# Optical Forums > Progressive Lens Discussion Forum >  I have a wrap compensation problem...

## drk

This is for anyone, but especially Mr. DM, Mr. HC, or Mr. AW...

I had a thought...when wrap-compensating a spherocyl, you get a singular answer...

...but when wrap-compensating a multifocal you do not get a singular answer...you get a variety of answers!

In a BF, there is a different compensation for the add than for the distance sphere...

In a prog, there would be an "infinte" number of compensations throughout the corridor...

So, what's a common-sense solution?


I would say that the higher power portion of the lens should be wrap- compensated (e.g. the add on the low minus and plus power lenses, or the distance portion on a higher minus multifocal lens), and the lower power portion should be ignored...

...But the problem seems to be that the compensation to help the one section actually can aggravate the vision in the other...

...for example in a low minus spherocylinder with a high plus add has an axis compensation 2 degrees one way for the add, but 2 degrees the other way for the distance power....


Is the better solution with multifocals to simply not compensate at all?

----------


## Barry Santini

???????
Really, I'm not sure I follow....

Barry

----------


## HarryChiling

> This is for anyone, but especially Mr. DM, Mr. HC, or Mr. AW...
> 
> I had a thought...when wrap-compensating a spherocyl, you get a singular answer...
> 
> ...but when wrap-compensating a multifocal you do not get a singular answer...you get a variety of answers!
> 
> In a BF, there is a different compensation for the add than for the distance sphere...
> 
> In a prog, there would be an "infinte" number of compensations throughout the corridor...
> ...


I know what you are saying and I don't think it's going to be a simple answer. Given the absolute nature of an add, the best idea would be to compensate both Rx's individually and then subtract them from one another, use the spherical equvalent of this difference as the add power and this could be a solution. Just a thought but of course any axis and risidual astigmatism left will not be accounted for, but the nature of wrap eyewear is comprimised optics in lieu of comprimised cosmetics. The nice thing abou wrap eyewear is that it usually ony applies to sunwear where the distance correctiong will be utilized a majority of the time so if any comprimise shoul be made I would say place that comprimise in the reading.

PS - I usually don't bother with any compensations untill the Rx goes over 2 diopters and I don't make them above a 5.

----------


## drk

Barry:
Run a wrap compensation for -0.50-1.50x180 and note the magnitude of change in sph, cyl and axis.

Then run the same calculation for the add portion, say +2.50, +2.00-1.50x180 and note the magnitude of change in sphere, cyl, axis.

You will find they do not agree...So which one do you compensate?

Harry says:
1.) Distance Rx for sunwear, perhaps
2.) Average the compensations and apply a "global compensation".

Cryptically, he doesn't correct over 5D. Maybe it's a bad idea to wrap that high an Rx, anyway...

----------


## snowmonster

I would say use the distance power and axis and just keep the original bifocal power.  Although, Harry's point about performing near and distance conversions and subtracting seems to make sense.  I just can't imagine that your add power would vary more than +/-0.25 from the original Rx.  Does that amount of difference really matter with a PAL?  Probably not.

Now with a FT, maybe it would matter a little more.  I ran the numbers on the powers drk suggested and found a +2.50 add should probably be reduced by 0.25 D.  That was with the KBco calculator, at least.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Cryptically, he doesn't correct over 5D. Maybe it's a bad idea to wrap that high an Rx, anyway...


I tell them that there Rx won't be done if it's over a 5, it's just not worth it to us it's time consuming, I do the lenticulars in house and the rate of non adapt over 5 is too great fro me to waste a lot of time on these jobs, I am in the process of lookign for a lab to do the higher Rx's for our office, but not many labs are up to the challenge.

----------


## AWTECH

> This is for anyone, but especially Mr. DM, Mr. HC, or Mr. AW...
> 
> I had a thought...when wrap-compensating a spherocyl, you get a singular answer...
> 
> ...but when wrap-compensating a multifocal you do not get a singular answer...you get a variety of answers!
> 
> In a BF, there is a different compensation for the add than for the distance sphere...
> 
> In a prog, there would be an "infinte" number of compensations throughout the corridor...
> ...


You are right there is alot more to a PAL wrap than a single vision wrap.  I don't think molded front side PALs lend themselves to wrap compensations very well.  An individualized wrap PAL can manage the issues over the total lens surface with individual calculations to control power error and off axis problems due to wrap angle.

We choose to keep the add power rated as prescribed to avoid confusion, but the Add power is just that an add to the compensation we developed to produce a superior PAL wrap lens.

Lens corridor designs for wraps does matter.

We produce these everyday with very few non-adapts.

The results in vision for the patients who use these lenses prove that this works.

----------


## snowmonster

Allen:

Aside from the fact that the front curve is variable across the surface of the lens and therefore (at least theoretically) not fitting into the frame as well, does the new Younger Image Wrap 8.50 base lens really help with these issues or did they just decenter the lens for better cutout for large sunglass frames?

http://www.youngeroptics.com/product...rapnppoly.html

Thanks!

----------


## AWTECH

> Allen:
> 
> Aside from the fact that the front curve is variable across the surface of the lens and therefore (at least theoretically) not fitting into the frame as well, does the new Younger Image Wrap 8.50 base lens really help with these issues or did they just decenter the lens for better cutout for large sunglass frames?
> 
> http://www.youngeroptics.com/product...rapnppoly.html
> 
> Thanks!


This approach allows a traditional method of surfacing to have a lens that will at least cut out and work better than a non-decentered.  Obviously the PAL surface design is fixed for each frame angle and panto tilt as an example.

The best way is to base curve match the front curve to the frame and individualize the calculations of frame angle, tilt etc. and individualized the lens surface for the patients prescription combined with this information.

----------


## Barry Santini

> Barry:
> Cryptically, he doesn't correct over 5D. Maybe it's a bad idea to wrap that high an Rx, anyway...


DRK, I'm away till next week, so I don't have access to my comp prog. But, I've comp'ed Rxs as high as -9D in a 13 degree wrap with client "satisfaction".

Their are alot of variables. the importance of extreme peripheral acuity is not one of them, in my humble opinion.


Barry

----------


## Laurie

Hello 'boarders,

Have you considered, instead of trying to compensate complicated designs like PALs into a wrap compensation formula, trying a lens that was invented for this purpose?

The Shamir Attitude PAL was designed especially with wraps/PALs in mind.  They add special asphericity into the design/mold, which conteracts and neutralizes the spherical aberration/distortion inherent in wrapping a PAL.

If you have not checked it out yet, you may want to consider it.  It makes more sense than trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

: )

Laurie

----------


## AWTECH

> Hello 'boarders,
> 
> Have you considered, instead of trying to compensate complicated designs like PALs into a wrap compensation formula, trying a lens that was invented for this purpose?
> 
> The Shamir Attitude PAL was designed especially with wraps/PALs in mind. They add special asphericity into the design/mold, which conteracts and neutralizes the spherical aberration/distortion inherent in wrapping a PAL.
> 
> If you have not checked it out yet, you may want to consider it. It makes more sense than trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
> 
> : )
> ...


Good point Laurie:  The solution you describe is much better than trying to get a PAL not designed for wraps to work in a wrap frame.  The limitations to this approach is the front molded wrap product has to be designed for a specific frame angle and these wrap frame angles vary.  So for the lab that has to surface there own this is a solution, but the best way is to individually design the lens for frame, this will make for better optics, better fit within the frame, a thinner lens, etc. etc.  

To do this you need a lens produced like we do using ICE-TECH Advanced Lens Technology which optimizes each design.  We have over 10 Million possible lens designs.

----------


## Fezz

Laurie brings up s good point:

Do lenses like Shamir Attitude, Younger's new Image for wraps, or KBCo's EOS wrap designed progressive benefit from rx optimization or compensation formulas? Or, does optimizing the rx in such designs wreck havoc on the finished optics?

----------


## AWTECH

> Laurie brings up s good point:
> 
> Do lenses like Shamir Attitude, Younger's new Image for wraps, or KBCo's EOS wrap designed progressive benefit from rx optimization or compensation formulas? Or, does optimizing the rx in such designs wreck havoc on the finished optics?


Fezz:  Good follow up.  There is so much confussion about wraps in the market at this time.  Our system is designed to make it easy.  All the optican needs to do is send us the frame and give us the Seg height and other standard prescription information and we then optimize the design for the specific patient using their prescription information combined with the frame angle, frame trace etc.  The we design the lens.  The other solutions you mention design the lens base on an estimated use.  So with any of these designs if one is used with a frame with an 19 degree frame angle and the same person wants a second frame with a 25 degree frame angle you are stuck using the same lens design for both.  If one has a B measurement of 42mm and the other has a B measurement of 32mm then the same lens is design is used for both.  With an individualized approach like ICE-TECH uses each of these would have a different design which would result in optimized optics and thickness for each.

----------


## snowmonster

I received my first pair of Younger Image Wrap in polycarb going into a zyl Oakley today.  The decentered lens is perfect for this type of frame.  I know, it's not a custom solution, but this guy isn't going to do a lot of reading in his polarized PAL's.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Hello 'boarders,
> 
> Have you considered, instead of trying to compensate complicated designs like PALs into a wrap compensation formula, trying a lens that was invented for this purpose?
> 
> The Shamir Attitude PAL was designed especially with wraps/PALs in mind. They add special asphericity into the design/mold, which conteracts and neutralizes the spherical aberration/distortion inherent in wrapping a PAL.
> 
> If you have not checked it out yet, you may want to consider it. It makes more sense than trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
> 
> : )
> ...


Thanks Laurie for the post, I love the idea of the Kbco and the Shamir having asphericity to counter the sph aberration/distortion, but sph aberration isn't a big concern as the stop size the pupil limits the amount of sph aberration allowed into the eye, but the off axis powrs created by these lenses is a big concern since most the powers are outside of their best form curves.  I am glad to have both options available EOS and the Attitude, however the compensations are still necessary.

----------


## drk

Here's my take:  

Progressives for wrap is an emerging "buzz" topic, and confusion exists, as has been already mentioned.

Decentering the progressive features in the lens blank helps, but only so much.  That's not really "wrap compensated".

Shamir's 8-base Attitude series in Piccolo and Genesis is supposed to allow parameters -4 to +2, IIRC  (over +2, 8 base is the normal choice, anyway, so normal lens designs suffice).  I believe that they are trying to eliminate whatever aberration is induced by ignoring the corrected curve formulae.

This is partial wrap compensation, and is a big step forward.  But as Harry says, this in no way compensates for the power changes that tilting induces; you'd have to run those as well, and include the prism, and then order it in the Attitude series, as Laurie notes.

As Allen mentions, there is another significant variable: frame wrap.  You can easily go to your inventory and see 8-base plano lenses in varying degrees of frame wrap.  So he's right, you must have a formula to compensate for that, as well.  Of course, Darryl's program includes all these factors.

One factor that is difficult to compensate for with front surface molded progressives is loss of corridor width with lens tilt.  I think Allen alludes to this.  The solution is to begin with a wider corridor than needed so that tilt effect can be offset, and this may mean back surface progressive curves.

Add to this mess whatever errors may occur on a case-to-case basis from "non-individualized" designs (variable seg insets and error from using a non-atoric design in higher astigmats).

Summary of progressive wrap challenges:
I. Optical challenges (that I'm not an authority on)
A.) Induced aberration (of what kind, I never know) by going off corrected curve
B.) Lens tilt power changes and prism changes
C.) Confounding "non-individualized errors", when they exist
D.) Tilt-induced narrowing of corridor and potential loss of binocularity 

II. Mechanical challenges (that I'm especially not an authority on)
A.) Blank size and cut out 
B.) Excessive edge thickness and possible need for lenticulation
C.) Beveling and lens glazing issues


Any improvements to that summary?

----------


## HarryChiling

> Summary of progressive wrap challenges:
> I. Optical challenges (that I'm not an authority on)
> A.) Induced aberration (of what kind, I never know) by going off corrected curve
> B.) Lens tilt power changes and prism changes
> C.) Confounding "non-individualized errors", when they exist
> D.) Tilt-induced narrowing of corridor and potential loss of binocularity 
> 
> II. Mechanical challenges (that I'm especially not an authority on)
> A.) Blank size and cut out 
> ...


Great summary drk, that about covers it.  Of course we are leaving the refraction out of this so we start from the choice of eyewear with a prescription and it's up to the optician to choose an option.  I don't particularly like doing progressive wraps, it's too much in my opinion to throw inthe mix.  I know many here say the can d it, but the remakes make it not worth while and the outcoem is usually accetable not great, but when we do it here are some considerations that will help overcome soe of the issues in your summary:

*Optical Challenges*

A.)Induced Aberrations - going off corrected curve measn that the power off the axis is going to quickly change in an unpleaseing manner for the patient, Darryl's program or Mo Jalies program from his book will allow you to see how far off axis one needs to go to see significant changes in astigmatism and power.  This should be corrected, however also keep in mind that designs are usually optimized for a set degree of ocular rotation and all the wraps I fit have very short vertex distances, this decrese in vertex distance changes the measure off the axis one needs to go to acheive the same degree of ocular rotation as one would need in a flat front frame, this works in our favor and gives us some leeway in off axis power so it's not all bad.  The previously mentioned options such as EOS and Attitude are great in the fact that they have differing degree's of asphericity to compensate for the amount of power change that will occur so now our best form is corrected.

B.)Lens Tilt Power changes and Prism Changes - Thes formulas can be found in both a paper from Dr. Keating and from Dr. Blendowski that further refines Keatings formula and introduces prism compensation.  Thes formulas are bassically taking into account that the optical axis changes with the tilt of the lens, in essence they are taking the Rx as written and placing it on a tilted (xtilt,ytilt,ztilt) coordinate system and then comparing and coming up with formulas to find out what this lens woud be if it were ont he coordinate system that the doctor refracts on (x,y,z).  The formulas are only accurate to 30o of tilt so they are not perfect in any way, actual ray tracings using software would come up with way more accurate results but fro our purposes these average formulas are sufficient, the prism compenation that gets introduced is due to the front surface and the angle of incidence, by tilting the lens we change the angl of incidence of light entering the lens so this compensated for this change.  Lens tilt and frame tilt this is a common issue that has been brought up lately and computations from frame tilt to lens tilt are so simple they are often done by me before usign a program, which is why it has not been incorporated into my program.  Their is an old rule that we use to move the OC 1mm down for every 2o of tilt, reverse this rule so that you subtract or add, dependeing on the direction of decentration; 2o of tilt from the frame tilt, this can be done for both the horizontal meridian and the vertical meridian before compenstion this difference now becoes your lens tilt that should be compensated through further calculations.  This is not a very difficult step.  In a program you will see a more accurate version that can take the vertex into consideration when calculating the lens tilt this is because the rule of 2 to 1 with lens tilt is only an average hat is meant to be easy to remember, in previosu post I have outlined the exact formulas for the lens tilt, happy hunting if your interested or just lokup how the 2 to 1 tilt rule was derived.

C.)Confounding Non-Individualized change - This is an interestign topic, the base curves available from manufacturers were not chosen arbitrarily.  The base curves chosen by various manufacturers are done so that they can fit a wide range of Rx's on a set number of curves by introduceing a degree of aberration that is deemed acceptable.  I find this interesting because at a point in time amount of aberration present in todays lenses would nto have been acceptable, but times have changed and so has technology, keep in mind that the introduction of these errors is a way of keeping costs down for the manufacturers and would ultimately be passed on to the dispenser and the genral public or at least that was the cry as our standards were slowly degenerated from what they were to what they are, now we are hearing the opposite that the once acceptable amount of aberration is no longer acceptable, this to me is a slap in the face, but they are right the amount of aberration present is no longer acceptable, but when it as my bills never went down and now with this new technolgoy they are tellign m my bills are going up?  No one else is thinkign WTF?  The marketing about accuracy basically says lets take the lenses back to what they were in the 60's which is fine by me, but they were the ones that told us we didn't need that level of accuracy in the first place.  So now it coes down to this, how do you know when the lens is going to wreak havoc on your patients Rx?  Well if the lens has a spherical upper portion you could still use best form to and if your power falls on that curve then you are good to go, if your power falls between two curves then you are in the area that needs to have correction (if you think that the aberrations that were acceptabel are no longer acceptable).  If the lens has two different powers that vary greatly (high astigmats) then even if one meridian is on the corrected curve the other meridian 90 away will need something different (this is also one of the reaon why progressive lenses have a range of -2.00 astigmatism, doesn't mean that the curve to create higher powers cannot be surfaced int the blank it just means that the amount of aberrations goes outside of the manufacturers comfort zone of provideing adequate vision).  Free Form is a great option to help eliminate these aberration however thes aberrations will not be present in every prescription and this is where I feel some manufacturers are being deceptive, if the patients Rx happens to fall on the correct base curve that's available in a varilux comfort, they will more than likely not see a significant improvement if they were to use the varilux comfort 360.  The easy answer here, use FF technology on what we knwo defiantely needs correcting high degrees of differign power (high astigmats).

D.)Tilt Induced narrowing of corridor and loss of binocularity - If you tilt the lens yes it will narrow the corridor, FF can and will correct this by bringing the corridor to the back surface, couple this with the prism or cutting into the lens at an angle and this can be corrected this way, but again this will only present a real problem on higher add progressives lenses as with the lower adds the amount of narrowing can be compared to a hgiher add without tilt.  Thisis an area that needs to be quantified better IMO.  As for binocularity if the lens gets tilted so too does the inset, this coul wreack havoc on binocular vision, I haven't looked at that and matter of fact have only really considered that now as you bring it up, I do know that if you were to superimpose the clear right lens area with a clear left lens reading area you will more than likely be dissapointed as this tilt would probably leave a small useable are to read through, again I think in lower add and hard designs with larger areas this can be acceptable but I would need more data to confirm that.

*Mechanical Challenges*

A.)Blank Size and Cut Out - In single vision sperical lenses it's fairly simple decenter when blockig or surfaceing and you get more room for cut out in progressives lenses it's a whole different story, you can't decenter a progressive cause th corridor ont he fron is set, this is similar for an aspheric lens decentering is not an option so lenses such as the Younger wrap lens with a decentered design give mroe room for larger lenses.  This is a great idea because often the wraps are large and require large blank sizes to make work.  FF also has advantages her in that the progressive is designed ontot he back surface so the lens can be decentered.

B.)Excessive Edge Thickness and possible need for lenticulation - This is the fun stuff, this can be done both on FF and on traditional generators and has been done.  Lenticulation is a great tool to reduce the thickness and weight of the lenses, this is a simple process once understood, on traditional equipment their will be a line present were the optic zone and the peripheral carrier meet, but coupled with a morrior coating this line vanishes from the front and with a good AR all but vanishes from the back.  Thsi carrier curve can be used to eliminate thickness at the temporal edge and if decentered or prosm adjusted can eliminate the thickness on both the nasal and temporal edge of the lens.  This is an area of wrpas taht I have been focusing my attention on as this is where we can currently improve.  To date no one, NO ONE has been doing FF lenticulation on wraps that I am aware of, but this will be anice option that when applied will give a seamless look to the lens.

C.)Beveling and Lens Glazing Issues - This is where some labs shine over tohers, the use of MEI edgers to tilt the application of the bevel is fantastic for wrap lenses as this is often where issues with lens retention pop up or out I should say.  Cut on traditional machines wrap lenses will sit intheir bevel at an angle coule that with a zyl frame the back of the bevel will exert force on the lens puching it forward or bowing it for problems with lens retention.  Many here have probably seen the lens that wants to pop out of the eyewire at the top.  This could be corrected with a machine such as the MEI which allows for the tilt of the bevel, it will also be corrected by use of lenticulation as the lens will be thinned down so that it seats corractly in the bevel, it coud also be taken to the hand stone to corrct the lens with a slight roll of the lens, also and this is not recommended for the light of heart on zyl frame the back of the frame can be modified with file, buffing and acetone polish to get rid of the back lip of the frame creatign this force.  Ultimately a combination of the previously mentioned techniques will provide a suitabl outcome.

I am currently workign on a paper that will outline a premium lens that can be traditionally surfaced that will fit the wrap solution, I use them in my office and my patients love them.  When I'm done I will add all the functionality to my wrap program so that everyone can use them.

----------


## Laurie

Hi Harry...

You are correct...it is not just spherical aberration and marginal astigmatism, it is off center errors, and others.  Thanks for briging that up.

The Attitude design also deals with those errors, I did not mention them specifically.

My point:  you shouldn't have to do additional compensation when the design considers the variables and counter-acts them in the mold itself.

Instead of compensating, I would simply start with a design optimized for wrap, like the Attitude (available in SV and PAL).

: )

Laurie

: )

Laurie

----------


## drk

Stating the problem is one thing, but providing solutions is another. Nice commentary.

I have forgotten to add the most daunting optical challenge that is the original point of the thread: _Need for variable lens tilt power compensation for a variable power lens! _ 

I do think there would be a mathematical solution to that problem that could be incorporated in digital software, someday.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Stating the problem is one thing, but providing solutions is another. Nice commentary.
> 
> I have forgotten to add the most daunting optical challenge that is the original point of the thread: _Need for variable lens tilt power compensation for a variable power lens!_ 
> 
> I do think there would be a mathematical solution to that problem that could be incorporated in digital software, someday.


Your right, and I don't know thatanyone has given any attention to the difference in compensation required for both the distance and near. I don't think it would be as simple as an add with astigmatism incorporated into the bottom portion of the lens as it will vary in axis. I would think that the FF option would be the only real solution to this, although I don't think anyones doing anything like this yet. I wonder if the future holds compensation for everything or if we're just being picky?

----------


## AWTECH

> Stating the problem is one thing, but providing solutions is another. Nice commentary.
> 
> I have forgotten to add the most daunting optical challenge that is the original point of the thread: _Need for variable lens tilt power compensation for a variable power lens!_ 
> 
> I do think there would be a mathematical solution to that problem that could be incorporated in digital software, someday.


drk:

Someday is today for ICE-TECH.  We use correct optical solutions that take into account all of the significant issues you have raised.  Our results tell that this works.  We have an exceptional adaptation rate, 99%+.

----------


## drk

Allen, this is as good a time as any to give us more information...

1. Obviously, your nice website shows that you provide your own line of plano sunwear...and I don't doubt that you can Rx those, but the retail optical would need to stock them, right?

2. Secondly, I assume that you can take any optical-supplied frame and make the lenses.

3. Thirdly, is a price sheet available upon request?

4. (Don't shoot the messenger) How do you deal with vision plan patients?  I would assume that you are not a vision plan lab...we submit as "special lenses" like MJ lab, Oakley lab, etc.

----------


## HarryChiling

> drk:
> 
> Someday is today for ICE-TECH. We use correct optical solutions that take into account all of the significant issues you have raised. Our results tell that this works. We have an exceptional adaptation rate, 99%+.


I was disappointed that your lab does not make progressives with blended peripheral curves.

----------


## AWTECH

> Allen, this is as good a time as any to give us more information...





> 1. Obviously, your nice website shows that you provide your own line of plano sunwear...and I don't doubt that you can Rx those, but the retail optical would need to stock them, right?


Yes if you want to carry our brand. (Not required at this time)



> 2. Secondly, I assume that you can take any optical-supplied frame and make the lenses.


Correct




> 3. Thirdly, is a price sheet available upon request?


YES




> 4. (Don't shoot the messenger) How do you deal with vision plan patients? I would assume that you are not a vision plan lab...we submit as "special lenses" like MJ lab, Oakley lab, etc.


We are not a vision plan lab, so if you have a good solution for these patients then you have a way to deal with these patients.

----------


## Barry Santini

> Hi Harry...
> 
> You are correct...it is not just spherical aberration and marginal astigmatism, it is off center errors, and others. Thanks for briging that up.
> 
> The Attitude design also deals with those errors, I did not mention them specifically.
> 
> My point: you shouldn't have to do additional compensation when the design considers the variables and counter-acts them in the mold itself.
> 
> Instead of compensating, I would simply start with a design optimized for wrap, like the Attitude (available in SV and PAL).Laurie


Laurie, in this case, I disagree... 
My understanding is that *central* acuity has to be compensated for the lens/wrap/panto and VD changes from nominal refractive findings (flat lenses; Zero Pantoscopic tilt) in order to try to mimic the acuity found in the exam room.

One point, left out so far from this discussion, is the meridonal/peripheral magnification changes that influence the neurological perception of the wearer.  The "fishbowl" effect of wearing wrap eyewear would be one example.

FWIW

Barry

----------


## Laurie

Hi Barry,

Fish bowl and other optical problems will occur when the base curve is way off.  It is primarily about best form lens design.

If, for example, you input variables in a lens design program (like Darryl Meister's 'Optics Lite',) and you plugged in the correct base curve (using Thompson's equation), you would find that a steep wrap induces too much spherical aberration, and off-center errors.

The best way to deal with these errors optically is to induce equal and opposite errors in the mold, so that light neutralizes the effects when passing through.

Even with a wrap compensating calculator, you cannot acheive the same results as you would with a lens specifically designed for these errors, like the Attitude design.  With a wrap-compensating formula, you can adjust some parameters, however, a design optimized for this purpose encompasses many more variables...up to 300 curves on one surface.

In this case, I would trust the lens designers, who use super-computers to calculate and finalize the end-design...if in fact, the design is actually optimized for high base curves, rather than 'just being available' in steeper base curves.

Vertex Distance should not be an issue, unless the power is greater than +/- 7.00 D in power...it is the base curve issue, straying away from the best form designs that is the major factor.

: )

Laurie

----------


## AWTECH

> Hi Barry,
> 
> Fish bowl and other optical problems will occur when the base curve is way off. It is primarily about best form lens design.
> 
> If, for example, you input variables in a lens design program (like Darryl Meister's 'Optics Lite',) and you plugged in the correct base curve (using Thompson's equation), you would find that a steep wrap induces too much spherical aberration, and off-center errors.
> 
> The best way to deal with these errors optically is to induce equal and opposite errors in the mold, so that light neutralizes the effects when passing through.
> 
> Even with a wrap compensating calculator, you cannot acheive the same results as you would with a lens specifically designed for these errors, like the Attitude design. With a wrap-compensating formula, you can adjust some parameters, however, a design optimized for this purpose encompasses many more variables...up to 300 curves on one surface.
> ...


When you deal with the errors you mention by correcting for errors in the mold you have limitations due to various differences in frame angles when the lens is designed to be optimized at a specific angle.  With an individualized wrap around design using  both compensation and the optimized lens surface design based on the frame and patient information you will get an even better lens.

The main advantage the Attitude has over the individualized lens is that it can be processed with standard lab surfacing equipment.

----------


## Barry Santini

Laurie,

As I have discovered in telescope-eyepiece design:

If you optimally correct off-axis errors, such as astigmatism and the mis-match of image planes {sometimes incorrectly referred to (at least in telescope design) as "field-curvature"}, you will end up with meridonal magnification errors (aka rectilinear-geometric magnification errors). This is the situation, similar to optimized wrap-ophthalmic errors, that results in the wearer's perception of a "fish-bowl" effect with wrap eyewear.

Some people may not "notice" it, but its there nevertheless.

FWIW

Barry

----------


## HarryChiling

Barry,

Your right their is no real great way of produceing an orthoscopic lens in a wrap design.  If we go off corrected curve I think that distortion is going to be the least of our worries when it comes to aberrations.  Using conventional base cure their is no way to get rid of distortion anyway so it's not often a concern.  To minimize the distortion you talk about we would need to go into the Wollaston branch of the tchernings ellipse.  The wollaston curves are too steep for wraps or any ohter lens to be a viable option so we can't really take that into consideration fro correction, but we do need to take that into consideration as a contraindication.  If we haev a patient that is sensitive to base curves then this is going to be the patietn that has issues with distortion.




> Even with a wrap compensating calculator, you cannot acheive the same results as you would with a lens specifically designed for these errors, like the Attitude design. With a wrap-compensating formula, you can adjust some parameters, however, a design optimized for this purpose encompasses many more variables...up to 300 curves on one surface.


I am not sure what association you have with Shamir, I agree their products are great, but any molded lens is going to provide some comprimise in design to give it a wider range of prescriptions to accomadate.  Of course shamir coudl make a billion molds to eliminate this issue, but then they could also go with FF processing of the lens instead and save a boat load of money.  I think before seidel aberrations shoudl be addressed the first order aberrations shoudl be compensated for first, defocus and astigmatism, to say we need to focus on the higher order aberrations and leave defocus and astigmatism unaddressed would be like plugging a hole in a damn with bubble gum.

----------


## Barry Santini

> Using conventional base cure their is no way to get rid of distortion anyway so it's not often a concern. To minimize the distortion you talk about we would need to go into the Wollaston branch of the tchernings ellipse. The wollaston curves are too steep for wraps or any ohter lens to be a viable option so we can't really take that into consideration for correction, .


Harry,

I'm sensing from this post that you may not have been aware, or used any of Sola Enigma/Contour Optics lenses/eyewear. I have and still use 4 pair of them (2 pairs for music, 1 DV for night driving and 1 Sunglass).

My friend, and Sola/Zeiss lens designer, Mike Morris (who is also an avid amateur astronomer), designed these same lenses by goin' back and lookin at the Wolllaston branch of steep curves. He settled on the idea that a curved lens of 16Diopter, placed approximately 16-18mm VD, would then have a "base curve" whose radius is co-incident with the center of rotation of the eye. Therefore, the eye's line of sight is "normal" just about everywhere one looks...even very obliquely. His idea came from trying to design an ophthalmic lens that mimics the Maksutov telescope design (if you have to ask, Wiki it)

No distortion, no astigmatism, no power error and...NO Color aberration, even though the lenses were Poly (which made molding them possible).

I'm so sorry to see Zeiss compleetly throw out this technology when they bought Sola.

FWIW

Barry

----------


## HarryChiling

> Harry,
> 
> I'm sensing from this post that you may not have been aware, or used any of Sola Enigma/Contour Optics lenses/eyewear. I have and still use 4 pair of them (2 pairs for music, 1 DV for night driving and 1 Sunglass).
> 
> My friend, and Sola/Zeiss lens designer, Mike Morris (who is also an avid amateur astronomer), designed these same lenses by goin' back and lookin at the Wolllaston branch of steep curves. *He settled on the idea that a curved lens of 16Diopter, placed approximately 16-18mm VD, would then have a "base curve" whose radius is co-incident with the center of rotation of the eye. Therefore, the eye's line of sight is "normal" just about everywhere one looks...even very obliquely. His idea came from trying to design an ophthalmic lens that mimics the Maksutov telescope design (if you have to ask, Wiki it)*
> 
> *No distortion, no astigmatism, no power error and...NO Color aberration, even though the lenses were Poly (which made molding them possible).*
> 
> I'm so sorry to see Zeiss compleetly throw out this technology when they bought Sola.
> ...


That is the idea behind the wollaston branch and I love hearing even from instructors that their is no way of correcting chromatism without a doublet or triplet.  Yes, a steep enough curve will correct it, but even the design you suggest which I am not familiar with is a bit outrageous when it comes to feasability especially in a wrap.  Maybe you could reintroduce them as Super WrapsTM. :D

If you were to push the VD even further out you could make the lenses in a more acceptable base curve but how realistic would it be.  Two characteristics of wrap eyewear make this design a flop:
Base Curve - most wrap eyewear are suited for 6 - 10 base lenses at best, outside of this range steep adjustments nee to be made to the curves to make them fit properly.Vertex Distance - in the design you specified the VD was moved to a 16 - 18 mm distance where as in wraps we deal with the opposite with VD 8 - 10 mm on average.If I am correct most of the Tcherning charts I have seen measure the back vertex to center of rotation as 25 - 27mm consider about 12.5 from cornea to center of rotation and that leaves us with 12.5 - 14.5mm for the vertex distance in these charts which would even be slightly off for our 8 - 10mm vertex distance.  If I get a chance I might try to draw up a chart for closer vertex's.

----------


## Barry Santini

Harry,

these lenses were designed to be worn in a NON wrap frame, i.e. "0" frame tilt.  The lenses are simply very steeply curved to perform as I mentioned.

When I come to VEE, I'll bring mine, if you're interested.

Barry

----------


## HarryChiling

> Harry,
> 
> these lenses were designed to be worn in a NON wrap frame, i.e. "0" frame tilt. The lenses are simply very steeply curved to perform as I mentioned.
> 
> When I come to VEE, I'll bring mine, if you're interested.
> 
> Barry


I understand, but the effect or orthoscopy that these lense porduce cannot be produced at a closer VD frame (ie wrap sunglasses) without even steeper curves beign employed.  They are in effect made usign the wollaston curves from the tcshernings ellipse except they have the vertex distance moved further out to allow for flatter wollaston curves.

BTW, I will be their on Saturday so I would love to see them.

----------


## Laurie

Hi Harry,

My association with Shamir is as an educational consultant.  I teach optics full time at Hillsborough Community College, and do consulting and writing in addition to my faculty position. 

I wholeheartedly agree, that freeform is the way to go in all lenses.  It is an amazing technology.

What I was trying to point out, though, IMHO, is that it is better to choose a lens that is optimized for wrap, rather than take a spherical base and run the numbers through a compensating program.  The best of the best, of course, is comining all of these technologies together for a truly personalized lens.

...baby steps.

: )

Laurie

----------


## snowmonster

> My association with Shamir is as an educational consultant. I teach optics full time at Hillsborough Community College, and do consulting and writing in addition to my faculty position.
> 
> Laurie


Call me crazy, but shouldn't this have been disclosed much earlier in the conversation?

At least we know what Allen's background/motivation is in all of his posts.

----------


## Laurie

Hi Snowmonster,

I talk about lots of products/technologies here, Nupolar, Transitions, Chrome Hearts, ect.  I have mentioned my affiliation with Shamir here more than once in the past...sorry if you didn't catch it.  

no intentions to hide anything!

: )

Laurie

PS:  Barry S., if you are reading this, how about a prototype that you can show us at Expo?

----------


## HarryChiling

> *I wholeheartedly agree, that freeform is the way to go in all lenses. It is an amazing technology.*


I don't think I ever said that, matter of fact I believe that in many prescriptions the benefits of the processing technique will never be fully appreciated.  The more comprimised the Rx is from corrected curve the more likely the patient is to realize the benefits of FF processing to reduce that comprimise, however if your Rx happens to fall on the corrected curve that the manufacturer just so happens to also make blanks in, then FF or not a spherical back curve would accomplish the same on both the FF generator or the traditional generator.  It could even be argued that the conformable polishers would introduce more error in these cases than the spherical hard laps.  It's a great technology and one day enough people will understand it enough to only fit it in cases that would benefit from it's pluses.




> What I was trying to point out, though, IMHO, is that it is better to choose a lens that is optimized for wrap, rather than take a spherical base and run the numbers through a compensating program. The best of the best, of course, is comining all of these technologies together for a truly personalized lens.


The best of the best is here, those lenses that are optimized for wrap still get compensated and perform better when they do.  These optimized lenses that you are mentioning are optimizing aberrations which is nice but keep in mind the script from the doctor addresses defocus and astigmatism and before we can move forward to the more complicated and sexier seidel abberations we need to adress the astigmatsim and the defocus.

If I had to fit a patient in a compensated aspheric lens without any compensations through the various programs or a spherical lens with the compensations through the program hands down I would go with the spherical lens.




> Call me crazy, but shouldn't this have been disclosed much earlier in the conversation?
> 
> At least we know what Allen's background/motivation is in all of his posts.


That's why I asked, I know Laurie is an educator and she may not be getting the correct information from these companies on the subject.  This is common in our industry and I have always made it a point to never believe what I am told without checking the facts first.

----------


## Laurie

Hi Harry,

I realize best form theory is tough to beat.  It is amazing how much choosing the right base curve matters.

My responses about aberrations, ect., were out of my courses, in my head...not given to me by companies.  Kind of reading stuff here, and applying optical common sense, and submitting a reply. 

It is pretty common for educators to do additional work with various companies...one friend of mine has 5-6 affiliations...However, we keep it out of the classroom.  Everyone who knows me here knows that I seperate classroom and business.  I did not realize though, as you stated, that it is common for optical instructors to get the wrong information from companies?

Usually manufacturers are great about sending us spec sheets, and we have guest speakers from all types of companies  to present to our students....not sure what you mean by the commonality of mis-information.

Back to topic:

Are you suggesting that a compensated, aspheric front run through a compensating program is better than a design that compensates in the mold, and can be traditionally surfaced, or, additionally direct surfaced?

I'm just stretching it out here.  It will likely take a while for all of these technlogies to become the norm, but we've lived through other big changes...it will be interesting to watch over time.

: )

Laurie

----------


## HarryChiling

> Are you suggesting that a compensated, aspheric front run through a compensating program is better than a design that compensates in the mold, and can be traditionally surfaced, or, additionally direct surfaced?
> 
> I'm just stretching it out here. It will likely take a while for all of these technlogies to become the norm, but we've lived through other big changes...it will be interesting to watch over time.
> 
> : )
> 
> Laurie


I am not suggesting it I am saying it, Yes.  If you were to take an Rx that the doctor prescribes on a specific (x,y,z) plane and then tilt the plane their will be a change in the Rx to reflect the change in this plane.  If we had a phoropter that coud be tilted to the same degree's as the frame before the refraction then we would be able to apply the Rx as is to the wrapped frame, but untill then the compensations done in the mold are just done to help with the aberrations produced by prescriptions that are not corrected curve.

I think the bestt question you could ask is what does this compensation in the mold accomplish?  If it's done in the mold it obviously can't be for the amount of panto or face form tilt in a specific frame.  If it's done in the mold then it obviously can't be for anything patient or frame specific.  What they can compensate for is a global variable that woudl be consistent across all lenses (Base Curve), very much like the Kbco lens that uses an 8 base with varying aspheric values to compensate for the various prescription ranges that will be pushed into an 8 base that don't belong there.  This is the type of optimization that I believe they may be doing. 

I just looked at the attitude lens and it's only available in an 8 base and supposedly covers a wide raneg of prescriptions.  If you have more concrete info I would be interested in hearing about it.

----------


## Barry Santini

> Laurie
> 
> PS: Barry S., if you are reading this, how about a prototype that you can show us at Expo?


I'll be bringin' my enigma/contours for those interested in seeing them to VEE

Barry

----------


## Laurie

Hi Barry,

I have a pair too...l-o-v-e them!  Unfortunately, one of the drill-holes has a slight crack, can no longer wear them...love to look at them!

: )

Laurie

----------


## drk

Laurie:

I think it boils down to this: 

1. Lens tilt compensation for sphere/cyl/axis/prism _must_ be made. These are "first-order aberrations".  Your posts seem to indicate that you don't recognize this phenomenon.

2. Compensation for all the other mind-numbing stuff is secondary. These are "higher-order aberrations", and I do think that Shamir is trying to address these.

By simply using an Attitude lens, you will get #2, but not #1, unless you compensate the lens powers using a calculator THEN order it in an Attitude lens.

Agree?

----------


## AWTECH

> Laurie:
> 
> I think it boils down to this: 
> 
> 1. Lens tilt compensation for sphere/cyl/axis/prism _must_ be made. These are "first-order aberrations". Your posts seem to indicate that you don't recognize this phenomenon.
> 
> 2. Compensation for all the other mind-numbing stuff is secondary. These are "higher-order aberrations", and I do think that Shamir is trying to address these.
> 
> By simply using an Attitude lens, you will get #2, but not #1, unless you compensate the lens powers using a calculator THEN order it in an Attitude lens.
> ...


I doubt that anyone is really trying to correct for high order abberation with a lens supported in a frame.

You can go much further with optimization than an Attitude lens.  Individually designed lenses can offer better optics and be made thinner.

Our business was developed making wraps using maximum optimization.

----------


## drk

Maybe I am not using "higher order aberrations" correctly...defocus, yes.  Spherical aberration, yes.  But trefoil, coma, etc. I guess is "higher order aberrations".

I meant to say "Seidel aberrations".  I guess those would be curvature of field, spherical aberration (again), transverse astigmatism, lateral marginal chromatic astimatic transverse curvature...aargh!

----------


## Fezz

I'm getting a headache!!


(And it's not the beer wiseguys)

----------


## AWTECH

> Maybe I am not using "higher order aberrations" correctly...defocus, yes. Spherical aberration, yes. But trefoil, coma, etc. I guess is "higher order aberrations".
> 
> I meant to say "Seidel aberrations". I guess those would be curvature of field, spherical aberration (again), transverse astigmatism, lateral marginal chromatic astimatic transverse curvature...aargh!


Transverse astigmatism and power error are compensated for in each ICE-TECH individualized lens.  The difference in a lens like the Attitude is that since this is molded lens blank the only available compensation in design must be done using spherical curves that are cut as determined by traditional lab calculation software.  An ICE-TECH lens is design based on the patient prescription, the frame data and the position of wear.  With this information an individually designed lens is created.  If an A dimension on one frame is 62mm and on another the A=51mm then they will each have a different design, meaning the surface design, as the reading area for both will be of similar size yet they require different distance areas.  Each one optimized for the specific A dimension.  Across the lens surface a design is created that will maximize the performance and balance astigmatism and power error.  There are just many more opportunities to maximize the design when you are not trapped with a molded PAL front surface.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Transverse astigmatism and power error are compensated for in each ICE-TECH individualized lens. The difference in a lens like the Attitude is that since this is molded lens blank the only available compensation in design must be done using spherical curves that are cut as determined by traditional lab calculation software. An ICE-TECH lens is design based on the patient prescription, the frame data and the position of wear. With this information an individually designed lens is created. If an A dimension on one frame is 62mm and on another the A=51mm then they will each have a different design, meaning the surface design, as the reading area for both will be of similar size yet they require different distance areas. Each one optimized for the specific A dimension. Across the lens surface a design is created that will maximize the performance and balance astigmatism and power error. There are just many more opportunities to maximize the design when you are not trapped with a molded PAL front surface.


I agree that lenses can be optimized to a greatr degree using a different processing method such as FF, yet I am not convinced that labs are doing this yet to the degree you have written in your post and I would assume that you will retort with that's proprietary information.

----------


## Barry Santini

> With this information an individually designed lens is created. If an A dimension on one frame is 62mm and on another the A=51mm then they will each have a different design.


Yes, good point.  And its also important to remember that the job with the 62 E will NOT be as "potentially-optimizable"(?) as the 51E, all other things being equal.

Barry

----------


## AWTECH

> Yes, good point. And its also important to remember that the job with the 62 E will NOT be as "potentially-optimizable"(?) as the 51E, all other things being equal.
> 
> Barry


Obviously the smaller the optical area the less off axis errors, however the 62mm lens can be optimized much better using an individualized design approach than starting with a molded blank that is designed for any frame from 46mm to 72mm.

There will continue to be improvements in the designs of individualized lenses, but the leap from molded to individualized designs is a giant step for those with vision impairment, while the next improvements will be baby steps.

----------


## Laurie

Hello Again,

We are all on the same page here.

DRK - I do not believe that HOA's are more important...I don't see where my posts would indicate that...  My point was focusing on best form corrective curve theory, and compensating (in the mold, or, ultimately, through freeform/indivilualized designs) to acheive the best possible optics.

If everything were made by Freeform technology, we would not even have this discussion... it is the best of the best, and I hope we switch over all of our processes to this method of manufacture.  Then, when we are all doing the same processing, we can get back to debating about design.

: )

Baby steps - we will get there,

Am stuck at the airport trying to get to VEE...one of the American Airlines travelers.


Laurie

----------


## HarryChiling

> Hello Again,
> 
> We are all on the same page here.
> 
> DRK - I do not believe that HOA's are more important...I don't see where my posts would indicate that... My point was focusing on best form corrective curve theory, and compensating (in the mold, or, ultimately, through freeform/indivilualized designs) to acheive the best possible optics.
> 
> If everything were made by Freeform technology, we would not even have this discussion... it is the best of the best, and I hope we switch over all of our processes to this method of manufacture. Then, when we are all doing the same processing, we can get back to debating about design.
> 
> : )
> ...


Laurie,

FF processing doesn't do anything, it's the numbers that are input and manipulated that has the most effect with FF processing.  The problem I have is that many of the designs available now I can order through for instance Vision Web, it's a great service and I enjoy using VW as it saves me a ton of time, but their is no place to specify panto, faceform, or vertex distance.  How is the lens individualized without these measures, vertex distances are used in corrected curve theory so they would be essential in reduceing aberrations, tilt causes defocus and astigmatism which cannot be correted without these variables.  In essence what happens is global variables are applied to these measures if they are not supplied, what's the difference between global variables being applied to the mold vs. the lens direct?  Their are advantages to directly applying these variables to the lens direct my analogy is making a photocopy of a photocopy, you can make it as detailed as you like but it will never be exactly the same and every copy has a loss in details.  This is the biggest advantage, yet the focus seems to be on HOA which I don't believe is being fully corrected to the machines capabilities.  This is not a fault with the manufactureres directly or the labs, it's the fault of poorly trained opticians.  In another thread one a majoprity of people thought that HOA's were of more significance than first order optics which is absurd.  HOA's are insignificant compared to their first order counterparts.  Unless opticians are taught these concepts I don't see FF taking off as everyone would hope.  I would like to see more manufacturer's step up to the plate and offer more information as to at least what variables are required to process their lenses.


Yes I believe that the FF processing does bring very large advantages to the table but what is being marketed today is tommorows technologies.

----------


## Barry Santini

> If everything were made by Freeform technology, we would not even have this discussion... 
> Baby steps - we will get there.
> Laurie


Well, I beg to differ. If everything were free form...

_then all we'd have left to focus improvements on would be...(ta dah!):_

_The Refraction!_

...which is what we should be addressing all along, anyway!

Barry

----------


## HarryChiling

Barry and Laurie it seems like your both passionate on the subject I will bring a rough draft of a paper I am writing on the subject fro you two to check out at VEE, I have a feeling I might be adding to it.

----------


## drk

The hierarchy of importance to visual outcome:
1.) Patient sensitivity level
2.) Accuracy of refraction/biometric measurements (pd, level MRP, vertex, panto, face-form)
3.) Manufacturing quality and tolerance
4.) Conventional lens design employed (corrected curve issues, asphericity, molded progressive technology)
5.) Material choice
6.) Frame adjustment
7.) Advanced lens design factors (atoricity, reduction of wearer's HOA, additional reduction of lenses' aberrations)

----------


## Barry Santini

1. Shamir's completely iterated, free-form SV and progressive wrap solution...all done on the back side (licensed to MJ).
2. Hoya "bi-aspheric" SV solution, with iterated free form done on BOTH sides (using 2 lens surfaces promises more overall correction possible). Only available for normal ophthalmic frames now, wrap soon.
3. Zeiss will use a portable, HOA-determining device that will download the person's wavefront error (or some-distilled part of it), and other Eye Terminal-derived stuff for use with a new, iterated Gradal progressive solution. ????!!!!

and...as far as I can see, none of the iterated wrap solutions even *tries* to (also) add Definity's "ground view advantage", which I thin would be *excellent* for any leisure/sports sun wrap use.

Comments?

Barry

----------


## drk

#7

----------


## Laurie

Barry - I agree...the refraction is crucial.

Harry - I also agree that first order optics are the priority.  HOA corrections may be great for CL/Lasik, but not for spectacle lenses.  They are fun to talk about, but not the focus of optimization.

We have alot of work to do to educate opticians in FF, and fitting techniques.  Panto, Wrap, and Vertex measurements will be important.  And, the wrap angle will change depending on PD, so we also need accurate measuring devices that will take this into consideration.

In one of my seminars this weekend, it became evident that there are alot of misconceptions in our field in regard to measurements.  For example, when I mentioned that it is important for the optician to close one eye at a time while spotting pupils, so that our dominant eye doesn't take each measurement (causing cross-parallactic error), this came as a surprise to many.  Also, we still see Rx's coming in with adds bumped for PALs, which should not be done anymore...

One thing for sure...these new technologies and methods of manufacture are very exciting.  Call me corny, but I cannot remember a time in opticianry (have been in this profession since 1979), when I have been so excited about our field.  The new technologies are amazing, and we are finally into the fashion scene.  Geek Chic at its best!

: )

Laurie

----------


## Barry Santini

I took your "understanding the relationship...Refr/Rx" course, and definately feel I came away impressed with many important points you made.

Very Enjoyable! 

Barry

PS Sorry I couldn't stay afterward to chat...I was already late for an apptmnt.

----------


## Laurie

Hi Barry,

Thanks!

I can't believe that we were in the same room and didn't meet!  : (

Maybe next time.

Laurie

----------


## HarryChiling

> Also, we still see Rx's coming in with adds bumped for PALs, which should not be done anymore...


Ahh Hah, this is somewhere that I both agree and don't agree.  It shoudl never be done but as opticians we are being forced into this as a solution especially since many manufacturers are now using the minimum fitting height as 85% of the add instead of 100%.  I have no way of knowing anymore where 100% of the add lies, I have a way of guesstimating it, but what good is accuracy in all other areas when the lens data is so obscure?

Laurie and Barry, neither one of you showed at the Cadillac booth at 2:00PM Saturday.  Shame lots of awesome boarders there:
DocinchinaWarren McDonaldDiane DraketntbordenBill SwainScott McLeodBeverly HeishmanAlvaro Cordovame and my wifeand others I didn't get to meet since I had to leave shortly after.

----------


## Barry Santini

i was only at the show on Sat from 7AM to 9:40AM (I participated in the sport/fashion panel).
Then, I went back to work!

Barry

PS Hope to have a chance to see you all again!

Barry

----------


## HarryChiling

> i was only at the show on Sat from 7AM to 9:40AM (I participated in the sport/fashion panel).
> Then, I went back to work!
> 
> Barry
> 
> PS Hope to have a chance to see you all again!
> 
> Barry


Man Barry I really wanted to pick your brain.  I was looking forward to putting the face with the name.  It was amazing meeting everyone there and it was my pleasure, I just wish I had more time to spend at the show to meet up with everyone else.  There's always other times.

----------


## shanbaum

> Ahh Hah, this is somewhere that I both agree and don't agree. It shoudl never be done but as opticians we are being forced into this as a solution especially since many manufacturers are now using the minimum fitting height as 85% of the add instead of 100%. I have no way of knowing anymore where 100% of the add lies, I have a way of guesstimating it, but what good is accuracy in all other areas when the lens data is so obscure?
> 
> Laurie and Barry, neither one of you showed at the Cadillac booth at 2:00PM Saturday. Shame lots of awesome boarders there:
> DocinchinaWarren McDonaldDiane DraketntbordenBill SwainScott McLeodBeverly HeishmanAlvaro Cordovame and my wifeand others I didn't get to meet since I had to leave shortly after.


Sorry I couldn't make it - got stuck in a meeting.

I know, I know, our booth was impossible to find...

----------


## Barry Santini

> Man Barry I really wanted to pick your brain. I was looking forward to putting the face with the name. It was amazing meeting everyone there and it was my pleasure, I just wish I had more time to spend at the show to meet up with everyone else. There's always other times.


Harry,

I'm going to be doing the Vision Ease CE Roll-out for there Coppertone lenses, starting in 7 days. 
Here's my "face":
http://www.jobsoneducation.com/2020/...ge=faculty.htm

Hope to see you soon!

Barry

PS - right now, I can't do the 7/22 CE in Pittsburgh, but things may change.

----------


## Fezz

> PS - right now, I can't do the 7/22 CE in Pittsburgh, but things may change.


 
Any chance of a Philly meeting?

----------


## Barry Santini

Not that I know of, but VE may schedule more seminars in the fall, depending on the reception of the first go around.

Maybe I'll just make a trip to Philly anyway...yes?

Barry

----------


## Fezz

> Maybe I'll just make a trip to Philly anyway...yes?
> 
> Barry


YES!

----------


## HarryChiling

> Not that I know of, but VE may schedule more seminars in the fall, depending on the reception of the first go around.
> 
> Maybe I'll just make a trip to Philly anyway...yes?
> 
> Barry


That would be great, any plans for Baltimore, MD?

----------


## Eyeguy842

How's that paper coming? What would you classify as a "wrap frame"? Eyesize, frame curve, panto, BC of demos? And at what break point, 54 eye is not and a 55 eye is ect. I'm trying to help write a lab SOP form a wrap frame program and am looking for a consensus.
Jerry

----------

