provides in a well balanced visual aquity scenario. The constant battle of who is right or wrong will be never ending. So, just keep doing what works for you. As long as you educate yourself to educate your patients of the ups and downs of the shorts, ultimately, it does become the clients choice. As professionals, we have to help lead that horse, but still can't make them drink.

:cheers:

Cowboy

[mrba]

Cowboy said:
MRBA,

With regards to Pete's response and your perception of his agenda, the fact is, it is your agenda that is prohibiting you from seeing the truth. He simply gave a statistical observation as well as agreed with your points. I have met Pete outside of this forum and I find it hard to believe that he would just simply give a random point of view without having a way to back it up.

He gave a statistical observation that is potentially biased, and used my points to push his product, under the auspices of complimenting me. Not sure I shouldn't find that a bit un-nerving... and Pete's undeniable nice guy status, shouldn't have anything to do with that. His backup is always in his posts, and I think speaks for itself.

I happen to think Pete represents his company very well. That doesn't mean I should agree with him on anything.

I must also say one other thing. As a compliment to Pete, he defends himself well. Not sure what points you were trying to make though...



I'd still drink with you however :cheers:

[mrba]

Chris Ryser said:
At least he is alway's present. What I would like to see some of the other manufacturers have some spokesman come on the Optiboard and explain their side.

The opportunity is coming soon...

[Cowboy]

OK MRBA, when and where!?!:D



:cheers:

Cowboy

[mrba]

I've never drank with an "owning optician" before. NH? Ok I do expo in NY every year. Lets do NY expo next year, drinks on me.

[jediron1]

mrba said:
And my point which seems to be lost on you, is that the progressive was a sola and therfore probably not a short corridor. Hence, as soon as your competition gets saavy to short corridor progressives, you will be in the smoke at 22 HI, from whatever you have in your pipe.

I stopped discussing "quality of product" with pot heads years ago, because the endevor is futile... Its all "good $hit" right? so stay higher than the rest, and enjoy it while you can bud.

As usual we get someone who does not read previous posts.
I never said I did not fit low I said I will not fit lower than 18mm.
Far cry from what your saying. Oh by the way the add was a +2.50 and not under corrected, if you had to quess at anything you should have said over corrected.:hammer:

[keithbenjamin]

At least he is alway's present. What I would like to see some of the other manufacturers have some spokesman come on the Optiboard and explain their side.

Indeed. We've been trying to make our manufacturers aware of Optiboard. Managed to get Zeiss in on the Walmart thread (if only for one post). I would suggest ya'll doing the same with your reps.

-KB

[jediron1]

keithbenjamin said:

Jediron,

So people can't read properly in a straight top?

Intermediate isn't always important. They probably couldn't read because they were a fit with a Sola as a short corridor and wound up with the add cut off (as mrba pointed out). I'd be willing to bet if they had been fit properly with a Brevity, XS, Summit CD, or Piccolo, they would have had no problems. I've known lots of people to have success with these lenses.

Where did you come with I don't like straight tops? You must be smoking that same pipe mrba is. In any of my posts I did not say people can't read properly in a straight top. What I did say was
that I agreed with Chris and that if you wanted a pristine distance
and a large reading area use st.tops. I just had a person in with
I believe it was a Piccolo could not read a thing unless she picked her up. I measured it was fit at 16mm. Again I wrest my case not
to fit lower than 18mm. Smoke that:hammer:

[mrba]

Hey Kieth,

Jedron is really obsessed with smoking things isn't he?

As usual we get someone who does not read previous posts.
I never said I did not fit low I said I will not fit lower than 18mm.
Far cry from what your saying. Oh by the way the add was a +2.50 and not under corrected, if you had to quess at anything you should have said over corrected.

I guess you are so high, you just have a different idea of low?! 18 a far cry from 16? Ok.


regards:p

[hcjilson]

Knock off the name calling, insults and inuendo.It shows pettiness as well as a lack of maturity. The moderators are tired of having to babysit those who attach labels to others with different opinions, and jump all over them when they post. If either of you would care to edit your posts above, to take that stuff out, I will be happy to remove this post which was made necessary by your childishness.

Did it occur to either of you that perhaps the reason more manufacturers don't contribute to our forums has something to do with the poor manners of some of our members? This is not YOUR board, it is OUR board. Conduct yourselves accordingly and as professionals.

Harry C. Jilson

[mrba]

Did it occur to either of you that perhaps the reason more manufacturers don't contribute to our forums has something to do with the poor manners of some of our members? This is not YOUR board, it is OUR board. Conduct yourselves accordingly and as professionals.

Harry C. Jilson

Harry,
Point well taken. I apologize for lowering myself. I will conduct myself more "professionaly" in the future w Jedron.

However, your point about manufacturers is not taken. I sell as much of their product as you do and everyone else here. I expect them to participate in discussion of those products. Irregardless of of my irreverence, they are willing to take my money aren't they?

Just a point. I don't work for them, and they are not in any way "opti holy". I suspect some manufacturers are afraid of taking the hard questions. I really respect Pete for his imput among other reps on these boards. At least he puts it out there, and although I often spar with him, I respect him for trying and doing a good job at it.

By the way I do respect your concerns... even if you are a liberal!

regards,
mrba

[Darryl Meister]

So people can't read properly in a straight top? Intermediate isn't always important.

Keep in mind that you are talking about two very different lens designs here, though. There's a reason that manufacturers don't make progressive lenses with 5-mm corridor lengths.

Progressive lenses must obey certain mathematical principles in order to produce a change in add power with a smooth surface (having smoothly increasing power and magnification). One of the most important of these principles is that the change in surface astigmatism must increase as the rate of change in add power increases. Shorter corridor lengths require more rapid changes in add power and, consequently, more rapid changes in surface astigmatism.

So, progressive lens manufacturers must make certain compromises or trade-offs when using shorter corridors because of the added restrictions imposed by the increasing astigmatism. They must also find an acceptable balance between viewing zone sizes, peripheral blur, swim, and so on. Unfortunately, there is no magic formula here.

You will also find that conventional progressive lenses have a relatively small range of corridor lengths (on the order of only a few millimeters for +2.00 adds), suggesting that manufacturers have found an optimum range of corridor lengths that allows for a good balance of optical performance and utility. Consequently, you have to ask yourself what compromises you might be tolerating by using corridor lengths that are significantly shorter than necessary simply for the sake of unrestrained frame selection.

One potential issue I see with some new short corridor designs is the tendency for some manufacturers to make the corridor as short as practical, perhaps in order to maintain a simple marketing story. Keep in mind that these designs are still subject to the same compromises described above.

Moreover, they may potentially -- and unnecessarily -- compromise vision for the majority of "small frame" wearers in order to satisfy the most extremes cases. A look at the distribution of frame sizes and required minimum fitting heights would reveal that relatively few frames actually demand extremely short fitting heights. And prudent frame selection reduces that number even further.

For instance, if you design a lens to work at a height of say, 12 mm, in order to fit the 1% of frames out there with B measurements of 24 mm or less, the majority of small frame wearers, who could get by with considerably higher fitting heights, also have to live with the compromises you had to make. As you can imagine, manufacturers must make a lot of decisions as they work towards what they hope is the optimal balance of trade-offs and compromises.

The moral of the story is that nothing in life comes free, and that applies just as much to short-corridor progressives. ;)

Best regards,
Darryl

[mrba]

The moral of the story is that nothing in life comes free, and that applies just as much to short-corridor progressives.

It applies to traditional progressives too doesn't it?

[mrba]

hcjilson said:
Knock off the name calling, insults and inuendo.It shows pettiness as well as a lack of maturity. If either of you would care to edit your posts above, to take that stuff out, I will be happy to remove this post which was made necessary by your childishness.

Hey wait a minute... Who is calling who names here?!!!


If I were to write that professionally I would say...

..."Some of us find the name calling un called for. If you would care to edit your above posts it would be appreciated. I would remove this post if that were to happen, and the opti board would be a better place for it. Thank you for considering your edicate on this public forum"...

I don't think you are very professional either and that sentance you wrote is the reason.

:finger:

Irregardless of your lack of tact I will try to edit my part above as possible.

[Occulus Sinister]

HC,
I am newly registered to the boards, but have read them for quite a while and loved this thread especially... I am familiar with mrba's postings, and although a bit edgy, I enjoy them.

I think he was right to call you on YOUR namecalling, and I think you are too sensitive. Take a hint from your friend Shanbaum. He doesn't like mrba's opinions, but humbles him with a bit more.. shall we say persuasive tone?

mrba,
I know you can be a little smarter about what you say. I want to say tone it down, but then again it just wouldn't be you would it? Well as you once said, Inter Arma Legus Silent.

Jedron,
It helps to not tell people to shove things in their pipe.

peace out bro

[jediron1]

To mrba and Occulus Sinister. In the heat of battle sometimes things get said that maybe were not meant to be said. But on the flip side sometimes there can be some meaningful outcome to all
the gabs thrown back and forth. I took no ill to mrba's or keithbenjamin's comments, but you have to look at it from the
moderators position as they read these from a purely sterile environment not knowing what the vibes are that are being traded back and forth. Actually I find quite stimulating. And by the way thanks for that back handed slap from mrba saying:"I apologize for lowering myself". You had to lower yourself to those deprecating remarks? Come on mrba!

And yes to your question about traditional progressives but also
yes to what Darryl Meister said. If you don't get it yet reread Darrly's point it was well put and nails on the head what we have been arguing about these last few weeks. You have to give up something to gain something and in low fitting progressives that
is normally to much for most people to over come. Basic mathematical principles in a progressive inhibit the design that as the add gets stronger the area for reading gets smaller and smaller. I believe this was bought up earlier in this post or possible another thread.:hammer:

[Darryl Meister]

It applies to traditional progressives too doesn't it?

It applies to everything. Traditional progressives must sacrifice some utility in small frames in order to provide better optical performance (and vision), while short-corridor progressives must sacrifice some optical performance (and vision) for greater utility in small frames.

If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't even have "traditional" versus "small frame" progressives.

And keep in mind that most wearers are not educated in these matters, and rely on our professional judgment. Do we actually ask Mrs. Jones to choose between the use of a tiny frame that must compromise some vision or the use of a slightly larger frame that demands less of a compromise? Consequently, we need to ask ourselves not just whether Mrs. Jones can wear that frame if we can find a progressive to fit it, but also whether Mrs. Jones should wear that frame.

You will eventually get to a point where wearer satisfaction in a small frame is limited by the mathematics of optics, and not by the availability of small frame progressives.

Best regards,
Darryl

[Cowboy]

MRBA,

NYC next year, or maybe VE West! - If you go to that one. Otherwise, I guess I will have to endure your wittiness here on the board.

:cheers:

Cowboy.