# Optical Forums > Progressive Lens Discussion Forum >  IZON Wavefront Prog. Lenses:Post your experience

## rob.optician

Please use this thread to post your experience dispensing the Izon Wavefront Guided Progressive Lenses.

This product is a large investment for any office and if those opticians that have dispensed these lenses could post their experience it would be a great help to the rest of us. 

How are patients responding to the new "custom" design? 

Can the patients actually see a difference in these lenses compared to their old prog. lenses since the Izon corrects multiple distortions?

What are you selling them for? How are patients responding to that price point?

What about how long they take to get (4 weeks)? and what if you have to remake the lens, is that taking another month?

Overall, how has the Izon lenses and the Aberometer affected your office?

----------


## rinselberg

iZon wavefront corrected PAL (progressive) - press release
http://ophthonix.izonlens.com/news/p...ed.asp?prID=95

iZon PAL product page
http://ophthonix.izonlens.com/izon-l...ogressives.asp

----------


## optigrrl

It looks like they "sandwich" a *film* layer that may or may not negate the unwanted prism created by the power change in the design, then seal it with another layer of material. 

Seems confusing. Does anybody know more about this?

----------


## AWTECH

I have studied the Izon technology.  A few comments.

It is a high tech process.

I wonder after hearing the complete process what the benefits to the patient are.

I also wonder if this technology is capable of making a thin lens since they depend on a sandwich construction. (I know J&J had to abandon the sandwich idea and ultimately introduced the freeform Definity)

I don't see the high tech transfering to dispenser or patient cost effective benefits. (I am envious of there ability to attact the investment capital with so many unknowns)

----------


## optigrrl

> (I am envious of there ability to attact the investment capital with so many unknowns)


Hehehe...I suppose it's all in the way it is presented. ;)

----------


## xiaowei

> It looks like they "sandwich" a *film* layer that may or may not negate the unwanted prism created by the power change in the design, then seal it with another layer of material. 
> 
> Seems confusing. Does anybody know more about this?


No, that´s not the main idea. 

I studied their claims and stuff (also the patents), because our company would probably be intersted in having such a "programmable film" in other optical components. (We make microscopes, special OEM systems and lenses and stuff, NO eyeglasses).

The idea is to use that film to correct those higher order aberrations - and probably also fine correct lower ones down to 0.01 D - they claim many eyes have and cannot be corrected by simple +/- glasses and cylinders. (I agree with this, as I have really bad multiple images at full pupil at might myself) 

I assume the thin film cannot acchieve such much correction that it could take over the function of the progression, so their progressives will still need to have atoric/asperic surface, be it on the outside or inside of the lens.

HOWEVER, wavefront correction (for higher orders) cannot work the way as their ads suggest: That you take the wavefront map from their aberrometer and transfer it "magnified" over to the the eyeglass. 

You would need to transfer that aberration function at the very SAME size (i.e. only a few milimeters) on the eyeglass. Therefore, and also their patent says so, the higher order correction will only work in a few very small spots. However, they also argue, with the advent of PALs, many people are already used to being able to only use their eyeglasses in certain sweet spots in the near (or far) area or along the small intermediate corridor, so they argue (in the patent, NOT in the official docs for the costumer!) the patent would adopt pretty easily to those "islands of supervision", given the BIG benefit they have in those spots. 

However, what I seriously doubt is, they say they can connect those islands by smoothing/interpolating those islands in a smart way when programming the film. From some mathetical reasons, a bit too complicated to detail here, this seems impossible to me without drawbacks, either you keep the high order aberration up to the edge of the pupil intact, so to really get the best supervision or you start smoothing it already before reaching the edges. 

In the first case you have one POINT of perfect supervision, but at the slightest move away it will get worse, even worse as without higher order correction, as those higher order will combine ("interfere") in the wrong way (especially when you move away by about half the pupil diameter). OR, you do the smoothing, but to avoid the bad interference, it seems to me, that you need pretty strong smoothing, so much of the supervision effect is lost. What you gain in one area, you lose in another place, it´s like that "sandbox rule" about the distribution of aberrations in a traditional PAL.

Hope this helps

XW (Joachim)

----------


## drk

Nice, nice post.  We're honored to have you post that.

----------


## xiaowei

> Nice, nice post. We're honored to have you post that.


Glad if it was useful! I really would like to have a pair of those iZones for my high order prescription myself to test and see. It seems (at the time of research, about 6-8 weeks ago) there is/was currently only one optician in Germany that has the special Aberrometer to make the measurements and prescribe the lenses (It seems they started in Switzerland before, there they already have quite a few).

Interestingly, the guy who heads the company is German too and graduated at a German university working on Lasik and similar. I could not
yet find or get any other scientific papers on their eyeglass technology and how the tapering off at the edge of the "supervision" areas is done (this actually VERY important detail is not explained at all in the patent, as it might appear straightforward at first to the "casual" reader), it seems there were at least a few talks on conferences on early (SV) wearing tests of his "wavefront guided" eyeglasses. 

I also find it interesting that the glasses are only called "guided" instead of "correcting" or "corrected", IMHO it already indicates that they only can acchieve partial correction of the full higher orders if you want a larger zone size. However, this could be also because "wavefront corrected" or similar was already taken away by Essilor or others for their latest designs (where it only refers to unwanted LENS aberrations).

XW

----------


## rinselberg

> The idea is to use the film to correct higher order aberrations - and probably also to correct lower [order aberrations] down to 0.01 D - they claim many [patients] cannot be corrected by [only] simple plus or minus [sphere power] and cylinder [corrections]. I agree, as I have really bad multiple images at full pupil at night. 
> 
> I assume the thin film cannot achieve so much correction that it could take over the function of the progression, so their progressives [would] still need to have atoric/aspheric surfaces, be it on the outside or inside of the lens ...


I would be surprised if this were the case. I think they started with their SV (single vision) technology and modified it in a relatively straightforward way to make PAL (progressive lenses) -- by changing only the software algorithm that maps the variable refraction points onto the unique "iZonik" film layer.

Anyone with an interest in the Ophthonix iZon lens technology may also be interested in these other recent posts on OptiBoard: Post from rinselberg;  post from Darryl Meister.

----------


## xiaowei

> I would be surprised if this were the case. I think they started with their SV (single vision) technology and modified it in a relatively straightforward way to make PAL (progressive lenses) -- by changing only the software algorithm that maps the variable refraction points onto the unique "iZonik" film layer.


This sounds logical, however, a thin film would need to have an extreme refractive index to do this contigously, say to create a total power of several D! 

One could in principle think of setting up a microscopic system of "Fresnel lenses" where one microlense only shifts by one wavelength (you might remember those cheap very flat "ribbed" lenses you get as gifts etc., sometimes people use such a lens at the back window of the car for parking navigation), however, if I´m not mistaken here, if these lense are sub mm so the boundaries to not disturb, this would in the end be equivalent to setting up a diffractive system instead of a refractive lens and that one has several disadvantages: higher refractive orders (kind of ghost images) and terrible lateral color!

XW

----------


## xiaowei

> higher refractive orders (kind of ghost images) and terrible lateral color!
> XW


Sorry, this must read "higher diffractive orders".

Regarding the linear interpolation or similar in the post mentioned, I think this does not solve the problem. The hard thing is that the "Zernikes" they want to correct are highly "oscillatory" in the pupil, i.e. they have positive and negative contributions and a slight misorientation would cause that a big part will add up "the wrong way", i.e. the patient would experience more higher order aberrations (HOA) than with a non "wave guided" lens. As Daryl Meister writes, it might be possible, due to the assymetric nature of the HO aberrations, that correction along certain directions from the "sweet spot" is easier than in other directions, given a certain patient combination of HOA. I suspect, part of the test their Aberrometer does when deciding that the patient is a "good subject" for their glasses, has to do with that.

Or put the problem more mathematically: To get a correction of higher orders through an extended area you need some "self similar" surface, that looks basically the same wherever you go. This works well with spherical/toric surfaces, as a sphere (or better a parabolic function) has the same curvature (2nd derivative) wherever you go. (Actually, the "linear" term changes, but that´s what opticians call "prism" and does not cause a big problem) However, it seems that you cannot have a surface that maintains a constant 2nd derivate and at the same time have a given 4th deriv (or whatever)

XW

----------


## AWTECH

As I understand the technology they still use different front and back curve depending on the Rx.  The film that changes index is used for the intermediate transition zone and possibly the add also.  I tried to get a clear understanding of this at VEE and the people that were trying to explain it to me did not really understand the technology.

One big question I have is the minimum thickness.  Johnson and Johnson started with what became the Definity lens project with bonding two surfaces and this just could not deliever a lens of similar thickness to traditional surfacing with two bonded together.  There process was to match front and back blanks to create the power without surfacing.

I think they wound up the the definity design with a small part of the add on the front to avoid the Seiko Epson patent on a spherical front surface with the progressive design on the back.

Perhaps someone from the company with good technical knowledge could join in here and explain their technology.

----------


## xiaowei

> As I understand the technology they still use different front and back curve depending on the Rx. The film that changes index is used for the intermediate transition zone and possibly the add also. I tried to get a clear understanding of this at VEE and the people that were trying to explain it to me did not really understand the technology.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Perhaps someone from the company with good technical knowledge could join in here and explain their technology.


I sincerely would hope somebody would come up with more info as what can be found in the ads, the patents and the fancy, but technically no so correct, videos. Somehow I get the impression this is mostly a hype.

Is there nobody in the States, at best with ophthalmic knowledge, that has dispensed or even worn those glasses himself and can report about 
the pros (and cons) of it?

Nevertheless, there will be an ophthalmic conference here in Germany on Nov. 11 and one talk is titled (my translation):

"Ophthonix, first experiences with wavefront corrected eyeglasses in the optical store"

I will try to attend and report.

XW

----------


## rob.optician

I will be ordering a pair of Izon lenses for myself and should have them in about 1 month. I was considered a candidate for the lenses...I am also very skeptical...I will let you know my experience with the new lenses when I receive them. 

also: I wear SV lenses...I know some others that will be getting Progressive Izon lenses and will find out from them their experience.

----------


## optigrrl

Xiaowei - 

I can't wait to hear back from you on that conference.

Rob - 

Is there a way for you to try another lens at the same time to get a comparison?

----------


## rob.optician

The OD I work for is currently very happy with his Shamir Creation...he also currently has Kodak Precise and Kodak Unique. So he'll be able to compare those to the Izon Progressive lenses.

We also have an employee that just got her very first progressive lens last week - the Hoya Summit ECP with Super Hi-Vision. She will also be getting Izon lenses. All Izon lenses are 1.60 Index and come with a good Anti-Glare coating.

I have a single vision lens...I'm very happy with all of my current lenses...I have a 1.67 pair with Crizal Alize, a 1.60 pair with Kodak cleAR and a pair of Hoya's Phoenix Trivex lenses with Super Hi-Vision AR. 

Out of all the AR - I prefer the SHV...I've found that it is much more scratch resistant than the others. Next to that I prefer my local lab AR...Acclaro. 

My rx. 
-3.25 -075 105
-3.25 -0.25 075

I was a candidate for the Izon lens which means I had a high enough measurement of High-Order aberrations...trefoil/coma and spherical aberration.

The Izon Aberometer also recommended the rx.
-3.37 -0.75 103
-3.37 -0.62 052   which...is very close to what I already had. After the aberometor spits out that refraction the doctor has the choice of editing the Rx. or going with that one. 

The million-dollar question is - will I really see the difference? 

By the way, I did show the Izon reps some of the questions on this site...but I had to leave the room so I'm not sure what they discussed with the doctor. He also enjoyed the different questions that have been brought up.

I am very excited to try out these new lenses for myself...I've heard nothing but good things from other people...

we shall see...

----------


## Barry Santini

and he said:

1. we correct "straight-ahead" and smooth the correction to the periphery.

2. Yes, the index of refraction is individually set with the laminated layer, in minute "cells"...to provide a type of customized correction (somewhat superior in theory to "free-form").

3. OPHTHONIX is still learning what weighting of aberration profiles are optimal, as well as what client profiles typically respond enthusiastically to their corrections.

In the end, however...neither sph/cyl corrections, nor a client's wavefront aberration profile, is,  or has been found to be *stable* over time.

Vision is fluid...I subscribe to variation of Occcam's Razor, and try to take the simplest approach that does the job.

Barry Santini, ABOM

----------


## AWTECH

Barry said, the Ophthonix expert said:


> 2. Yes, the index of refraction is individually set with the laminated layer, in minute "cells"...to provide a type of customized correction (somewhat superior in theory to "free-form").


I am curious how there process would be in general superior to a freeform process.  Remember, freeform is a general term of processing method, not a design.  The Ophthonix laminated thin layer index correcting power is not explained.  How much change in index can this thin layer accomplish, ie: how much power management is possible.  With a good freeform design and process you can manage the power across the entire surface of the lens and produce a product that works for the patient.

In addition:


> 3. OPHTHONIX is still learning what weighting of aberration profiles are optimal, as well as what client profiles typically respond enthusiastically to their corrections.


This statement sounds like Research and Development in progress not a product that is ready for the market.  I also question the patent indicating that this vision correction is designed for straight ahead viewing.  No eye movement is possible and still make use of the abberation correction.  

Lets see buy a machine for $30,000 then perform this measurement on a patient and tell them about the wonderful new glasses that are going to cost them a gillion dollars, "but they are really worth it."  By the way patient there is one thing you will need to remember with your new expensive lenses to get the optimized vision. DO NOT MOVE YOUR EYES. ALL UP AND DOWN AND SIDE TO SIDE MOVEMENT MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED BY YOUR HEAD MOVEMENT.  KEEP YOUR EYES FOCUSED IN THE CENTER OF THE LENS. 

Enjoy your new lenses! 

I am not trying to knock this technology but please someone show me how this actually work where I can understand it, if I have it all wrong.

----------


## optigrrl

Hi rob. - 

I think that the Kodak Unique is the only lens with comprable technology to the IZON for a fair conclusion on performance. The Shamir Creation and the Summit ECP are both great products in their own categories, however neither are free-form surfacing technology and therefor would be an unfair comparison of technologies. 

Please keep us posted on your experiences!

----------


## Barry Santini

> I am not trying to knock this technology but please someone show me how this actually work where I can understand it, if I have it all wrong.


I think too, that their will be a learning curve for a while on HOA technology and efficacy.  It really is not unlike refractive surgery, where the act of asking the questions alone is at the edge of the *new* frontier.

In answer to your questions:

1. Varying the index *and* the surface curvature gives a designer TWO parameters to juggle in obtaining the desired correction.  Free Form can only juggle one: surface curvature.

2. I am not put off at all by Ophthonix *learning* how best their product will satisfy clients.  But I, along with you, will not invest in the Hardware technology this system requires until it is more stable, or the market demand is greater for the product.

It is interesting technology.  For my money, I would want to "walk-the-cat-back" and see if I could discover what HOA *weighting* (if any), in general, enabled progressive designs such as VIP and Comfort to becaome so successful, say versus Infinity and Panamic.

Barry Santini, ABOM

----------


## AWTECH

Barry Said in reply to an earlier post of mine:


> 1. Varying the index *and* the surface curvature gives a designer TWO parameters to juggle in obtaining the desired correction. Free Form can only juggle one: surface curvature.


I agree that in concept; there is another parameter that can be juggled, but what benefit, if any to patient is there to this. Currently with our designs, combined with our processing technology, can control the surface within about one micron of accuracy. Would there be any advantage spliting up the change in surface, to achieve change in power over a distance greater than two or three microns? 

It is different, and maybe very high tech in many ways.  Is there a benefit to the patient. ie: Lower cost for = same performance as product being replaced or better performance than existing lenses for a similar cost.

What about lens thickness with a laminated product? What is the thinnest they can make one side of this laminated lens?

Flying on an airplane in coach, flying from point A to point B, sitting next to someone who paid $200 more for their ticket, does not give the person who paid more (customer) a better deal of any kind.

----------


## Gogs

...

----------


## AWTECH

Gordon Hughes;

Thank you for your response.  Your reply is the most informative that I have seen to date.

I understand what you are saying but where is the proof that it works? copies of the studies etc. 

(As I have always said numbers don't lie, but people do.  Some who don't lie tell their own version of the numbers.  If you look at the numbers one can decide by themselves what is factual and what is fiction.)

Is there a white paper available on this technology with good explainations as to what is happening and how it is happening.  With all of the patents that I-Zon has received it would seem to be in their best interest to disclose how it works to those who are curious.  Even if I never sell one to anyone, if I understand the logic and science behind it I would not have the reservations that I do have at this time.  I have been asked about this technology by quite a few people who are responsible for thousands of Rx's per day.  Unfortunately I usually respond: "I can't say it doesn't work, I just have been able to have anyone explain it to me where I could understand how it works."

----------


## Gogs

..

----------


## eyepod

> Barry said, the Ophthonix expert said:
> 
> I am curious how there process would be in general superior to a freeform process. Remember, freeform is a general term of processing method, not a design. The Ophthonix laminated thin layer index correcting power is not explained. How much change in index can this thin layer accomplish, ie: how much power management is possible. With a good freeform design and process you can manage the power across the entire surface of the lens and produce a product that works for the patient.
> 
> In addition:
> 
> This statement sounds like Research and Development in progress not a product that is ready for the market. I also question the patent indicating that this vision correction is designed for straight ahead viewing. No eye movement is possible and still make use of the abberation correction. 
> 
> Lets see buy a machine for $30,000 then perform this measurement on a patient and tell them about the wonderful new glasses that are going to cost them a gillion dollars, "but they are really worth it." By the way patient there is one thing you will need to remember with your new expensive lenses to get the optimized vision. DO NOT MOVE YOUR EYES. ALL UP AND DOWN AND SIDE TO SIDE MOVEMENT MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED BY YOUR HEAD MOVEMENT. KEEP YOUR EYES FOCUSED IN THE CENTER OF THE LENS. 
> ...


Sorry guys, but you are all mis-informed.  The wavefront correction is mostly in the center third of the lens, but, the programming is "fanned out into the periphery and is dependent on a few things.  First, vertex must be specified on the order form.  Studies show that a person will only cut their eyes about 15% before turning their head.  The wavefront in the periph. is recalculated based on changes to the vertex when a patient looks to the side. It is based on the original rx, vertex, frame size etc.  They are using the same technology that was invented to fix the Hubble telescope when it was sent up and didn't work....remember that?  This is the exact same stuff.  NASA did not take into account abberations occuring in space.  They thought about ATMOSPHERIC abberation, but not distortion coming from outer space.  It is the EXACT same material that is sandwiched inside the lens.   Well, we all know how beautifully the Hubble works now, don't we?
I am disappointed to see the negativity when most people don't really understand how this works.  I have heard so many success stories from patients I can't keep track of them all.  You guys are missing out on something really special.  That's okay....we have patients coming from all over the United States to see us for this technology.  If you don't want all of those patients, we'll gladly take them!

----------


## rinselberg

> They are using the same technology that was invented to fix the Hubble telescope when it was sent up and didn't work ... remember that? This is the exact same stuff. NASA did not take into account [the] abberrations occuring in space. They thought about atmospheric abberations, but not [the] distortions coming from outer space. It is the exact same material that is sandwiched inside the lens.


Not that it matters from an optical dispenser's point of view, but I thought that was just an engineering blunder - that the contractor did not construct the telescopic mirror to the specified optical "prescription" - and that somehow it slipped through whatever quality assurance reviews and got launched into space "as built" instead of "as specified".


When is a forum post *more* than just a forum post? See OptiBoard's Word of the Day!

----------


## Fezz

Craig                         vbmenu_register("postmenu_172067", true);                                       
                                  OptiBoard Novice
                   Occupation: Dispensing Optician
                                                                                                                Join Date: Dec 2006
                     Location: Florida
                                                                    Posts: 6                     



 *Do Izon and Ophthonix Lenses work???* 
                                                              I just returned 3 machines and was the largest purchaser of lenses in the United States; the technology has some merits, but beware of the pitfalls. Please be careful as you invest in new technology; it is the company and their commitment to the market that one must bank on, not the technology. :finger:





I would assume that the above author knew the technology well. Said author even invested in three machines. I for one, don't know enough about this technology to form an intelligent decision. Trouble is, information(not marketing fluff) is hard to come by. I wonder if there really is a WOW factor.

----------


## drk

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

If we understood _in diopters_ the amount of correction that this wavefront stuff is providing, we'd gasp.

I believe it's on the order of less than a tenth a diopter.  Anyone surfacing to 0.12D accuracy routinely?  Any refractionists doing 0.12D routinely?

For all the hype, there is NO NEED for that level of accuracy in spectacle Rxs, in general.  Yes, there is someone out there with +0.25D inheirent positive spherical aberration (whatever) and they would benefit from correction of that error.  But, let's face it: that occurs maybe in 1% of cases, at best.

Since you can't profitably produce devices for 1% of the market who would need it, you have to hype up the overall benefits to the customer: the unsophisticated eye care professional who is mesmerized by terms such as "Shack Hartmann aberrometry" and "quadrifoil" and "Zernicke polynomials", etc., and just says to himself "I want to provide the best!  Sign me up!"  (Selling it to the end consumer is not Opthonix's job...it's yours.)

IF (big IF) this pans out (which it won't), then we'll all join in, when the prices come down.  

I feel it's a foolish waste of money to risk "being the first" at something.  Some would disagree with me.

----------


## Gogs

...

----------


## Darryl Meister

DRK, The "diopter" is a unit of measurement based on curvature. Only the second-order wavefront aberrations, which are comparable to sphere and cylinder errors, can be strictly expressed in terms of _curvature_. Curvature is related to the _second derivative_ of the wavefront height. (Though in the popular Zernike series used for expressing wavefront aberrations, each order includes some lower-order terms, as well.) Higher-order aberrations involve terms with higher derivatives, so the terms would involve D/mm, D/mm^2, etcetera.

It is also possible to express wavefront errors in "equivalent" diopters. Essentially, this equates the root-mean-square (RMS) wavefront error of the higher-order wavefront errors at a given pupil size to an equal RMS wavefront error of the second-order errors, only. Since the second-order errors can be expressed in terms of diopters, this allows you to express all of the wavefront errors in "equivalent diopters." However, the effects of the higher-order aberrations on vision aren't the same as the effects of the second-order aberrations, so this approach isn't especially meaningful...

----------


## eyepod

> DRK
> Interesting way to look at it . How many new technologies that are now established in consumer markets came to market at a high price only to have these fall as it becomes mainstream .The list is endless. How many opportunities in life are blown as a result of 'OH It Will Never Work , Oh I dont beleive that will sell etc etc' only to be proved wrong.Scientists used to say that man would never fly .
> Unfortunately as I mentioned on an earlier post the vast majority of ideas & opinions being placed here are wrong in relation to how the Z View system works and how its resulting Izon HD Vision Glasses work.
> The reason for using a nanometer measurement is 
> 1.The Z View machine measures to that accuracy consistently due to the accuracy of the 3d holographic imaging sensor .
> 2. HOA makes up 20% of refractive error you need to measure it and correct it at a .01 d accuracy to get a result that delivers customised HD vision.HOA occurs in small quantities in its various classifications and the effect on quality of vision of these is disproportionate and high ( for those challenged by it) when you look at the small values it records itself in .So to deliver a solution that reads that the error accurately ( the Z View does it at 11,300 points) and correct it you need to look at it with .01d accuraccy.
> 
> The only way to move forward in the competitive markets of today is to be innovative & informative and pass the story on (patients expect to be kept up to date about new technologies and information that could be beneficial) .If you dont do it someone else will.I would urge you to seek out someone from Ophthonix who can get you into some lenses ,you will then appreciate there is a difference and with it the clinical opportunies and market opportunies.
> 
> ...


Thanks, Gordon.  I've been feeling like the odd man out here.....like I should be stoned to death for wanting to believe that this works.

----------


## eyepod

> I will be ordering a pair of Izon lenses for myself and should have them in about 1 month. I was considered a candidate for the lenses...I am also very skeptical...I will let you know my experience with the new lenses when I receive them. 
> 
> also: I wear SV lenses...I know some others that will be getting Progressive Izon lenses and will find out from them their experience.


 I absolutely love my IZON lenses.  I constantly compare them to a conventional SV lens and the increase in clarity is not only noticable, but surprising as well.  The amount of glare and halos while driving at night is greatly reduced.  This is one of the reason I feel strongly about these lenses.  Once you can see for yourself the increase in clarity, you really won't care how they work.  I want to add that colors are much more vivid as well.  I experienced the "WOW" factor.  :o

----------


## Craig

I have as much experience as anybody in the world and after most clients had problems reading with the progressive, we sent back 3 machines.  We had more machines than anybody and sold more than anybody.  The company is all "smoke and mirrors"; I tried to work with them to overcome the lack of patient satisfaction and they are only concerned with raising more venture capital money.  They owe me over $30,000 in credits and refuse to deal with the issues.  They have recently lost most of their sales staff over these types of issues; such as people can't use the $305 lenses to see and the company could care less.  Ask them why as many have sent back the machines as kept them.  See what they tell you.
LET THE BUYER BEWARE OF OPHTHONIX!!!

----------


## Craig

I have sold more than anybody and the progressive does not work; we have put over 30 people who rejected the Izon lens by Ophthonix and 100&#37; went in the same frame and RX into another free form progressive and we have had 100% success.  THERE IS A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH THE COMPANY AND THE PRODUCTS.  What are you going to do with an overpriced abberometer and no company to service you.  They have raised $80,000,000 and need to sell aton of lenses to stay in business.  Best of luck and I would be glad to speak with you if you have any interest.  My background is in wholesale optical and this is a good start, but it does not work and the company does not care about anything but going public with scetchy products at best.

----------


## Craig

> DRK
> Interesting way to look at it . How many new technologies that are now established in consumer markets came to market at a high price only to have these fall as it becomes mainstream .The list is endless. How many opportunities in life are blown as a result of 'OH It Will Never Work , Oh I dont beleive that will sell etc etc' only to be proved wrong.Scientists used to say that man would never fly .
> Unfortunately as I mentioned on an earlier post the vast majority of ideas & opinions being placed here are wrong in relation to how the Z View system works and how its resulting Izon HD Vision Glasses work.
> The reason for using a nanometer measurement is 
> 1.The Z View machine measures to that accuracy consistently due to the accuracy of the 3d holographic imaging sensor .
> 2. HOA makes up 20% of refractive error you need to measure it and correct it at a .01 d accuracy to get a result that delivers customised HD vision.HOA occurs in small quantities in its various classifications and the effect on quality of vision of these is disproportionate and high ( for those challenged by it) when you look at the small values it records itself in .So to deliver a solution that reads that the error accurately ( the Z View does it at 11,300 points) and correct it you need to look at it with .01d accuraccy.
> 
> The only way to move forward in the competitive markets of today is to be innovative & informative and pass the story on (patients expect to be kept up to date about new technologies and information that could be beneficial) .If you dont do it someone else will.I would urge you to seek out someone from Ophthonix who can get you into some lenses ,you will then appreciate there is a difference and with it the clinical opportunies and market opportunies.
> 
> ...


I have sent back 3 machines and the product is all "fufu dust"; the company is on a quest to go public at any cost.  We have had more patient rejections than all other progresssives combined.  We put over 30 IZon non adapts in a new free form lens and 100% loved them.  THey were all the same RX and frame.  I have a box of over $30,000 in returns sitting in my office as we speak.  Good luck and it is time to dust off your resume.

----------


## Craig

> Sorry guys, but you are all mis-informed. The wavefront correction is mostly in the center third of the lens, but, the programming is "fanned out into the periphery and is dependent on a few things. First, vertex must be specified on the order form. Studies show that a person will only cut their eyes about 15% before turning their head. The wavefront in the periph. is recalculated based on changes to the vertex when a patient looks to the side. It is based on the original rx, vertex, frame size etc. They are using the same technology that was invented to fix the Hubble telescope when it was sent up and didn't work....remember that? This is the exact same stuff. NASA did not take into account abberations occuring in space. They thought about ATMOSPHERIC abberation, but not distortion coming from outer space. It is the EXACT same material that is sandwiched inside the lens. Well, we all know how beautifully the Hubble works now, don't we?
> I am disappointed to see the negativity when most people don't really understand how this works. I have heard so many success stories from patients I can't keep track of them all. You guys are missing out on something really special. That's okay....we have patients coming from all over the United States to see us for this technology. If you don't want all of those patients, we'll gladly take them!


You may want to retract this comment, I have a box full of Izon non adapts- 30 pairs at last count.  This was after trying to work with Ophthonix; to no avial.  I sent back 3 machines and they have received more back in the past quarter than they shipped; not a good trend. By the way, my friend Greg Allen fixed the Hubble as the lead optical PHD type and he would not be happy to be associtated with anything from Opthonix.  The Hubble actually failed because he quit prior to completion of the project and NASA called his new employer, Kodak in Rochester, NY and demanded he be loaned back to General Dynamics until it was fixed.  He left the same day as the call came in and a few months later, it was fixed.  Ask Opthonix how the technologies have any similarities; the answer is there is none and they are all "smoke and mirrors".  Good Luck with all the unhappy clients who paid a fortune for lenses that don't work as advertised.:finger:

----------


## rinselberg

Any comments (Craig?) on the iZon Single Vision Lenses? Were there technical problems with the Ophthonix Z-View Aberrometer that is required to dispense these lenses? Instrument malfunctions? Or was the aberrometer judged to be not acceptable - technically - for the purposes of refraction - irrespective of the performance of the iZon lenses or whether iZon lenses were dispensed?

PS to Craig: I can see that you have real issues with Ophthonix. I'm interested in the technology, first and foremost, and that is all that motivates my questions - personally.

----------


## Craig

> Any comments (Craig?) on the iZon Single Vision Lenses? Were there problems with the Ophthonix Z-View Aberrometer that is required to dispense these lenses? Instrument malfunctions? Or was the aberrometer judged to be not acceptable for the purposes of refraction - irrespective of the performance of the iZon lenses or whether iZon lenses were dispensed?


The aberrometer by Ophthonix is not an accurate device for deriving usable prescriptions in my opinion: I have spoken numerous times with both the designer(the just removed CEO and not by his choice! ) and technical VP at the company and they were not interested in solving the refractive errors. 
I tried to work with them on a study to determine the problems and they denied there is RX issue; they are only interested in raising $80,000,000 and trying to convince the financial public this company is worth $250,000,000- yes that is a quarter of a billion. It is hard to imagine a company that is only producing 40 jobs per day to be worth that kind of money. After breakage, they take on average of 6 weeks to get lenses; just imagine the reaction of you and your client when after waiting 6 weeks and they can't see or read as well as there old glasses and you promised the vision would be great.
DId you hear about J&J and how much money they lost on the Definity before they sold the equipment and got out of the business. This one does it with unsuspecting venture capital money and hopes no one realizes the lack of substance in the technology and the company.

There are many times the RX must be changed by the OD and in either case- THE TECHNOLOGY DOES NOT PROVIDE A USABLE RX OR LENSES THAT GIVE BETTER VISION (in my experience with 100's of pairs)- this is in SV or Progressives. I have more non adapts from the SV and Progressive from Ophthonix than all other lenses combined over the past 8 years. I do 98% progressives in my 3 stores and have never told a person they can't wear a progressive until we started using the Izon lens. 
PLEASE LET ALL BUYERS OF THE $30,000 MACHINE AND THE $305 LENS ( YOUR COST) KNOW OF ALL THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS TECHNOLOGY AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS.:finger:

----------


## Craig

> Craig  vbmenu_register("postmenu_172067", true); 
> OptiBoard Novice
> Occupation: Dispensing Optician
> Join Date: Dec 2006
> Location: Florida
> Posts: 6 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You might want to contact all the former sales reps for the company and the reasons they have left , the remaining are polishing off their resumes.
The company had more units returned than sold in the past quarter; does that tell a story that might interest potential buyers. 
LET THE BUYER BEWARE OF GETTING INVOLVED IN A TECHNOLOGY COMPANY WITH NO RETAIL OPTICAL EXPERIENCE

----------


## Barry Santini

> Not that it matters from an optical dispenser's point of view, but I thought that was just an engineering blunder - that the contractor did not construct the telescopic mirror to the specified optical "prescription" - and that somehow it slipped through whatever quality assurance reviews and got launched into space "as built" instead of "as specified".


The Hubble's mirror's initial figure was fabricated off BECAUSE THE *TEST* FIXTURE WAS MIS-CALIBRATED (and, obviously, not known to be so)!

It's kind of like taking a PD with a pupilometer that has a serious problem. Sure, you've taken the PD, but does it represent the measurement you want, in reality?

Barry

----------


## eyepod

> You might want to contact all the former sales reps for the company and the reasons they have left , the remaining are polishing off their resumes.
> The company had more units returned than sold in the past quarter; does that tell a story that might interest potential buyers. 
> LET THE BUYER BEWARE OF GETTING INVOLVED IN A TECHNOLOGY COMPANY WITH NO RETAIL OPTICAL EXPERIENCE


Ophthonix has lost one sales person. Not the entire force as Craig suggests.  (Oh wait....counting Craig, that makes 2.....you were a sales rep, right? ) Craig, I appreciate your informatice comments but would appreciate them more if you left your personal feelings out of the mix. You are coming across as bitter instead of knowledgable. The statement you make about there being more returned units than units sold is completely false and fabricated. Are you an ex-employee? How would you even know that? Are you aware that the founder of Ophthonix invented one of the best pieces of ophthalmological equipment in the detection and treatment of glaucoma? He invented (or helped invent...not sure which)the HRT so I think there is some experience in the field. Sorry you feel so badly about the company. They are striving to repair any misgivings in the customer service area, which I admit needed some fine tuning. All new companies and technologies have growing pains. Yes, the progressives need a little work and they are working diligently to make it better. In my experience, as long as the frame is pre-adjustd and measured properly, with the OC at least 10mm from the top eyewire they work just fine on the right candidates. Everybody is not a candidate for this lens. You have to manage patient expectations properly or you will be unsuccessful as you have described. The best person for the IZON PAL is the person who is most concerned with clear distance vision and night driving.....not an architect or engineer working over a wide span area. You MUST specify vertex distance and panto tilt in order for the lenses to work properly.I have never had problems returning lenes for credit unless I sit on them too long and then it's my own fault.

----------


## eyepod

> The aberrometer by Ophthonix is not an accurate device for deriving usable prescriptions in my opinion: I have spoken numerous times with both the designer(the just removed CEO and not by his choice! ) and technical VP at the company and they were not interested in solving the refractive errors. 
> I tried to work with them on a study to determine the problems and they denied there is RX issue; they are only interested in raising $80,000,000 and trying to convince the financial public this company is worth $250,000,000- yes that is a quarter of a billion. It is hard to imagine a company that is only producing 40 jobs per day to be worth that kind of money. After breakage, they take on average of 6 weeks to get lenses; just imagine the reaction of you and your client when after waiting 6 weeks and they can't see or read as well as there old glasses and you promised the vision would be great.
> DId you hear about J&J and how much money they lost on the Definity before they sold the equipment and got out of the business. This one does it with unsuspecting venture capital money and hopes no one realizes the lack of substance in the technology and the company.
> 
> There are many times the RX must be changed by the OD and in either case- THE TECHNOLOGY DOES NOT PROVIDE A USABLE RX OR LENSES THAT GIVE BETTER VISION (in my experience with 100's of pairs)- this is in SV or Progressives. I have more non adapts from the SV and Progressive from Ophthonix than all other lenses combined over the past 8 years. I do 98% progressives in my 3 stores and have never told a person they can't wear a progressive until we started using the Izon lens. 
> PLEASE LET ALL BUYERS OF THE $30,000 MACHINE AND THE $305 LENS ( YOUR COST) KNOW OF ALL THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS TECHNOLOGY AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS.:finger:


In my experience, the aberrometer is the most accurate "auto-refractor" that I have ever seen.  It is so close to the manifest that most of the time the docs I know prescribe right off of the Z-View.  It is highly repeatable when done right.  Most of the time, if the exams are coming out differently on the same patient, it is because the technician is not careful enough to watch for changes in patient positioning and alignment or when they fail to instruct the patient to blink at the right times....and then waiting 2 seconds AFTER  the blink before taking the measurments.  The lens surfaces must also be kept perfectly clean at all times.  The room must be dimly lit.  We all get sick of performing patient work-ups and it is this apathy that leads to incorrect measurements.  The Z-View measures over 11,000 points of data over a 6 mm pupil compared to 400-600 for typical auto-refractors.  I'm really sorry that you had such a lousy experience with Ophthonix.  Mine continues to grow better and stronger each week.

----------


## eyepod

> You may want to retract this comment, I have a box full of Izon non adapts- 30 pairs at last count. This was after trying to work with Ophthonix; to no avial. I sent back 3 machines and they have received more back in the past quarter than they shipped; not a good trend. By the way, my friend Greg Allen fixed the Hubble as the lead optical PHD type and he would not be happy to be associtated with anything from Opthonix. The Hubble actually failed because he quit prior to completion of the project and NASA called his new employer, Kodak in Rochester, NY and demanded he be loaned back to General Dynamics until it was fixed. He left the same day as the call came in and a few months later, it was fixed. Ask Opthonix how the technologies have any similarities; the answer is there is none and they are all "smoke and mirrors". Good Luck with all the unhappy clients who paid a fortune for lenses that don't work as advertised.:finger:


You are right in the sense that I probably don't know how the hubble telescope went wrong or how it was eventually repaired.  I don't claim to be an expert in this area or have a PHD in optics like others on this site.  I do know that Ophthonix bought the technology from the government for one dollar so it has to be related in some way....I would think.

----------


## Barry Santini

> It is so close to the manifest that most of the time the docs I know prescribe right off of the Z-View.


Gee, when I asked the OD whose givin' all the Ophthonix presentations at the shows about this, he said the refractionist *still* has to perform a binocular-balance test (red-green?), still the Ophthonix device does not take this into account.

Anyone know differently?

Barry

----------


## eyepod

> Gee, when I asked the OD whose givin' all the Ophthonix presentations at the shows about this, he said the refractionist *still* has to perform a binocular-balance test (red-green?), still the Ophthonix device does not take this into account.
> 
> Anyone know differently?
> 
> 
> Barry


Barry,

You are correct.  Duochrome testing and balancing is stil performed.  The sphere can be adjusted as needed w/ IZON lenses but they generally work better if you do not alter the cyl and axis readings made by the Z-View.  Now, if your cyl/axis is much different than the patient is currently wearing than that has to be taken into account.  Trial framing is helpful in this situation but this type of patient is probably not the best IZON candidate.

----------


## eyepod

> You might want to contact all the former sales reps for the company and the reasons they have left , the remaining are polishing off their resumes.
> The company had more units returned than sold in the past quarter; does that tell a story that might interest potential buyers. 
> LET THE BUYER BEWARE OF GETTING INVOLVED IN A TECHNOLOGY COMPANY WITH NO RETAIL OPTICAL EXPERIENCE


Everybody's got to start somewhere.  At one point in time, all of the retail optical companies were brand new.

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

Boy, there's a lot going on here. But one thing seems to be true and repeated many times by the Opthonix people is that:
There are many people who are not candidates for the I-zon lens.

I ask- what good is a lens that ordinary people are not a candidate for? Especially single vision. Who among us would tell a customer that the supposedly best lens is not right for you.

Sure, someone that's a plano -.25  doesn't need 1.70 index, but these I-Zons are supposed to create better vision, who cannot benefit from that?

----------


## eyepod

> Boy, there's a lot going on here. But one thing seems to be true and repeated many times by the Opthonix people is that:
> There are many people who are not candidates for the I-zon lens.
> 
> I ask- what good is a lens that ordinary people are not a candidate for? Especially single vision. Who among us would tell a customer that the supposedly best lens is not right for you.
> 
> Sure, someone that's a plano -.25 doesn't need 1.70 index, but these I-Zons are supposed to create better vision, who cannot benefit from that?


About 65% of patients will be IZON candidates.  There are limitations right now on high powers and high cyl.  Also, sometimes there is so little high-order aberration that the lens cost does not justify the small amount if VA improvement.  Other times there is so MUCH HO aberration that the lensees can't compensate for it all.    You want to fit people who fall into the "sweet spot" for the most success.   Pathology within the eye can also rule a patient out. We can't do much for a person w/ mac degen or other retinal abnormalities, dense cataracts, corneal dystrophies, scarring, etc.  

Hope this helps.

----------


## eyepod

> About 65% of patients will be IZON candidates. There are limitations right now on high powers and high cyl. Also, sometimes there is so little high-order aberration that the lens cost does not justify the small amount if VA improvement. Other times there is so MUCH HO aberration that the lensees can't compensate for it all. You want to fit people who fall into the "sweet spot" for the most success. Pathology within the eye can also rule a patient out. We can't do much for a person w/ mac degen or other retinal abnormalities, dense cataracts, corneal dystrophies, scarring, etc. 
> 
> Hope this helps.


One other thing:  I have fit people with ocular health issues (keratoconus etc) with the understanding that they might not get the improvement they are hoping for.  About 90% of these patients, based on my own personal experience, DO gain some improvement.  The lenses may not get rid of all the HO, glare and halo's, but they do tend to make a discernable difference to these patients.  First of all, these people tend to be highly motivated because they desperatly want to see better.  However, you take a chance on fitting these patients because Ophthonix does not offer the adaptation guarantee on patients who the Z-View determines not to be candidates.  You must proceed w/ caution and make sure the patient knows what to expect.  PATIENT COMMUNICATION is essential!  If anything, you will gain a lifetime customer because you have shown them that you will do whatever you can to improve their vision and that they are important to you.

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

> About 65% of patients will be IZON candidates.  There are limitations right now on high powers and high cyl.  Also, sometimes there is so little high-order aberration that the lens cost does not justify the small amount if VA improvement.  Other times there is so MUCH HO aberration that the lensees can't compensate for it all.    You want to fit people who fall into the "sweet spot" for the most success.   Pathology within the eye can also rule a patient out. We can't do much for a person w/ mac degen or other retinal abnormalities, dense cataracts, corneal dystrophies, scarring, etc.  
> 
> Hope this helps.


Well, suggest an appropriate Rx range for them, please. I have no plans to dispense these, but am interested.
Even my newest lenses still create a lot of distracting abberations, though overall my vision is better than my last pair.
i just wish some brilliant person could come up with an effective treatment for floaters, of which I am mightily plagued.

----------


## Metronome

Delete this post.

----------


## Metronome

Delete this post.

----------


## Metronome

Delete this post.

----------


## j.west

thanks for the report cory

this kind of suggests, to me, that perhaps myopia may sometimes be a result of the eye "over-minusing" itself, to compensate for lack of clarity due to higher abberations?

Just a thought.

It certainly explains why myopes are so easily overminused

allergies, watery mucousy eyes, certainly must cause some variance that would result in minor abberrations?

----------


## rob.optician

I started this thread many moons ago and promised an update, then completely forgot!


Two Izon reps. came to our office and set up the equipment for a day. Every staff member (5 of us) and a few patients all used the equipment that day. We were told that those of us who were candidates would all get a pair of Izon lenses so we could see the difference...well after that day we never heard from Izon again. They were very friendly when they were here. I may have thrown them off by pulling out the posts from this message board that I printed out - just to try to get answers to these questions that we're all raising, I don't think they anticipated that happening. One of the reps. we have known for a very long time...so it was surprising that we never heard from either of them again. No follow-up calls to see if we were interested in purchasing the equipment. No lenses. Nothing. They would not return any calls. :Confused:  

In their defense I have to say I do not know what happened...maybe they both quit Izon - maybe there were other issues going on within the company that caused us to fall in the cracks and be forgotten? I know that can happen sometimes. So, no hard feelings to them b/c there are many practices out there that have had different experiences.

I have talked with a few people that have tried the lenses and they have all said the same thing: They are good - but not $300-$400 more good. 

Unfortunately that is the best update I can give you...that's the extent of "my experience" with Opthonix/Izon. :)

----------


## Metronome

Delete this post.

----------


## rob.optician

I received a very pleasant and professional phone call from a representative from Ophthonix/Izon a couple days ago. Turns out, I had the facts wrong - if you do not order the equipment - you do not get to try the Izon lenses for free. 

So...this whole time I've been waiting to try the lenses out to see if I liked them, but since we decided not to purchase at this time - we will not be receiving a pair of lenses. 

Thanks to Ophthonix for following up on my post! :)

----------


## DR.P

> Please use this thread to post your experience dispensing the Izon Wavefront Guided Progressive Lenses.
> 
> This product is a large investment for any office and if those opticians that have dispensed these lenses could post their experience it would be a great help to the rest of us. 
> 
> How are patients responding to the new "custom" design? 
> 
> 
> I have had the unit since September. I have dispensed well over 150 pair.
> 
> ...


My revenues were up last year by many, many tens of thousands of dollars.
Selling a $600 lens and almost requiring a new frame because I want IZON to cut and edge it (and believe me, they use a pretty slippery coating, don't try this if you have an old edger).
You also don't put this lens into a $3.95 frame. So the average pair goes out of my office at are you all sitting down....$1000. and I have sold more than 150 of them. Friday I sold two and had the opportunity to sell two more. The problem was the abberations were so minimal that the company did not want to make them for fear the patient would not benefit.

NOW on to that letter.
I of course received it. Everyone who owned one received "it". I believe that there is "some" truth in "some" of the statements made in the letter.
The company has never brought a training film to demonstrate exactly how this works. I personally spoke to the head honcho a few weeks ago.
I personally heard some things that made the hair on the back of my neck stand on end. 

That said, whatever they actually do to the lens, it works!
I have had a patient come from Alaska who is extremely anal and pleased.
I have a patient who came from Costa Rica...a Lasik failure...says he can finally drive at night.

I really don't know if its snake oil, but it has made some otherwise unfixable patients happy! Placebo? If it is, its a darn good one.

Feel free to e-mail me privately, I keep no secrets.

Allan J. Panzer, O.D.

----------


## Metronome

Delete this post.

----------


## DR.P

Many of the Rxs are for Single vision so there is no way to put the patient into a Zeiss to compare.
My patient from Alaska only bought two pair of Single vision. His response was that the night vision was a considerable improvement.
I have considered doing a side by side comparison with Zeiss or Varilux physio 360. I guess I am suprised that Zeiss or varilux haven't approached any of their accounts to conduct the Pepsi Challange.
Darrell, wanna give it a go?
Allan

----------


## AWTECH

> Many of the Rxs are for Single vision so there is no way to put the patient into a Zeiss to compare.
> My patient from Alaska only bought two pair of Single vision. His response was that the night vision was a considerable improvement.
> I have considered doing a side by side comparison with Zeiss or Varilux physio 360. I guess I am suprised that Zeiss or varilux haven't approached any of their accounts to conduct the Pepsi Challange.
> Darrell, wanna give it a go?
> Allan


I am sure that the low volume that I-Zon is producing, (compared to a large lens company), does not give a large company such as Zeiss or Essilor any reason to do such a comparison.

There is limited upside in giving away expensive products.  By doing such a comparison it actually helps I-Zon only.  If all of the business that I-Zon currently has were to switch to Essilor, (for example), Essilor would not even know this had happened.

----------


## rdcoach5

> DRK, The "diopter" is a unit of measurement based on curvature. Only the second-order wavefront aberrations, which are comparable to sphere and cylinder errors, can be strictly expressed in terms of _curvature_. Curvature is related to the _second derivative_ of the wavefront height. (Though in the popular Zernike series used for expressing wavefront aberrations, each order includes some lower-order terms, as well.) Higher-order aberrations involve terms with higher derivatives, so the terms would involve D/mm, D/mm^2, etcetera.
> 
> It is also possible to express wavefront errors in "equivalent" diopters. Essentially, this equates the root-mean-square (RMS) wavefront error of the higher-order wavefront errors at a given pupil size to an equal RMS wavefront error of the second-order errors, only. Since the second-order errors can be expressed in terms of diopters, this allows you to express all of the wavefront errors in "equivalent diopters." However, the effects of the higher-order aberrations on vision aren't the same as the effects of the second-order aberrations, so this approach isn't especially meaningful...


Darryl, just out of curiousity of a non- mathematician, is there any level of math at which you are not proficient? String theory, anything?
 Bob Taylor

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Darryl, just out of curiousity of a non- mathematician, is there any level of math at which you are not proficient?


I was a mathematics and computer science major in college, so I have a bit of an advantage. Of course, some of the physicists and mathematicians in our R&D department have forgotten more than I'll ever know on the subject!

----------


## au

Hi all,

It has been for some time for the Izon lens to develop, how is the result?

Compare with the physio or physio 360, is there much difference between ?

Is the iZon lens company only provide these lens (SV) or someelse has joint into the market ?

I check from internet the Izon help a meeting in 2007 
checkhttp://http://ophthonix.izonlens.com...ner-forums.asp

thanks all


:cheers:

----------


## optigrrl

> ...


Just out of curiosity, why did George come back in April and delete all his posts?

----------


## eromitlab

Had the zView installed a couple of weeks ago, and we've sold about five pairs so far. I am anxious to see how things go at delivery with some of our established PAL wearers (especially since they were wearing Comfort or Definity). 

360 Technology didn't fly well in our office because of the overwhelming clarity over other lenses we dispense (people just couldn't adjust to the design or the sharpness), so I am a little apprehensive about the iZon PALs. I know there's no comparison from a manufacturing standpoint, because it's a vastly different process; however, patient perception is what it's all about and if these people that just dropped $1000+ on new glasses are not happy with the exceptional clarity that these lenses are supposed to have, we're gonna have issues.

Personally, I have done incredibly well with Physio and 360 lenses, the vision is far and above better than any other lenses I have had. I am very curious about how well I could see with iZon lenses, even though I am not an ideal candidate for them (higher order aberrations were not high enough). I am considering making up an exit questionnaire for the patients who buy iZon lenses so I can maybe come up with an idea how people benefit or not benefit with this type of correction. 

I am excited about having this type of technology in my office, but I am holding my breath on how well it will do with our patients until I see the end product.

----------


## AWTECH

> Had the zView installed a couple of weeks ago, and we've sold about five pairs so far. I am anxious to see how things go at delivery with some of our established PAL wearers (especially since they were wearing Comfort or Definity). 
> 
> 360 Technology didn't fly well in our office because of the overwhelming clarity over other lenses we dispense (people just couldn't adjust to the design or the sharpness), so I am a little apprehensive about the iZon PALs. I know there's no comparison from a manufacturing standpoint, because it's a vastly different process; however, patient perception is what it's all about and if these people that just dropped $1000+ on new glasses are not happy with the exceptional clarity that these lenses are supposed to have, we're gonna have issues.
> 
> Personally, I have done incredibly well with Physio and 360 lenses, the vision is far and above better than any other lenses I have had. I am very curious about how well I could see with iZon lenses, even though I am not an ideal candidate for them (higher order aberrations were not high enough). I am considering making up an exit questionnaire for the patients who buy iZon lenses so I can maybe come up with an idea how people benefit or not benefit with this type of correction. 
> 
> I am excited about having this type of technology in my office, but I am holding my breath on how well it will do with our patients until I see the end product.


I would be interested to see if you are getting results based on the Abberometer Rx reading being different than the DR refraction or is it the IZON PAL.

----------


## nickrock

Good point AWTECH.  As a technician that performs refractomerty in an office that has an Alcon LADARWAVE CustomCornea wavefront system, I know from experience that nothing will ever replace the the subjective refraction. A machine may spit out an Rx that is definitely accurate but that does not always mean that is what the patient prefers. Many times it will give a cylinder amount and no matter how hard I push it the patient doesn't want it. Slippery slope in Rx'ing objective and skipping the subjective.

----------


## wasan

:Nerd:

----------


## Fezz

I attended a seminar last Thursday about the lenses. I sat with the CEO. We had a nice conversation.  :Rolleyes:  I came away from the evening thinking about all the BS I had heard. My conclusion was that if the evening was based more on how the lens was going to increase our profits, BS marketing gimmicks, card tricks,  and testimonies from other offices that use it(authors of some trade rag articles)-than the actual lens----that the actual lens was not that great. I got sick of the vague answers, no answers, and bogus "canned" answers. Might be a good lens-might blow. I didn't really learn much about it!!!

----------


## DocInChina

> I attended a seminar last Thursday about the lenses. I sat with the CEO. We had a nice conversation.  I came away from the evening thinking about all the BS I had heard. My conclusion was that if the evening was based more on how the lens was going to increase our profits, BS marketing gimmicks, card tricks, and testimonies from other offices that use it(authors of some trade rag articles)-than the actual lens----that the actual lens was not that great. I got sick of the vague answers, no answers, and bogus "canned" answers. Might be a good lens-might blow. I didn't really learn much about it!!!


How were the suds? Hopefully the evening wasn't a total loss. :cheers:

----------


## Fezz

> How were the suds? Hopefully the evening wasn't a total loss. :cheers:



The suds were OK-until they closed up the bar before dinner! That damn bar closed up tighter than Johns wallet!!

:D:cheers::D:cheers::D

----------


## eromitlab

Frankly, it seems to me that there is a lot of marketing malarkey that goes along with the lens, whether it's to protect their technology (like a squirrel hides an acorn) or if the sales people just don't understand the technology well enough to come up with clear, direct answers that aren't canned and coached.

I think this technology is a promising one and I am anxious to see how it works out for the patients, although I am also apprehensive about how well it will work on the patients' faces. The proof will be in the delivery I guess. I know from my own experience that Physio 360 does what it says it can do, and the indications are that this lens (the PAL design) is improved but that the corridor is a little more restricted than the Physio 360. 

The visual overload that comes from wearing the lenses is also something I'm concerned with, as the Physio line didn't do well in my office. Some patients thought the lenses made things too clear... if the iZon PAL is even more enhanced, how is this going to be percieved? 

My only guess is that because the instrument prescribes to the lenses directly and only for the individual the end result is a much more palatable visual experience; whereas Physio (so I have been told and not by someone affiliated with Ophthonix) was designed to overcome the aberrations of the lens materials and making of the lens molds (optimized, yes, but much less specific than iZon), and that the lack of specificity is sometimes not exactly what is needed. 

I have some other interesting observations, but I will save them for another time... I'm a little too worn out to go any further. :hammer:

----------


## rinselberg

eromitlab, Fezz et al ...

Have you perused the articles that are available online at ...
http://ophthonix.izonlens.com/reviews/sci-papers.asp

..?

Just a suggestion, in case you haven't taken a look at these articles.

As the saying goes, "I don't have a horse in this race ..."

----------


## rinselberg

iZon Lenses ... FAQs ... includes some FAQs on the PAL/progressive option.

If you haven't already seen it ...

I'll "pipe down" now ... unless someone has a response that I can speak to.

----------


## bhess25

I talked to a very very inteligent doctor here in cleveland right after he went to vegas and seen the aberometer at work. Now this is a great idea for contacts, because you can move your eye and still have clear vision, Once he got his Izon lenses (he has some serious higher orders abbs) everytime he moved his eyes he cringed. This technology is great for like i said a contact, something that stays with your eye, but the slightest movement and goodbye, abberations get worse. Besides higher order abberations in most (over 89% of the population) people only account for aproximately 12% of your vision. Is it cost effective to account for 12% and having to look like a robot and turn your whole body to see that train hitting your car (allthough it could be fun just looking a little off the side and seing 10 trains), im gonna go with...i wouldnt say no, more like hell no!!..this technology will never be capable of being used in an opthalmic lens, it should only be used for contacts!!!..unless you realy do enjoy fun house mirrors!!...more ways to rip people off...aint technology great?!!!!

----------


## DR.P

OK...I can speak as an "optometrist" who has dispensed close to 500 of these lenses. Craig is an "optician" who seems to have a problem with the company and is venting on this forum. He has financial issues with the company which he does not mention. He mentions somewhere in the dozens of hate mails he issues..."over thirty returned".
That they owe him $30K...at 300/pair that would be 100 pair returned...but lets not split hairs.
Here is the straight and narrow and eyepod said it before I posted this.."THEY WORK!"
As to why they work, I am not even sure the company fully understands why they work better, but I had a conversation with a researcher at the University of Texas the other day which shed some light on why they work.
NONE of which is contained or even could be contained in any of the posts from everyone who is familiar with low order abberations.
Hope this doesn't bore too many folks.
My research friend doesn't even know IZONs exist.
His research indicates that in the visual cortex there are striations that detect..horizontal lines, vertical lines, thickness and finally "color".
He will be presenting this at a meeting of NeuroVision researchers in of all places ....the burning San Diego on like Nov 1.
Since color is the most important component of the patient's vision, the "glue" Izon uses that corrects ? Chromatic Abberation...is probably the factor in the success of their lenses. The rest if "probably" just the free form technology which they apply to SV as well as bifocal lenses when most of us cannot order a SV freeform...Daryl, feel free to correct me since I am not aware of the ease of ordering freeform SV...but again, what no one seems aware of is the glue which spreads from left to right on the lens.
Personally, I have returned about 10 pair out of close to 500. Most were my fault for selecting patients with macular disorders trying to help them and finding that the change wasn't enough to make them happy.
NO lens can please everyone!
some of you have contacted me personally and I will be happy to discuss my results with you...but my fingers are tired now...
if you send me a personal message, please give me a phone number and I will call you back. NO< I do not work for now nor have I ever for Ophthonix.
I can include dozens of testimonials, but who really cares. I am selling them successfully, and that is all that matters to me.
Who cares what Craig or Panzer says...what we all care is what the patients say.
I have (as we all do....) one patient who after getting a pair was so taken that he bought 4 more pair. My staff each have two pair and can no longer wear their 8 other pair...
Allan J. Panzer,O.D. 
Houston, Texas:)

----------


## Barry Santini

However, some of your offered explanations for why they are a success suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of the latest theories connected with neural processing.

For example:

No less an authority than Dr. Jack Holliday has re-stated in his new book that:

1. The human eye is an significantly-decentered optical system, which introduces both coma and chromatic aberration that degrade the potential PSF performance of the eye's nominal f/number(s) by up to 40&#37;.

2. The negative errors of these decentered elements *are not obvious* to us because neural processing has *filtered out* symmetrical errors between the eyes through evolution (Do any of us really see color or coma around stars with corrected-naked vision?)

The research is still on-going regarding our understanding of neural vision processing.

FWIW

Barry

----------


## AWTECH

> OK...I can speak as an "optometrist" who has dispensed close to 500 of these lenses. Craig is an "optician" who seems to have a problem with the company and is venting on this forum. He has financial issues with the company which he does not mention. He mentions somewhere in the dozens of hate mails he issues..."over thirty returned".
> That they owe him $30K...at 300/pair that would be 100 pair returned...but lets not split hairs.
> Here is the straight and narrow and eyepod said it before I posted this.."THEY WORK!"
> As to why they work, I am not even sure the company fully understands why they work better, but I had a conversation with a researcher at the University of Texas the other day which shed some light on why they work.
> NONE of which is contained or even could be contained in any of the posts from everyone who is familiar with low order abberations.
> Hope this doesn't bore too many folks.
> My research friend doesn't even know IZONs exist.
> His research indicates that in the visual cortex there are striations that detect..horizontal lines, vertical lines, thickness and finally "color".
> He will be presenting this at a meeting of NeuroVision researchers in of all places ....the burning San Diego on like Nov 1.
> ...


I would like an explaination from you for all of our benefits regarding this technology from Izon.  You have dispensed over 500 pair and with good results.  My question is how do you know that the patient satisfaction and benefit is any better with the Izon lenses with the glue in the middle vs the same backside PAL design on a 1.60 42 abbe value lens?

My concern is that with high order abberations needing correction for issues with specific point problems within the eye on a lens where the eye travel is not fix like a contact, that this will never provide any benefit other than looking straight ahead.  No benefit for the use of the lower part of the lens.

Now you know my concerns please address these points.

----------


## DR.P

> I would like an explaination from you for all of our benefits regarding this technology from Izon. You have dispensed over 500 pair and with good results. My question is how do you know that the patient satisfaction and benefit is any better with the Izon lenses with the glue in the middle vs the same backside PAL design on a 1.60 42 abbe value lens?
> 
> I cannot know because I am not able to reproduce their back surface.
> All I can tell you is that patients with no change in rx are significantly impressed.
> 
> My concern is that with high order abberations needing correction for issues with specific point problems within the eye on a lens where the eye travel is not fix like a contact, that this will never provide any benefit other than looking straight ahead. No benefit for the use of the lower part of the lens.
> 
> Not one patient has expressed any concern about off centered viewing.
> NOT one! So, I realize your concerns and I had the same concerns until I started dispensing them. I have posted some of my patients e-mails in the past. I can only speak for the current ones and say that they seem to like them better than any previous. Have I put them up against a 360? No. Have I put them up against a Unique....? Yes! Another optometrist who has every type of progressive ordered a pair through me. When he put them on, his first reaction was that they were terrible...after about ten minutes he felt that they were as good or better than Unique. That said, you must select patients based on complaints. If the patient has zero complaints with their current Rx, there seems to be little improvement.
> ...


I hope this answers some of your questions.

----------


## DR.P

[quote=Barry Santini;210654]However, some of your offered explanations for why they are a success suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of the latest theories connected with neural processing.

For example:

No less an authority than Dr. Jack Holliday has re-stated in his new book that:

1. The human eye is an significantly-decentered optical system, which introduces both coma and chromatic aberration that degrade the potential PSF performance of the eye's nominal f/number(s) by up to 40%.
AND THIS MAKES IT SO.....

Dr. "Holladay's"OFFICE IS DOWN THE STREET FROM MINE.
HE IS A FINE DOCTOR...BUT, IS HE A NEURO RESEARCHER? I CAN CLEARLY ANSWER THAT HIS INFORMATION IS GLEANED SOMEWHERE ELSE.
MINE IS GLEANED FROM ACTUAL NEURO SCIENTISTS, NOT PRACTICING OPHTHALMOLOGISTS, NO MATTER HOW SMART.
MINE HAS YET TO BE PRESENTED AND WILL...OR WOULD BE PRESENTED NEXT WEEK IN SAN DIEGO WERE THE WHOLE THING NOT ON FIRE.
2. The negative errors of these decentered elements *are not obvious* to us because neural processing has *filtered out* symmetrical errors between the eyes through evolution (Do any of us really see color or coma around stars with corrected-naked vision?)

I HAVE NO IDEA?
MY SOURCE IS REFERRING TO NEURAL PROCESSING..I WAS JUST BRINGING UP A POSSIBLE...NOT GOSPEL IDEA FOR WHY THEY 'MIGHT' WORK.

The research is still on-going regarding our understanding of neural vision processing.

FWIW
I COMPLETELY AGREE..ONGOING...BUT NOT WRITTEN IN STONE BY DR. HOLLADAY'S LATEST BOOK!

NOTE THE CORRECT SPELLING OF HIS NAME....

btw....for the record....other than reading his latest book, exactly what makes you so certain I have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the visual system works? Are you a neuro researcher? I certainly am not.

----------


## DocInChina

I have never worked with an IZON lens but am in agreement with other posters that the eye is not static and that the technology would be better suited to contact lenses. 

I am in no way saying that the success rate that you report or others report isn't true but ECP have a unique ability to influence patients by their enthusiasm and/or belief in a technology or product. If the same patients were given a free form design progressive/single vision lens or a stock atoric single vision lens they would experience great visual benefits since these 2 lenses are optimized across the lens. You might want to try either of these more affordable options that have clear, scientific understanding and see what your results are then.

Doc

----------


## Barry Santini

:Confused:  :Confused:

----------


## AWTECH

> I have never worked with an IZON lens but am in agreement with other posters that the eye is not static and that the technology would be better suited to contact lenses. 
> 
> I am in no way saying that the success rate that you report or others report isn't true but ECP have a unique ability to influence patients by their enthusiasm and/or belief in a technology or product. If the same patients were given a free form design progressive/single vision lens or a stock atoric single vision lens they would experience great visual benefits since these 2 lenses are optimized across the lens. You might want to try either of these more affordable options that have clear, scientific understanding and see what your results are then.
> 
> Doc


I think Doc in China has made a clear understandable restatement of my questions.  Is there a difference between a great individualized free form lens and an Izon lens.  If I were selling as many as some of you are it would be interesting to see if Izon will make you a test pair to sample.  Same RX:  1- 1.60 with Izon glue and Izon backside Pal.  2- 1.60 spherical blank without Izon glue and same backside PAL design.  Then mount both in the same fame and wear test.

----------


## Barry Santini

Dr. P:

I've re-read my post after viewing your reply, and I want to apologize for wording that appears to impune your thinking on IZON. I'm sorry for any offense you've taken because of my post

I am not a neural scientist. I am, however, extremely well-trained in geometrical optics as a result of 22+ years as the Product and Marketing Manager for Tele Vue Optics (www.televue.com). I learned my expanded knowledge of geometrical optics working alongside the president of Tele Vue, Al Nagler. Al Nagler led the design and construction of NASA's Gemini, Apollo and Lunar landing (optical) simulators. You might want to read some of my articles on Televue's website regarding ophthalmic subjects for lay readers.

Thanks for correcting my spelling. I still believe that the cement used in IZON contributes nothing to their performance on color correction.

Barry

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Studies show that a person will only cut their eyes about 15&#37; before turning their head.


It depends very much on the task. For critical viewing tasks over a relatively small field, such as reading, for instance, there is often comparatively little head movement. The edge of an 8.5" x 11" piece of paper represents around 7.5 mm of decentration at the spectacle plane (or roughly 15 degrees), which is around two pupil radii under typical conditions. And this is ignoring the vertical centration often associated with single vision lenses, since the pupil center of the eye is rarely positioned at the datum (180) line of the frame.

Further, although head movement often represents a greater contribution to gaze change for larger fixation angles, whether you're a "head mover" or an "eye mover," there is still a significant displacement of the line of sight from the center of the lens during and after the execution of the corresponding eye and head movements.

Since the contribution of lower-order aberrations, such as sphere and cylinder errors, at one pupil radius becomes roughly equal in magnitude to any higher-order aberrations eliminated at the center of the correction, this places drastic limits on the visual benefits afforded by higher-order wavefront corrections in spectacle lenses. Further, the error in lower-order aberrations continues to increase away from the center. See, for instance, Guirao _et al._ "Effect of rotation and translation on the expected benefit of an ideal method to correct the eye's higher order aberration," _J Opt Soc Am A_, 85(15).




> The wavefront correction is mostly in the center third of the lens, but, the programming is "fanned out into the periphery and is dependent on a few things. The wavefront in the periph. is recalculated based on changes to the vertex when a patient looks to the side


This will actually have a surprisingly small effect upon vision for wearers, since the difference in effective vertex distance will generally introduce only very small differences in power. At 15 degrees, the difference in power as a result of curvature differences between the far-point sphere of the eye and the back surface radius of the lens would be less than 0.05 D for the vast majority of prescriptions. The effects of the base curve or lens design on peripheral aberrations, such as oblique astigmatism, will be considerably greater.

Also, maintaining a full correction of higher-order aberrations from the center to the periphery would result in extraordinarily high sphere and cylinder errors, which -- even if visually feasible -- would probably exceed the limits of the optical changes realizable by a thin gradient index layer. On the other hand, if the correction is not consistently maintained from the center to the periphery, optical discontinuities of some form between the central and peripheral regions would occur. Either way, vision must be compromised at some point.

That said, If your patients are happy with these lenses, whether they are truly experiencing improved visual performance or simply experiencing a "placebo effect" associated with purchasing a premium (or at least expensive) lens design, combined with the visual benefits of a new spectacle refraction, I would be the first to encourage you to continue offering them.

----------


## Craig

> OK...I can speak as an "optometrist" who has dispensed close to 500 of these lenses. Craig is an "optician" who seems to have a problem with the company and is venting on this forum. He has financial issues with the company which he does not mention. He mentions somewhere in the dozens of hate mails he issues..."over thirty returned".
> That they owe him $30K...at 300/pair that would be 100 pair returned...but lets not split hairs.
> Here is the straight and narrow and eyepod said it before I posted this.."THEY WORK!"
> As to why they work, I am not even sure the company fully understands why they work better, but I had a conversation with a researcher at the University of Texas the other day which shed some light on why they work.
> NONE of which is contained or even could be contained in any of the posts from everyone who is familiar with low order abberations.
> Hope this doesn't bore too many folks.
> My research friend doesn't even know IZONs exist.
> His research indicates that in the visual cortex there are striations that detect..horizontal lines, vertical lines, thickness and finally "color".
> He will be presenting this at a meeting of NeuroVision researchers in of all places ....the burning San Diego on like Nov 1.
> ...


First of all you are correct, we have returned 100 pairs of Izon progressive lenses; I have 14 more on my desk. 

EVERY ONE OF THEM WAS RETURNED BY AN UNHAPPY CLIENT BECAUSE OF DIFFICULTIES WITH THE INTERMEDIATE AND THE NEAR; ALL OF THEM WE PUT IN ANOTHER LENS IN THE SAME RX WITH 100% SUCCESS! 

I did not volunteer to replace all the lenses at my expense, but we needed to take care of our clients. Think of the cost of replacing 100 pair of free-form progressives and tell me who has sour grapes and who is allowing themself to conned by this technology. I can provide all the replacement invoices and have offered to allow the new CEO of Ophthonix to contact any of the folks who have returned the lenses.

THEY HAVE NOT GOTTEN BACK TO ME ON THIS!! I have nothing to hide.

You may want to know why the founder and CEO was asked to leave the company? If this is such an amazing invention don't you think they might want and need him in the future.

You are the only person defending this abberation dribble and you admit you don't have a clue or does Ophthonix have an idea as to the validity of this technology!! 

You failed to mention that you and I spoke at length and I was the one who explained the possibliites of a certain color wavelenght that could help with night vision; I had discussed this with Allen at Ice-Tech 8 months ago. I also told you of my financial battle with them.

Good thing I paid with my American Express!

Sorry for just being an "Optician"; you may be an OD, but you really don't seem to understand basic lens optics and how they are even placed in the lens. I would like to suggest a few on-line educational pieces on how lenses are created and the advantages of a real free-form lens.

If you read what everyone, except yourself, is saying that the premise of the technology has no pratical applications in a pair of spectacle lenses. There is not one person on this forum who feels the product works and can explain it in any terms. This includes yourself and Ophthonix; when you have the slightest clue how this works and can show any quantatative results, please let me know and I will eat the 14 pair on my desk!!

Until that time comes, you might want to only offer opinions on subjects that you can actually understand and explain. Didn't they teach you that in OD school; I can just imagine the explanation you give the clients why they are paying almost twice as much for these lenses and you can't even describe it to industry professionals.

You may want to add:
WHO CARES WHAT DR. P SAYS, HE SELLS TECHNOLGY HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND- AS LONG AS THE CLIENTS PAY FOR IT WHATS THE DIFFERENCE IF IT WORKS.

Look forward to your response and explantion.

Craig- just an optician who does his homework:bbg:

----------


## LasikExpert

This is from a sci.med.vision thread about attempting to correct higher order aberrations with lenses. Some of what I say has been mentioned in this thread, but I thought I'd add my two cents:

The HUGE problem with attempting to incorporate wavefront correcting Higher Order Aberration (HOA) correction into lenses is registration. The slightest misalignment of optics to correction causes a cascading effect and degradation of vision.

I am relatively knowledgeable of optic wavefront analysis in humans and the use of wavefront-guided corneal ablation during Lasik and similar refractive surgery with the goal of correcting Lower Order Aberration (LOA), which is sphere and cylinder, and not inducing HOA, which is commonly represented in Zernike polynomials.

I have just returned from a medical convention where iZon had a booth. I have always been suspicious of iZon's "wavefront glasses" because I understand the role of registration in HOA correction. Let me give a (believe it or not) simple example.

The Zernike polynomial Spherical Aberration (SA) can be described as the periphery of the optic having a different spherical refractive error as the center. A person can be plano in the middle of the optic and a have a 2.00 myopic ring around the edges.

Make an "O" with your right thumb and finger, put it in front of you, look through the center, and imagine that this represents the SA. Center is plano, your fingers represent a ring that is -2.00. Now make a circle with your left thumb and finger. This circle is a lens created to correct the SA. The outer ring has 2.00 diopters of correction and the center is plano. Align the two rings together. This is the theoretical correction of the HOA known as Spherical Aberration with the use of a lens. What is -2.00 in the optic of the right hand is corrected with a perfectly aligned 2.00 lens. 

Now move your left hand to the left and take the two O's out of alignment. What have you done? 

Where the lens (left hand) is over the plano portion of the optic (right hand), you have created 2.00 diopters of hyperopia, but only where these two planes intersect. Where the lens is over the myopic portion of the optic you have plano. Where there is no lens over the plano center of the optic you have plano. What you have created is the HOA known as Horizontal Coma, which is on the next level down the Zernike pyramid. All this by simply changing the alignment of the lens to the optics.

And that is only with SA, which is probably the least exotic of the Zernike polynomials of HOA. Each time you misalign optic to correction at a Zernike, you induce HOA for each lower level of the Zernike pyramid, cascading down through an infinite number of mathematical possibilities.

That is a long way to say that you cannot correct HOA if you cannot align the correction precisely to the aberrated optic. When you get down to the seventh level of Zernike, which is what iZon says their aberrometer measures, you are talking about alignment with a tolerance of less than a portion of microns and less than a percentage of a single degree. 

Glasses cannot maintain this kind of alignment. Even contact lenses are unable to maintain this kind of alignment. Think of your toric lens fittings. Try to achieve that to within .0005 degree. And forget about what the tear film does.

I had talked with iZon's representatives before and never received an adequate answer to my probing questions about their "wavefront 
glasses". At this convention I spoke at length with their representatives and this time I received comprehensive responses.

Well, at least more than I had received before.

The iZon aberrometer purportedly measures LOA (sphere and cylinder) and HOA down to the seventh Zernike level. That really is far enough as much farther and the aberrations are of proportionately less clinical significance. Anyway, they take this "wavefront" and translate it into a spherocylindrical correction which is then ground onto high quality material lenses within 1/8th of a diopter tolerance.

The representative finally acknowledged that they don't really correct HOA with their glasses, but that they use a wavefront analysis to create a spherocylindrical lens.

Okay, now that makes sense. That is also why if you check a set of iZon glasses, you will have both spherical and cylinder correction at all points on the lens. Sorry iZon, but that is not correcting HOA. That is using an autorefractor (albeit an autorefractor on steroids that is probably better than anything else on the market) and very good materials with a higher than average tolerance.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that iZon glasses are inferior. Not at all. In fact we have received reports from patients with refractive surgery induced vision problems report that they were greatly impressed with the quality of their vision with iZon spectacles and I often suggest that a patient consider iZon and discuss them with there eye doctor. But for all that iZon glasses are, they are not correcting HOA. 

I'm sure that an iZon mucky-muck would say that they have never actually said that the correct the HOA wavefront, but you have all heard the sales pitch so you draw your own conclusions. Not surprisingly my questioning raised another question that the rep could not answer. The iZon representative said that their aberrometer does not use Hartmann-Shack or Tscherning technology for their aberrometer...but could not say what they do use. That is like saying that their car does not use an internal combustion engine or an electric motor, they don't know what is under the hood, but it goes faster than everyone else's car.

I guess you can describe me as a cynic who desperately wants to believe.

BTW: Jack Holladay, MD is currently chairperson of our governing Board of Trustees. His knowledge of visual neuroadaptation is vast. If you don't believe it happens, then look at your blind spot.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes (R)
Patient Advocacy Surgeon Certification
"Consider and Choose With Confidence" (TM)

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

Lasik Forum 

I am not a doctor.

Copyright 2007
All Rights Reserved

----------


## Darryl Meister

You're right about the "registration" issues associated with higher-order aberrations, and I actually described these very problems a few posts above this one. You can demonstrate these effects very elegantly by inserting a translation into a Zernike polynomial of a given order. Consider adding a horizontal translation (d) to the x terms of a Zernike polynomial for third-order coma:



making it,



which, after expansion yields,



We now have additional lower-order Zernike terms present, including a second-order Zernike astigmatism term (6dxy).

----------


## Barry Santini

And consistent with what I've heard about HOA & eyewear:

1. Monochromatic HOAs are very influenced by tear film, and this, plus lenticular changes, are reasons why they are not stable over time.

2. The *dynamic* eye means that mis-registration will possibly comprimise potential benefits of HOA, both for eyewear and CLs.

3. Neural adaptation will impact *perceived* benefits of HOA correction, initially and over time.

Great post. Thanks for contributing!

Barry

----------


## Emmett O'Riley

Several people in my office received complimentary lenses when the Izon reps came by. After almost a month of waiting for the glasses they arrived and nobody liked them even after a couple redos. The rimless pairs were drilled crooked and the full frames were not much better. Apparently quality control is not part of the deal. My impression of this technology is that it won't be long before you can get glasses made in a drugstore much like you can have your blood pressure checked.

----------


## eyepod

> This is from a sci.med.vision thread about attempting to correct higher order aberrations with lenses. Some of what I say has been mentioned in this thread, but I thought I'd add my two cents:
> 
> The HUGE problem with attempting to incorporate wavefront correcting Higher Order Aberration (HOA) correction into lenses is registration. The slightest misalignment of optics to correction causes a cascading effect and degradation of vision.
> 
> I am relatively knowledgeable of optic wavefront analysis in humans and the use of wavefront-guided corneal ablation during Lasik and similar refractive surgery with the goal of correcting Lower Order Aberration (LOA), which is sphere and cylinder, and not inducing HOA, which is commonly represented in Zernike polynomials.
> 
> I have just returned from a medical convention where iZon had a booth. I have always been suspicious of iZon's "wavefront glasses" because I understand the role of registration in HOA correction. Let me give a (believe it or not) simple example.
> 
> The Zernike polynomial Spherical Aberration (SA) can be described as the periphery of the optic having a different spherical refractive error as the center. A person can be plano in the middle of the optic and a have a 2.00 myopic ring around the edges.
> ...


Here is what I got from my rep:  It makes much more sense.  The Z-View takes a wavefront reading as well as low order.  That information is translated into an aberrated point spread function.  Ther aberrated PSF is then fed through the mathmatical algorythm (sp?) in the instrument where the PSF is tightened as much as possible. That tightened PSF is then changed to a best fit sph/cyl.   They utilize a best fit sph/cyl to counteract the affect that the patients HOA's have on their vision.  I think the Z-View uses a holographic grating system instead of Hartman-Schack (again sp??)technology.  You guys are beating this thing to death and it is really not that difficult.  Open your mind to new possibilities!

----------


## Craig

> Here is what I got from my rep: It makes much more sense. The Z-View takes a wavefront reading as well as low order. That information is translated into an aberrated point spread function. Ther aberrated PSF is then fed through the mathmatical algorythm (sp?) in the instrument where the PSF is tightened as much as possible. That tightened PSF is then changed to a best fit sph/cyl. They utilize a best fit sph/cyl to counteract the affect that the patients HOA's have on their vision. I think the Z-View uses a holographic grating system instead of Hartman-Schack (again sp??)technology. You guys are beating this thing to death and it is really not that difficult. Open your mind to new possibilities!


I will open my mind to possibilities if you can answer a question!

 :Confused:  :Confused:  :Confused:  :Confused:  :Confused:  :Confused:  :Confused:  :Confused:  
 Why would anyone order a lens from Izon when they are not including the HOA correction in the lens and only providing a "BEST FIT SPH/SYL"??? 
The whole premise of the technology was to be able to put the HOA correction in the lenses. I and many others have maintained this is not feesable and you have confirmed it in your statements. If this is true and accurate information from your rep at Ophthonix; they have a fancy toy that for some reason tells you it is necessary to get an Izon lens to get some magical benefits. 

Thanks for keeping an open mind and I look forward to your response as an expert on this technology.

Craig

----------


## eyepod

> I will open my mind to possibilities if you can answer a question!
> 
>  
>  Why would anyone order a lens from Izon when they are not including the HOA correction in the lens and only providing a "BEST FIT SPH/SYL"??? 
> The whole premise of the technology was to be able to put the HOA correction in the lenses. I and many others have maintained this is not feesable and you have confirmed it in your statements. If this is true and accurate information from your rep at Ophthonix; they have a fancy toy that for some reason tells you it is necessary to get an Izon lens to get some magical benefits. 
> 
> Thanks for keeping an open mind and I look forward to your response as an expert on this technology.
> 
> Craig


I refuse to wase my time responding to you any longer, Craig.   I don't want to be rude so I'll just not say anything.  You could take note of that as well.

----------


## AWTECH

eyepod said:


> They utilize a best fit sph/cyl to counteract the affect that the patients HOA's have on their vision.


So according to the IZON rep the High Order Abberations are compensated for by traditional Sphere and Cylinder corrections.  Is this how you understand the lens is optimized?

If so can you give me a few examples of the Dr. Rx before the IZON abberometer and new sphere, cylinder and axis after the IZON abberometer?

I have had as open a mind as is possible and your explaination has a potential logic trail, but I would like to see some examples of the corrections, and how they differ from the Dr. prescribed Rx.  

The next follow up will be how do you despense a changed Rx without a logical explaination that the prescription is not correct?

I am very familiar with compensations for wrap angle and tilt.  This can be explained to most optician in a manner that is easily understood.  I don't know how many will buy into a change in Rx for HOA.

Craig:  Did you receive different Sphere and Cylinder numbers with the IZON lenses than the Dr. Rx?  What was the explaination IZON gave you for these changes.

----------


## Craig

> Craig: Did you receive different Sphere and Cylinder numbers with the IZON lenses than the Dr. Rx? What was the explaination IZON gave you for these changes.


Not it is exactly the opposite, we ordered a lens with HOA correction based on the mapping of the eye by the Z-machine.

THE RX GIVEN BY THE MACHINE OR THE ONE OVER-RIDING THE MACHINE BY THE DOCTOR WAS VERIFIED IN THE SAME MANNER AS ANY OTHER LENS MADE. THE DIFFERENCE WAS TO BE THE INCLUSION OF THE HOA CORRECTION THAT WAS OBTAINED BY THE Z-VIEW AND PROGRAM THE HOA IN THE "SECRET GOO".

THAT WAS THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF THE PRODUCT- ADD THE HOA IN THE LENS; WITHOUT THIS THERE IS NO BASIS TO THE PRODUCT.

:angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry: 
HOT OFF THE OPHTHONIX WEBSITE!
THERE IS NO PROGRAMING IN THE IZONK GOO AS THEY ORIGINALY CLAIMED! 
AS I HAVE SAID SINCE REALIZING THE TRUTH, 
IT IS ALL SMOKE AND NOT EVEN A MIRROR. 
THE LETTER TO THE THE WORLD WAS 100% TRUE. 

It looks like the truth is finally coming out.

Craig

----------


## Craig

> I refuse to wase my time responding to you any longer, Craig. I don't want to be rude so I'll just not say anything. You could take note of that as well.


This is my post from 1-07:

I have personally dispensed more lenses than anybody in the world and just sent back 3 machines!! There is some merit to the machine, but we had more progressive re-do's than all other brands combined. It may be the beginning of something good; but it needs to be in the hands of a company committed to the optical industry. 
We acheived the same results no matter what the high order reading- I doubt they have any way to control the high order to attain improved visual acuity over the entire lens. 
Some spots create awesome vision for a few individuals; most had problems reading out of the lenses and I could not get Ophthonix to solve this problem. They planned on a new progressive design to solve the problem; I used it and had the exact same results. The patients rejected the lenses up to 4 times times; we remade in the same frame and RX in a Kodak Unique and they loved them. We put all non adapts in the Kodak and they could read great. This agian proves " LET THE BUYER BEWARE" the company will go on their merry way one the purchase is made.


This was your response!
01-23-2007, 06:12 PM 
eyepod  
OptiBoard Apprentice
Occupation: Ophthalmic Technician


Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas
Posts: 43 



They are using an abberometer to measure the high order abberations (trefoil, coma, spherical abberation) and then programming this into a lens via a laser. The ability to measure HOA's has been around for some time and now we can actually do something about it.

We were both conned by them and it is time to do something about it.  I am not the enemy; but a guy who lost more money than anybody else and happened to figure it out the hard way.  I have done over 100 re-do's at my expense.
Please contact me to learn more details I don't want public at this time.

Respectfully,
Craig

----------


## AWTECH

Craig said:


> HOT OFF THE OPHTHONIX WEBSITE!
> THERE IS NO PROGRAMING IN THE IZONK GOO AS THEY ORIGINALY CLAIMED!
> 
> 
> AS I HAVE SAID SINCE REALIZING THE TRUTH, 
> IT IS ALL SMOKE AND NOT EVEN A MIRROR. 
> THE LETTER TO THE THE WORLD WAS 100% TRUE.


Craig can you post the link to the Opthonix web site so we can see what you are talking about.

----------


## rinselberg

*How does the iZon Lens deal with the gaze angle shift?*


> The iZon Lens design emphasizes the most prominent symmetrical higher order aberrations of the eye – i.e., spherical aberrations. This design mitigates the sensitivity to off-axis vision as the gaze angle shifts, resulting in a high level of patient preference. As with conventional lenses, there is a drop in vision performance as the eye shifts into the periphery of the lens.


http://ophthonix.izonlens.com/izon-lenses/faqs.asp



*Sample iPrint from the Ophthonix Z-View&#174; Aberrometer ...*

http://ophthonix.izonlens.com/images/new_eyechart.pdf


As someone with an engineering background (and a little optics) - but not an ECP - I have been following the Ophthonix story since it first appeared on the web.

The Ophthonix website has been redone with new graphics and text since the last time I looked at it, but if what they are doing - optically - _or what they say they are doing_ - has changed in any way ..? It looks like the same presentation as before, wrapped in a somewhat new format. So I don't see the point that Craig was trying to make (about the Ophthonix website) in those two most recent posts (above).

----------


## Craig

> Craig said:
> 
> Craig can you post the link to the Opthonix web site so we can see what you are talking about.


 
www.ophthonix.com 

All it now talks about is a best RX from the machine and a fancy calculation it uses; THE ORIGINAL WEBSITE SHOWED HOW THE IZONIK GOO WAS PROGRAMED WITH THE HOA CORRECTION IN THE LENS.

THIS WAS THE BASIS FOR USING THE SPECIAL IZON LENS, NOW THEY ARE ADMITTING THERE IS NO PROGRAMMING OF THE LENS FOR HOA.

CRAIG

----------


## rinselberg

Craig ...

I don't see any indication on the website that anything having to do with the iZon "goo" or anything else about the iZon lenses has changed. I think that Ophthonix merely changed their online presentation by removing some of the website material about the way that the aberrometer measurements are used as input to the iZon lens making gizmo.

I'm not saying that you are "wrong" on this point ... only that I would need to have it confirmed by someone with access about any any significant change(s) in the technology or manufacturing of these lenses since they were first introduced.

I just don't "see it" there on the web ...

----------


## AWTECH

> Craig ...
> 
> I don't see any indication on the website that anything having to do with the iZon "goo" or anything else about the iZon lenses has changed. I think that Ophthonix merely changed their online presentation by removing some of the website material about the way that the aberrometer measurements are used as input to the iZon lens making gizmo.
> 
> I'm not saying that you are "wrong" on this point ... only that I would have to have it confirmed by someone with access that there have been significant changes in the technology or manufacturing of these lenses since they were first introduced.
> 
> I just don't "see it" there on the web ...


As Craig pointed out, I know originally there whole pitch was that they had this revolutionary material, (Craig calls it GOO), that they said was activated by a laser to change the index across the lens.  I heard this pitch at Vision Expo about 2 or 3 years ago.  Now they are not making this claim.  They simply say they use an abberometer to get the prescription information which includes HOA and are doing something with this information.

Eyepod said earlier in this thread that they used this information to change the sphere and cylinder.  I had never heard this before and don't know if this is correct or not.

With all that has been said about their technology by the company I am surprised that they still can not put together information that I can clearly understand.

I do know the message seems to have changed a great deal from introduction.  Originally I was under the impression that these lenses would not have to be surfaced only corrected with the laser changing the index of the goo as needed.

I know some else that was also concerned three year ago about this as he thought that this could replace freeform equipment.  He got this impression from Opthonix.  He represented a large equipment manufacturer.  Since they also use backside freeform PAL designs this is not the case.  At the time they had not introduced their PAL.

----------


## rinselberg

How iZon® Lenses Are Made



If you look closely, that middle layer between "Front Surface" and "Back Surface" is referred to as "iZonik Material" ... that's the "goo".

That's all there is on that one web page ... just the artwork.

----------


## AWTECH

> How iZon® Lenses Are Made
> 
> 
> 
> If you look closely, that middle layer between "Front Surface" and "Back Surface" is referred to as "iZonik Material" ... that's the "goo".
> 
> That's all there is on that one web page ... just the artwork.


It seems that the company is still leaving a some indication that the goo exists, now they are not saying as much about what it does.

----------


## Craig

> How iZon® Lenses Are Made
> 
> 
> 
> If you look closely, that middle layer between "Front Surface" and "Back Surface" is referred to as "iZonik Material" ... that's the "goo".
> 
> That's all there is on that one web page ... just the artwork.


The original premise was that the goo was programed with the HOA correction, they no longer even mention it.
The reason it is no longer mentioned is because it was never there; it only existed in sales material and financial packages promoting the technology.

 :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  The founder of the company is gone and so is the one aspect that was supposed to make the product unique to the market place. :cry:  :cry:  :cry: 

I JUST GOT OFF THE PHONE WITH A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF OPHTHONIX WHO CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAVE NEVER USED THE HOA CORRECTION IN THE LENS. 
BY THE WAY, HE WAS ONE OF THE FOLKS WHO RAN THE LAB, NOT AN UNINFORMED DISGRUNTLED EMPLOYEE. I WAS JUST TOLD THEY JUST HAD MORE LAYOFFS IN THE LAB AND SALES FORCE. HE IS HELPING FOLKS FIND NEW JOBS.

The truth is the truth and it will prevail in the end.

Craig

----------


## optingoutofaname

I'm not sure that what I have experienced is the same but one complaint our Dr.'s wife noted was that at the very bottom of the lens, just above the eyewire it seems we run into an area of blurr costing precious
nv clarity.

----------


## optingoutofaname

Our office trialed the Izon and had very positive results. I credit the one failure out of 6 successed due other issues where I still have not found success with this patient in any pal. Overall was the nighttime driving success remains the best while the weakest area was in the nv. While I do not completely understand every aspect of this lens I do anticipate that within the new year selling this lens. The AR is beautiful and a side note is that the packaging is worthy of a lens of this caliber.

----------


## bhess25

.25^ average isnt woth the extra $ in my book.

----------


## rdcoach5

> Our office trialed the Izon and had very positive results. I credit the one failure out of 6 successed due other issues where I still have not found success with this patient in any pal. Overall was the nighttime driving success remains the best while the weakest area was in the nv. While I do not completely understand every aspect of this lens I do anticipate that within the new year selling this lens. The AR is beautiful and a side note is that the packaging is worthy of a lens of this caliber.


Why not use the Identity and you will have at least as good dist and much better int and near?

----------


## Tiger

It has been a while since I read this topic before going off to buy my own. You can talk about technologies to death but almost none of you ever own one to verify... to see if it is for real or not... with your own eyes and compare it with the other PAL that you wear.

I owned mine for 2 months now. I do not have any other PAL as this is my first PAL from single lense prescription. I have always bought my glasses from good small optician shop or doctor's office direct. I always spent about $550 average. About $300 average on lenses. I know it is high but they get it right first time.

Back to Izon, I needed a PAL and I decided to buy this one as my first. Paid $1100 total with titanium hingeless rimless with sunclip and exam fee. This is discounted price (14% off). The end result is I never had such a clear vision as this. I am not hyping this... it is exactly what Izon said...

Color contrast is incredible. The AR coating is incredible. I always had glares and rays from oncoming cars and this glasses has reduced that to about 90% reduction. Badly aimed headlight still bothers me and would blind anyone.

The prescription spitted out by the Opthonix machine is deadly accurate and the doctor has adjusted a bit further with more exam. It took about 1 month to get your glasses and it is worth your wait. I heard so many people have hard time to adjust to their first PAL... and with Izon... I had zero problem... it only took 10 minutes to get used to it.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> You can talk about technologies to death but almost none of you ever own one to verify


Actually, I own _two_ pairs.

----------


## rinselberg

attn: TIGER

It would be helpful if you would provide some information about your prescription. Are you nearsighted, farsighted, one eye much stronger than the other..? Etc.

Thanks for posting!

----------


## Tiger

Wow! Instant responses... do you actually live on this board? As you requested, here is my prescription.

R: -6.37 -1.75 x 13
L: -6.37 -2.12 x 002
Add: +1.50

According to the Opthonix readout... my right eye got quite a bit of abberation... Trefoil is 0.12D in yellow category... which is quite a lot compared to my left eye which is almost perfect with tiny bit of abberation. The Opthonix machine reads:

R: -6.12 -1.75 x 13
L: -6.00 -2.12  x 002

However, the doctor set it to the above after further examination. I am 35 by the way. I have many other issues with my eyes so I do know the difference that Izon lenses does for me.
Darryl, how long have you worn your Izon? I know it probably would be alot longer than me...

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Darryl, how long have you worn your Izon? I know it probably would be alot longer than me


I don't really wear them. I just purchased and evaluated them to see whether the vision through them was any better compared with conventional single-vision lenses. My spectacle refractions were -0.50 OU from the first optometrist and OD -0.50, OS -0.25 from the second optometrist.

----------


## Tiger

Ahh... you hardly need any glasses at all...  You could simply get lasik and have no glasses to wear... However, you'll feel unprotected as you are not wearing glasses... LOL. I bet your eye has no serious abberation either...

----------


## bhess25

> Ahh... you hardly need any glasses at all... You could simply get lasik and have no glasses to wear... However, you'll feel unprotected as you are not wearing glasses... LOL. I bet your eye has no serious abberation either...


 
thats not a high enough Rx to be a candidate for lasik..needs to be above -1.00 i believe..and stable for 4 years (stable meaning minor changes in Rx.. a 12th here or there within that time).

-Billy

----------


## Uncle Fester

> Wow! Instant responses... do you actually live on this board? As you requested, here is my prescription.
> 
> R: -6.37 -1.75 x 13
> L: -6.37 -2.12 x 002
> Add: +1.50
> 
> According to the Opthonix readout... my right eye got quite a bit of abberation... Trefoil is 0.12D in yellow category... which is quite a lot compared to my left eye which is almost perfect with tiny bit of abberation. The Opthonix machine reads:
> 
> R: -6.12 -1.75 x 13
> ...


Consumer age 35 and a 1.50 add:hammer: :Eek:

----------


## Tiger

I am not a typical normal person. I do not have normal vision. While optically I seems to be normal but neurologically in retina I am impaired. I know... I know... I can't imagine wearing reading glasses but I do have some problem reading close. Add +1.50 is a little too much for me right now but is okay as my intermediate is very good and allows me to read.

My depth perception is okay but my color number test is not good at all. I didn't have this problem long ago.

I am debating whether to get another Izon... single vision instead or go for the PRIO as I do alot of computer works also.

----------


## Jacqui

> Consumer age 35 and a 1.50 add:hammer:


That's what I wore at that age. Started wearing bi's at about 25 or so.

----------


## Uncle Fester

I stand corrected. Good luck to you Tiger but are you posting within our guidelines?

----------


## rinselberg

> I stand corrected. Good luck to you Tiger but are you posting within our guidelines?


It's OK. Tiger did not post the refraction numbers with the purpose of asking for anyone's advice. I asked Tiger to reveal something about the refraction because I thought that would be useful for interpreting these comments from someone who is wearing iZon lenses. Now we're all on the same page.

----------


## Craig

> The prescription spitted out by the Opthonix machine is deadly accurate and the doctor has adjusted a bit further with more exam.It took about 1 month to get your glasses and it is worth your wait. I heard so many people have hard time to adjust to their first PAL... and with Izon... I had zero problem... it only took 10 minutes to get used to it.


If the Ophthonix machine is "Deadly accurate";
:finger: THAN WHY WOULD THE DOCTOR CHANGE IT.:finger:
 It either gives an exam not possible by humans and is superior; or is a fancy autorefracter that gets close. If it was changed at all it indicates it did not work as expected on yourself and the doctor had to correct the machine.I could get you any of 3 different free form lenses in a few days and all would provide superior optics in the near and be much thinner. I would like to help you make the comparison at my cost. Please let me know if you would like to test other lenses.If you don't like them better than the Izon lens, I will do it at N/C. 

All I ask is an honest opinion to be posted on this board for all to see. I will put my lenses where my mouth is!!
Craig  :Nerd:

----------


## Craig

> I don't really wear them. I just purchased and evaluated them to see whether the vision through them was any better compared with conventional single-vision lenses. My spectacle refractions were -0.50 OU from the first optometrist and OD -0.50, OS -0.25 from the second optometrist.


As I am sure you have seen, the lens contains no discernable difference from any other -.50  you have worn. 

Could you find any optical difference in power on any part of the lens to indicate the lens contained any programming to correct for high order abberations?

Was there any measurable difference between the lens sent to you by Ophthonix any stock ar coated lens?

I look forward to hearing back from you!

Craig

----------


## Craig

> According to the Opthonix readout... my right eye got quite a bit of abberation... Trefoil is 0.12D in yellow category... which is quite a lot compared to my left eye which is almost perfect with tiny bit of abberation. The Opthonix machine reads:
> 
> R: -6.12 -1.75 x 13
> L: -6.00 -2.12 x 002
> 
> However, the doctor set it to the above after further examination.


The RX change indicated by the doctor means the machines exam would have left you under corrected, this was one of the issues from day 1 with the machine. 
You mention the Trefoil is in the Yellow and needs to be corrected while the left eye only has a tiny bit of abberation; THE IZON LENS DOES NOT CORRECT FOR TREFOIL. What gave you the assumtion the TRefoil was going to dealt with in any manner?
It is just a free-form lens with goo in the middle and no ability to correct Trefoil in any way!
The reading on the machine for High order correction is not used for any purpose other to look at pictures on the screen. The RX sent in by your doctor could have been sent to any lab to get a thinner, lighter lens with larger reading zones at almost 1/2 the price!
I am curious as to what was told to you that was going to have impact on the Trefoil in your right eye?
Craig

----------


## Tiger

> If the Ophthonix machine is "Deadly accurate";
> :finger: THAN WHY WOULD THE DOCTOR CHANGE IT.:finger: 
> It either gives an exam not possible by humans and is superior; or is a fancy autorefracter that gets close. If it was changed at all it indicates it did not work as expected on yourself and the doctor had to correct the machine.I could get you any of 3 different free form lenses in a few days and all would provide superior optics in the near and be much thinner. I would like to help you make the comparison at my cost. Please let me know if you would like to test other lenses.If you don't like them better than the Izon lens, I will do it at N/C. 
> 
> All I ask is an honest opinion to be posted on this board for all to see. I will put my lenses where my mouth is!!
> Craig


I can tell you from my life experience with glasses... From when I was a kid to now... No optimetrist could get the prescription right... Only the opthamologists could get it right... well close enough so that I can see comfortably... From these doctor's prescription... optimetrist would simply make it stronger and call it a day. But after 2 times by optimetrist, it would be crap again. In my condition, affected by disease that affects my vision, it has apparently become much more difficult to give me the proper prescription.

Opthonix machine provides another tool for all doctors to accurately determine the condition of the eyes... especially the abberations that Izon talks about. However, like you mentioned, if it is deadly accurate, why did the doctor change it... Even the doctor said to me... He is only allowed to change the Sphere... nothing else is allowed to be changed or otherwise it is a whole new ballgame to play.

Computer can do all the work for you, but in the end, it is you who decides what is best for patient... That is why my doctor did a normal eye exam afterward to verify the computer... As with any patient, some of us would squint to tell the doc that I can see it good now... but that is with squinting... and This doctor actually told me... never squint... only relax and tell him if it is good or bad. I don't ever... ever recall, any opthamologists or optimetrists (please, leave the DR. title out) tell me or my folks when I am with them to never squint. None.

I know what you are thinking... and I do accept your challenge. There is a problem on how you can fill the prescription for me... I am not there to have you do the fitting.

----------


## bhess25

> If the Ophthonix machine is "Deadly accurate";
> :finger: THAN WHY WOULD THE DOCTOR CHANGE IT.:finger: 
> It either gives an exam not possible by humans and is superior; or is a fancy autorefracter that gets close. If it was changed at all it indicates it did not work as expected on yourself and the doctor had to correct the machine.I could get you any of 3 different free form lenses in a few days and all would provide superior optics in the near and be much thinner. I would like to help you make the comparison at my cost. Please let me know if you would like to test other lenses.If you don't like them better than the Izon lens, I will do it at N/C. 
> 
> All I ask is an honest opinion to be posted on this board for all to see. I will put my lenses where my mouth is!!
> Craig


 
now thats a challenge!:cheers:

----------


## Tiger

> If the Ophthonix machine is "Deadly accurate";
> :finger: THAN WHY WOULD THE DOCTOR CHANGE IT.:finger: 
> It either gives an exam not possible by humans and is superior; or is a fancy autorefracter that gets close. If it was changed at all it indicates it did not work as expected on yourself and the doctor had to correct the machine.I could get you any of 3 different free form lenses in a few days and all would provide superior optics in the near and be much thinner. I would like to help you make the comparison at my cost. Please let me know if you would like to test other lenses.If you don't like them better than the Izon lens, I will do it at N/C. 
> 
> All I ask is an honest opinion to be posted on this board for all to see. I will put my lenses where my mouth is!!
> Craig





> The RX change indicated by the doctor means the machines exam would have left you under corrected, this was one of the issues from day 1 with the machine. 
> You mention the Trefoil is in the Yellow and needs to be corrected while the left eye only has a tiny bit of abberation; THE IZON LENS DOES NOT CORRECT FOR TREFOIL. What gave you the assumtion the TRefoil was going to dealt with in any manner?
> It is just a free-form lens with goo in the middle and no ability to correct Trefoil in any way!
> The reading on the machine for High order correction is not used for any purpose other to look at pictures on the screen. The RX sent in by your doctor could have been sent to any lab to get a thinner, lighter lens with larger reading zones at almost 1/2 the price!
> I am curious as to what was told to you that was going to have impact on the Trefoil in your right eye?
> Craig


How it correct my Trefoil problem? Then how come I am not affected by sunlight glare, headlight rays shooting into my eyes at night... hurts in daytime too and also tailights too when I wear Izon glasses? 98% of all the cars on the road is simply a pair of dots on the car with a harmless sparkle... but no rays shooting into my eyes.

All my other glasses, I get blinded by headlights and tailights...And no, it is not because I did not have AR... I always buy AR. Recently, the sun also present a big problem too... it was almost like somebody is shining a strong flashlight into your eyes... that is almost similar to high beam headlight in dense fog.

Izon can't be a placebo effect. Not after two months... I know it is hard to believe Craig. I wished I got a normal eyes... so I don't have to deal with all these problems. If somehow we could trade eyes, I would run away with your eyes.

It took Izon 5 weeks to deliver my glasses. Like I said, I am willing to accept your challenge. I graduated with Physiology degree so I do have some experience in science research.  I have no personal gain in recommending Izon glasses... it is my personal experience... I do not work for Izon.

Have you ever went in for free evaluation for Izon glasses? They will exam you through that same machine and give you an idea on your eyes if you wear glasses... If you don't wear glasses, then that's a different story.

----------


## Craig

> I can tell you from my life experience with glasses... From when I was a kid to now... No optimetrist could get the prescription right... Only the opthamologists could get it right... well close enough so that I can see comfortably... From these doctor's prescription... optimetrist would simply make it stronger and call it a day. But after 2 times by optimetrist, it would be crap again. In my condition, affected by disease that affects my vision, it has apparently become much more difficult to give me the proper prescription.
> 
> We find the more consistent prescriptions come from an OD and we re-check the RX on many more RX's from an MD's office.  In the end, if a qualified person is doing the refraction the results will bear that out.
> 
> Opthonix machine provides another tool for all doctors to accurately determine the condition of the eyes... especially the abberations that Izon talks about. 
> 
> The machine does not determine any condition of the eye and simply works as a starting point for a qualified Doctor to continue the exam process.  The abberations you see on the screen have nothing to do with your Izon lenses.  THERE IS NO USAGE OF THE ABBERATIONS IN THE MAKING OF THE IZON LENS AND IT CANNOT CORRECT SOMETHING IT DOES NOT DEAL WITH IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.  This was marketing and false promises.
> 
> However, like you mentioned, if it is deadly accurate, why did the doctor change it... Even the doctor said to me... He is only allowed to change the Sphere... nothing else is allowed to be changed or otherwise it is a whole new ballgame to play.
> ...


Please call me at my store to get you a set of lenses.  
239-482-8763
Craig

----------


## xiaowei

Hi Board,

just browsing the german net, I discovered this

http://www.zeiss.com/C1256A770030BCE...8?OpenDocument

Sounds almost exactly like the Ophthonics stuff! even the i.... prefix!

Here are some actual wearing reports (sorry in German)

http://bessersehen.wordpress.com/

and here

http://augenblog.wordpress.com/2007/...utverkrummung/

I was/am still convinced that it cannot really work because of the arbirtrary movement of the pupil relative to the glasses, but....?

Darryl can you please comment on this?

JW

----------


## TradeoffH8er

Approximately how much is the i.Profiler sold for and is it a Shack-Hartmann type sensor?

----------


## TradeoffH8er

> I was/am still convinced that it cannot really work because of the arbirtrary movement of the pupil relative to the glasses, but....?


It sounds like the device probably uses the high order information to calculate a best fit sphere/cylinder Rx which should not cause the type of off axis degredation in vision (that would be caused by direct correction of high order aberrations in the lens) you are implying. Is that correct Darryl?

----------


## xiaowei

> It sounds like the device probably uses the high order information to calculate a best fit sphere/cylinder Rx which should not cause the type of off axis degredation in vision (that would be caused by direct correction of high order aberrations in the lens) you are implying. Is that correct Darryl?


Maybe, but then we are back at the discussion abiut the benefits of - say < 0.25 diopter - fine corrections.

That german website I quoted has wearer reports that claim tremendous
improvements in night vision that IMHO do not go together will small changes in spher and cylinder.

ALSO, "manual" fine tuning with trial glasses should be able to get to the same results if not even better, even Tiger says his glass prescriptions were "readjusted" this way.

Very strange.....

Sincerely

XW

----------


## xiaowei

> Maybe, but then we are back at the discussion abiut the benefits of - say < 0.25 diopter - fine corrections.
> 
> That german website I quoted has wearer reports that claim tremendous
> improvements in night vision that IMHO do not go together will small changes in spher and cylinder.
> 
> ALSO, "manual" fine tuning with trial glasses should be able to get to the same results if not even better, even Tiger says his glass prescriptions were "readjusted" this way.
> 
> Very strange.....
> 
> ...


Maybe there IS something to it (in mathematics there is the difference between local and "global" minima)??

On the website I quoted (which seems to actually be of a dispensing optician in Lichtenstein) there is a short article titled "Bessere Stärken" (~ "Better prescriptions") which translated goes about this:

There is a patient who for over 10 years was diagnosed with an astigmatism of 1-1.25 diopters. When trying the iProfiler, it immediately suggested 3 diopters as a corrections. Very sceptical, the optician tried 1.0 - OK, 1.25 Better, 1.50 bad, 1.75 very bad. Only "for fun" he also tried the 3.0 diopters suggested by the iprofiler: Patient response: Very good, better than ever!! 

Can you believe that?

Sincerely

XW

----------


## rinselberg

> It sounds like the device probably uses the high order information to calculate a best fit sphere/cylinder Rx which should not cause the type of off axis degredation in vision (that would be caused by direct correction of high order aberrations in the lens) you are implying. Is that correct Darryl?


I think it is safe to say that the Ophthonix iZon lens technology does not use "direct correction" of the patient's high order aberrations; I quote from Review of Optometry, October 2007:


> One limitation of wavefront-guided eyeglasses is that a spectacle lens that corrects the full amount of higher-order aberrations would have a small viewing area. Higher-order correction would have to move with the eye and maintain perfect registration. A spectacle lens with a highly restrictive “straight-ahead-only” viewing area is not practical.
> 
> However, the iZon lens utilizes a unique algorithm that is applied to a patient’s iPrint to determine the best spherocylindrical back lens surface. This optimized back surface allows patients to shift their gaze, as they do not need to maintain perfect registration. Most iZon single-vision lens wearers do not notice a change in vision when viewing in the usual fields of gaze, according to Ophthonix. Even when patients look peripherally, their vision should be better than if they were to view through the corresponding area of a conventional spectacle lens.


The same column goes on to say:


> The iZon lenses consist of a three-level multi-layer design: a front layer of 1.6 high index plastic; a center layer made of a photopolymer; and a back layer, also of 1.6 high-index plastic. The front layer of the lens does not contribute significantly to the total refractive lens correction. The back surface of the back layer is optimized (sphere, cylinder, axis) based on wavefront measurements, and for its progressive lenses, it includes the add power. The central photopolymer layer, known as iZonik, is UV-processed to change its refractive index. As part of the total multi-layer design, it contributes to the reduction of chromatic aberration of the lens.
> 
> Ophthonix custom manufactures each lens pair using the patient’s unique iPrint wavefront refraction. The optimized surface data, which include the higher-order aberrations of the eye, are transferred to manufacturing equipment at the company’s laboratory, which incorpo- rates these into the iZon lens. The end result is a customized wavefront-guided lens designed exclusively for each patient. Ophthonix calls the result “high-definition vision.”
> 
> The iZon progressive lens also uses free-form technology to create the wavefront-derived sphere, cylinder and axis. This high degree of surface accuracy enables the designers to precisely control lens powers better than traditional lens surfacing and to generate designs that, up to this point, were not possible.


Source: "Wavefront Beyond Refractive Surgery"; Review of Optometry (online); 11 October 2007.

----------


## rinselberg

> i.Profiler projects a fine, low-intensity beam onto the retina where it is reflected. The aberrations of the human eye deform the reflected wavefront. This deformation can then be analyzed. Unlike conventional autorefractors, i.Profiler provides the refractive power distribution of the eye across the entire pupillary aperture. These measured values enable the calculation of the change in refraction in different situations or the direct determination of higher-order aberrations of the eye such as coma, trefoil or spherical aberration.


Does the Zeiss i.Profiler autorefractor have an advantage in this regard (pupillary aperture) over the Ophthonix (iZon) Z-View autorefractor?

This is the one paragraph in the Zeiss posting that "caught my eye".

----------


## xiaowei

> Does the Zeiss i.Profiler autorefractor have an advantage in this regard (pupillary aperture) over the Ophthonix (iZon) Z-View autorefractor?
> 
> This is the one paragraph in the Zeiss posting that "caught my eye".


No "advantage", if you want to really determine HOA, resp. measure Zernikes you will need to map the *full* puillary aperture anyhow, however the highest order you are interested in determines the sampling density you will need for the mapping. Yet the more/the better/the more accurate always applies.

XW

----------


## Jacqui

Indo also has a similar product. May even be the same.

----------


## rinselberg

> Indo also has a similar product. May even be the same.


*??*

I couldn't find anything from Indo that reads like the Ophthonix (iZon lens) or Zeiss i.Profiler/i.Scription technology. But I did find something that sounds like the Essilor _Varilux Ipseo_ PAL that is prescribed using the VisonPrint instrument that measures the patient's Head vs. Eye Movement pattern:


> Using VisualMap DEVELOPER&#174;, the patient’s eyes follow a luminous stimulus that moves across two screens to create a VISUAL MAP&#174;. The VISUAL MAP technology makes a graphic representation of the natural coordinated movements of the user’s head and eyes during lens use. INDO’s Eye-MADE&#174; progressive lens applies this individual viewing behavior to optimize a unique design specific to the user’s visual strategy that is surfaced using free-form technology.


http://www.visioncareproducts.com/ME...766CF846BE50DB




> Mass Customization in the Ophthalmic Lens Industry: Progressive Addition Lenses for your Visual Map (MCPC-035-2007)
> 
> Presenter:* Mateo, Bego&#241;a (Spain)
> 
> Abstract: The paper describes the Progressive Addition Lenses (PAL) personalization system obtained as a result of the joint R&D project conducted by Ind&#250;strias de &#211;ptica, S.A. (INDO) and Institute of Biomechanics of Valencia (IBV).
> 
> Traditionally, users have been asked to adapt to progressive lenses that are made to fit an average wearer. INDO proposal is that a customized progressive lens that mimics the natural vision can be obtained by measuring the visual strategy of each individual user. The result is EyeMADE "made by your own eyes" and represents a major scientific advance and has positioned INDO at the head of the progressive lens’ field. The advantages of EyeMADE over conventional lenses are clear since it optimizes the visual comfort and allows for an easier adaptation process. A simple, robust and reliable system known as VisualMap DEVELOPER was developed after a 5 year-long research project in laboratory conditions to measure the visua strategy. Research showed that this simplified technique of measuring the visual strategy was equivalent to the more complex laboratory measurements. The individual visual strategy obtained with the VisualMap is then used by INDO to manufacture the personalized EyeMADE PAL using the latest ophthalmic lens technology using [computerized numerical control] systems.


http://www.robertfreund.de/blog/wp-c...06-Sept-07.pdf


Now, if it were the case that this Indo EyeMADE PAL and VisualMap DEVELOPER gizmo addresses the issue of the patient's own eyes, in terms of the higher order aberrations like coma, spherical and trefoil (etc.) ... well, that would be a case of INDO playing the same kind of game as Ophthonix (iZon) and Zeiss ...


_rinselberg™ ... for whatever the information that is to be found._

----------


## Jacqui

Don't know, Rinsie. Thier Euopean consumer site seems to talk about a lens similar to Izon.

----------


## rinselberg

> Don't know, Rinsie. Thier Euopean consumer site seems to talk about a lens similar to Izon.


Would you be able to post a link to this website? I can't seem to find anything like that. And I would be interested to see what you describe as a "lens similar to iZon".

Thanks if you can accommodate. I mean help.:D

----------


## Jacqui

I'll have to find it later, my computer is about ready to crap-out again. I'll get it to you as soon as I can.

----------


## Barry Santini

It is also important to remember that, amongst the few studies that have been done, even *monochromatic* (let alone full spectrum-weighted) HOAs of human eyes have been shown to *not* been stable over time.

Human vision is, and continues to remain, fluid.

Just what is the point of spending so much money, time and effort attmepting to try to increase corrective precision, when the *target* is always on the move.

My 2 cents

Barry

----------


## Jacqui

Rinsie, what I seen was the Eyemade system, the website made it look like Izon, etc.

----------


## Justin Ryan Barnes

I work as an optician in Northern Virginia and the practice I work for does a lot of iZon's. We have four offices total and one Aberrometer. The total number of Progressive iZon's we do a week between all offices would probly average about 5-6. We also do about 5-6 single vision iZon's on a weekly basis. For the most part, patients who are prescribed iZon by the doctor are people who complain about their night vision. We also have a wavefront machine with autorefractor and topographer which helps to show patients how wave front correction will benefit them.

I have not seen one person yet that did not adjust or adapt to their iZon lenses. I would have to say about 90% of the patients who I have dispensed an iZon to really do express their happiness with, "WOW". As long as the correct measurements are taken when sending in the scan with the frame I dont forsee this practice having any problems. 

I am also an iZon wearer. Although I only need a single vision RX I will share my thoughts on this lens. I moved to Virginia from Southern California and was horrified when I first started driving at night. The amount of high order abberation I had was amazing. I guess I never realized this coming from an urban area. Out here though the amount of 2 lane roads in the middle of no where are everywhere. This is where I notice the biggest improvement in my vision. I no longer fear driving at night. I also do notice that lines are more defined and colors are more vivid. I was very optimistic at first when I opted to do the iZon lens. I had the doctor in the office I work at refract me with the RX from the scan from the Aberrometer and I did not take it at all. I decided to just go with it and see what comes of it. I was happy I did and see perfectly fine.

Here is my RX from the Aberrometer.

+0.63 -2.25 x 063
+0.25 -1.75 x 080 

We do newsletters for patients now and ask all our iZon wearers to give testimonials. They gladly do and I dont really see the price point adding to too many problems. I do get the occasional, "that's a lot of money" but I notice people are becoming concious of the fact that their eyes are the only two they will ever have so you might as well take care of them and give them the best.

----------


## Craig

I work as an optician in Northern Virginia and the practice I work for does a lot of iZon's. We have four offices total and one Aberrometer.

Why don't you have it in all offices if it is so good?

 The total number of Progressive iZon's we do a week between all offices would probly average about 5-6. We also do about 5-6 single vision iZon's on a weekly basis. For the most part, patients who are prescribed iZon by the doctor are people who complain about their night vision. We also have a wavefront machine with autorefractor and topographer which helps to show patients how wave front correction will benefit them.

Is this a different machine?  How does the machine show them the benefit of wave front correction?  How does this lens improve night vision any better than any other free from lens?

I have not seen one person yet that did not adjust or adapt to their iZon lenses. I would have to say about 90% of the patients who I have dispensed an iZon to really do express their happiness with, "WOW". As long as the correct measurements are taken when sending in the scan with the frame I dont forsee this practice having any problems. 

Why do you send the scan in to the company?  Do you use the exam exactly as written from the machine or does the DR alter slightly?

The amount of high order abberation I had was amazing. 

What does the Izon lens have to do with correcting of you high order abberation?  

I look forward to hearing back from you.
Craig

----------


## Tiger

Hi Craig,
Sorry I didn't get back to you on your offer (very busy). I see this discussion has further progressed... As far as I know on the Opthonix machine used by qualified Izon doctors is different. The machine produce a full 8 x10 page that not only has the prescription information on it... but also a computer scan that looks sort of like jumbled bar graph that you may see on some shipping labels but is quite large that fills bottom 1/3 of the page... one for each eye. This is not like those that only spit out reciept type reading.

This page must be sent to Izon to fill a prescription. It is not just a matter of using the standard precription reading. This Opthonix machine is different from standard Opthonix machine that you see everywhere. It is not a simple one step measurement as with typical machines. This particular machine takes 7 or 8 readings where patient like me must pause and blink a couple of times before continue to the next step.

Stan




> I work as an optician in Northern Virginia and the practice I work for does a lot of iZon's. We have four offices total and one Aberrometer.
> 
> Why don't you have it in all offices if it is so good?
> 
> The total number of Progressive iZon's we do a week between all offices would probly average about 5-6. We also do about 5-6 single vision iZon's on a weekly basis. For the most part, patients who are prescribed iZon by the doctor are people who complain about their night vision. We also have a wavefront machine with autorefractor and topographer which helps to show patients how wave front correction will benefit them.
> 
> Is this a different machine? How does the machine show them the benefit of wave front correction? How does this lens improve night vision any better than any other free from lens?
> 
> I have not seen one person yet that did not adjust or adapt to their iZon lenses. I would have to say about 90% of the patients who I have dispensed an iZon to really do express their happiness with, "WOW". As long as the correct measurements are taken when sending in the scan with the frame I dont forsee this practice having any problems. 
> ...

----------


## rinselberg

I was just reviewing what is available on line in terms of background and clinical studies at their website. I retrieved one document which opened for me (I have a Mac) as a Power Point slideshow; the other one opened in PDF format.Access Ophthonix scientific reports and clinical trials on line.This may have been posted before, but here's an idea that I was just thinking about**: Maybe one of the forum's optical dispensers could arrange a personal test case for themselves with the cooperation of Ophthonix. When the "volunteer" (whoever that might be) is found that measures on the Z-View machine within the parameters for Rx Single Vision correction with significant HOA in at least their dominant eye, have two pairs of spectacles made (in identical frames, of course) at the Ophthonix lab. One pair: The iZon lenses, as would normally be dispensed. The other pair, the same Rx, in the same iZon lens format (same "goo"; etc.) but with all the HOA parameters "zeroed out". Of course that raises the question, would their lab setup be able to process a "zero HOA" set of test lenses?

Then the volunteer receives both spectacles at the same time (by mail) from Ophthonix. There is no documentation to identify which is the "real" iZon and which is the "zeroed out" iZon.

I think you can fill in the rest...

Has anyone actually put this idea to Ophthonix? Maybe they would consider it as not any more trouble or expense than offering sample lenses to prospective retailers.

----------


## Barry Santini

> This particular machine takes 7 or 8 readings where patient like me must pause and blink a couple of times before continue to the next step.
> 
> Stan


And boy-oh-boy, does that *re-wetting* of the cornea (and related effect on the tear film) influence the amplitude and type of HOAs found!.

If you want to see a similar effect of reducing some of your own eye's HOAs, try one of the over the counter products like "natural tears" and spray it in your own eyes.

The results are quite startling!

Barry

----------


## Tiger

It could be, but I don't think that is the main reason. The main reason is that it is unlikely you can ask someone to stare with eye open during the whole process. It is about 5 minutes or so total. Could you possibly hold your eye open that long? You cannot blink during the measurement or you throw everything off... This is one of the culprit why many doctors who didn't tell their patient not to blink during the process... I can't tell you how many time where the doctor or the nurse did NOT tell me not to blink.

Another possibility as I do not know the machine well... is multiple readings and averaging it out... Each time the machine takes the reading, the view of the screen becomes clearer. The screen is also noticebly dimmer than common machines found everywhere. I think this is also another reason why night vision is better.

Last thought is that we blink all the time so it is natural that this machine takes multiple readings for accurate measurement. Dry eyes does alter our vision as you said... My dad had a thyroid problem and it drastically reduced his tears and boy o boy... he could not see through his glasses. His treatment went well, but he still has residual tear duct problem... due to the swelling of his eyelid. Doc said he is only producing 1/4 of normal tear... However, this is another story.

----------


## Craig

> Hi Craig,
> Sorry I didn't get back to you on your offer (very busy). I see this discussion has further progressed... As far as I know on the Opthonix machine used by qualified Izon doctors is different. The machine produce a full 8 x10 page that not only has the prescription information on it... but also a computer scan that looks sort of like jumbled bar graph that you may see on some shipping labels but is quite large that fills bottom 1/3 of the page... one for each eye. This is not like those that only spit out reciept type reading.
> 
> 
> 
> This page must be sent to Izon to fill a prescription. It is not just a matter of using the standard precription reading. This Opthonix machine is different from standard Opthonix machine that you see everywhere. It is not a simple one step measurement as with typical machines. This particular machine takes 7 or 8 readings where patient like me must pause and blink a couple of times before continue to the next step.
> 
> Stan


I am very familiar with the machine as I had 3 of them and have personally done over 1,000 tests on people.  What you saw has nothing to do with putting Trefoil or Coma in your prescription glasses.  It is only to make nice graphs and it has no bearing on the final lens produced.  I am 100% positive of this to be true.
The page sent to Ophthonix only has a traditional prescription that was probably over ridden by your doctor to get it accurate and the high order information is not utilized in any way shape or form to produce the lenses.  The machine is simply a fancy autorefractor that claims to use HOA to help get the best sphere/cyl correction and this has nothing to do with the lenses produced.  
I hate to tell you this, but we have been sold a pile of poop and it is starting to smell real bad.  The lens is a fraud and has never done anything to cure for High order abberations.  
Call the company on the toll free number and ask them if they program the lens to correct for high order and see what they tell you.  I look forward to hearing back from you.
Craig

----------


## lens dude

Craig,

I have spoken with several reps from Ophthonix.  The explanation that I was given is that you were one of the top if not top sellers of iZon lenses in the very beginning.  However, when it came time to pay for the machines, there were "issues".  Without payment they took back their property and pi$$ed you off pretty royally it sounds like.

Comments???

----------


## AWTECH

> Craig,
> 
> I have spoken with several reps from Ophthonix. The explanation that I was given is that you were one of the top if not top sellers of iZon lenses in the very beginning. However, when it came time to pay for the machines, there were "issues". Without payment they took back their property and pi$$ed you off pretty royally it sounds like.
> 
> Comments???


OK, so even if Craig did send the machines back, for whatever reason, does that make the lens work better?

I have not seen any understandable explainations as to how the lens works.  The goo is a unexplainable part of their lens.

I think most people selling this lens would be reluctant to complete the equipment purchase if they found out there was a question about the technology actually doing what it was represented to beable to do.

----------


## xiaowei

> I have not seen any understandable explainations as to how the lens works. The goo is a unexplainable part of their lens.


Blendowske here in Germany with the university of Darmstadt made some measurements on specially ordered Izon lenses with a specified amount of coma and trefoil. He found no HOA correction in the finished lenses within 0.01 dpt, however power and cylinders were accurate to 0.01 dpt, better than the usual 0.25 dpt.

He has a good paper on this (only in German, sorry, but "nice pictures")

http://www.fbmn.fh-darmstadt.de/~ble...Blendowske.pdf

On this, Jethmalani of Opthonix replied that you do not need to "fully" correct HOA for an optimum result, but if there is no correction at all?
Blendowske's reply on that reply is accordingly titled "The emperors new glasses".

http://www.fbmn.fh-darmstadt.de/~ble...%2008-2007.pdf

This Izon issue also caused some stir here in germany, here are 2 papers by another author (the second on HOA corrections in contact lesens though)

http://www.hfak.de/download/Wesemann...0BG%202007.pdf

http://www.hfak.de/download/Wesemann...OZ%202007k.pdf

Hope you find it interesting and helpful!

小卫

----------


## rinselberg

Using the Z-View Aberrometer: At least five clean scans for each of the patient's eyes.


> *Dr. Gindoff:* When I began using the technology, I prescribed directly from the iZon printouts. Some patients complained of less optimal vision. But we got around that by scanning each eye five times instead of three times. Ophthonix recommends three readings with the Z-View Aberrometer and only recommends modifications of some sphere with select patients. In my experience, the more scans you make, the more data the computer can analyze and the better off the patient will be. If the technician can't get five scans, I won't use the data and we'll refract normally. If I have five clean scans, I'm fairly comfortable that we can use the data to prescribe directly from the Z-View Aberrometer. This doesn't mean that the doctor's judgment is ignored in the prescribing phase (i.e. a patient's been wearing -0.75 cylinder and now the Z-View measures -1.75 cylinder). Some "doctoring" still occurs to determine if I want to prescribe all or some of that cylinder power. Many times, I'll modify the sphere finding for the very same reason. But what's important to understand is that this data is accurate if you get five clean scans.


The iZon Progressive lens: "I will make them famous. You will know their names." 


> *Dr. Karpecki:* How do you approach wavefront progressives? Do you recommend them for early presbyopes? Late presbyopes? Are there any issues associated with converting existing progressive addition lens (PAL) wearers?
> 
> *Dr. Lowe:* We've fit almost everyone who's been wearing PALs into one of the new wavefront PALs, and we've had very few issues. We've had some comments about the corridor. Patients say their vision is great in the iZon, but they feel more restricted than they were in the Physio 360. They need a little more time to adapt. In addition, with experience, we've improved our readings, making sure everything is in alignment. So now we have more success. However, we have the greatest success with first-time PAL wearers because it's easier for them to adapt.
> 
> *Dr. Quon:* Presently, I position the iZon progressive as the premium progressive. I firmly believe in the lens because I wear it. I have several top-of-the-line progressives, including many wavefront-guided and free-form designs. Most of these new progressives are excellent products, but when compared to the iZon progressives, the iZons provide me with a wider intermediate distance, larger reading area, clearer distance vision and greater visual comfort.
> 
> Initially, you'll experience what I call a little bit of visual overload when you wear them the first day. But you'll quickly adapt to the clarity of vision. Other than that, I think the iZon progressive is excellent.


From Optometric Management; June 2007.

----------


## rinselberg

It just hit me: The question that everyone has been asking is how is it possible for the iZon lens to correct for the patient's HOA over the full range of gaze angles?

Maybe that's not as important as it seems.

Speculating that the HOA is only well corrected in a small zone of "supervision" when the patient is looking directly or nearly directly through the center of the lens... maybe that works.

Could it be that when patients are most concerned about something in their field of view--like an oncoming headlight when driving at night--they are prone to move either their eye gaze or their head position (or both) and bring that "something" close to Gaze Angle Zero... straight through the center of the lens..?

That might blind them if it's an oncoming headlight, but perhaps they just bring it _close enough_ to the small "supervision" zone in the center of the lens to be able to resolve it: To see the headlight clearly without the distortion that would otherwise be caused by their HOA.

_Erik's Delicafe offers Secret Goo® in a number of their sandwiches... is there one near you?_

----------


## xiaowei

> If the technician can't get five scans, I won't use the data and we'll refract normally. If I have five clean scans, I'm fairly comfortable that we can use the data to prescribe directly from the Z-View Aberrometer. This doesn't mean that the doctor's judgment is ignored in the prescribing phase (i.e. a patient's been wearing -0.75 cylinder and now the Z-View measures -1.75 cylinder). Some "doctoring" still occurs to determine if I want to prescribe all or some of that cylinder power. Many times, I'll modify the sphere finding for the very same reason. But what's important to understand is that this data is accurate if you get five clean scans.


Sorry, but all this does not sound very scientific. Statistical accuracy is not much improved if based on 5 instead of 3 measurements and sometimes disagreement of to 1 dpt occurs and requires unspecified "doctoring"? 

At least in the quote based on the Zeiss system, it was claimed that surprisingly the large cylinder that the machine predicted trurned out to be the best when actually put into a test frame.

Ignoring evidence for the moment, if they really COULD correct HOA, wouldn´t those also require "doctoring" too for best results? Clearly, the opthometrist won´t "doctor" them, but only because he has no other way to verify them, but that´s not really the point here!

小卫

----------


## xiaowei

> It just hit me: The question that everyone has been asking is how is it possible for the iZon lens to correct for the patient's HOA over the full range of gaze angles?
> 
> Maybe that's not as important as it seems.
> 
> Speculating that the HOA is only well corrected in a small zone of "supervision" when the patient is looking directly or nearly directly through the center of the lens... maybe that works.


 
No, not really (besides, your speculation is not a new point). The big problem with HOA correction is that if you really want to reduce it significantly (say better 50%) it will only work in a VERY small pointlike zone that is surrounded by a zone were the seeing is actually WORSE!! 

That´s the "unscharfe Ringzone" in the above graph. Without really having tested it, it would think that´s pretty annoying for the viewer.

Ophtonix patents actually second that on careful reading, BUT, and here it´s were the "bull****" begins, claim that you can circumvent this by "blending" the HOA with the rest of the lens. This is, as also the cited paper concludes, mathematically impossible, resp. if you begin to blend, you also quickly loose the HOA correction, as you would like to blend in the outer area of the pupil, but it´s just there where most of the HOA "effects" happen and need to be retained. (There must already be a similar posting of mine about this fact somewhere up at the beginning of that long but interesting thread)

In other words, this is also related to the "sandbox argument" resp. to progressive design, that you cannot really get rid of aberrations in sum, but only move them to another place. However, the usual sandbox argument is flawed in that it does include a "locality" factor, respectively does not limit the "size" of the sandbox. 

Depeding on the order of the aberration you want to move to another place (and in traditional PAL it´s "only" cylinder, not higher orders as here), you cannot move those aberrations as far as you would like. 

Imagine, if it were so (in PAL design), one could simply start with a VERY large blank and move those evil astigmatism and wrong power WAY out to the edge of the blank and simply cut off that part, you wcould end up with a perfect PAL, ultrawide zones!! (Maybe I should get a patent on that idea, **** already posted it here!?) It is obvious that it cannot work that way.

In HOA correction, the sandbox you can benefit of is really only in the order of the pupil size , resp. only a few milimeters.

小卫

----------


## AWTECH

> No, not really (besides, your speculation is not a new point). The big problem with HOA correction is that if you really want to reduce it significantly (say better 50%) it will only work in a VERY small pointlike zone that is surrounded by a zone were the seeing is actually WORSE!! 
> 
> That´s the "unscharfe Ringzone" in the above graph. Without really having tested it, it would think that´s pretty annoying for the viewer.
> 
> Ophtonix patents actually second that on careful reading, BUT, and here it´s were the "bull****" begins, claim that you can circumvent this by "blending" the HOA with the rest of the lens. This is, as also the cited paper concludes, mathematically impossible, resp. if you begin to blend, you also quickly loose the HOA correction, as you would like to blend in the outer area of the pupil, but it´s just there where most of the HOA "effects" happen and need to be retained. (There must already be a similar posting of mine about this fact somewhere up at the beginning of that long but interesting thread)
> 
> In other words, this is also related to the "sandbox argument" resp. to progressive design, that you cannot really get rid of aberrations in sum, but only move them to another place. However, the usual sandbox argument is flawed in that it does include a "locality" factor, respectively does not limit the "size" of the sandbox. 
> 
> Depeding on the order of the aberration you want to move to another place (and in traditional PAL it´s "only" cylinder, not higher orders as here), you cannot move those aberrations as far as you would like. 
> ...


Thank you for your post on the Izon Lens.  These are known facts:

1-The company has raised over $50 million
2-The founder of the company has left
3-I have yet to see any confirmation from outside the company that makes the Izon lens that their PAL is any better than a good freeform PAL
4-I know they actually place a freeformed PAL design on the back of their PAL lens.

Conclusion: This was a very expensive way to make a lens that is apparently not that much, if any better than a good backside PAL design.

My assumption:  The Goo does probably have some valid science, however when commercialized it was discovered the thickness of the goo needed would have made for a very thick lens and/or they discovered that the eye movement does not lend itself to the successful use of this technology.  I would guess these conclusions, (or others) were reached after the investment capital was raised.

I have been willing for years to try to understand how their technology works and to date no one has been able to help me.

I hear comments like an above post about 5 readings and then ordering the lenses.  Which of the 5 different reading is correct?

How do the HOA change if over the counter drops are used before testing?

----------


## rinselberg

I'm hoping (for the sake of science) that one or more prospective iZon retailers (or optical dispensers that could reasonably present themselves to Ophthonix as prospective iZon retailers), having studied our long running discussions on OptiBoard, will put these questions to Ophthonix in a precise, assertive and well-organized manner and then report whatever they can discover on our forum.

It would be great if someone could translate (or find translations) the articles that were posted (above; by "xiaowei") from German to English.

I translated a couple of paragraphs using the Altavista "Babel Fish" automatic translation program, but what comes out in English hardly does justice to the original German.

----------


## xiaowei

> It would be great if someone could translate (or find translations) the articles that were posted (above; by "xiaowei") from German to English.
> 
> I translated a couple of paragraphs using the Altavista "Babel Fish" automatic translation program, but what comes out in English hardly does justice to the original German.


I´m unfortunatelly too busy in the moment to do the job. Those are pretty nice but long papers.

I actually know that guy Blendowske, he used to work for the same company as myself (high precision microscope optics and similar) before he switched to ophthalmology at Darmstadt university. I already pointed him to this list, it however, I cukd not find an english version of his paper on his website. I could ask directly.

One point to add, in the "reply to the reply" he notes that (it seems in a second run, after the initial papers results that were based on glasses acquired through a local optician) because of his complaints that there was no apparent HOA correction, Opthonix directly supplied him with a new set of glasses that DID some HOA correction (about 50% of what was specified), but because of missing/(wrong?) spherocylinder in that case visual testing only gave mediocre results. However, it was apparent that a decentering by only about 2mm made the HOA "rise drastically" as he writes.

So as also Awtech assumes, if Ophthonix really needs, they CAN do some HOA correction, but because of all the problems when used in spectacles, it is not really put into the costumer product, but not really told about...
(Slightly changing over the last month....)

 :Nerd: Regarding all the overly positive comments of how clear the viewing is, those remind me a bit of commercials for cleaners of washing powders ("Our white is whiter than white/others") :Nerd: 

小卫

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Speculating that the HOA is only well corrected in a small zone of "supervision" when the patient is looking directly or nearly directly through the center of the lens... maybe that works.


The issues are the same. Suppose you have a pupil-sized "sweet spot" of high-order aberration correction... This sweet spot will be immediately surrounded by a ring of even more significant low-order aberrations. Consequently, as the eye rotates only a few millimeters from the center of the lens, during a small gaze change, head turn, etcetera, vision would be even worse than it was without any high-order correction.

----------


## AWTECH

> The issues are the same. Suppose you have a pupil-sized "sweet spot" of high-order aberration correction... This sweet spot will be immediately surrounded by a ring of even more significant low-order aberrations. Consequently, as the eye rotates only a few millimeters from the center of the lens, during a small gaze change, head turn, etcetera, vision would be even worse than it was without any high-order correction.


Darryl;  I am glad to see your comment to this subject.  Have you been able to read any data from the makers of the Izon Lens or any other source that validates any of their claims regarding HOA?

----------


## Craig

> Craig,
> 
> I have spoken with several reps from Ophthonix. The explanation that I was given is that you were one of the top if not top sellers of iZon lenses in the very beginning. However, when it came time to pay for the machines, there were "issues". Without payment they took back their property and pi$$ed you off pretty royally it sounds like.
> 
> Comments???


First, who are you? I find it odd that your first post questions me about my Ophthonix dealings! It makes no difference, the truth is the truth!

I was the top selling office in the world and when it came time to pay the extra $60,000, in addition to the $30,000 we had already paid, we had realized the product did not work as advertised and the company had no intentions to fix the issues; they took back the machines. That is not sour grapes, just a realization that we had been selling "smoke and fu fu dust" to our clients and it was time to eat crow and admit we had been had by a group of unethical business people. The inventor and former CEO was removed from office once the truth started to come out. I have personally spoken to the new CEO and he also continues to hide the truth. All of the sales reps were told to send back any material that included any reference to programming the GOO, since it was fraud and never happened. It is a bunch of patents that has no use in the practical world.

We purchased the machines with the understanding that the Izon lens was programmed, like a CD, to include correction for HIGH ORDER ABBERATIONS; THERE IS NO SUCH PROGRAMMING AND IT IS ALL A FRAUD FROM DAY ONE. THAT IS THE TRUTH!

The Izon lens was the only free form product we have ever had any problems with patient satisfaction. I took back over 100 pair from unhappy clients; who should be upset, me or the poor clients we sold a product that did not contain correction for any high order abberations as we were told when we purchased the equipment. I have 15 on my desk right now.

I will give you the cell phone of 3 different ex employees of Ophthonix who will tell you my story is 100% accurate. They all left because of the fraud that was being committed on the industry and did not to be a part of it. Ask the company to see the letter sent to all accounts that explained the fraud in great detail. It was and is 100% accurate!!!1

Thanks for allowing me to inform more people of the fraud being commited by Ophthonix on the optical industry.

I stand behind the truth and can prove every word I have printed!!

If I was not telling the truth, you can guarantee the lawyers for Ophthonix would have called by now. I look forward to them denying anything in writing and trying to punish me for telling the truth.



Craig:angry:

----------


## Craig

> Blendowske here in Germany with the university of Darmstadt made some measurements on specially ordered Izon lenses with a specified amount of coma and trefoil. He found no HOA correction in the finished lenses within 0.01 dpt, however power and cylinders were accurate to 0.01 dpt, better than the usual 0.25 dpt.
> 
> 
> He has a good paper on this (only in German, sorry, but "nice pictures")
> 
> http://www.fbmn.fh-darmstadt.de/~ble...Blendowske.pdf
> 
> On this, Jethmalani of Opthonix replied that you do not need to "fully" correct HOA for an optimum result, but if there is no correction at all?
> Blendowske's reply on that reply is accordingly titled "The emperors new glasses".
> ...


It is hard to find something that does not exist; does this finally prove that I have been telling the truth for over 1 year on this forum.  IZON IS A FRAUD AND HAS NEVER PROGRAMMED THE LENS TO CORECT FOR HOA.
Let the truth be my witness!!
Craig :Rolleyes:

----------


## eyepod

That is not accurate, any part of the RX can be modified. We did thoousands of test on folks and the majority had to have the Dr. change the findings of the machine. The machine is an autorefractor and has nothing to do witht he production of the Izon lens.

To Craig:  Maybe this is why you had so many problems.  The cyl and axis should not be altered.  The sphere can be changed as needed.  Call and ask for yourself.  








> Please call me at my store to get you a set of lenses. 
> 239-482-8763
> Craig

----------


## rinselberg

I have a suggestion:

Start with the Z-View autorefractor Rx or "iPrint" for a _solid_ iZon lens candidate--as defined by the Ophthonix candidate profile criteria. An SV I would think; not a PAL. To eliminate some variables.Use the iPrint sphere, cylinder and axis numbers to make a 1.6 index SV lens pair with whatever is your best or "go to" AR. Best not to have a drilled or an odd-sized frame (so don't use an odd-sized patient) or anything much beyond the norm.Use the same iPrint to obtain the corresponding iZon Single Vision lens pair.Set up a blind test (or a double blind test, if you're clever) comparing the patient's frame with the usual 1.6 lenses and a duplicate of the patient's frame with the iZon lenses._Post_ you're findings.
I don't know about prism.. I'm thinking: How could an experiment reveal something about what is actually going on with the "secret goo" inside the iZon lenses? Best to have the iZon lenses made first. Check the center/edge thickness, base curve (you know better than me..) and do whatever you can to have the other 1.6 lens pair as equivalent as possible.

Ophthonix iZon lens material (front and back surfaces of laminate)Specific Gravity 1.34 g/cm3Refractive Index 1.6Abbe 42as documented

And now for some levity.. this thread could use it!

_Does anybody really know what time it is?_ Chicago Transit Authority put that question on a lot of people's minds with their double-platinum recording debut in 1969. _Does anybody really know what time is?_ That's a different question. The _berg_ offers a layman's look at how one group of theoretical physicists is trying to connect the dots in a most intriguing way. If you're _in_, select ("click") the album art...

----------


## xiaowei

> as documented


WOW, I´m impressed!! It´s incredible what is taught at the American Board of Opticianry, everything about the HOA, the Zernikes etcetc. is great, but the bull**** begins the moment it is (even implicitely) claimed that these data data can somehow be "smeared" and "magnified" over the whole lense surface. OR does it not? The article is somehow not very clear about what is done, but the "goo" is mentioned definitely. If it is not for HOA and the end product only has "optimized" high precision spher and cyls, why name it at all?

XW

----------


## AWTECH

> WOW, I´m impressed!! It´s incredible what is taught at the American Board of Opticianry, everything about the HOA, the Zernikes etcetc. is great, but the bull**** begins the moment it is (even implicitely) claimed that these data data can somehow be "smeared" and "magnified" over the whole lense surface. OR does it not? The article is somehow not very clear about what is done, but the "goo" is mentioned definitely. If it is not for HOA and the end product only has "optimized" high precision spher and cyls, why name it at all?
> 
> XW


This course is amazing.  No actual facts again about how the goo works.  It just says, yes HOA do exist and then they say they program the goo to correct them. I want to know how the H*** does this work when the eye move front straight ahead.  

IZON experts please explain.  (Is there such a thing as an IZON expert or did they all leave the building?)

----------


## bhess25

at some point a rep from the company is going to come with "ahh just kidding"...after all it is nothing more than a big joke!

----------


## chip anderson

Seems to me that once upon a time it was illegal to real someone's credit information.   Looks like somewhere in this thread Craig or Izon have real good grounds for a lawsuit.   If so the place to argue it out isn't on the internet (It could predudice either's case).

You can say what  you wan't about a lens product, but an individual or company's credit dealings?  I don't think so.

Chip

----------


## Christosfer

Interestingly enough I am with a new clinic, very large and successful, and we are having a meeting on Monday about the possibility of taking on this product. 
I want to raise some good questions, but I don't want to sound like an idiot either. 
Any suggestions on how I might raise some questions? 

I am thinking of printing some of Xiaowei's writings and suggesting that they check into it further.

----------


## AWTECH

> Interestingly enough I am with a new clinic, very large and successful, and we are having a meeting on Monday about the possibility of taking on this product. 
> I want to raise some good questions, but I don't want to sound like an idiot either. 
> Any suggestions on how I might raise some questions? 
> 
> I am thinking of printing some of Xiaowei's writings and suggesting that they check into it further.


I have been asking for someone to explain if the abberometer sends infomation used in manufacturing the lenses, other than the patient sphere, cylinder and axis, etc.  If the answer is yes what is being sent?  Does this infomation affect the surface being produced?

Wavefront???, they previously claimed HOA correction.  How is this accomplished or is it?  Is a PAL IZON better than another PAL because of the HOA correction or just a great backsurface lens design for the PAL?

I have yet to have anyone from the company that produces the Izon to users of this lens explain how this lens works to correct HOA.

----------


## bhess25

placebo

----------


## DR.P

I absolutely hate to get back into this....no, there are no IZON experts. NO...the company won't tell you what the heck is up with the lens.
BUT...day after day....I dispense these lenses to absolutely extatic patients. As I dispensed one today to a patient, another was standing next to her ...the second patient had hers for perhaps six months. AS the first exclaimed how wonderful they were, the second said...just wait til you wear them a while. Both have been my patients for many many years. Both have worn the same Rx from me for years and years...and both stood there raving about the lenses. Smoke and mirrors...placebo...I really have no idea. All I can tell you is that almost no patient is not impressed. What does that mean...Who knows, but I believe that placebo only goes so far.
Now for what I started to write about. If its all BS...why is Zeiss "supposedly" selling a similar product in Europe. If it is all BS...why are they "supposedly" bringing it to the USA?
How silly will it look when someone else comes out with an abberation correcting lens based on an abberometer after stating that it can't be done.
I'll just sit back and watch.
For the moment, the lenses seem to make patients happy. For years, Essilor, Zeiss, Hoya, Kodak etc...have come out year after year with a better lens...can you imagine if we all argued this much about all of those lenses? Essilor claims you need their gadget to "measure eye movements".
Its a pretty cut throat industry and I am always looking for a slight edge.
This gives me something that seems to make a patient happy. Is that so terrible? Like I said, every company claims something about their lens.

----------


## AWTECH

> I absolutely hate to get back into this....no, there are no IZON experts. NO...the company won't tell you what the heck is up with the lens.
> BUT...day after day....I dispense these lenses to absolutely extatic patients. As I dispensed one today to a patient, another was standing next to her ...the second patient had hers for perhaps six months. AS the first exclaimed how wonderful they were, the second said...just wait til you wear them a while. Both have been my patients for many many years. Both have worn the same Rx from me for years and years...and both stood there raving about the lenses. Smoke and mirrors...placebo...I really have no idea. All I can tell you is that almost no patient is not impressed. What does that mean...Who knows, but I believe that placebo only goes so far.
> Now for what I started to write about. If its all BS...why is Zeiss "supposedly" selling a similar product in Europe. If it is all BS...why are they "supposedly" bringing it to the USA?
> How silly will it look when someone else comes out with an abberation correcting lens based on an abberometer after stating that it can't be done.
> I'll just sit back and watch.
> For the moment, the lenses seem to make patients happy. For years, Essilor, Zeiss, Hoya, Kodak etc...have come out year after year with a better lens...can you imagine if we all argued this much about all of those lenses? Essilor claims you need their gadget to "measure eye movements".
> Its a pretty cut throat industry and I am always looking for a slight edge.
> This gives me something that seems to make a patient happy. Is that so terrible? Like I said, every company claims something about their lens.


I understand that the patients were very happy with their lenses, I assume they were both PAL wearers, and I would also expect these patients would not see any differently if the lens blanks used were substitued for spherical semi-finished non-goo included blanks that these patients could also have the opportunity to rave about their new lenses.

----------


## HarryChiling

> I absolutely hate to get back into this....no, there are no IZON experts. NO...the company won't tell you what the heck is up with the lens.
> BUT...day after day....I dispense these lenses to absolutely extatic patients. As I dispensed one today to a patient, another was standing next to her ...the second patient had hers for perhaps six months. AS the first exclaimed how wonderful they were, the second said...just wait til you wear them a while. Both have been my patients for many many years. Both have worn the same Rx from me for years and years...and both stood there raving about the lenses. Smoke and mirrors...placebo...I really have no idea. All I can tell you is that almost no patient is not impressed. What does that mean...Who knows, but I believe that placebo only goes so far.
> Now for what I started to write about. If its all BS...why is Zeiss "supposedly" selling a similar product in Europe. If it is all BS...why are they "supposedly" bringing it to the USA?
> How silly will it look when someone else comes out with an abberation correcting lens based on an abberometer after stating that it can't be done.
> I'll just sit back and watch.
> For the moment, the lenses seem to make patients happy. For years, Essilor, Zeiss, Hoya, Kodak etc...have come out year after year with a better lens...can you imagine if we all argued this much about all of those lenses? Essilor claims you need their gadget to "measure eye movements".
> Its a pretty cut throat industry and I am always looking for a slight edge.
> This gives me something that seems to make a patient happy. Is that so terrible? Like I said, every company claims something about their lens.


The way base curves are selected for current Rx's is based on an assumption of a spherical corneal surface (which we should all know is not true).  So best form curves make an assumption of spherical curves, if you were to use a cornela topographer and get an average eccentricity value for the cornea this data along with the Rx could theoretically be provided to a lab with FF or even different aspheric blanks to have ground with the true corrected form.  I believe this may be an option for future lens options and would be far easier to implement than a varying index wafer pancaked within the substrate, the fact that the lens is stationary while the eye rotates makes the wafers effects moot at any point except straight ahead focus.

----------


## xiaowei

> The way base curves are selected for current Rx's is based on an assumption of a spherical corneal surface (which we should all know is not true). So best form curves make an assumption of spherical curves, if you were to use a cornela topographer and get an average eccentricity value for the cornea this data along with the Rx could theoretically be provided to a lab with FF or even different aspheric blanks to have ground with the true corrected form. I believe this may be an option for future lens options and would be far easier to implement than a varying index wafer pancaked within the substrate, the fact that the lens is stationary while the eye rotates makes the wafers effects moot at any point except straight ahead focus.


Interesting idea, but I don´t really "buy into it". The reason is again the moving eye. When gazing, it´s not that the "gaze" rotates around the stationary eye, going through different parts of the cornea with different curvature. The whole eye rotates and "gazes" every time through the same front portion!

小卫

----------


## Craig

> I absolutely hate to get back into this....no, there are no IZON experts. NO...the company won't tell you what the heck is up with the lens. 
> 
> That is because there is nothing special about the lens, it is a standard free form lens and has nothing to do with High Order Correction.  The machine is a fancy auto-refractor and printout has absolutly nothing to do with the lens received from Ophthonix.  ASK THEM HOW THERE LENS IS DIFFERENT THAN AN OTHER FREE FORM DESIGN AND WHAT THEY DO WITH THE BARCODE!!  
> 
> BUT...day after day....I dispense these lenses to absolutely extatic patients. As I dispensed one today to a patient, another was standing next to her ...the second patient had hers for perhaps six months. AS the first exclaimed how wonderful they were, the second said...just wait til you wear them a while. Both have been my patients for many many years. Both have worn the same Rx from me for years and years...and both stood there raving about the lenses. Smoke and mirrors...placebo...I really have no idea. All I can tell you is that almost no patient is not impressed. What does that mean...Who knows, but I believe that placebo only goes so far.
> 
> MY STORES HAVE BEEN DISPENSING FREE FROM AND GETTING THE WOW RESULTS FOR OVER 4 YEARS, THAT IS THE KEY AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OVERPRICED LENSES FROM OPHTHONIX.  TRY THE KODAK UNIQUE OR THE ICE TECH LENS FOR THE SAME RESULTS, IF NOT MUCH BETTER.  I HAD MORE PROBLEMS WITH THE READING AREA ON THE IZON PROGRESSIVE THAN ALL OTHER LENS COMBINED, PEOPLE DID NOT LIKE THE READING AREA ON THE IZON LENS.  WE PUT THE SAME RX IN THE KODAK UNIQUE AND THE CLIENT WAS THRILLED WITH THE LENSES AND ESPECIALLY THE READING AREA.
> 
> Now for what I started to write about. If its all BS...why is Zeiss "supposedly" selling a similar product in Europe. If it is all BS...why are they "supposedly" bringing it to the USA?
> ...


I don't represent any company, I only speak from experience and actual results.  I tried to bring free from to the US market with Pentax and then SEiko bought them to kill the deal.  ALL REAL FREE FORM WORKS! Some work better than others, while the Varilux 360 products are not free form.  The Ipseo is the only one offered by Varilux at this point that is considered free form.  


Try some other brands and compare the results, service and price.  I am sure you will find out that there is no reason to order the Izon lens and support a company that has not been truthful with the technology they pretended to have and now just don't discuss it.

Craig :Rolleyes:

----------


## HarryChiling

> Interesting idea, but I don´t really "buy into it". The reason is again the moving eye. When gazing, it´s not that the "gaze" rotates around the stationary eye, going through different parts of the cornea with different curvature. The whole eye rotates and "gazes" every time through the same front portion!
> 
> 小卫


True, it would only offer a gain in a striaght ahead gaze, but it would also cost less than incorporateing a wafer inside the lens and heck with a little marketing magic sprinkled in most opticians would think they were sellign the equivalent of gold.  Heck the testimonials here are stateing how great the lenses are with the people sellign them admitadely not understanding the technology behind the lens, that's gotta tell you something.  

I enjoy your responses very much, xiaowei thank you for shareing them.

----------


## eromitlab

The practice I work in has now been dispensing iZon lenses for about 5 months. We've dispensed about 250 pair. I only know of a handful of cases where the lenses were problematic, and most of those were resolved with correcting some measurements and Rx tweaks. The overwhelming majority response: things seem a lot clearer than before, but I wouldn't say that it's mind blowing (I'm paraphrasing). 

So, the lenses are certainly better than most stuff we've tried here in the so-called freeform process category, at least from the reception we have from our patients. I don't have a pair yet, so I can't offer my own perceptions. I'm not really in a hurry to get my free pair, either... I'm very happy with my Physio 360 lenses and don't really see the need to change into something else.

Is it placebo? no. Is it everything they make it out to be? not quite. 

The product is something that is better than most (in our experience here) and our patients seem to like it for the most part. We know how to identify the right people and the not quite right people for the lens and we have been largely successful. We have happy patients, and that's all we really care about...

----------


## john-atlanta

What does Craig and Dr P others think of the iPrint as an autorefractor?

Lets say one never intended to dispense the lenses, but was looking to cut their refraction time dramatically?  How good is it at zeroing in on the cyl and axis?  I have been told by others I respect that it is basically +/- 0.50 sphere check and you are done.

As an aside, anyone heard of or used the wavefront aberrometer and corneal topographer called the iTrace from Tracey technologies?  Again they claim to manufacture CL's that correct HOA.  

My interest is NOT in the lenses but in the ability to get the worlds most accurate autorefraction and reduce my refraction time so I can spend more time communicating with patients about their eye health and visual needs.

----------


## bhess25

so if you realy believe in this goo crap....do you want to meet santa claus?...not much of a difference is there?...if there is no scientific proof, then it doesnt exist.

----------


## xiaowei

> As an aside, anyone heard of or used the wavefront aberrometer and corneal topographer called the iTrace from Tracey technologies? Again they claim to manufacture CL's that correct HOA.


There is some info on this in another pretty interesting EyeCare Forum

*D'Eyealogues*

http://www.lasermyeye.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1336

Besides this site has also some interesting pro and con reviews on Izon
glasses! Strange that I never had found this link before!

小卫

----------


## eromitlab

supposedly Wavetouch technologies is also entering the Wavefront-guided contact lens arena with Marco. The 3D Wave instrument can be set up to send the data directly to Wavetouch for lens fabrication. The doc I work for was telling me that he is considering the technology, but wants to see how well it's received first. I haven't done any digging yet because he's still unsure as to whether or not he wants to go to that expense.

as for iZon... I'm not going to comment anymore on the subject. I think it is a product worth some merits as well as having some flaws, but then again, there is no lens available to mankind that can provide a miraculous vision enhancement... there's no laying on of hands, but there may be a few televangelist-types behind the marketing. The product works well enough for the right person, the proof is in the patients I have dealt with at work. 

If that's not enough... :)

----------


## Craig

> What does Craig and Dr P others think of the iPrint as an autorefractor?
> 
> Lets say one never intended to dispense the lenses, but was looking to cut their refraction time dramatically? How good is it at zeroing in on the cyl and axis? I have been told by others I respect that it is basically +/- 0.50 sphere check and you are done.
> 
> As an aside, anyone heard of or used the wavefront aberrometer and corneal topographer called the iTrace from Tracey technologies? Again they claim to manufacture CL's that correct HOA. 
> 
> My interest is NOT in the lenses but in the ability to get the worlds most accurate autorefraction and reduce my refraction time so I can spend more time communicating with patients about their eye health and visual needs.


The Ophthonix machine is the only one in the world to differ in the way it goes about measuring the eyes; there might be a good reason.  I did over 1,000 tests on the Ophthonix and was blown away by the other products in the market.  The one from Nidek (Marco) and one from Israel were far more accurate, flexible and gave more consistent results.

There is no reason to do business with Ophthonix for just the machine.

CRaig:hammer:

----------


## john-atlanta

> The one from Nidek (Marco) and one from Israel were far more accurate, flexible and gave more consistent results.
> 
> 
> CRaig:hammer:


Who is the company from Israel?

----------


## Craig

> Who is the company from Israel?


Here is a link to the machine.
http://www.visionix.com/site/prod/l80/l80.asp?s=labs

I looked at the machine last year in NY at EXPO, it was brand new and was far more accurate than the Ophthonix machine.

Best of Luck!
Craig

----------


## Bobie

I would like to hear more comment about L80 Wave+


:cheers:

----------


## sharonseyes

"Kuddos" to you Eyepod, for giving this board a talking to. Such negativity is discouraging. We really need to keep open minds about new Technology. We just signed on with IZON. I will have my new pair in 2-3 weeks. Here in Iowa we are moving ahead and offering our patients the chance to expericence this new technology.  :cheers:

----------


## Craig

> "Kuddos" to you Eyepod, for giving this board a talking to. Such negativity is discouraging. We really need to keep open minds about new Technology. We just signed on with IZON. I will have my new pair in 2-3 weeks. Here in Iowa we are moving ahead and offering our patients the chance to expericence this new technology. :cheers:


Take a few minutes to read above and you will find out that the Izon lens is just a free form lens that turns brown over time from UV. I have one on my desk from 1.5 years ago and it looks like it has a brown tint on it.  There is no programming in the lens; it is a best sphere-cyl RX in a poorly designed lens.  
THERE IS NO PROGRAMMING FOR HIGH ORDER ABBERATIONS!!!
Don't sell the hype; try any other free from lens made and you will have better success.
Craig

----------


## Bobie

L80 Wave+ is 19,800 EURO, if I order from France.
 Can I have better price from other distributor?

----------


## au

Hi Bobie,

Why don't you spread into 3 piece of machine instead of 1 because if one 

part of machine cause problems, what happen to the others ? The 

maintenance may not be as quick as you wish.

Also you can have bigger area for those machine.

:cheers:

----------


## Bobie

Good idea! :D

----------


## Craig

> "Kuddos" to you Eyepod, for giving this board a talking to. Such negativity is discouraging. We really need to keep open minds about new Technology. We just signed on with IZON. I will have my new pair in 2-3 weeks. Here in Iowa we are moving ahead and offering our patients the chance to expericence this new technology. :cheers:


Did they tell you this was part of the expereince!:idea:

I have used a camera phone to show you what happens to the "Izonik Goo" after time; it looks like a dark yellow/brown line down the middle.  Every one of our clients has noticed and the lenses also continue to become very brittle over time.  As they yellow, the chance of breakage in a drill-mount goes up; we break most simply by taking apart to replace the lenses.  They were very strong lenses when first built and become weak with age and UV exposure.

I have many rejected and yellow lenses on my desk for anyone who cares to see them.
Craig-

----------


## xiaowei

> Did they tell you this was part of the expereince!:idea:
> 
> I have used a camera phone to show you what happens to the "Izonik Goo" after time; it looks like a dark yellow/brown line down the middle. Every one of our clients has noticed and the lenses also continue to become very brittle over time. As they yellow, the chance of breakage in a drill-mount goes up; we break most simply by taking apart to replace the lenses. They were very strong lenses when first built and become weak with age and UV exposure.
> 
> I have many rejected and yellow lenses on my desk for anyone who cares to see them.
> Craig-


Interesting, given the fact that there is no high order programming and it´s also not possible in any reasonable way over an extended field of view, I would have bet they also left any "Goo" out, as the costumer cannot tell anyhow. Nice picture!

This was one the question I tried to ask at an Izonik presentation here in Germany over time: "If you really can do any programming, how do you guarantee that it´s completely stable over time?", but got no convincing answer.

XW

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

> "Kuddos" to you Eyepod, for giving this board a talking to. Such negativity is discouraging. We really need to keep open minds about new Technology. We just signed on with IZON. I will have my new pair in 2-3 weeks. Here in Iowa we are moving ahead and offering our patients the chance to expericence this new technology.  :cheers:


I think there is a fair amount of objectivity about these Magic lenses. Others that are far cheaper work just as well, and have better longevity.
To me, it's Optical Snake Oil.

----------


## rinselberg

> . . . I have used a camera phone to show you what happens to the "Izonik Goo" after time; it looks like a dark yellow/brown line down the middle.  Every one of our clients has noticed and the lenses also continue to become very brittle over time.  As they yellow, the chance of breakage in a drill-mount goes up; we break most simply by taking apart to replace the lenses.  They were very strong lenses when first built and become weak with age and UV exposure.
> 
> I have many rejected and yellow lenses on my desk for anyone who cares to see them.
> Craig-


Upon viewing your attachment (thanks!) I see a brown "stripe" around the edge of the lens.

Does the interior area of the lens also turn brown like this--or does it only happen at the outer edge of the lens as seen in that photo that you attached?

I don't mean to be a nuisance, but perhaps you could make a photograph with the lens sitting flat on top of some white paper to add to your commentary.

----------


## Craig

> Upon viewing your attachment (thanks!) I see a brown "stripe" around the edge of the lens.
> 
> Does the interior area of the lens also turn brown like this--or does it only happen at the outer edge of the lens as seen in that photo that you attached?
> 
> I don't mean to be a nuisance, but perhaps you could make a photograph with the lens sitting flat on top of some white paper to add to your commentary.


The lenses start out with a slight ting of yellow and it has gone to a brown/yellow over time. I have attached a photo and placed another lens next to it for comparision. The Ophthonix lens looks like an old transitions lens with the jaundis look.
Beware of false claims of correcting for high order and actually putting the correction in the lens.
Craig

----------


## Bobie

How many years guaranteed for iZon lenses?  :Confused:

----------


## Raanan Bavli

Other than the issues of the measurement of the eye, and the lens design process, there's an important question related to their ability to produce the desined lens.
My question is: Has anyone here received power and astigmatism maps from Ophthonix?
For those of you who have returned lenses, I'm willing to map thse lenses and post the power and astigmatism maps here.

----------


## eyepod

> "Kuddos" to you Eyepod, for giving this board a talking to. Such negativity is discouraging. We really need to keep open minds about new Technology. We just signed on with IZON. I will have my new pair in 2-3 weeks. Here in Iowa we are moving ahead and offering our patients the chance to expericence this new technology. :cheers:


Thanks!!!  I got tired of all the negativity here so I quit reading for a while.  All I know is I am having raving success with Izon lenses day after day after day.....I feel bad that 3 or 4 people here on this thread think they know what every optician in the country is thinking.  Since they seem to stick together on this site it seems that birds of a feather will flock together.  This bird flew somewhere else.  :cheers:

----------


## eyepod

> Other than the issues of the measurement of the eye, and the lens design process, there's an important question related to their ability to produce the desined lens.
> My question is: Has anyone here received power and astigmatism maps from Ophthonix?
> For those of you who have returned lenses, I'm willing to map thse lenses and post the power and astigmatism maps here.


I have mapped it before in someone elses office  and it was beautiful.  It blew the Varilux that we mapped out of the water.  I don't remember the machine that we used to map it.  Sorry.

----------


## eyepod

> How many years guaranteed for iZon lenses?


120 day doctors change warranty.  60 day patient non-adapt and 2 year, one replacement on A/R and scratch coats.  Manufacturer defects covered indefinitly.

----------


## eyepod

> The lenses start out with a slight ting of yellow and it has gone to a brown/yellow over time. I have attached a photo and placed another lens next to it for comparision. The Ophthonix lens looks like an old transitions lens with the jaundis look.
> Beware of false claims of correcting for high order and actually putting the correction in the lens.
> Craig


the Izonik material has been reformulated to a much more clear color.  I have had a pair for 2 years now and there has been no changing of the color AT ALL.  The newest ones are virtually clear.  Looks like a lens with a UV coat and thats all.  It is not noticable when worn.

----------


## eyepod

> It could be, but I don't think that is the main reason. The main reason is that it is unlikely you can ask someone to stare with eye open during the whole process. It is about 5 minutes or so total. Could you possibly hold your eye open that long? You cannot blink during the measurement or you throw everything off... This is one of the culprit why many doctors who didn't tell their patient not to blink during the process... I can't tell you how many time where the doctor or the nurse did NOT tell me not to blink.
> 
> Another possibility as I do not know the machine well... is multiple readings and averaging it out... Each time the machine takes the reading, the view of the screen becomes clearer. The screen is also noticebly dimmer than common machines found everywhere. I think this is also another reason why night vision is better.
> 
> Last thought is that we blink all the time so it is natural that this machine takes multiple readings for accurate measurement. Dry eyes does alter our vision as you said... My dad had a thyroid problem and it drastically reduced his tears and boy o boy... he could not see through his glasses. His treatment went well, but he still has residual tear duct problem... due to the swelling of his eyelid. Doc said he is only producing 1/4 of normal tear... However, this is another story.


The reason for the blink is simple.  The tear film refracts light.  It is important to have an intact tear film for proper measurements.  The tear film beginns to evaporate after 15-20 seconds.

----------


## eyepod

Well, Zeiss is launching almost an exact duplicate of the Izon lens and measuring system........are all of you naysayers going to call them a fraud as well???  I do not know if their system uses Hartmann-Schack technology but I do know that the wavefront sensor in the Z-View is done by holographic grating technology.   

I find it difficult to believe that a company with a rich history such as Zeiss would "copy" a fraudulent idea in lens making if it didn't have any merit.  That is an awful lot of money to spend on "fu-fu smoke & mirrors".

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Well, Zeiss is launching almost an exact duplicate of the Izon lens and measuring system...I find it difficult to believe that a company with a rich history such as Zeiss would "copy" a fraudulent idea in lens making if it didn't have any merit.


You are right, Carl Zeiss Vision wouldn't make fraudulent claims in the marketplace, but we are not really making the same product claims with our technology.

----------


## Craig

> You are right, Carl Zeiss Vision wouldn't make fraudulent claims in the marketplace, but we are not really making the same product claims with our technology.


 Ophthonix has claimed to program the High order correction in the goo and now they admit it is a best sphere/cly combo.  It is the world's most complicated 1.6 progressive made and there is there is no benefit to using an Izon lens.  Take the same RX and any free form lens will get you the same results or better at 1/2 the price.
I can show you the websites where they claim to program the lens in the fake goo! Here is one on a site from Bobie of this forum from 2006. http://www.isoptik.com/forum/forum_p...sp?TID=35&PN=1

Notice it tells of the programming of the lens with a laser and shows a picture.  It also clearly tells you customization of near and use of the Iprint in the Izonik Goo; this is fraud and never occured.

This is the current website for Ophthonix:
http://ophthonix.izonlens.com/izon-l...y-are-made.asp

clearly makes no mention of doing anything with the magic Izonik Goo!  

You can believe what you want; but no one has ever come up with one technical reason for this to work!  This is a rather smart group of people and not one person has come up with a valid argument on how this technology can work in a pair of glasses!

If the product is so good, why doesn't the company defend itself?  They have a bogus product and some people refuse to do the homework necessary to see the truth!

Craig

----------


## xiaowei

> Other than the issues of the measurement of the eye, and the lens design process, there's an important question related to their ability to produce the desined lens.
> My question is: Has anyone here received power and astigmatism maps from Ophthonix?
> For those of you who have returned lenses, I'm willing to map thse lenses and post the power and astigmatism maps here.


Blendowske et. al. have done this here in Germany (I cited this earlier in this thread), and the results were quite off. However, as the ones who follow the story will know, Ophthonix now claims that they do a special "post-processing" for the "best low order approximation". However, it never becomes explained, why such a best approximation cannot be found by careful subjective refraction. (Let alone the daily variations of the eyesight)




> Ophthonix has claimed to program the High order correction in the goo and now they admit it is a best sphere/cly combo. It is the world's most complicated 1.6 progressive made and there is there is no benefit to using an Izon lens. Take the same RX and any free form lens will get you the same results or better at 1/2 the price.
> I can show you the websites where they claim to program the lens in the fake goo! Here is one on a site from Bobie of this forum from 2006. http://www.isoptik.com/forum/forum_p...sp?TID=35&PN=1
> 
> Notice it tells of the programming of the lens with a laser and shows a picture. It also clearly tells you customization of near and use of the Iprint in the Izonik Goo; this is fraud and never occured.


Exactly, the idea that one takes the wavefront map of the eye, rescales it to the size of the eyeglasses and programmes it, is totally bogus, as should be apparent to everybody with a basic understanding of optics. It cannot work this way! This is silly!




> This is the current website for Ophthonix:
> http://ophthonix.izonlens.com/izon-l...y-are-made.asp
> 
> clearly makes no mention of doing anything with the magic Izonik Goo! 
> 
> You can believe what you want; but no one has ever come up with one technical reason for this to work! This is a rather smart group of people and not one person has come up with a valid argument on how this technology can work in a pair of glasses!
> 
> If the product is so good, why doesn't the company defend itself? They have a bogus product and some people refuse to do the homework necessary to see the truth!
> 
> Craig


Yep, these guys have (or claim to have) soo many "patents" or their magic technology, so they could easily reveal some of their "secrets" in a peer-reviewed journal, but it will never happen.....

----------


## Darryl Meister

> However, it never becomes explained, why such a best approximation cannot be found by careful subjective refraction. (Let alone the daily variations of the eyesight)


Keep in mind that subjective refraction is limited by a number of factors, ranging from the potential variance in subjective responses during psychophysical measurements to the inherent rounding errors due to the precision of common refractor lenses (utilized in 0.25-D increments). When these initial errors from the refraction are combined with the fabrication errors from surfacing, including tool rounding and optical tolerances, the final lens can easily be off by up to 0.25 D or more from the exact prescription power required by the patient. This is very nearly equal to the RMS high-order wavefront aberration of the average person.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Exactly, the idea that one takes the wavefront map of the eye, rescales it to the size of the eyeglasses and programmes it, is totally bogus, as should be apparent to everybody with a basic understanding of optics. It cannot work this way! This is silly!


You nailed it on the head, the US market lacks an educated optician which is why they can get away with such claims.  From day one many of the more eductaed opticiasn here questioned how it could even possibly work.  The answer it could only work if the eye were stationary looking through a single axis in the lens.  Maybe in contact lenses, but even then the translation of the lens upon up and down gaze will still move the higher order corrections out of their optimized position.

For those that had their fill of peanut butter and ophthonix goo sandwhiches I am curious how many patients repurchased the lens?

----------


## rdcoach5

> You nailed it on the head, the US market lacks an educated optician which is why they can get away with such claims. From day one many of the more eductaed opticiasn here questioned how it could even possibly work. The answer it could only work if the eye were stationary looking through a single axis in the lens. Maybe in contact lenses, but even then the translation of the lens upon up and down gaze will still move the higher order corrections out of their optimized position.
> 
> For those that had their fill of peanut butter and ophthonix goo sandwhiches I am curious how many patients repurchased the lens?


The public has always had an affinity for alternative medicine and the placibo effect can be in play.

----------


## gjhazard

I worked a a clinic that was talked into a IZON system.  It went great at first with the OD's selling it from the chair.  But after a very short time the orders declined to a trickle and it was just another expensive peice of equipment clogging up the office.

About 80% of the people I fit so no real significant vision change or improvement over their old lenses, even at night, which was the selling point of the lens.

It seemed that when the orders dryed up the IZON folks changed the perimeters of who "qualifies" for the lens.  That made me very skepitcal to say the least.

The cost is way too expensive for what you get.  A good Kodak Unique, Physio 360, Shamir, or Hoya is just as good at a fraction of the cost.

----------


## bhess25

man this thread is still open?

----------


## Metronome

Delete.

----------


## Decades

Are these lenses laminated? That type of discoloration looks like a laminated lens product in which the glue (goo?) does not contain the common preservative used in plastic monomer (UV inhibitor) -- so only the adhesive layer discolors, but would be visible throughout...

Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, as I did not read the entire post; I was just trying to find commentary on the Izon technology claims.

----------


## Peaoptical

We currently sell the Izon lenses and our pt have thus far been very happy with there vision. I wear a pair of these and I my self am impressed with the way they make colors pop and define detail in objects. But I have noticed that after wearing the lenses all day my eyes are very tired and feel strained when I take the glasses off. I'm not sure why I do not seem to have these problems with any other pair of glasses that I currently own. I also do not like the ARC that they use it seems to scratch very easily. I also think it takes to long to get these lenses it now only seems to take about 17 days on average, but my Pt's are use to getting Arc lenses back next day no more than 2 days. This has been my biggest issue from a service stand point to the pt.

----------


## JerryR

My take on this would be that Ophthonix really doesn't care if you understand the system or not.  They are focusing on the people that have bought into the system and servicing thier needs, when the time comes for them to ramp up, they will do what is necessary to grow market share.

----------


## vicpete

IF YOU THINK THESE ARE GOOD LENSES YOU NEED TO THINK AGAIN!! you need to try a pair for yourself if your thinking about dispensing this lens. buy them from an out of town izon dealer that way you will get an actual izon lens and not an izon sales pitch lens. BEWARE OF THE IZON MONSTER !!!!!

----------


## rinselberg

Hi vicpete,

Just for the record, it would be interesting to know more. Did you get iZon SV lenses, or an iZon progressive power lens? Is there anything unusual about your vision requirements? Is there a particular kind or brand of lens that you were satisfied with, before or after the iZon lenses that you got? Did the printout from the iZon autorefractor identify you as a good candidate for iZon lenses? How recently did you get your iZon lenses?

As I said, "just for the record.."

----------


## john-atlanta

> Hi vicpete,
> 
> Just for the record, it would be interesting to know more. Did you get iZon SV lenses, or an iZon progressive power lens? Is there anything unusual about your vision requirements? Is there a particular kind or brand of lens that you were satisfied with, before or after the iZon lenses that you got? Did the printout from the iZon autorefractor identify you as a good candidate for iZon lenses? How recently did you get your iZon lenses?
> 
> As I said, "just for the record.."


Diito to that!

----------


## Bobie

What's about iZon vs iScription ? :bbg:

----------


## alex_c

I had to post this.   I got my anual eye exam 3 weeeks ago and after testing me with the Ophthonix equipment plus the "normal"  tests, my doctor recomended the iZon lenses.   They were not covered by my insurance, -the Varilux Physio were covered-, so I had to pay out of pocket for them.

Since I didn't know much about the iZon, I came to this board to read about them.   I was surprised, and worried, from so much negativity from Craig.  I sincerely thought that I had just flushed my hard earned money down the iZon toilet...

2 weeks later my glasses arrived, and...  they are clearly (no pun intended) above and beyond anything I had before.   I have been using glasses for the last 35 years of my life, incuding the Physio PAL's for the last 5.   

I don't know if Craig and some others have a personal vendetta with Ophthonix, but from MY experience, these lenses are far superior to anything else I had before.   Just as some others have said, colors are more vivid, objects are sharper, and the depth perception is greatly improved.   I can say that my purchase was money VERY WELL SPENT.

I truly enjoy these lenses and it is not a placebo.   I'm an engineer that works in R&D, so I tend to be very methodical and analytical of the facts.   Comparing the iZon to the Physio is a huge improvement.

Now, here's the issue:  when I got them on for the first time, the frame -and therefore the lenses- weren't properly aligned, so they didn't work as expected.   Once the optician adjusted them to be perfectly aligned to my eyes, it was phenomenal.   Yes, I said WOW...

So, if you have any doubts, do yourself a favor and actually try them on and don't let yourself be mislead by the negative comments from someone who apparently didn't know how to test or fit his patients properly...

Finally, do I know exactly why or how they work?  No.  I just know they do.

----------


## HarryChiling

GRIN - GRadient INdex

This is the technology that is being used by the Ophthonix lenses.  The negatives I keep hearing about are: material quality issues and design issues.

Just like FF, GRIN allows more accurate control of powers across the surface of the lens and just like in FF lenses if the design is of poor quality the optics aren't any better just because of a different technology being used to control these variations.

If you were to give Zeiss as mentioned on this thread the GRIN technology and they placed lets say the GT2 3D in the "goo" and they mapped and compared this to a GT2 3D FF surfaced onto the back of a lens blank the maps shoudl look similar.  I think if Ophthonix can improve their material quality and put a better design in the lens they could be onto something, but at the same time consideration should be given to the fact that there exists a technology used now that can provide the same level of customization that Ophthonix claims to provide and it's implemented in many labs now and the cost is a fraction of the ophthonix products.

If Ophtonix could come out with a FT28 or a TR7x28, using a GRIN segment with no lines on the surface this would be amazing and a great way to bring this lens technology to market IMO.  This type of lens could be further processed with traditional surfacing or FF surfacing.  I think the technology isn't mature enough yet and their implementation of a SV and Prog lens is just too "me too" for me.

----------


## AWTECH

> I had to post this. I got my anual eye exam 3 weeeks ago and after testing me with the Ophthonix equipment plus the "normal" tests, my doctor recomended the iZon lenses. They were not covered by my insurance, -the Varilux Physio were covered-, so I had to pay out of pocket for them.
> 
> Since I didn't know much about the iZon, I came to this board to read about them. I was surprised, and worried, from so much negativity from Craig. I sincerely thought that I had just flushed my hard earned money down the iZon toilet...
> 
> 2 weeks later my glasses arrived, and... they are clearly (no pun intended) above and beyond anything I had before. I have been using glasses for the last 35 years of my life, incuding the Physio PAL's for the last 5. 
> 
> I don't know if Craig and some others have a personal vendetta with Ophthonix, but from MY experience, these lenses are far superior to anything else I had before. Just as some others have said, colors are more vivid, objects are sharper, and the depth perception is greatly improved. I can say that my purchase was money VERY WELL SPENT.
> 
> I truly enjoy these lenses and it is not a placebo. I'm an engineer that works in R&D, so I tend to be very methodical and analytical of the facts. Comparing the iZon to the Physio is a huge improvement.
> ...


Your study is seriously flawed.  You are companing a fixed molded progressive (Physio), with a back surfaced PAL (IZON).  If you had compared your new IZON with a Seiko, an ICE-TECH, or other individualized quality backside design, you would have a valid comparison.  I think you would find if you had the IZON, a Seiko and an ICE-TECH to compare to your previous Physios, and did not know which lens was which, you would have experienced the same impression.  The IZON is just much more expensive than the others.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Your study is seriously flawed. You are companing a fixed molded progressive (Physio), with a back surfaced PAL (IZON). If you had compared your new IZON with a Seiko, an ICE-TECH, or other individualized quality backside design, you would have a valid comparison. I think you would find if you had the IZON, a Seiko and an ICE-TECH to compare to your previous Physios, and did not know which lens was which, you would have experienced the same impression. The IZON is just much more expensive than the others.


You stole the words outta my mouth.  The flaw isn't with the technology but with the cost of employing this technology when there is no additional benefit to it then current FF lenses.  Either the cost needs to come down to be in line with FF or the technology needs to be applied to a more unique offering.

What's got most people here upset from what I gather is that the marketing department tried to sell it like snake oil rather than believe in the technology behind their own product and work with their clients.  It will be difficult to get earn that trust back with many, poor decision IMO.

----------


## Craig

> I had to post this. I got my anual eye exam 3 weeeks ago and after testing me with the Ophthonix equipment plus the "normal" tests, my doctor recomended the iZon lenses. They were not covered by my insurance, -the Varilux Physio were covered-, so I had to pay out of pocket for them.
> 
> Since I didn't know much about the iZon, I came to this board to read about them. I was surprised, and worried, from so much negativity from Craig. I sincerely thought that I had just flushed my hard earned money down the iZon toilet...
> 
> 2 weeks later my glasses arrived, and... they are clearly (no pun intended) above and beyond anything I had before. I have been using glasses for the last 35 years of my life, incuding the Physio PAL's for the last 5. 
> 
> I don't know if Craig and some others have a personal vendetta with Ophthonix, but from MY experience, these lenses are far superior to anything else I had before. Just as some others have said, colors are more vivid, objects are sharper, and the depth perception is greatly improved. I can say that my purchase was money VERY WELL SPENT.
> 
> I truly enjoy these lenses and it is not a placebo. I'm an engineer that works in R&D, so I tend to be very methodical and analytical of the facts. Comparing the iZon to the Physio is a huge improvement.
> ...


I am glad you are happy with the product, but sad  :cry:  people are still offering this product as compared to the other great products in the marketplace.  My concern with Opthonix was and is that they told of offering programmable goo in the lenses to correct for custom high-order abberations and that is not the case and never was possible in production.  
Please visit the website now ans see their is no longer any mention of this.  
Did you know they offer 2 types of product?  Which one did you receive?

I just read they got another investment of $25mil!!

Best of Luck to the investors; How could you spend over 100 mill and need more?

----------


## john-atlanta

> Best of Luck to the investors; How could you spend over 100 mill and need more?



Ask Bernie Madoff, you can never have enough of other people's money!:finger:

I agree, when I saw this post I was glad this person is happy, that is what we strive for as practitioners, but the comparison to a molded progressive to any FF is quite dubious.  Other questions would be what kind of material was the physio, did it have AR, etc.  

One reason I believe that iZon chose to use 1.60 only was because it is a great combination of ABBE value and thickness.  Also, the presence of a modern ARC coating vs an older 5 layer or no coating at all makes a huge difference!

In the end, any number of lenses could have given this result, my favorite being the Auto II variable.  I also have the new Zeiss individual which is very, very good, and hope to try the Hoya ID soon.

----------


## xiaowei

Yep, related to this thread I can report that just yesterday I went to a Barbecue party where obviously, some guy near to me was raving over his new (seeming not yet progressive) Zeiss i.Scription glasses. I do not yet know this guy good enough, but it seems he has some technical background, not so much in optics, so he recalled what he was told or remembered from his optician:

That the human eye has different properties in different viewing directions

     and

that these differences are measured and somehow *imprinted with a laser* on the glasses, what was not possible before, both from the ability to measure and to manufacture it.

That´s definitely not how i.Scriptions works :Eek: , if ever (also if you read the few original *scientific* papers on the subject by Zeiss), but he swore his new glasses were the best he ever got!

So - believing is seeing!!!:bbg:

----------


## Witness

Well, I just wasted about 3 hours of my life reading every SINGLE post in this Izon thread.  I'm on the 'younger' side for an optician (29), got into the industry in '01, licensed in '04 *(ABO/NCLE/State bla bla bla....).  Cut my teeth on the old AO lenses, jumped ship once I realized how *BAD* they were.  Run a small 3 lane 1 doc optometric dispensary (mid level - Etnia, Gucci, Bananna, Cavalli, Jhane Barnes, modo etc...)

Nowadays I tend to use Varilux products just because it's easy, but have had GREAT success with Zeiss, Hoya and Varilux products.


Here's my take on it:

Izon? After the phone call today?  = B.S. Until proven otherwise.  My Izon remake percentage is at FORTY PERCENT.  That's.... amazing.  ONE I'll honestly eat as my error in seg ht, but was only off 1mm.   My GT2 remakes?  4.5%.  My Physio remake percentage about 8%. (more sunglasses = more remakes in that lens) GT2/Brevity?  is less that.  I honeslty have only fit about a dozen 360's so I'll leave those numbers aside for now (but none of the 12 has come back yet!)

The auto refractor?  Average at best.  Out Nidek does a MUCH better job, at a MUCH higher speed.  Just for kicks, we have begun using BOTH on patients and comparing the results post-refraction.  Nidek > Izon

So we finally decided to take as much of the subjective and he said, she said out of it.  We are fitting Dr H with the SAME frame, SAME measurements in the 3 diffrent premium PAL lenses we use (Izon, 360, Ipsio) and make a call once and for all from a PROFESIONALS viewpoint, not a client/patient.  We decided for arguments purpose we would use the Izon refraction for all three pair and to a full workup with glasses on to see if we do in fact see improved vision.

I'll be posting the results here in a week or two. 

~Ryan

Oh, and abouty Izon and as far as getting credits back from them?  Not impossible...  just...  Tough..  Like Johnny Cocoran and O.J. kinda tough.

----------


## john-atlanta

> So we finally decided to take as much of the subjective and he said, she said out of it.  We are fitting Dr H with the SAME frame, SAME measurements in the 3 diffrent premium PAL lenses we use (Izon, 360, Ipsio) and make a call once and for all from a PROFESIONALS viewpoint, not a client/patient.  We decided for arguments purpose we would use the Izon refraction for all three pair and to a full workup with glasses on to see if we do in fact see improved vision.


Why these lenses?  

For an apples to apples comparison, you want to use three full back surface digital lenses in 1.60 with ARC.  

I would have instead suggested the Zeiss Individual, Shamir Autograph II variable, and the iZon. The Ipseo is a dated design.  You might throw the Hoya ID in there, even though it is not an all back surface design.  I know Barry thinks it arguably is the best lens out there.  Anyway, cannot wait to hear the outcome!

:cheers:

----------


## Barry Santini

> I know Barry thinks it arguably is the best lens out there. Anyway, cannot wait to hear the outcome!
> :cheers:


These are dynamic times, and I currently much prefer the new Zeiss Individual (just ordered two pairs of the new SV for a client yesterday!)

Can't wait to see what Rodenstock has in store.

Barry

----------


## Witness

> Why these lenses?  
> 
> For an apples to apples comparison, you want to use three full back surface digital lenses in 1.60 with ARC.  
> 
> I would have instead suggested the Zeiss Individual, Shamir Autograph II variable, and the iZon. The Ipseo is a dated design.  You might throw the Hoya ID in there, even though it is not an all back surface design.  I know Barry thinks it arguably is the best lens out there.  Anyway, cannot wait to hear the outcome!


Well, we considered quite a few....   Then looking at it, decided that while an all out test would be fun, asking a lab for a free $250 lens when we barely do any business with them would be a bit crude, and we're a small practice so eating the $1000 was listed by my boss as a 'bad thing'.  So that led to limiting ourselves to lenses that I could get a steal on through my Essilor rep......
 (:cheers:Unless these lovely Zeiss/Hoya posters want to comp us a pair to throw their horse into the race......? :cheers:)  
The Shamir rep hasn't called me back at all, and that was when I was having an issue with one of my clients who bought 3 pair of autograph II's in the last 6 months.  They're kinda on my poop list even if the phone rings in an hour.  The Hoya ID is the one I'm REALLY intrested in...  (I haven't had the opprotunity to fit one yet)   d;o(  & we KNOW the Individual would preform well also...

We made the decision early on to go with the 1.6 material just to keep another variable out of the mix.

In short, we're limited from a full out Consumer Reports style test because we're still just small fish, but the 360 vs Izon thing HAS to be settled already, because that has too much sway on our recomendations.  If I've been lying to my clients, I need to know so I can make ammends.

----------


## john-atlanta

> These are dynamic times, and I currently much prefer the new Zeiss Individual (just ordered two pairs of the new SV for a client yesterday!)
> 
> Can't wait to see what Rodenstock has in store.
> 
> Barry


Barry, what has swayed you?  I like my personal Zeiss Individual alot, but give my Auto II the edge, especially in intermediate width.  Have not tried the ID yet.  Another problem for me with the Individual is turnaround time vs the Auto II.  What kind of turnaround time have you been seeing?

John

----------


## Witness

Update:  Shamir is onboard.  Just got a message from our rep saying that two coupons for autograph II are on the way, one for fixed (which is what I'm used to) other for Variable corridor length.   



.....any Zeiss'ies - or Hoya-ites.

----------


## Nuggetwagon

While the intentions of this technology is admirable (applying wavefront technology to the accurancy of 1/100th d and eliminating coma, trefoil, and all other sorts of pesky aberations) it is the rare customer who has enough of these aberations and would appreciate the difference. As for the progressive any optician knows that a progressive lens, by it's very nature is going to generate coma. Why charge someone when anyother freeform design available through Shamir, Zeiss, Essilor, Hoya, and a range of others will effectively reduce unwanted distortions and improve patients visual experience with as-worn technologies?

My problem is how effectively these corrections can be placed in front of the patient to be appreciated unless there are very low power corrections, with very large fields of vision providing these geometries over very large effective areas.

In the Lasik industry, it is quite easy to apply these curves to the treated material, because the treatment area is usually under 9 mm and directly under the surface of the corneal flap. The correction doesn't move relative to the eye nor does the eye move relative to the correction. 

When you apply those measurements to vertex distances of 14mm rather than -.1 mm you create a very long distance for error to be encountered.

Thus I am skeptical of this technology.:hammer:

Jimmy Gilliland
ABOC/
VISX STARS4/Intralase Cert.

----------


## Craig

You are a smart man; if you go back over the years and read the threads, no one has every provided and math to how this can work.  There have been hundreds of negative thoughts as to how this hocus pocus could be done in an optical lens.

They do not even put the wavefront correction in the lens as they used to claim, it is only a best sphere-cyl combo!

There is no correction beyond any other free form lens.


Craig

I still have a box on my desk so I can remember what a fool 
I was for working with them a few years ago!
They are so yellow and look like a stripe was edge painted on them.

----------


## OCP

> You are a smart man; if you go back over the years and read the threads, no one has every provided and math to how this can work. There have been hundreds of negative thoughts as to how this hocus pocus could be done in an optical lens.
> 
> They do not even put the wavefront correction in the lens as they used to claim, it is only a best sphere-cyl combo!
> 
> There is no correction beyond any other free form lens.
> 
> 
> Craig
> 
> ...


Well spoke.
Combo jumbo just as all the other hokus pocus measures, as pupil size, vertex, panto, life style etc, etc.

----------


## Nuggetwagon

In theory there are very significant improvements that could be made for the typical wearer which would deal with higher order aberations. The math is there for the reading in the various Lasik techno sites. It is effective. To a degree.
Yet Lasik has it's downfalls. The healing of the cornea (post prk) and the adhession of the Lasik or Intralase flap often create higher order aberations even post operative, which gets you back to square one if your are dumb enough to pay for it because of the unpredictable natural healing response of the tissues involved.
Any lens technology which claims to deal with higher order aberations is pure hyperbole, because there is no true fixed relationship between a (floating) contact lens or a crudely suspended spectacle lens in relation to the rotation of the eyeball.
As-worn and free-form technologies must be embraced as an opportunity to help patients who fall outside the norms of RX, vertex, and base curve economics and certain convergence defficiencies. It is at the very beginning of dealing with these issues and with marvelous effect.

What I would like is an opportunity for the a "free-form" lens to deal with the patient who has one eye which converges three mm near OS and one mm near OD without the ever present danger of lugging out the prism set in order for the patient to get image fusion at the near point. Now that would be a real revelation in "as worn" design. That is something that can be measured regularly and repeatedly and not something we should not have to wait for.

What disappoints me about this currdent technology is that I should be able to tell someone to make me a simple non convergent corridor in one eye and an aberantly convergent corridor in the other, This would solve many problems for a huge population. And the math is there. It's just too expensive because everyone is fighting over patent rights.

----------


## Fezz

Is anybody still selling these?

I can't believe that they are still in business!

----------


## Jana Lewis

> Is anybody still selling these?
> 
> I can't believe that they are still in business!


Saw them at VEW as a matter of fact!

----------

