# Optical Forums > Progressive Lens Discussion Forum >  Digitally Surfaced PALs (Free Form) Clarified

## TLG

Wow, it's amazing how confusing this category of lenses has become. I resist even calling them 'Free Form' anymore as some manufacturers have used some iteration of the term to describe their technology and I think it just adds to the confusion. Can we work together to try to lend some clarity to how each brand is created? It is seemingly easy to determine exactly which technology is used by reading the marketing hype, but when you dig down you will find that misleading terms and phrases abound.

I've identified what I believe to be the primary surface types to consider - please offer any additional or contrary ideas:
*1. Standard Surface* - the only thing we knew a few years ago.
*2. Digitally Surfaced* - Lenses that have been digitally surfaced directly to the lens surface itself. These could be on the front, back or both surfaces.
*3.Digital Molds* - Digitally surfaced molds that the lens is cast from. Are these always the front surface?

Following is a list of lens brands.It would be nice to know just how each one is made. Let's put our heads together and offer what we know. I will offer what I think I know on a few and leave space for you to add what you know.

*Accolade Freedom* - 
*AO Easy HD* - 
*Autograph/Creation/Piccolo* - Digital Mold
*Compact Ultra HD* - 
*Definity* - 
*Definity Shor*t - 
*Essilor '360'* - 
*Excede* - 
*EyeMADE* - 
*Gradal Individual/Short i* - 
*Hoyalux ID* - 
*Hoyalux ID Lifestyle* - 
*Ipseo* - 
*iZon* - Digital Surface/back
*Multigressiv/XS* - 
*Perfas* - 
*Precise Short* - Digital Mold
*SOLAOne HD* - 
*Succeed* - 
*Unique* - 

Most product information includes which surface (front, back, both) is optimized so I don't think it's necessary to note that here, but feel free if you like.

You can make it easy on yourself if you hit the 'Quote' button when you reply so all the lenses will be listed in your reply. Simply remove the bracketed "QUOTE" tags before and after the text, highlight and delete the extranneous text and enter your response after the hyphen.

----------


## AWTECH

> Wow, it's amazing how confusing this category of lenses has become. I resist even calling them 'Free Form' anymore as some manufacturers have used some iteration of the term to describe their technology and I think it just adds to the confusion. Can we work together to try to lend some clarity to how each brand is created? It is seemingly easy to determine exactly which technology is used by reading the marketing hype, but when you dig down you will find that misleading terms and phrases abound.
> 
> I've identified what I believe to be the primary surface types to consider - please offer any additional or contrary ideas:
> *1. Standard Surface* - the only thing we knew a few years ago.
> *2. Digitally Surfaced* - Lenses that have been digitally surfaced directly to the lens surface itself. These could be on the front, back or both surfaces.
> *3.Digital Molds* - Digitally surfaced molds that the lens is cast from. Are these always the front surface?
> 
> Following is a list of lens brands. Let's put our heads together and offer what we know. I will offer what I think I know on a few and leave space for you to add what you know.
> 
> ...


I know there is quite a bit of confussion on this subject, but the digital mold is new marketing hype for products that have been produced this way for years.

In addition you can not assume all lenses made with digital surfacing are going to come out the same.  Even the same design can be processed on different equipment with different success.

Poly for example is very difficult to process using digital surfacing compared to CR39.  

I can process a poly lens today on the same equipment I had two years ago.  Without polishing: Today you can edge it without polishing (and if the back wasn't so darn soft non hard coated), and you can use the lens.  Two years ago even after polishing and hard coating there were issues that could be seen.

Remember there is more to this digital surfacing:   Three types of software are involved.  Lens design software.  Machine control software and Lab intergartion software.  Just in the machine control software there are 100,000s of combinations for cutting.  In addition to software there is the tooling used for the cuts. How often do you replace your tools, either PCD or natural diamonds? etc. etc. etc.

The best advise I can give all of you looking into using digitally surfaced lenses, is make sure that the producer really knows and understands what they have gotten themselfs into. Make sure they have the resources to manage the challenges to making these lenses.

----------


## TLG

....as of this post, 94 'views' of this thread and no response other than Allen's. 
Are we all completely confused?
Or does everyone else know but me and I look stupid(er) for asking?
Too much work to offer what you know?
Don't care?
????

----------


## Fezz

Great post! I really think that it comes down to mass confusion(created by the lens co's.) and dispenser apathy, or overload, or lack of knowledge. Lets face it, other than a real strong core group of active participants here on Optiboard, there is a relatively small number of people who actually understand what is going on with this technology. Hopefully we can get some others chiming in here as well.

----------


## Fezz

> n different equipment with different success.
> 
> Poly for example is very difficult to process using digital surfacing compared to CR39.  
> 
> I can process a poly lens today on the same equipment I had two years ago.  Without polishing: Today you can edge it without polishing (and if the back wasn't so darn soft non hard coated), and you can use the lens.  Two years ago even after polishing and hard coating there were issues that could be seen.




Allen, thats very interesting. What is different now? Is it a change in the lab intergation software, or the machine control software?

----------


## AWTECH

> Allen, thats very interesting. What is different now? Is it a change in the lab intergation software, or the machine control software?


I can tell you it is the result of multiple changes with multiple issues, not just software.  Unfortunately I can not go into too many details, as much of our strength comes from the result of this R&D.  Our technology is not for sale and we do not discuss the technology in too much detail.

There are hundreds of thousands of possible combinations for cutting the same lens design.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

Tony,

This is about a year old but has some of the information that you need.

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.p...tmwbxx&thumb=4

Download, save to file, and open with an imaging program to enlarge the text. Or, send me your email address and I'll email it back to you.

----------


## TLG

Robert,
Thanks for the link, it's a great start for sure. Any idea where this chart originated from?

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Robert,
> Thanks for the link, it's a great start for sure. Any idea where this chart originated from?


I got it from a lens rep- can't remember which one, maybe Shamir. 

Another detail that would be nice to know about PALs (and other lenses) is whether the lenses use flatter/aspheric base curves. Hoya and Zeiss are companies that do, others do not, including many of the very expensive direct to surface PALs.

----------


## AWTECH

> I got it from a lens rep- can't remember which one, maybe Shamir. 
> 
> Another detail that would be nice to know about PALs (and other lenses) is whether the lenses use flatter/aspheric base curves. Hoya and Zeiss are companies that do, others do not, including many of the very expensive direct to surface PALs.


You indicate that the fact that many of the very expensive, I assume you would include the ICE-TECH lenses in this do not use front side aspheric designs using direct to surface.  An aspheric design, means non-spherical it does not mean a lens is going to be thinner.  Our technology uses a spherical front and a non-spherical backsurface individualized design.  Our design technology allows us to produce much thinner lenses using a spherical front surface than can be had by the companies you mentioned using their front side molded PAL designs.

----------


## hipoptical

> ....as of this post, 94 'views' of this thread and no response other than Allen's. 
> Are we all completely confused?
> Or does everyone else know but me and I look stupid(er) for asking?
> Too much work to offer what you know?
> Don't care?
> ????



Personally, I am not confused at all. I don't think you look stupid for asking. I don't believe it's too much work to post information. I think that most people just don't care. 
I have questions that have yet to be answered regarding these types of lenses. Until someone can give a non-marketing answer for my questions, I will continue to not care AT ALL.

----------


## gemstone

I would like to know the process for the different lenses.  For example, I have strong reason to believe the Definnity is a cut and coat process.  I know some are polished.

----------


## AWTECH

> I would like to know the process for the different lenses. For example, I have strong reason to believe the Definnity is a cut and coat process. I know some are polished.


As with my company ICE-TECH I think you will find very little interest in companies explaining in any detail how they are digital surfacing.  The cost for digital surfacing equipment is very large and if one producer can figure out how to process in 1/2 the time of a competitor, (as an extreme example), why would they want to let the competition have easy access to this information?

----------


## gemstone

> As with my company ICE-TECH I think you will find very little interest in companies explaining in any detail how they are digital surfacing. The cost for digital surfacing equipment is very large and if one producer can figure out how to process in 1/2 the time of a competitor, (as an extreme example), why would they want to let the competition have easy access to this information?


Oh, so you are using the cut and cote process too?  I thought they were the only ones.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> You indicate that the fact that many of the very expensive, I assume you would include the ICE-TECH lenses in this do not use front side aspheric designs using direct to surface.


I said a flatter/aspheric base curve, with the emphasis on flatter. I assume that asphericity is required to keep the lens best form, as it is with traditional lenses. Are you saying that with direct to surface you're able to use flatter non-aspheric BCs without optical compromise? 




> _An aspheric design, means non-spherical it does not mean a lens is going to be thinner._


True, unless it's a minus power and the asphericity is on the back of the lens. But in plus powers, flatter BCs will certainly be thinner and lighter, along with less magnification, better looking cosmetically, especially in rimless and drill mounts, and fit better in full titanium frames. 

If I'm filling a +3.50DS Rx, and it was available in a +8.00BC and a +6.00BC, I'll always choose the flatter curve as long as it was best form. Heretofore, that required aspheric BCs.




> Our technology uses a spherical front and a non-spherical back surface individualized design. Our design technology allows us to produce much thinner lenses using a spherical front surface than can be had by the companies you mentioned using their front side molded PAL designs.


The companies I mentioned don't use molded front PALs in their freeform lenses, although some companies do, most notably the Physio 360. Using the above example of a +3.50DS Rx, are you saying that your lens will be thinner than the 360 assuming the same material? If the BC is +6.00, then the back curve must have decreasing curvature off-axis. I would question how this would result in a thinner plus lens than an aspheric front curve, unless you used a greater than normal amount of asphericity, possibly resulting in a non-best form lens, with a convex back surface at some point in the periphery. I would think that you would want to manipulate the steepest curve, where there is more to work with. Regardless, the software and programs must be exceedingly complex and expensive when both surfaces are aspheric/atoric, and might explain why some companies have chosen a less complex design.

----------


## AWTECH

> I said a flatter/aspheric base curve, with the emphasis on flatter. I assume that asphericity is required to keep the lens best form, as it is with traditional lenses. Are you saying that with direct to surface you're able to use flatter non-aspheric BCs without optical compromise? 
> 
> True, unless it's a minus power and the asphericity is on the back of the lens. But in plus powers, flatter BCs will certainly be thinner and lighter, along with less magnification, better looking cosmetically, especially in rimless and drill mounts, and fit better in full titanium frames. 
> 
> If I'm filling a +3.50DS Rx, and it was available in a +8.00BC and a +6.00BC, I'll always choose the flatter curve as long as it was best form. Heretofore, that required aspheric BCs.
> 
> The companies I mentioned don't use molded front PALs in their freeform lenses, although some companies do, most notably the Physio 360. Using the above example of a +3.50DS Rx, are you saying that your lens will be thinner than the 360 assuming the same material? If the BC is +6.00, then the back curve must have decreasing curvature off-axis. I would question how this would result in a thinner plus lens than an aspheric front curve, unless you used a greater than normal amount of asphericity, possibly resulting in a non-best form lens, with a convex back surface at some point in the periphery. I would think that you would want to manipulate the steepest curve, where there is more to work with. Regardless, the software and programs must be exceedingly complex and expensive when both surfaces are aspheric/atoric, and might explain why some companies have chosen a less complex design.


Yes;  The previous optical aspheric is combined with a backside spherical curve.

With our technology we can design a very thin lens with a spherical front curve.  Each lens is designed for the frame selected, not one size fits all like a front side molded lens.

----------


## Uncle Fester

> Great post! I really think that it comes down to mass confusion(created by the lens co's.) and dispenser apathy, or overload, or lack of knowledge. Lets face it, other than a real strong core group of active participants here on Optiboard, there is a relatively small number of people who actually understand what is going on with this technology. Hopefully we can get some others chiming in here as well.


I feel the technology is getting to the point of what I call my laundry detergent analogy so every few years "New + Improved Tide" comes along. Yes the chemists at Tide can prove the formula now used will create a cleaner load of laundry but to me the last version got my clothes to my eye just as clean. Does this make sense:hammer:

I know a lot of time and technology goes into each new design but I have come to realize that changing patients to these very expensive lenses doesn't guaranty success. I also think that not enough explanation is given to the fact that as the add increases the unwanted peripheral astigmatism also increases. And the Ryser Equation for the success of progressives is always present. 

Lastly I'm going over to the Pro's only forum now to start a thread that I think will also explain some of the frustrations we in the trenches deal with with a percentage of patients. It will prove to be pretty funny too because I'm sure I'm not alone in what this will deal with.:)

----------


## hipoptical

> I feel the technology is getting to the point of what I call my laundry detergent analogy so every few years "New + Improved Tide" comes along. Yes the chemists at Tide can prove the formula now used will create a cleaner load of laundry but to me the last version got my clothes to my eye just as clean. Does this make sense:hammer:
> 
> I know a lot of time and technology goes into each new design but I have come to realize that changing patients to these very expensive lenses doesn't guaranty success. I also think that not enough explanation is given to the fact that as the add increases the unwanted peripheral astigmatism also increases. And the Ryser Equation for the success of progressives is always present. 
> 
> Lastly I'm going over to the Pro's only forum now to start a thread that I think will also explain some of the frustrations we in the trenches deal with with a percentage of patients. It will prove to be pretty funny too because I'm sure I'm not alone in what this will deal with.:)


:cheers:

----------


## AWTECH

> I feel the technology is getting to the point of what I call my laundry detergent analogy so every few years "New + Improved Tide" comes along. Yes the chemists at Tide can prove the formula now used will create a cleaner load of laundry but to me the last version got my clothes to my eye just as clean. Does this make sense:hammer:
> 
> I know a lot of time and technology goes into each new design but I have come to realize that changing patients to these very expensive lenses doesn't guaranty success. I also think that not enough explanation is given to the fact that as the add increases the unwanted peripheral astigmatism also increases. And the Ryser Equation for the success of progressives is always present. 
> 
> Lastly I'm going over to the Pro's only forum now to start a thread that I think will also explain some of the frustrations we in the trenches deal with with a percentage of patients. It will prove to be pretty funny too because I'm sure I'm not alone in what this will deal with.:)


In your post quoted above you mention"unwanted peripheral astigmatism also increases".

This is one of the main benefits that our backside PAL technology addresses.  We manage astigmatism and power error much better than a molded front side lens can.  ICE-TECH PAL Technology has more the 2.5million individual designs.  Each design has to address the astigmatism and power error.  In a molded lens the 60+ molded blanks are all that can address these issues.

In any New product, (as you mentioned laundry detergent, it can mean new and improved to the manufacturer, such as same level of clean but they figured out how to make the detergent for less).  This is new and improved but to who?

Our PAL technology offers full side to side distance and approximately a 30% wider corridor than a molded design.  This is new and improved for the patient.

----------


## JMSV

The Autograph is a total back side digital surfaced lens. Even the Navigator is now a digital surfaced glass moulded lens.

----------


## RT

If I were a Marketing guy for a lab, I'd point out that since Gerber introduced the SG8 Surface Generator in 1987, that almost _every_ lens has been "digitally surfaced" in recent years.

It is a meaningless term.

----------


## TLG

> It is a meaningless term.


Got a better one?

----------


## TLG

> The Autograph is a total back side digital surfaced lens. Even the Navigator is now a digital surfaced glass moulded lens.


Welcome to OptiBoard. :cheers:
Thanks for caring enough to offer up some help. You're gonna like it here...

----------


## AWTECH

> Got a better one?


I would stick with Digitally Surfaced.  Opticians who are really keeping current on new technologies will figure out the difference between molded lenses and more individualized digitally surfaced lenses.

The main difference is a lens produced with mold that was produced using digital surfacing technology vs. a digitally surfaced lens in its final form.

----------


## samsoptman4940

Sorry I am new here, but your list is missing one that I use often at Sam's Club.  The Nikon Eyes Customized, is a direct to surface digitaly surfaced lens.  The nice thing about it is that the there is no set pattern to start with, because they start with an aspheric Single vision blank and can literally cusomize it down to .0625 diopters if needed.  Of course this  would not nessicarily be practical, but it is possible.  This coupled with an elimination of the standard 1.5mm add inset to base it on the prizmatic effect of the RX (which varies up to 1mm from a high + to a high -) enables them to make the glasses based on the patients need not the limitation of equipment.

I am not saying that this lens is the best Ok because I really don't know what lens is, but I have switched people out just about any lens, put them in this one and they get more out of it no matter what they spent on their last pair.

Maybe old news but yes Sam's Club and Wal-Mart do use Nikon Lenses as well as others that many don't realize.  We are really trying to get away from the wrack-em-up and shot-em-out style of dispencing that so many retailers are known for.  If it has been a while since last you went into a Wal-Mart or Sam's Optical, go in and take a look now and look back in about 6 months I think you will see changes that will supprise many.

By the way I am not trying to start a debate or pitch Sam's or Wal-Mart in any way so if you don't like us please don't gripe at me.  I just wanted to add a little info to the thread.

Thanks.

----------


## TLG

samsoptman,
OptiBoard is nothing but opinions, yours is as good as anyone else's - doesn't matter where you work. Welcome! I appreciate you taking the time to offer an addition to the list. I will check it out, but am guessing that it may be a lens sold only to Sam's. Such is the case with the Zeiss Experience which is sold only to Walmart. If not, I may hit you up for whatever specs you may have :D

----------


## samsoptman4940

If this lens is being sold only to Wal-Mart and Sam's it is just known under a different name else where.  You may want to research the Nikon Ovation with Harmonix Technology this might lead you in the right direction. It is the forerunner for this new lens.

Thank you for the welcome.  If I have any info to share I will do it gladly.

I do have a question.  Does any one know where I can get a list of identifier marks to tell what progressive my patients bring in to me?

----------


## Fezz

> I do have a question.  Does any one know where I can get a list of identifier marks to tell what progressive my patients bring in to me?


Thats an easy one! Start with the website of the author of this thread! TLG has a great resource at: www.thelensguru.com 

You may want to check out a site by another Optiboarder, Keith Benjamin, at Laramy- K: http://www.laramyk.com/tools.html

These are great reference tools by some very dedicated optical professionals.

The OLA(Optical Laboratory Assoc) has a softcover booklet with this info as well. Your OLA lab should be able to give you a copy, or go direct to the OLA and order one: http://www.ola-labs.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=43

Hope this helps!

----------


## TLG

> You may want to research the *Nikon Ovation with Harmonix Technology* this might lead you in the right direction. It is the forerunner for this new lens.


I'm not saying you're wrong, but I hope-for the sanity of us all-that Essilor has not really released a lens under the Nikon brand with exactly the same name as one of their Essilor brands. :hammer:I've done a little research and can't find any reference to Ovation with Harmonix. For some reason the _Accolade with Harmonix_ is repeatedly compared to their Ovation lens in product brochures and marketing stuff. Could you be confusing it from those references?

----------


## samsoptman4940

> I'm not saying you're wrong, but I hope-for the sanity of us all-that Essilor has not really released a lens under the Nikon brand with exactly the same name as one of their Essilor brands. :hammer:I've done a little research and can't find any reference to Ovation with Harmonix. For some reason the _Accolade with Harmonix_ is repeatedly compared to their Ovation lens in product brochures and marketing stuff. Could you be confusing it from those references?


 
I really don't think that this is just another Essilor re-release. for the simple fact that all of our support for the lenses are Nikon direct representitives and each lens has a numbered Nikon Certificate of authenticity.  I could be wrong and it really could be a essilor lens but if it is it's the best lens that I have ever used.  And is liked by two of my patients better than the Hoyawide.

Like I said before It might not be the best lens in the world but I get more oooohhhs and aaahhhs then any I have used or changed out of.

As for the last question I have too much literature for there to be any confusion as what they are talking about.  So no I really don't think this is an essilor replica nor do I think that it is made for us by essilor.  But I will look into it further and let you know.

----------


## obxeyeguy

> So no I really don't think this is an essilor replica nor do I think that it is made for us by essilor. But I will look into it further and let you know.


who makes "nikon" lenses then?


> Nikon Certificate of authenticity.


Must be real then.

----------


## rdcoach5

Who  makes this lens for Sam's?

----------


## NavyChief

Essilor's Dallas Processing Center (Avisia)

----------


## Crickett13

The Shamir Autograph is digitaly surfaced. The Creation is cast from Digital molds.

----------


## hipoptical

> Essilor's Dallas Processing Center (Avisia)


My understanding is that Nikon has had a bit of a falling out with Essilor. That is why there is confusion. The Avisia lab produces a Nikon coating on Essilor lenses. A Nikon lab produces a Nikon coating on Nikon lenses, which is where the difference is. Essilor sells Nikon product, Nikon sells "Nikon Eyes". The latter is better than the former in my opinion. Nikon Eyes is what everyone was so impressed with over the years. (MY ASSUPMTION: Essilor got greedy and Nikon said they could market Nikon COATING, but no longer could have the name Nikon Eyes as a brand, since they were not properly producing it. You should know that my assumptions are always based on the facts that I have.)

----------


## Christosfer

I have found all the new lens terminology to be very confusing and some of it misleading. Some of the reps use terms like pixels and high definition to describe the lenses. I don't buy into those terms. Saying that you can surface a lens to within 1/100th of a diopter is great, we still measure in 1/4 D. 

One of my concerns has been for those "digital" progressives that are made from SV blanks. I ask the reps if they use aspherical blanks as well as sperical, and what happens to the plus Rx. The kodak rep actually told me to use another lens for patients over +2.00 if using the Unique lens. 

There are so many considerations to take into account these days when selecting a lens that it makes my head spin. 

What have some of you done in terms of deciding on a brand of lens?
Do you dispense a family of lenses, or pick and choose based on all the criteria?

Thanks

----------


## AWTECH

> I have found all the new lens terminology to be very confusing and some of it misleading. Some of the reps use terms like pixels and high definition to describe the lenses. I don't buy into those terms. Saying that you can surface a lens to within 1/100th of a diopter is great, we still measure in 1/4 D. 
> 
> One of my concerns has been for those "digital" progressives that are made from SV blanks. I ask the reps if they use aspherical blanks as well as sperical, and what happens to the plus Rx. The kodak rep actually told me to use another lens for patients over +2.00 if using the Unique lens. 
> 
> There are so many considerations to take into account these days when selecting a lens that it makes my head spin. 
> 
> What have some of you done in terms of deciding on a brand of lens?
> Do you dispense a family of lenses, or pick and choose based on all the criteria?
> 
> Thanks


I agree with you about the confussion,  I don't really understand the question regarding using individualized spherical front curves vs. aspherical front curves.  With our ICE-TECH Advaced Lens Designs we use a spherical front curve for all designs.  We can manage the optimization of each design with back surface optimization only.  As far as plus patients, we fit many plus patients with +2.50 to +2.75 for example with Adds of 2.50 to 3.00.  We recently did a +5.00 with a 2.50 Add in both a sunglass using an 8 base front curve and a dress wear lens using a 6 base front curve.  The maximum lens thickness on the 8 base wrap was less than 7mm with a 60mm A size 33mm B.

Some of the confussion comes from good intentions not properly understood by the reps in the field and some comes from designed marketing to confuse the issue.

If you would like to Private Message me I will be happy to provide additional information to help you better understand what can be accomplished with these technologies.

----------


## optigrrl

> I have found all the new lens terminology to be very confusing and some of it misleading. Some of the reps use terms like pixels and high definition to describe the lenses. I don't buy into those terms. Saying that you can surface a lens to within 1/100th of a diopter is great, we still measure in 1/4 D. 
> 
> One of my concerns has been for those "digital" progressives that are made from SV blanks. I ask the reps if they use aspherical blanks as well as sperical, and what happens to the plus Rx. The kodak rep actually told me to use another lens for patients over +2.00 if using the Unique lens. 
> 
> There are so many considerations to take into account these days when selecting a lens that it makes my head spin. 
> 
> What have some of you done in terms of deciding on a brand of lens?
> Do you dispense a family of lenses, or pick and choose based on all the criteria?
> 
> Thanks


I trialed most of the premium PALs and found they all had their advantages and disadvantages - like any other product. My rule of thumb was by simple observation (not scientific) that myopes have different preferences than hyperopes so I ended up with certain go-to PAL's depending on the rx. It's best to just play around with them, get the info on the lenses like how many bc's are offered, is it spherical or aspherical, corridor length and soft or hard design and materials available. You're always going to have non-adapts because vision is subjective. The R&D these companies do don't take into account the psychology of some of our patients :D

Sometimes it was hard getting technical info because the reps didn't have an optical background - but I was lucky to find Optiboard and the Petes, Allens, Darryls and others like them who live here and helped me out.

 I tried the different free-forms and now understand the "hi-def" description after looking through one. Rx for rx things just looked sharper. We don't see in 1/4 diopters.

If I were to have to choose a family of lenses, I would want the family with the most diverse members. What's important to you? there aren't really any bad lenses per se, so I went with materials and coatings as my hot buttons. What are your criteria?

----------


## Darryl Meister

Just some food for thought:

< Begin Soapbox >

1. "Digital surfacing" is really a bit of a misnomer. Any lens surfaced on modern generators is "digitally surfaced," since these machines are all computer-numerically-controlled. But, right or wrong, consumers have come to assume that the word "digital" must mean "good." On a side-note, this trend began in the music industry with the advent of CDs, which encode analog sound waves using discrete (or "digital") sampling. However, it isn't really the "digital sampling" aspect that makes CDs sound better than cassettes; in fact, before the sound ever gets back to your ears from a CD, it must first be converted back to analog wave forms.

2. "Free-form" surfacing isn't really the "end-all, be-all" of lens manufacturing. Traditional lens casting can actually produce more repeatable results in many cases. While a free-form generator may arguably replicate a progressive lens design more accurately in some cases, surface characteristics are still modified in undesirable ways by the soft lap polishing process, especially if the polishing process hasn't been carefully engineered and controlled. The real benefit of a free-form production platform to the actual wearer is the ability to design and customize progressive lenses in "real time" based on information specific to the individual wearer. The number of free-form suppliers that are actually doing this type of real-time lens design is a matter of much debate, however. Otherwise, you're just paying an added premium for a semi-finished-like progressive lens.

3. I find it more than a little suspicious that many free-form lens suppliers fail to disclose the technical details of their lens designs. And many progressive lens manufacturers are emphasizing the benefits of the free-form _surfacing process_ more than the actual _product_ that the process is producing. Since these same manufacturers generally use a similar free-form surfacing process, this marketing approach doesn't seem to differentiate their products in any meaningful way, in my opinion. Further, many lens manufacturers advertise basic prescription optimization for their free-form lenses, which -- when done correctly, at least -- ensures that the desired optical performance is maintained, regardless of the prescription. However, if the performance of the initial lens design is mediocre to begin with, the free-form version of that lens design will simply ensure the same mediocre performance for every wearer.

In any event, the term "free-form" doesn't necessarily mean that a given product is any better than a comparable semi-finished lens. You should be confident in the performance of a given lens design before investing in a "free-form" version of the same product. And, frankly, the more vague a lens manufacturer is regarding the details of the implementation and design of their free-form progressive lenses, the more cautious you should probably be when evaluating their sales and marketing materials. After all, if they're just surfacing a standard progressive lens, you could save yourself -- and your patient -- a lot of money by buying the regular, semi-finished version, instead. Unfortunately, it's relatively easy for a lens manufacturer to hide behind the latest "free-form" buzzword, in lieu of disclosing any real technical details regarding their lens design or its actual performance.

</ End Soapbox >

----------


## AWTECH

I can confirm the above post by Darryl Meister:  Freeform alone does not mean better.  

The term has been expanded to include lenses that are molded.

To further the confussion now you have molded PAL front surfaces cut using freeform equipment, but cut just like a traditional hard lap, front molded lens.

I think it is difficult for the optician working in a retail setting to have access to equipment that can actually compare the designs.  The best way to understand how these lenses will perform is check with other opticans that have fitted many of these designs.

----------


## Digitaleye

Any lens can be and soon enough will be Digitally surfaced. By definition: surfaced using a more controlled .. many times aspheric back surface vs. the simple spherical curves applied to non-digital lenses. 

The Accolade, Physio 360 (all the 360's) are traditional molded lenses which are digitally rather than traditionally surfaced. Same lens different rear surface. check the markings.

Autograph, Succeed, Unique, Individual: start with spherical SFSV lenses where the entire PAL surface is fabricated on the inside surface of the lens. All of the Spherical, Cyl, Add, and prism power are cut .. creating the changes in magnification comprising the PAL. The front remains untouched/spherical.

Definity - a blend.. a cast PAL where the add is split allowing additional add power to be fabricated on the back.

A note to those that believe "Digital" is only hype or an excuse to charge more. The fact is: Most lenses will be processed using this method we today call Digital @ some point. Why? Because, in the future Labs will not invest in technology that does not deliver the ability to manufacture these significantly more accurate cotrolled surfaces. As 3 axis generators improved upon the simple spherical curves of 20 years ago..todays Digital, Freeform capable machines further improve the Rx accuracy, Design control, and functionality of todays lenses.

----------


## optigrrl

Digitaleye - 


Great to have you on board and looking forward to your contributions! Don't forget to go for the membership - 

Optiboard. Membership has it's rewards.

----------


## TLG

> Digitaleye - 
>  Great to have you on board and looking forward to your contributions!


Yes! Welcome...and nice post :cheers:

----------


## Christosfer

> I trialed most of the premium PALs and found they all had their advantages and disadvantages - like any other product. My rule of thumb was by simple observation (not scientific) that myopes have different preferences than hyperopes so I ended up with certain go-to PAL's depending on the rx. It's best to just play around with them, get the info on the lenses like how many bc's are offered, is it spherical or aspherical, corridor length and soft or hard design and materials available. You're always going to have non-adapts because vision is subjective. The R&D these companies do don't take into account the psychology of some of our patients :D
> 
> Sometimes it was hard getting technical info because the reps didn't have an optical background - but I was lucky to find Optiboard and the Petes, Allens, Darryls and others like them who live here and helped me out.
> 
>  I tried the different free-forms and now understand the "hi-def" description after looking through one. Rx for rx things just looked sharper. We don't see in 1/4 diopters.
> 
> If I were to have to choose a family of lenses, I would want the family with the most diverse members. What's important to you? there aren't really any bad lenses per se, so I went with materials and coatings as my hot buttons. What are your criteria?


My criteria is not so different. I want material choices and a good power range. Polarized, transitions and coatings too. 

Part of my consideration has to do with the lab. While I can get anything but Hoya from my lab, the outside vendor stuff takes longer is over priced. I have accounts with Hoya and such to go direct in those cases. I don't really like using so many labs, so I would rather use the product that they offer. Essilor lab in my case, so I want to use that family of lenses. 
After a year of dispensing these new progresives there is not really a stand out product to me, but there are issues such as this lab thing that narrow the field for me.

----------


## AWTECH

> My criteria is not so different. I want material choices and a good power range. Polarized, transitions and coatings too. 
> 
> Part of my consideration has to do with the lab. While I can get anything but Hoya from my lab, the outside vendor stuff takes longer is over priced. I have accounts with Hoya and such to go direct in those cases. I don't really like using so many labs, so I would rather use the product that they offer. Essilor lab in my case, so I want to use that family of lenses. 
> After a year of dispensing these new progresives there is not really a stand out product to me, but there are issues such as this lab thing that narrow the field for me.


It sounds to me that you have identified the problem, but just want to wait until Essilor can offer you a better products.  Unfortunately if you wan to take advantage of the technologies that are out there you will have to use multiple vendors.  At our company, (ICE-TECH Advanced Lens Technologies), we only produce products using digital surfacing.  Our front curves are spherical, coupled with a great lens design and our individualization makes for a cosmetic fit that is exceptional.

----------


## Barry Santini

lenses (esp prog) is that, when you have a "problem" and you finish the normal "CSI-ing" of it, you never feel confident enough to *exclude* the customization as a factor in the equation of unhappiness.

Perhaps other new technologies will come to the for to help us in this regard.

Barry

----------


## lensguy

excluding Ziess & Rodenstock, most of these "free form" and "Digitally Surfaced" products can be explained as "SAME S&!T DIFFERENT SIDE"

the marketing opportunity's combined with reduction in processing costs, after capital costs are recovered for equipment, are HUGE.
the sad part is these manufacturers are sucking us in with mostly standard designs and little advantage to the end user, OUR PATIENTS !!!! (unless you feel a 1.5mm reduction in vertex distance is an advantage)

----------


## AWTECH

> excluding Ziess & Rodenstock, most of these "free form" and "Digitally Surfaced" products can be explained as "SAME S&!T DIFFERENT SIDE"
> 
> the marketing opportunity's combined with reduction in processing costs, after capital costs are recovered for equipment, are HUGE.
> the sad part is these manufacturers are sucking us in with mostly standard designs and little advantage to the end user, OUR PATIENTS !!!! (unless you feel a 1.5mm reduction in vertex distance is an advantage)


Do you have any basis for the above statement?  Why do you think Zeiss & Rodenstock are excluded from your statement?

----------


## Barry Santini

> Essilor's Dallas Processing Center (Avisia)


Yes...EPCD, for short...and we have re-figured this lab's name to read:

*E*very
*P*erson
*C*onfused &
*D*azed

B

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Do you have any basis for the above statement? Why do you think Zeiss & Rodenstock are excluded from your statement?


ZEISS and SOLA utilize full optical optimization for their free-form lenses. This process provides a truly unique lens design that has been designed in real time using optical ray tracing for each wearer in order to minimize the aberrations produced in the as-worn position by the wearer's specific prescription.

Some (but not all) other free-form lens suppliers provide only "dumb" free-form lenses, which simply represent the sum of a traditional progressive lens design and a traditional prescription surface. In other words, the wearer's prescription curves are simply added mathematically to a fixed progressive lens design, which is then either placed on the back surface or perhaps split between the front and back surfaces. This process essentially replicates the performance of a semi-finished progressive lens design, offering only minimal benefit to the wearer -- aside from the small reduction in skew distortion and slightly wider fields of view that you might attain by moving the progressive optics completely (or even partially) to the back surface.

I won't get into finger-pointing or further speculation here though. A review of the relevant patents from each company will provide some indication of their capabilities as well as the potential sophistication of their free-form lenses.

----------


## AWTECH

> ZEISS and SOLA utilize full optical optimization for their free-form lenses. This process provides a truly unique lens design that has been designed in real time for each wearer in order to minimize the aberrations produced in the as-worn position by the wearer's specific prescription.
> 
> Some (but not necessarily all) other free-form lens suppliers provide only "dumb" free-form lenses, which simply represent the sum of a traditional progressive lens design and a traditional prescription surface. In other words, the wearer's prescription curves are simply added mathematically to a fixed progressive lens design, which is then either placed on the back surface or perhaps split between the front and back surfaces. This process essentially replicates the performance of a semi-finished progressive lens design, offering only minimal benefit to the wearer -- aside from the small reduction in skew distortion and slightly wider fields of view that you might attain by moving the progressive optics completely (or even partially) to the back surface.
> 
> I won't get into finger-pointing or further speculation here though. A review of the relevant patents from each company will provide some indication of their capabilities as well as the potential sophistication of their free-form lenses.


I concure with the statement by Darryl.  Many people in this industry are not aware of the products my company, ICE-TECH Advanced Lens Technology produces but our progressives are not in the Dumb catagory.  Each is individually designed.

----------


## Digitaleye

> excluding Ziess & Rodenstock, most of these "free form" and "Digitally Surfaced" products can be explained as "SAME S&!T DIFFERENT SIDE"
> 
> the marketing opportunity's combined with reduction in processing costs, after capital costs are recovered for equipment, are HUGE.
> the sad part is these manufacturers are sucking us in with mostly standard designs and little advantage to the end user, OUR PATIENTS !!!! (unless you feel a 1.5mm reduction in vertex distance is an advantage)


  Regarding your above statements:

1. Same S**T different side - aside from the power accuracy differential.. and yes the opposite side of the lens.. These designs from Seiko (there will be additional designs introduced in the US shortly) Shamir (on the verge of releasing a number of exiting design upgrades) and Indo (having produces FF lenses in their home European markets for years) are anything but the same.. as the progressive surface is modified per Rx in ways that simply ARE not possible in conventional cast PAL's.  The marketing oppertunity for the dispenser is huge as is the new ability to offer a stand out from the pack PAL fit.

2. The idea that this is hugely profitable after machine costs are recovered. - When one becomes familiar with the true costs of creating the correct envirement to fabricate these complex surfaces .. staffing  the facility correctly..paying the liscencing and royalty fees.. and oh yeah the machines themselves..reality sets in... However, squirting a 10 year old design PAL into a mold for 50 cents..selling it to a lab for 35 dollars and to the ECP for 60..THATS A GOOD BUSINESS!!..LOL

----------


## bhess25

> You indicate that the fact that many of the very expensive, I assume you would include the ICE-TECH lenses in this do not use front side aspheric designs using direct to surface. An aspheric design, means non-spherical it does not mean a lens is going to be thinner. Our technology uses a spherical front and a non-spherical backsurface individualized design. Our design technology allows us to produce much thinner lenses using a spherical front surface than can be had by the companies you mentioned using their front side molded PAL designs.


 
B.S. but good try on selling that technology of yours...aspheric lenses are in fact thinner...i have surfaced a poly blank at +4.25 with a center of 5mm and then an aspheric poly blank at +4.25 with a center of 3mm...all using the innovations program...ive also done a -9.00 in poly with the edge thickness being ungodly monsterous...and then in aspheric that ended up about 20% thinner at the edges....im not realy buying this whole digital load of crap anyway...its the same damn lens that was developed 10 years ago and to sell more we call it "digitaly surfaced" when for half the price they can still get a quality lens that still has the potential to outpreform the digital crap...it all comes down to taking more money from people...hey i have a great idea....lets all come up with some new B.S. to throw at people and call ourselves "essilor"!!!...Ill stick to the image!!

----------


## AWTECH

> B.S. but good try on selling that technology of yours...aspheric lenses are in fact thinner...i have surfaced a poly blank at +4.25 with a center of 5mm and then an aspheric poly blank at +4.25 with a center of 3mm...all using the innovations program...ive also done a -9.00 in poly with the edge thickness being ungodly monsterous...and then in aspheric that ended up about 20% thinner at the edges....im not realy buying this whole digital load of crap anyway...its the same damn lens that was developed 10 years ago and to sell more we call it "digitaly surfaced" when for half the price they can still get a quality lens that still has the potential to outpreform the digital crap...it all comes down to taking more money from people...hey i have a great idea....lets all come up with some new B.S. to throw at people and call ourselves "essilor"!!!...Ill stick to the image!!


You don't understand the technology I am talking about.  I don't think that your BS comments are appropriate to a technology that you are not understanding.  (You are not alone)

In your example one is using a front spherical curve and a cut back spherical curve.  The other is using a front aspheric curve and a back spherical curve.  In our design the front is spherical and the back is aspherical.  In single vision the advantages are not as great as in a PAL.   For example I can produce a poly plus lens that is about 50% thinner than if a molded blank is used.

----------


## Digitaleye

> You don't understand the technology I am talking about. I don't think that your BS comments are appropriate to a technology that you are not understanding. (You are not alone)
> 
> In your example one is using a front spherical curve and a cut back spherical curve. The other is using a front aspheric curve and a back spherical curve. In our design the front is spherical and the back is aspherical. In single vision the advantages are not as great as in a PAL. For example I can produce a poly plus lens that is about 50% thinner than if a molded blank is used.


Thank you for the very concise and correct explanation. Interesting that one would feel so threatened and compelled to throw out that which is clearly not understood. Do people not come here for clarification? If the question here is spherical vs. aspheric, then why is the introduction of aspheric controlled curves on the back of a surfaced lens a far reaching concept?

----------


## AWTECH

Digital Eye:

Thank you for the verification of my post.  I seem to hear all of the challenges to the type of digital surfacing technology that we use from people who have no actual experience with this technology. 

I doubt that you can talk to any of our customers who have used 10 job that will have any doubts.

----------


## bhess25

i was just causing trouble....A.D.D. and boredom dont mix!!!

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Some (but not all) other free-form lens suppliers provide only "dumb" free-form lenses, which simply represent the sum of a traditional progressive lens design and a traditional prescription surface.


I sure would like to get my hands on that information. If you're ever in Milwaukee I'll feed you a half-dozen boilermakers to spill your guts. I promise not to divulge any information that I'm able to remember the next morning. 




> A review of the relevant patents from each company will provide some indication of their capabilities as well as the potential sophistication of their free-form lenses.


I'm not having much luck with patent searches but I'll keep at it. I did run across this article- part two should be interesting. 

http://www.opticianonline.net/assets...px?ItemID=2735

----------


## Darryl Meister

Robert, I'm publishing a two-part article on progressive lenses in a coming issue of _Clinical and Experimental Optometry_, which will include a comprehensive review of the optics of "free-form" and "wavefront" progressive lenses. Although I wrote it for a fairly technical audience, you should also be able to track down a great deal of relevant information from the bibliography.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

Thanks Darryl, I'll watch for it. You're right, I won't be able to follow the math, (who really understands differential geometry anyway?), so I'll read between the lines and search the bibliography.

For those who are interested, I did get quite a few hits on progressive power lenses at Patent Storm.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/se...ageField2.y=11

One patent, by Rodenstock, addresses some of the concerns I had earlier in this thread concerning high plus along with high ADD RXs made with backside free-form PALs.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/72...scription.html

----------


## mahmoud.hamza

:Confused: can some one tell me what is the difference between a free form progressive lense and normal progressive lens in optical and vision qualities

----------


## mahmoud.hamza

dear friends 
Hello!!
our company planifye to introduce free form technologie .
can you please send me some information about this technologie and the differece between freeform progressive lenses and normal progressive lenses
thanks for all :-)

----------


## HarryChiling

Let me air this one gripe I have about FF lenses. So far the information given has been nothing but marketign hype with not much in the form of technical data presented to the ECP, so the ECP's mind is left to wander and the marketing drones do such a great job of making all lens desings sound rosie unless someone puts out a good instructional or education piece describing the various benefits and HOW they are acomplished then in general ECP's are going to be slow to adopt. I have seen this tredn since they ahve come out, people loved them and talked about them like they were the future and now they are questioning certain aspects of what they are told, because there is no knowledge or data to back up any of the claims.

Now I understand fully the benefits of FF lenses. Forgive me if I don't talk like a cowboy, but this is not the bull that bucks me. I get a headache just trying to memorize the jargon that every company is using for their flavor lens design, but I know what is possible and what it can do. I have sat in front of equipment and watched it work and seen teh level of accuracy and the low level of inaccuracy. (amazing to see the equipmet monitor minute changes in position down to fractios of fraction of a diopter). Here is where the kink in the chain is formed and it won't suprise anyone that this is my opinion. Since the '60s the average refraction has gone from an accuracy of 0.12 to 0.25 or doubled, I have seen in the last ANSI standard the inacuracy of progressives slip, the axis for low power astgmats has doubled. These standards insinuate that a significant margin of error is acceptable in prescription eyewear. Progressives now given the most leeway due to molded front surfaces not being as close to the intended desing as hoped for. 

With all this data available to me readily, why would I believe that now we need to go backwards again to more accurate? The latest standards released were released during a time when FF technology was being used. What changed that drastically oevr the course of a few years that all of a sudden the patient needs this higher level of accuracy and why was it acceptable for such a large margin of error before and now we need to believe that we need to be more accuarte?

Now before we get into third and fifth order theory, why would I put more merit in third and fifth order aberations when the tolerance on 1st order aberrations are IMO garbage, yet patients accept it and our industry as a whole has embraced it?

I think the current molded lenses do a great job for a majority of patients seen through an average ECP's office and before I hear arguement, that is one of the driving reasons for loosening standards that the number of people that will notcie the difference would be small and acceptable. I would like to see a more accurate Rx if anything before I would be anywhere interested in the accuracy of the final product. Untill this is done these lenses are just prettier crap, but crap none the less.

I would also suggest that if the investment is to be made in designs why not scrap the FF and the manufacturers invest more in the number of base curves available in SF stock this too would help to lower the amount of third order aberations that are present in todays Rx's with exception to a few, but that's not profitable to manufacturers. My lab cannot produce FF lenses in house, so for me it would be like going from paying wholesale for a product to paying retail. Give me a good desing with plenty of options and a good range in BC's and I will work my wonders within acceptable tolerance by the same manufacturers that are provideing the FF products.

Allen your product is not amazing for the level of accuracie IMO it's amazing for the level of craft.  I have seen your stuff and some of it is on the razor edge of function and form.  This is the appeal towards your lenses IMO.

Darryl I know your company prides itself on accuracy and patient satisfaction, yet I think the enviornment for this technology isn't there.  Heck we still have auto mechanics becoming opticians overnight in our country this technology makes it easier for them to mimic my ability to more accurately fit a lens with little knowledge and thought involved, but the cost is our businesses profits for this level of easy.

----------


## AWTECH

Harry Said:


> Allen your product is not amazing for the level of accuracie IMO it's amazing for the level of craft. I have seen your stuff and some of it is on the razor edge of function and form. This is the appeal towards your lenses IMO.


I think you are missing one of the main benefits to the type of technology we use at ICE-TECH.  The far vision is much better from side to side and the intermediate channel is about 30% wider.  You can not get the same benefit for the patient in a traditional front molded lens that you can with a great individualized design.  This technology does provide better vision in almost all cases. (Our wrap lens technology is in another catagory altogether)

You are correct that better refraction will also help.

----------


## HarryChiling

> The far vision is much better from side to side and the intermediate channel is about 30% wider. You can not get the same benefit for the patient in a traditional front molded lens that you can with a great individualized design.


Don't do that, of course it's liek compareing apples to orangs the benefits are definately there, but the average ECP will recieve a job from a lab using this technology and will wonder how to verify it's accuracy and the lab tells them that they should be checking the as worn or compensated Rx, but then the lab will also say this computation is proprietary to their business.  And now I smell trouble, suddenly the lab has a zero breakage because they don't have to tell you how they computed the Rx so the comped Rx could be anything, like  whatever ends up coming off the conformable laps.  Plus they could alway fall back to saying well we are allowed a margin of error of XXX according to ANSI, so there is no way to hold a lab to any kind of quality standard because there is no transparency in the process.  Heck just recently someone posted a thread abotu a lab trying to convince them that they were using the lensometer wrong when measuring a traditionally surfaced lens instead of ownign up to a mistake.

So to me I won't buy accuracy that I hav eno way of verifying it's just not kosher.

----------


## AWTECH

> Don't do that, of course it's liek compareing apples to orangs the benefits are definately there, but the average ECP will recieve a job from a lab using this technology and will wonder how to verify it's accuracy and the lab tells them that they should be checking the as worn or compensated Rx, but then the lab will also say this computation is proprietary to their business. And now I smell trouble, suddenly the lab has a zero breakage because they don't have to tell you how they computed the Rx so the comped Rx could be anything, like whatever ends up coming off the conformable laps. Plus they could alway fall back to saying well we are allowed a margin of error of XXX according to ANSI, so there is no way to hold a lab to any kind of quality standard because there is no transparency in the process. Heck just recently someone posted a thread abotu a lab trying to convince them that they were using the lensometer wrong when measuring a traditionally surfaced lens instead of ownign up to a mistake.
> 
> So to me I won't buy accuracy that I hav eno way of verifying it's just not kosher.


What about an individualized lens that is not a wrap and the verification is done in the same way as a molded lens?  As I said our wrap technology is in a different catagory than a dress wear individualized lens.

As for wrap frames with compensated Rx's and verification, I think this gets back to legacy issues.  Opticians trust their lensometers without monthly verifications from lensometer verification companies, why can't an optician adapt to a new way of verification?  If the compensation is represented as correct and the optician checks the compensated powers, why can this not become an acceptable way of verification?

Since the individualized lenses are so new and wrap technology with compensated Rx is just coming into limited use, shouldn't the despensing optician provide a better product for their patient who want such a product? Or should the patient be forced to use non-compensated Rx's since the optician can not verify the compensated Rx.

I think ultimately the patient and better vision is the goal.

----------


## HarryChiling

[quote=AWTECH;211409]If the compensation is represented as correct and the optician checks the compensated powers, why can this not become an acceptable way of verification?
[quote]

I think your missing the point, how do I know that the compensation being represented is correct?  If the company provides no way of verifying that the compensation is correct than I have to go on the companies word.  What if the Rx came out wrong at the lab and the lab just used whatever Rx actually came off the polishers as the compensated Rx, breakage would go down so the company would make money and with the accuracy of the equipment it might even be close enough to pass ANSI?  I am not paying for accuracy that I can not verify, and I am not trying to pass it off to a patient as accurate when I cannot be sure.

----------


## AWTECH

[quote=HarryChiling;211470][quote=AWTECH;211409]If the compensation is represented as correct and the optician checks the compensated powers, why can this not become an acceptable way of verification?



> I think your missing the point, how do I know that the compensation being represented is correct? If the company provides no way of verifying that the compensation is correct than I have to go on the companies word. What if the Rx came out wrong at the lab and the lab just used whatever Rx actually came off the polishers as the compensated Rx, breakage would go down so the company would make money and with the accuracy of the equipment it might even be close enough to pass ANSI? I am not paying for accuracy that I can not verify, and I am not trying to pass it off to a patient as accurate when I cannot be sure.


Harry:  My point was that if you know your supplier and have used their compensated lenses the following will be true:

1- You will have some degree of known patient satisfaction
2- You will be offering the patient a better lens solution than non-compensated

In addition as an optician you currently make many assumptions of correctness.  Refraction, Lensometer used to verify, etc.

As a dispensing optician the checks that have been historically used were developed to eleminate potential errors, many of these errors are for self checks.  That is the the engraving marks on a progressive help you verify not only the labs work but also the optician as you are able to check if you measured the fitting height correctly, or if another optician did.

The way compensations are currently used there are many chances for errors with double entry, incorrect frame angle measurements etc.  Fortunately at ICE-TECH we have the knowledge, tools and skill to make correct measurements.  Our software is single data entry so the compensation can not be incorrectly entered, only the original Rx.  We combine this compensation with an individualized design to work with the frame and patient prescription giving the patient a much better quality lens than a non-compensated wrap that an optican can confirm is to the original RX.

Just curious, since you use your own compensator you developed, do you have the patients take your compensated lenses to another optician before you advise them to wear them.  I think you maybe looking at this issue from your own perspective and concluding what others do is not correct but when you do the same it is correct.  I am not trying to throw stones at you just asking you to look at where the optical world is in terms of compensation today and where you are with this issue.  Personnally I know you understand the compensation issue and I would not have a problem at all with sending a friend of mine to have you make a pair of compensated wrap sunglasses.  

Opticians need to have confidence in who they order any lens from and know that they are knowledgeable and capable of producing a lens that will provide the best vision for their patient within the budget the lenses were sold to the patient.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Just curious, since you use your own compensator you developed, do you have the patients take your compensated lenses to another optician before you advise them to wear them. I think you maybe looking at this issue from your own perspective and concluding what others do is not correct but when you do the same it is correct. I am not trying to throw stones at you just asking you to look at where the optical world is in terms of compensation today and where you are with this issue. Personnally I know you understand the compensation issue and I would not have a problem at all with sending a friend of mine to have you make a pair of compensated wrap sunglasses.


Allen I am glad you brought that up.  That is why I use my own, I know where the compensation came from, I know how it works, I knwo that if it spits out a number and then I don't surface it correctly according to that number that I am not just going to go back and change the numbers to match what I have surfaced.  I am in total control of the process, it's transparent to me, now if they went to another optician he wouldn't be able to confirm that the Rx was done correctly.

I have mentioned in the past offering a small business card size CD with an Rx decompensator on it for the patient or office then applying a laser etching like progressives or even airbrushing a F=? P=? and this would contain the F= Faceform tilt used to compensate and the P= Pantascopic tilt so that a provider can then run it through the decompensator and know for sure that the software jives with the Rx.  That would make the changes transparent.  

Their was a time back in the day when OD's threw a fit if the Rx was compensated for vertex.  Tilt and Wrap or even as worn should have transparency to the process otherwise it doesn't work for me, and yes from my standpoint it doesn't work, but it is also considering that I will have more happy patients when they don't here things like these don't match the Rx our doctor provided take it back to the optical you got it.

----------


## AWTECH

Harry: My point is that with your knowledge of compenstion you can look at verification of the multiple calculations involved. Many opticians do not have your understanding of this, and to have the angle and tilt engraved would be possible. I think that as this compensation issue becomes better utilized, the optician can trust a source such as ICE-TECH to properly manage this for them. In a small office with surfacing and doing the calculations on site, such as you do, it is possible to control this within your own walls.

Rather than make a set of standards to check for wrap angle and tilt, which will be confusing to many dispensing opticals, I think it is better for the optical retailers to trust their source. With so many unlicensed and the lack of knowledge at the retail level in general, making a more complex verification standard may create more questions for many than answers.

The OD issue is an education point that needs to be addressed.  That is why I suggest the retailer use a trusted source for this type of lens and let the OD that has question get the answers from the source.  We explain this process to many OD owners and most understand or say they do, then turn us over to the person running the Optical department.

I understand from your point of knowledge why you see it the way you do, but the real world of retailing eyewear is not ready for this complex verification. 

Optical retail owners would see this as an increase in expenses with little financial gain. You would need more knowledgeable opticians verifiying these wrap lenses using your method.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Optical retail owners would see this as an increase in expenses with little financial gain. You would need more knowledgeable opticians verifiying these wrap lenses using your method.


So the cost to verify the Rx isn't justifiable, but the higher cost of these lenses is?  Again it boills down to accuracy with these lenses.

Comfort boost a 95% acceptance and many other progressive suppliers boast just as high numbers and I have seen offices go from 80% adaption and lower to 95% and better just by learning how to measure lenses.  Their are more cost effective ways to provide the patient with accuracy. I see the benefit to FF, it covers the 5% or less that I can't fit.

----------


## AWTECH

> So the cost to verify the Rx isn't justifiable, but the higher cost of these lenses is? Again it boills down to accuracy with these lenses.
> 
> Comfort boost a 95&#37; acceptance and many other progressive suppliers boast just as high numbers and I have seen offices go from 80% adaption and lower to 95% and better just by learning how to measure lenses. Their are more cost effective ways to provide the patient with accuracy. I see the benefit to FF, it covers the 5% or less that I can't fit.


Harry: I think you missed my points. 

Regarding costs: This is not a cost issue, I doubt that our single vision lenses cost any more than a traditionally surfaced lens with comperable treatments. Comparing apples to apples we are competitive, not the cheapest but also not the most expensive either.

I agree the knowledge you have and the way you run your operation you may only benefit by 5% usage of freeform at this time. Very few other retailers are in your situation. How many have surfacing and your knowledge in a one store operation, with the flexiblity to offer the type of products you can offer?

I am not looking at this from how you need run your specific operation. I am looking at how the general independant optical retailers can offer wrap around individualized lenses with confidence, and give their patients a great product. Not just any lab can offer the type of product ICE-TECH can offer, and not just any optician can replace you and offer your customers what you are offering.

I don't know why you are so resisting this new technology of digital surfacing, other than you don't have it in your location. In previous threads you have talked about how good it is and you have even written articles about how it takes lens manufacturing to a new level. Like any new technology it is not for everyone for all uses. It will take time to gain a greater percentage of the market, but if optical retailers don't offer these product to their customers, as the customers hear about the benefits, some of these customers will become customers of a competitor.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Harry: I think you missed my points. 
> 
> Regarding costs: This is not a cost issue, I doubt that our single vision lenses cost any more than a traditionally surfaced lens with comperable treatments. Comparing apples to apples we are competitive, not the cheapest but also not the most expensive either.
> 
> I agree the knowledge you have and the way you run your operation you may only benefit by 5% usage of freeform at this time. Very few other retailers are in your situation. How many have surfacing and your knowledge in a one store operation, with the flexiblity to offer the type of products you can offer?
> 
> I am not looking at this from how you need run your specific operation. I am looking at how the general independant optical retailers can offer wrap around individualized lenses with confidence, and give their patients a great product. Not just any lab can offer the type of product ICE-TECH can offer, and not just any optician can replace you and offer your customers what you are offering.
> 
> I don't know why you are so resisting this new technology of digital surfacing, other than you don't have it in your location. In previous threads you have talked about how good it is and you have even written articles about how it takes lens manufacturing to a new level. Like any new technology it is not for everyone for all uses. It will take time to gain a greater percentage of the market, but if optical retailers don't offer these product to their customers, as the customers hear about the benefits, some of these customers will become customers of a competitor.


It is great technology, but the manufacturer has to provide something better than just a product.  Your right that the level of accuracy is there and your right that the lenses do have great benefits.  But lokk at all of this from my point of view:




> Some (but not all) other free-form lens suppliers provide only "dumb" free-form lenses, which simply represent the sum of a traditional progressive lens design and a traditional prescription surface. In other words, the wearer's prescription curves are simply added mathematically to a fixed progressive lens design, which is then either placed on the back surface or perhaps split between the front and back surfaces. This process essentially replicates the performance of a semi-finished progressive lens design, offering only minimal benefit to the wearer -- aside from the small reduction in skew distortion and slightly wider fields of view that you might attain by moving the progressive optics completely (or even partially) to the back surface.
> 
> I won't get into finger-pointing or further speculation here though. A review of the relevant patents from each company will provide some indication of their capabilities as well as the potential sophistication of their free-form lenses.


Oh so their not all built alike, so which ones address what issues?




> I concure with the statement by Darryl. Many people in this industry are not aware of the products my company, ICE-TECH Advanced Lens Technology produces but our progressives are not in the Dumb catagory. Each is individually designed.


Ok, so hoooooowwwwwwww?




> Same S**T different side - aside from the power accuracy differential.. and yes the opposite side of the lens.. These designs from Seiko (there will be additional designs introduced in the US shortly) Shamir (on the verge of releasing a number of exiting design upgrades) and Indo (having produces FF lenses in their home European markets for years) are anything but the same.. as the progressive surface is modified per Rx in ways that simply ARE not possible in conventional cast PAL's. The marketing oppertunity for the dispenser is huge as is the new ability to offer a stand out from the pack PAL fit.


Upgrade to design, what was wrong with the old ones?  New designs what was wrong with the old one?




> In our design the front is spherical and the back is aspherical. In single vision the advantages are not as great as in a PAL. For example I can produce a poly plus lens that is about 50% thinner than if a molded blank is used.


Wether the aspheric is on the fron or back does not make much of a difference.  On a plus lens an aspheric front flatten as it reaches the periphery on a plus lens with the aspheric back the lens steepens the curve as it goes to the periphery, it will alow a slightly thinner lens, but opticaly their is not that great of a benefit.

What data can you provide on your desing over lets say a Comfort, Natural, Ovation, AO Compact, Navigator?  That's what I need to know.  If we are bringing things up it was also you that refused to map out progressive lens designs in hopes of shedding light on some of the differences in progressive lens designs.  Instead I have to sedn lenses to India, because manufacturers in the US have something to hide.  Transparency is important to me.  I don't trust my mother, so to ask me to trust a manufacturer is a huge reach.  I have used a few of the FF lenses and they are different, but not better.  I have no way of saying better, I understand the capability of the equipment and the things I wrote were on the capability of the equipment, the lenses in your case I have seen and did truly enjoy.  I apoligize if you got the impression that I thought they were more accurate just by lookign at them and holding them in my hand.  I enjoyed the form, I can verify that the form can be pushed to some incredible limits, but even their the polishers still introduce some limitations on form.  I have yet to see functionality of these lenses.  I have seen maps of a ton of siffernt desings I have yet to see one of the FF's this way and I believe this is how they are verified on your end so it's not a stretch to see these lenses in comparison to others FF and traditional.  I refer to what gets handed down as lolipops, telling me they are more accurate and have wider fields of view are nothin but sweet little treats to keep me suckling from the teet.  Provide me some meat, provide the average optician some meat other wise why switch from using a design with 95% adaption to a lens that has lets say 99% adaption at double my cost.  If I double my bills to satisfy 4% more people and you can justify that then I'm stumped.

Oh and by the way the opitician thing a few posts above really stung especially when combined with the educating OD's bit.  Ouch, but it was true.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> I have sat in front of equipment and watched it work and seen teh level of accuracy and the low level of inaccuracy. (amazing to see the equipmet monitor minute changes in position down to fractios of fraction of a diopter)... That is why I use my own, I know where the compensation came from, I know how it works, I knwo that if it spits out a number and then I don't surface it correctly according to that number that I am not just going to go back and change the numbers to match what I have surfaced...


I think you guys are inadvertently perpetuating some of the myths surrounding free-form technology in this thread. Free-form surfacing is just a manufacturing platform. As a "technology enabler," it can _potentially_ offer certain benefits to wearers, but the visual benefits of simply surfacing a progressive lens design directly onto a lens blank versus molding it are minimal.

For instance, there has been an emphasis on power and power accuracy in the past few posts. While some free-form lens suppliers advertise "accuracy of 0.01 D" and similar claims, these statements are often exaggerated and misunderstood. Whereas a free-form surfacing process isn't limited by the _precision_ of hard lap tooling (typically in 0.10- or 0.12-diopter increments), I would argue that hard lap tools in a traditional surfacing process using a modern generator can produce just as _accurate_ sphere and cylinder powers compared to soft lap polishing. For that matter, if you are worried about precision, you could always expand your inventory of tools or just cut your own lap tool for each job, although this is overkill.

Further, while a free-form lens process can replicate certain features of progressive lens designs better than traditional molding, this improvement in accuracy relies on extensive process engineering and ongoing quality control. As an example, consider the fact that the dynamics of the soft lap polishing process can distort surface features if you have not properly "tweaked" the process parameters for each job; unlike traditional polishing, in which you would generally only change your pressure and cycle time from lens to lens, CNC soft lap polishing is more complex, and can utilize up to a dozen or more different process parameters. Consequently, if you just "plug in" your new free-form generator and polisher, and start knocking out progessive lenses, you might very well find that you actually get more consistent quality from traditional, semi-finished progressive lenses.

Similarly, you are focusing quite a bit on the benefits and implementation of prescription compensation (another power consideration), although prescription compensation isn't really a benefit of free-form technology. There are semi-finished lenses available with prescription compensation, for instance, and plenty of free-form lenses without it. So it doesn't make a lot of sense to judge the merits of free-form technology based solely on how well the free-form lens supplier has compensated the prescription. In any event, if you get a compensated Rx on something that looks like a print-out from a lab calc program, it has probably been calculated using legitimate software (although this software may vary considerably in accuracy from lens supplier to lens supplier). If you get a hand-written compensated Rx or a Humphrey Lensmeter ticket, on the other hand, then you may have reason to question whether or not the compensation is correct.

On a side-note, your personal Rx compensation will generally not be especially accurate with progressive lenses, since these lenses often have non-negligible thickness, significant vertical prism, and power verification points located at significant angles to the optical axis of the lens. Consequently, your patients may not necessarily be any better off when it comes to trusting your own results.

It is this emphasis on the alleged "power accuracy" of free-form surfacing that has also brought this thread full circle to another discussion of ANSI tolerances. ANSI tolerances apply to finished spectacle lenses; they do not differentiate between finished spectacle lenses and finished spectacle lenses that cost more than other finished spectacle lenses because they were made using a really expensive generator. ;) If you expect your free-form lenses to made to a greater level of accuracy, you should come to some kind of agreement with your free-form lens supplier. Besides, if you are completely in control of your own process, _you_ set your own quality guidelines, not ANSI. ANSI simply serves as a common benchmark that anyone can use as a starting point when considering or discussing quality guidelines.

On another side-note, progressive tolerances were originally loosened in the 1995 standard, along with aspheric lenses, because comparable ISO standards allow slightly greater tolerances for these lenses due to the more complex manufacturing processes involved. In any event, this argument swings both ways; if you, personally, feel that ANSI tolerances and conventional refracting procedures are too loose, the availability of "free-form" lenses with increased accuracy should be very appealing to you, since you are minimizing the propagation of error at one stage, at least.

In a nutshell, if you're buying a "free-form" progressive lens only because the manufacturer says that the lens surface has been made to a higher level of "accuracy," you might very well be wasting your money, in my opinion, in order to obtain a production advantage that may or may not even be realized, depending upon the processing expertise of your free-form lens supplier.




> So far the information given has been nothing but marketign hype with not much in the form of technical data presented to the ECP, so the ECP's mind is left to wander and the marketing drones do such a great job of making all lens desings sound rosie unless someone puts out a good instructional or education piece describing the various benefits and HOW they are acomplished then in general ECP's are going to be slow to adopt.


This technical bulletin on Carl Zeiss Vision's free-form optimization has been available for download from OptiBoard. Other manufacturers may have similar pieces, although I have not run across any. I think the biggest problem with "digital surfacing" for eye care professionals is that very few free-form lens suppliers share exactly what they're doing to command these premium prices. Sometimes, given the obvious disconnect between the marketing organization and the research and development group with some of these companies, I wonder if they even know!

While there are some minor optical benefits to surfacing a progressive lens design directly onto the back of a lens blank, the real visual benefit of free-form technology to the wearer, in my opinion, is the ability to customize or optically optimize the lens design for the individual wearer. Although several free-form lens suppliers simply surface a basic progressive lens design onto a lens blank from a "points" file, which may actually result in performance comparable to similar semi-finished progressive lenses, there are also free-form lens suppliers out there designing completely customized lens designs in "real time" using information specific to the wearer, including prescription, frame size, position of wear geometry, viewing habits, etcetera, which can significantly improve optical performance for many wearers.

----------


## HarryChiling

> In a nutshell, if you're buying a "free-form" progressive lens only because the manufacturer says that the lens surface has been made to a higher level of "accuracy," you might very well be wasting your money, in my opinion, in order to obtain a production advantage that may or may not even be realized, depending upon the processing expertise of your free-form lens supplier.


What the h*ll, you can agree with me on this one your a manufacturer. ;)




> This technical bulletin on Carl Zeiss Vision's free-form optimization has been available for download from OptiBoard. Other manufacturers may have similar pieces, although I have not run across any. *I think the biggest problem with "digital surfacing" for eye care professionals is that very few free-form lens suppliers share exactly what they're doing to command these premium prices.* Sometimes, given the obvious disconnect between the marketing organization and the research and development group with some of these companies, I wonder if they even know!


That's where alot of it falls apart for me.  I'm a who, what, when, where, why, and how type person and I just am not getting enough of the how.  This is a short coming that can unravel all the marketing you throw at this new processing technique.  All I have to do is come into an office and show someone how simple eductaion in more accurate measurements and more time spent fine tunign Rx's with a decent lens design can increase non adapts and the bottom line without paying double for a lens and BINGO I have just unraveled the whole FF game in that office.  It's not just OK to offer these products haphazardly into the market the benefits and design elements need to be expressed.

If you think optician are smart enough to understand it, make an attempt at both ends of the spectrum try to provide some education to the opticinas to get them to the level needed to understand the processes being used to compensate the lenses and at the same time water down the level of detail that is explained about the process.  Or and this is what's turning me off to the whole idea hand me a lollipop and ask where's the doctor you wouldn't understand this.  Guess who sells it. :D

----------


## Dave_Guevara

I've just recently started too get a grip on this subject. Conventional PAL design involved a bunch of designers thinking up a lens design on a drawing board and an artist crafting a clay mold from which glass molds of a front surface design could be cast. The clay mold by this time cost millions of dollars and was to valuable to be used in manufacturing. Thus, this glass mold would be the one the final lens was cast from, the lens now being a second generation casting. With reapeted use, the quality and accuracy of the lens coming of these glass molds would decrease until it was replaced with a fresh mold, creating inconsistency in the process.
With the application of CNC machines, digital lathes that are controlled by computers and can consistently carve out the same lens, the clay mold was removed from the process and a new level of accuracy and consistency could be acheived.
Computers can also be used in the design process of the lens, that's where we get into free-form design. Within programs running on supercomputers a model of the human eye has been created to predict how rays of light will behave after passing through a lens and hitting the back of the eye. These programs can be used to optimize a lens design to control unwanted astigmatism and reduce periphrial distortion to the theoretical limits of progressive lens design.
Now some companys are using this technology to create a better PAL design but one that is still just one consistent design for all prescriptions. Others are using this to integrate their one cookie cutter design with the patients prescription and using the digital lathe technology to carve a PAL in the back of an otherwise single vision sperical lens offering a wider channel by getting the addition closer to the eye and a smoother power shift. The culmination of all this, what only few (one that I know of for sure) companys offer is a computer designed backside PAL customized to the patients prescription, the desired fitting height as well as the frame choice. This design can push the distortion into areas that get edged off the lens, offer any focal length desired where ever in the lens it's needed and give clear vision edge to edge, eliminating the need for pointing your nose to see. Plus, any single vision blank available can have this custom design carved in the back of it.
So, when a company takes an old design and scans it into the computer this only means that you'll get a more consistent version of that design and that a computer has verified that the back surface is properly aligned with the front producing a more consistent and accurate but not neccisarily better design.
When they use free-form design optimization you get a PAL designed with the latest advancment in our understanding of visual habits and the human eye.
When they take free-form design and combine it with the patients Rx you get the best version of that design for your patient.
But, when they design a unique PAL specifically for that application, that patient, that Rx, you get the latest technology in restoring perfect sight.
The future is now, it's just to pricey for every patient.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> With the application of CNC machines, digital lathes that are controlled by computers and can consistently carve out the same lens, the clay mold was removed from the process and a new level of accuracy and consistency could be acheived.


Although I agree with much of your post regarding the potential visual benefits of true free-form-enabled customization for the wearer, I think you are overstating the consistency of the free-form surfacing process. While a properly calibrated generator may be able to replicate fairly complex surfaces, at least without rapid changes in surface features, the kinematics of the soft lap polishing process will not "automatically" produce complex lens surfaces of consistent, repeatable quality. Moreover, while a cast lens may not exactly replicate the lens design due to factors such as shrinkage, it is easy to verify the quality of cast lenses by inspecting a limited number of measurement points, once the mold has been validated. This is not the case with free-form surfacing, which can result in low and medium spatial frequency "form" errors distributed across different regions of the lens surface -- at least without sufficient process engineering.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Although I agree with much of your post regarding the potential visual benefits of true free-form-enabled customization for the wearer, I think you are overstating the consistency of the free-form surfacing process. While a properly calibrated generator may be able to replicate fairly complex surfaces, at least without rapid changes in surface features, the kinematics of the soft lap polishing process will not "automatically" produce complex lens surfaces of consistent, repeatable quality. Moreover, while a cast lens may not exactly replicate the lens design due to factors such as shrinkage, it is easy to verify the quality of cast lenses by inspecting a limited number of measurement points, once the mold has been validated. This is not the case with free-form surfacing, which can result in low and medium spatial frequency "form" errors distributed across different regions of the lens surface -- at least without sufficient process engineering.


I am glad some one else is mentioning the polishing process. This is where most the inconsistencies in FF comes from. Forget how accurate the design is when it comes out of a finley tuned generator it still has to go on the polsher and conformable laps stil need to apply pressure and pressure is not applied evenly on a a surface such as a deformed conicoid.

Dave, thank you for that well informed post.

----------


## AWTECH

> I am glad some one else is mentioning the polishing process. This is where most the inconsistencies in FF comes from. Forget how accurate the design is when it comes out of a finley tuned generator it still has to go on the polsher and conformable laps stil need to apply pressure and pressure is not applied evenly on a a surface such as a deformed conicoid.
> 
> Dave, thank you for that well informed post.


Comments on polishing and inconsistancy are not the same for all freeform processing. So such a general statement is not appropriate. Creating the surface determines the amount, if any polishing is needed. A few facts to consider: The same generator can create different qualities of surfaces. The cutting standards used in production also determine the amount of polish requires.

A diamond tool may be used by one manufacturer with a very small chip for more cuts than another manufactuer. (a 3 micron chip in the tool will produce approx 3 micron rings). Also consider all lenses then receive approximately a 4 micron thickness of hard coating.

Harry: I think one reason you are upset with many direct surfacing lenses that are being produced is your desire for knowledge about these products. This combined with direct surfacing lens producers unwillingness to part with more informaiton has cause you to jump to some incorrect conclusions. In our case we have a number of confidential processes and we do not choose to share these. The fact is the lenses we produce in almost all cases offer the patients better vision than conventional molded lenses. We have enough satisfied customers to know this is true. I think if you check with dispensers who have despensed large numbers of good designed individualized lenses the conclusions will not support claims that these type of lenses are not better.

----------


## HarryChiling

> A diamond tool may be used by one manufacturer with a very small chip for more cuts than another manufactuer. (a 3 micron chip in the tool will produce approx 3 micron rings). Also consider all lenses then receive approximately a 4 micron thickness of hard coating.
> 
> Harry: I think one reason you are upset with many direct surfacing lenses that are being produced is your desire for knowledge about these products. This combined with direct surfacing lens producers unwillingness to part with more informaiton has cause you to jump to some incorrect conclusions.


You mean cut to coat and everyone is not doing this, if it hits the polishers and the surface is a deformed conicoid or any other surface other than sperical that needs to have comformable laps then it is a FACT the surface wll lose some accuracy (it may be negligable, but it will lose accuracy to the intended design) are manufacturers factoring this into their desings sure they are, but it doesn't mean they all are or have.  Their is nothing innacurate about the inconsistencies in pressure being applied by conformable laps, that's one of the reasons why they are smaller in diameter than a hard lap.

And you are mighty correct saying that it does upset me that a manufacturer wants me to sell a product that they will shroud with secrets. 

INCORRECT CONCLUSIONS, that's bold buddy, lucky I like you.:D Their is nothing incorrect abotu an opinion or reason for me to not use a product. I can't reiterate the same thing over and over again, but I'll try one last time in laymans terms.

I NO SELLY WHAT I NO KNOWY. :D 

It seems that there are many on this thread alone reiterateing the same thing in different ways. Allen their are ways of provideing education about your product without divulgeing trade secrets or proprietary secrets.

----------


## AWTECH

Harry Said:


> You mean cut to coat and everyone is not doing this, if it hits the polishers and the surface is a deformed conicoid or any other surface other than sperical that needs to have comformable laps then it is a FACT the surface wll lose some accuracy (it may be negligable, but it will lose accuracy to the intended design) are manufacturers factoring this into their desings sure they are, but it doesn't mean they all are or have. Their is nothing innacurate about the inconsistencies in pressure being applied by conformable laps, that's one of the reasons why they are smaller in diameter than a hard lap.


You are assuming the type of polishing I am doing.  You are also assuming that non-hard lap polishing can not maintain a consistant surface.  I don't think you have worked with any non hard laps.  If I am wrong please correct me.  You may have seen machine manufacturers explaining their soft laps to you, but developing this type of technology requires a great deal of time and equipment development.  Controlling a diamond cutting tool to move in multiple directions involves very complicated development also.  These two process have to work together.

I won't give specifics but we have developed a method to produce the designs without any significant loss of accuracy.

The design loss of accuracy maybe greater for some methods than others.  I can assure you that our loss of accuracy from intended design, due to the process of polishing or hard coating, has much tighter tolorences possible than the tolorences from one fining pad to another.  What is the tolorence for thickness of the paper you order for your polishing pads?  What is the tolorence for the fining material?  I doubt that you spec. these items like this.

We do spec all items used in our process and measure our accuracy.  We had to know this for us to be able to develop our processes.

Again I respect your passion for your profession but it is not good science to say something is not accurate when you have no first hand experience with the processes you are saying are not accuate.  I think the accuracy you see as being probable is not a factor in the production of good quality lenses.  I see a lot more merit in your effort to want more knowledge of the actual design differences.

----------


## AWTECH

Dave_Guevara said:


> But, when they design a unique PAL specifically for that application, that patient, that Rx, you get the latest technology in restoring perfect sight.
> The future is now, it's just to pricey for every patient.


I agree with your conclusion Dave regarding the possible use of individualized lenses.  I see you are in Europe and this technology has been on the market about two years ahead of this technology here is the US.

The results the patients have when trying these new individualized digitally surfaced high quality designs speaks for itself.  I have spent some time with optical retailers in Europe last year who were dispensing high quality individualized lenses and they confirmed to me the success rate was very high.

----------


## HarryChiling

Wow, Allen you elluded to a process that doesn't require polishing, which is cut to coat or whaever the jargon is for it today. I never said that is what you are doing or that I know your process. By the way I did actually see a LOH generator and polisher in action I was their about 4 hours watching the thing work it's magic and the technology is impressive.

You seem to think that if a person doesn't have first hand experience with the specific equipment you use that they don't understand it. The equipment is nothing fancy, it is the processes and the tight control of these processes that are what give these lenses theleel of accuracy every manufacturer is gloating about. I KNOW THAT EVERYONE DOESN'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT THEY ARE DOING. That includes the manufacturers, some are still refining their processes, yet they are selling what they could some day be able to do with their equipment today. The average optician isn't going to know better.

In your case you use the SEIKO products, which means you are licensing the technology from SEIKO and a lab that uses the SHAMIR lenses licenses their technology form SHAMIR. And so on and so forth. I have a copy of Adobe Illustartor on my home PC, it doesn't make me a graphic design artist. In your case and in many others the lens desing you license is where the ideal performane comes from, your process and machines are supposed to make sure that the design is transfered as accurately as possible to the lens blanks. Are SEIKO lenses good sure I will even for sake of arguement say they are the best, but if your process doesn't accurately reproduce that int he lens blank then I get crap anyway. Also as Darryl mentioned and I have mentioned in previous posts the ANSI doesn't differentiate from a FF progressive and a traditional progressive. So even with the FF equipment you can provide the same level of inaccuracies than a traditionally processed lens.

Here is what you can provide that will make me consider a FF product. What tolerances to the finished product do you hold yourself to? Here are some specifics I would be interested in knowing:

Warpage? (ANSI )
Surface Astigmatism in the Distance zone? (ISO ) (since your surface incorporates the prescription and design on the same surface are you holdng yourself to the ISO tolerance on surface astigmatism or are you opting to try and meet the ANSI's total power tolerance)

Here is a quote from the tech bulletin on the ANSI change from 99 to 05:



> The two significant changes in ANSI Z80.1-2005 are justified





> from a manufacturing capability point of view and also from
> a consistency viewpoint.
> The effect on the lab should be a significant decrease in
> rejects thereby improving delivery time and cost containment of
> prescription prices. 
> The decrease in visual acuity on the wearer should be negligible.


 
One of those significant changes was the tolerance on progressive lenses and their cylinder tolerance. It went from 0.12D to 0.16D not a significant change but a change none the less. 

Here is another quote for you:




> Another paper by Judith Perrigin, et al, “A Comparison of





> Clinical Refractive Data Obtained by Three Examiners” reported





> the repeatability of refraction on 32 subjects was 98&#37; within +
> 
> 0.50 D (_American Journal of Optometry & Physiological Optics_, Vol
> 59, No 6)


 
Within  that's a significant amount of power, but if only 2% of people can be effected by a power difference of 0.50D what niche is it that gets filled by a more accurate progressive especially one that's shrouded in secrecy?

I know that ANSI is the minimum tolerance but every lab that I do business with will meet or exceed this. I have seen NO LABS with documentation that they will do better than this tolerance so that's what I hold all labs to.

----------


## AWTECH

Harry Said:


> In your case you use the SEIKO products, which means you are licensing the technology from SEIKO and a lab that uses the SHAMIR lenses licenses their technology form SHAMIR. And so on and so forth.


Harry:  Your conclusion is true for most labs.  ICE-TECH is not a traditional lab.  We do offer the Seiko lens digitally surfaced PAL products, but we also offer the ICE-TECH line.  This is not licensed from Seiko.  ICE-TECH is a very small lens company not a lab.  We happen to have a lab to produce our products.  The traditional labs in this industry are set up to produce many products from many lens companies.  

I think it is best if our customers think of us as another lens vendor who exclusively offers digitally surfaced products.  In addition to our own ICE-TECH products we also offer the Seiko Succeed PAL products.

You said you have seen the Loh equipment in action and refer to it as, nothing fancy.  I think you would find as I did after taking delivery of all of the equipment for digital surfacing necessary to start manufacturing lenses, that I now understood the process.  That was my first mistake, and I have a good background in machine design and custom tooling manufacturing.  What you begin to understand after a few months of working with the equipment is all of possible permutations and combinations for the production of lenses.  The speed and feed of the tools, the tools used.  What angle do you want on the finish tool?, what angle do you want the finish tool to feed into the lens? This goes on and on and on.  So in a nutshell many of the issues with individualized lens production have to do with R&D time with specific equipment.  On top of all of this there are three basic softwares involved to produce an individualized lens.  
1-The machine control software.
2-The lens design software.
3-The data entry and lens and lab management software
All  of these are designed by different companies.  Now the lens manufacturers are trying to get their design software to work with all equipment manufactures software and all lab management software.
VCA is just now establishing standards.  Unfortunately until you work with all three of the above you don't even know what standards to attempt to set.
As an example: Loh produces there individualized lenses using a lathe type cut.  With any lathe type cut you have a center point issue. (That is the center is not turning, so how do you avoid a dot on the center of the lens).  With the Opto Tech equipment they do not use this lathe method but rather a milling process that does not have a center point issue. (there are other issues for this type).  Then there are the use of motion control and spindles.  Using a standard controller such as that the Loh and Opto Tech and Schneider use the machine tool manufacturer is also in another software trap.  As the controller manufactuer does not release the source code.

The equipment vendors sell equipment saying all you need is the lens companies software to product freeform lenses.  It is just not as simple as described.

As you know we developed a great deal of our own software, using many outside the industry sources for help, and this has allowed us to compet with other digitally surfaced lens designers.

I will try to address your other issues at some point.  I am short of time tonight.

You do ask some of the most knowledgeable questions I encounter about our technology.  I too love the

----------


## AWTECH

Deleted due to duplication by mistake. 

Sorry

----------


## AWTECH

Deleted due to duplication by mistake. 

Sorry

----------


## AWTECH

Harry said:


> Within  that's a significant amount of power, but if only 2% of people can be effected by a power difference of 0.50D what niche is it that gets filled by a more accurate progressive especially one that's shrouded in secrecy?


As one example of the improvement for the patient consider: 
full side to side far vision vs. a Y of some kind for far vision.

Another: a 30% wider corridor

Another: is a reading area with no skew distortion.  

I believe if we worked together in our facility you would be the first one to push the benefits of this technology, unless the patient could not afford the cost of the benefit.

I am working on the refraction issue but it is not a cost effective solution yet.

----------


## lensguy

Being from canada, I think that the largest problem with some of these local "freeform" producers (other than what has been stated) is no one with the exception of Nikon has the proper tools to properly analyze the entire lens surface.

this back side process has so many things going on that using a lensometer to check only the optical center is not enough.

I once had an issue with a Rodenstock Impression lens, everything was perfect in the lensometer, patient had had them previous and stated he "couldnt see through the lens". I had the rep come in and see the patient.

the conclusion was we ordered the exact same lens, looked perfect (same) in the lensometer and patient felt it was totally different than the first pair. "best set of progressives I have ever had..........again".

this is so much different than a consistant (molded front surface) not much can go wrong with 1 or 2 simple curves on the back, but when all the progressive properties are on the back how do you measure and / or controll that without the equipment IN YOUR LAB ?????

If this can happen at Rodenstock from Germany (only once), how can I trust a method of sending a few samples every month or even week overseas to ensure the quality is still consistant??
this should be checked on every lens, there are too many Variables.

please help me understand this!

----------


## AWTECH

Lensguy said:


> I think that the largest problem with some of these local "freeform" producers (other than what has been stated) is no one with the exception of Nikon has the proper tools to properly analyze the entire lens surface.
> 
> This back side process has so many things going on that using a lensometer to check only the optical center is not enough.


You have a very valid point.  I don't know how many producers of freeform lenses have the equipment to properly check each lens but I would agree in general it is not that many.

At ICE-TECH Advanced Lens Technologies we have the equipment to map each lens and compare the results to the design.  We are one of the smaller lens companies but I think our technology approach to these products is superior to most digitally surfaced producers.

----------


## bhess25

ok this is annoying the crap out of me...we all want to know more about the lenses, and your just trying to sell us on them. so far all ive seen is icetech this and icetech that, im sure you guys have a good lens even though noone will ever know because you wont tell us anything except how to buy them, listen we not only want but need to know more. Im one of those people that has to believe in a product by knowing specifics in order to sell it, im not willing to take the risk of waisting what little money i have to let a patient try them and worry about them asking for a remake or even worse, refunding. I see it like this, if your not willing to tell us anything, stop trying to sell them untill you are. You should understand how unfair this is to all of us when we just want to know certain things so that we know weather or not we can trust this technology. Or just give me another lolipop....30% wider corridor!!

----------


## AWTECH

> ok this is annoying the crap out of me...we all want to know more about the lenses, and your just trying to sell us on them. so far all ive seen is icetech this and icetech that, im sure you guys have a good lens even though noone will ever know because you wont tell us anything except how to buy them, listen we not only want but need to know more. Im one of those people that has to believe in a product by knowing specifics in order to sell it, im not willing to take the risk of waisting what little money i have to let a patient try them and worry about them asking for a remake or even worse, refunding. I see it like this, if your not willing to tell us anything, stop trying to sell them untill you are. You should understand how unfair this is to all of us when we just want to know certain things so that we know weather or not we can trust this technology. Or just give me another lolipop....30% wider corridor!!


Sorry I offended you:  I think most of our customers are satisfied with the amount of information we give.  The fact that the patients have great success is important.  If you are not personally interested because I don't supply enough information that is your choice.  To bash the company is unfair to our company.

For my information:  How would evaluate a plot of specific lens if I did supply it to you?  What equipment do you have to check lenses?  I think you are asking for information that not specific and if provided you may not have the ability to use it.

For example:  If I you had an x,y,z surface data point file of a PAL of any freeform lens, how would you evalute this design?  Knowing the front surface, the center thickness and the point file is all of the information you would need to compare one design vs. another.  Do you have anyway to use this information?

----------


## bhess25

can you point out where i "bashed" your company?....i said "im sure its a good design"...and im not willing to sacrifice my relationships with my patients over something i dont know, and am not being told enough about....secrets dont sell very well.

----------


## AWTECH

> can you point out where i "bashed" your company?....i said "im sure its a good design"...and im not willing to sacrifice my relationships with my patients over something i dont know, and am not being told enough about....secrets dont sell very well.


This is what I am referring to:


> ok this is annoying the crap out of me...we all want to know more about the lenses, and your just trying to sell us on them. so far all ive seen is icetech this and icetech that, im sure you guys have a good lens even though noone will ever know because you wont tell us anything except how to buy them, listen we not only want but need to know more.


We provide as much or more information as most lens companies.  Like I suggested.  If you had all of the information via x, y, z data points what would you do with it?

Give me a list of the information you think is important.  

For our customers we will offer a 3D plot of the exact lens.  We are not a large company and do not have the capacity to respond to lengthy requests from potential customers.  We offer our products with a full patient satisfaction warranty.  With no down side for our customers I don't really understand why a few people think we need to provide data they have no ability to use.  The fact is if the most of the patients are extremely pleased with the results why do you need more information?

Many of the verifications in this industry are legacy related.  Example:  If you verify the Rx in one spot on the lens for far vision to the Rx and you want the patient to have a good intermediate, how would you verify the patient looking 10 degrees to the left in the intermediate zone?

We produced many wrap around progressive before we were able to make the 34 mm engravings with any engravings.  We told our customers to ask the patient to put the glasses on and if they had any problems they could return them without any charge.  We only had a few returns and all were from incorrect seg height being given to us.

This technology works and produces lenses with excellent vision for the patient.  The Rx can be verified via the compensation provided by us. Other than this verification you would need additional very expensive equipment.

The information about freeform lenses in the trade publications is primarily generated by the equipment manufacturers, since the lens manufactures are currently producing all of these lenses in house except for Seiko and Shamir.  It is not as simple as the equipment manufactures present this.

----------


## Opticaldeals

Seiko Succeed is a 100% back side(internal) digital cut
Hoya Lifestyle ID is a front side digital mold with a back side digital cut.

----------


## TLG

> Hoya Lifestyle ID is a front side digital mold with a back side digital cut.


Another active thread differs with your information, suggesting that the front and back are both cut with digital technology. I'm not saying you're wrong 'cuz I don't know. *Click here to view the other thread*

----------


## AWTECH

> Another active thread differs with your information, suggesting that the front and back are both cut with digital technology. I'm not saying you're wrong 'cuz I don't know. *Click here to view the other thread*


If I remember correctly the Lifestyle ID and the Hoya ID are similar but different in that the Lifestyle ID was a molded front and the Hoya ID was digitally surfaced on both sides.  I am not 100% sure this is the case.  I think the logic was a way to offer a similar product for slightly less money.

----------


## TLG

> If I remember correctly the Lifestyle ID and the Hoya ID are similar but different in that the Lifestyle ID was a molded front and the Hoya ID was digitally surfaced on both sides.  I am not 100% sure this is the case.  I think the logic was a way to offer a similar product for slightly less money.


My bad, I thought it was a reference to the same lens. The other thread was not referencing the LifeStyle ID. I stand corrected :hammer:

----------


## Fezz

> If I remember correctly the Lifestyle ID and the Hoya ID are similar but different in that the Lifestyle ID was a molded front and the Hoya ID was digitally surfaced on both sides. I am not 100% sure this is the case. I think the logic was a way to offer a similar product for slightly less money.


After a seminar, reading the literature, grilling the sales reps and territorry managers, this is what I believe as well. The LifestyleID uses a standard molded front(digitally surfaced mold) and "Free-Form" digital surfacing on the back surface. The ID requires free-form surfacing on both sides of the lens.

----------


## HarryChiling

Amazingly someones listening to what is being asked:




> Questions you shoud ask regarding any new digitally surfaced product
> Other than increased precision and optimization of optics, how does this PAL design benefit from digital surfacing vs. traditional surfacing?Is this PAL desing personalized to the patient? If so, what measurements are required and how do they inform the design?Is this PAL design customied (e.g. to frame size or task)? If so, how are the customized features determined?Is this PAL wavefront optimized? If so, can you demonstrate an actual improvement in the wavefront produced by the lens?Can you provide clinical analysis to show an actual benefit to patients? If so, were the studies conducted on wearers and who conducted the research?Where are the lenses manufactured? What processes are in place to ensure the quality and consistency of the end product?


Now the way I word things are no where near as eloquent and to the point as these questions are and it's a shame to see that it was again the large manufacturers that stepped up to the plate and demanded we ask questions, too bad the independents are missing the boat on an opportunity to inform their customers and really reel them in on these newer FF produced designs.

Again a different approach of transparency is what I see as a benefit to sellign this product nd apparently someone else sees it too, Pete if this was your idea or doing you may have just won me over.  I will be calling my Varilx rep to get a hold of the clinical data.

----------


## TLG

Harry, 
Another thing I thought was really cool about that ad is that the first sentence states "...I can't help but begin this months installment by talking about some comments I've read on Optiboard.com..."

It makes me think...
1.) What we have to say here CAN make a difference in our industry.
2.) Never stop asking tough questions and never back down because someone wants to offer easy answers that don't necessarily address industry-wide issues.
3.) What a great advertisement for our board. Hopefully it will help to inspire new membership.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Harry, 
> Another thing I thought was really cool about that ad is that the first sentence states "...I can't help but begin this months installment by talking about some comments I've read on Optiboard.com..."
> 
> It makes me think...
> 1.) What we have to say here CAN make a difference in our industry.
> 2.) Never stop asking tough questions and never back down because someone wants to offer easy answers that don't necessarily address industry-wide issues.
> 3.) What a great advertisement for our board. Hopefully it will help to inspire new membership.


It was nice to see this board is an integral part of our industry, I am sure Steve is proud of that.  I am also pleasently suprised by Zeiss, Essilor, and Schneider.  They stepped up and offered information that I am sure will lead to better sales and better informed opticians.

----------


## bhess25

ok foot in mouth...i fitted my dad with physio 360's and he loves them!!...looks like i deserve all the shots now!!

----------


## rdcoach5

> Although I agree with much of your post regarding the potential visual benefits of true free-form-enabled customization for the wearer, I think you are overstating the consistency of the free-form surfacing process. While a properly calibrated generator may be able to replicate fairly complex surfaces, at least without rapid changes in surface features, the kinematics of the soft lap polishing process will not "automatically" produce complex lens surfaces of consistent, repeatable quality. Moreover, while a cast lens may not exactly replicate the lens design due to factors such as shrinkage, it is easy to verify the quality of cast lenses by inspecting a limited number of measurement points, once the mold has been validated. This is not the case with free-form surfacing, which can result in low and medium spatial frequency "form" errors distributed across different regions of the lens surface -- at least without sufficient process engineering.


Darryl, it sounds like the polishers are the weak link in the free-form process and need a form of truing occasionally.
              Bob Taylor

----------


## Darryl Meister

The polisher is really just one potentially weak link in the chain. Both the generator and the polisher have a significant number of parameters that must be individually set for each job. These parameters are sent along to each machine in a separate file (in "G-code" or with other machining commands). The type of tools and other processing related parameters, such as equipment calibration and slurry quality, are also important variables. The center defect that AWTECH mentioned earlier, for instance, will result when the diamond cutting tool is out of alignment, producing either a "dimple" or a "nipple" defect once the lens starts spinning. In any event, since you can no longer rely on one or two power measurement points to determine whether you've surfaced a "quality" lens, a good free-form surfacing process should be complemented with a measurement system capable of "mapping" the entire lens.

----------


## HarryChiling

> In any event, since you can no longer rely on one or two power measurement points to determine whether you've surfaced a "quality" lens, *a good free-form surfacing process should be complemented with a measurement system capable of "mapping" the entire lens*.


Just make sure this information isn't shared with anyone, a simple it's right will suffice. :D (sorry but if your pitching I'm batting)

----------


## AWTECH

> Just make sure this information isn't shared with anyone, a simple it's right will suffice. :D (sorry but if your pitching I'm batting)


The point Darryl makes is correct that a mapping of the lens will confirm that a freeform lens is made as it was designed, however these same method should also be used to conform front molded PALs since errors in blocking etc. would cause error in the lens design.

I know that different freeform surfacing systems remove different amounts of lens material.  We developed our process to produce the surface in a manner that does not require for any significant removal of lens material after this production.  Most lenses receive a hard coating of approximately 4 microns.  This does not have a bearing on the lens power for spectical lens use.

----------


## TLG

Harry,
Are you suggesting that a printout of the lens mapping results be included with the finished order? That not only seems a reasonable request, but since none of us have the equipment to verify ourselves, should be mandatory I think. How else are we to know if it is correct? I totally agree - I'm not at all comfortable with my lab simply telling me it's right (I have plenty of problems with them on orders I _can_ verify).

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Just make sure this information isn't shared with anyone, a simple it's right will suffice.


This is analogous to performing a quality audit or inspection as part of an ongoing quality control program. Manufacturers, regardless of industry, generally do not supply this kind of information or data, just as you do not supply your own patients with this kind of information. Besides, what you were asking about previously was an optical analysis of the lens design, not really an analysis of surface quality, which is an altogether different discussion topic. The most accurate surface analysis devices, such as precision coordinate measurement machines (CMMs), generally cannot even perform an optical analysis directly.

----------


## AWTECH

> Harry,
> Are you suggesting that a printout of the lens mapping results be included with the finished order? That not only seems a reasonable request, but since none of us have the equipment to verify ourselves, should be mandatory I think. How else are we to know if it is correct? I totally agree - I'm not at all comfortable with my lab simply telling me it's right (I have plenty of problems with them on orders I _can_ verify).


As Darryl pointed out, this is a complex issue and you are asking for a lens map with each order.  

Do you want a sphere map?  Do you want a cylinder map?  Do you want verification of powers across the lens at various points? (say 5mm x 5mm).  If you had these powers across the lens what would do with the information other than trust the manufacturer that the power they state is located at that point is correct?

The industry has been trained with point verification and now many are trying to make surface comparisions as simple as point comparisions.  It is not that simple.

----------


## TLG

You know Allen, I get personally tired of your defensive posture on this subject. I'm willing to admit that I don't know how it is you verify them so I can't possibly tell you what I would like to see. Are you willing to admit that you have never been in our shoes and so you may never understand how important it is to us to be able to verify? 

You continue to claim that the integrity of the lens is verified at the lab - give us what you know. Let us decide what is too much or too technical information. All of us have had to learn new skills to do the work we do each day. Are you suggesting we can't learn what you have? What makes you so much smarter than us? Sure, if you sent me some kind of mapping information today I would be clueless looking at it. But if all of us got one everytime we ordered this type lens, you can be darn sure we would take classes or read up on it so we _could_ understand. I think it's arrogant to tell us we don't deserve it because we don't know enuf to understand it. If there does exist some type of readout and your only reason for not providing it to us is that you don't think we would understand it, I think that is very shallow thinking and frankly, somewhat insulting. What if you had no way of verifying lenses but your equipment manufacturer told you, "Just send them out, they'll be perfect." Would you be comfortable with that? I doubt it. If your answer to that question is 'NO' you should be able to empathize a little for what we're talking about. And if your answer is YES, you're a liar.

I do have respect for the knowledge you possess and appreciate what you have to offer this board. I also understand your desire to give proper representation to your spoke in the wheel (the lab). To be honest, I may actually trust YOU to do my work. The problem is that you can't speak for every lab on earth so the question each of us has to ask is if we can trust OUR lab. Sometimes I think you take our questions and comments way too personal. 

I did not write this as a personal attack on you Allen. It's just that throughout this thread you continue to tell us we don't _need_ to know what we _would like_ to know. I really don't think you can understand our position if you haven't walked in our shoes.

Respectfully,

----------


## AWTECH

> You know Allen, I get personally tired of your defensive posture on this subject. I'm willing to admit that I don't know how it is you verify them so I can't possibly tell you what I would like to see. Are you willing to admit that you have never been in our shoes and so you may never understand how important it is to us to be able to verify? 
> 
> You continue to claim that the integrity of the lens is verified at the lab - give us what you know. Let us decide what is too much or too technical information. All of us have had to learn new skills to do the work we do each day. Are you suggesting we can't learn what you have? What makes you so much smarter than us? Sure, if you sent me some kind of mapping information today I would be clueless looking at it. But if all of us got one everytime we ordered this type lens, you can be darn sure we would take classes or read up on it so we _could_ understand. I think it's arrogant to tell us we don't deserve it because we don't know enuf to understand it. If there does exist some type of readout and your only reason for not providing it to us is that you don't think we would understand it, I think that is very shallow thinking and frankly, somewhat insulting. What if you had no way of verifying lenses but your equipment manufacturer told you, "Just send them out, they'll be perfect." Would you be comfortable with that? I doubt it. If your answer to that question is 'NO' you should be able to empathize a little for what we're talking about. And if your answer is YES, you're a liar.
> 
> I do have respect for the knowledge you possess and appreciate what you have to offer this board. I also understand your desire to give proper representation to your spoke in the wheel (the lab). To be honest, I may actually trust YOU to do my work. The problem is that you can't speak for every lab on earth so the question each of us has to ask is if we can trust OUR lab. Sometimes I think you take our questions and comments way too personal. 
> 
> I did not write this as a personal attack on you Allen. It's just that throughout this thread you continue to tell us we don't _need_ to know what we _would like_ to know. I really don't think you can understand our position if you haven't walked in our shoes.
> 
> Respectfully,


I don't take this as a personal attack.  It is not that the desire to know is wrong.  As you admit, you don't even know what you are asking for.  I think in concept what you are asking for is logical, but the need is not as you believe.   At some point you have to have confidence in your lens manufacturer.  This can be a combination of blank provider, lens design provider and lab facility that produces the lens.

The chance of a lens design that we produce being not correct and not detectable by your current methods is way less than 1%.

To accomplish what I think, you think you need would require an investment by the retailers of between $50,000 and $150,000 plus training on the use of the equipment.  You would also have to have the suppliers agree to provide comparision data files. (I doubt many would be willing to do this since with enough data files there lens designs could possibly be reverse engineered.)  

This is like asking Microsoft to provide you with their source code for Office so you can check their software.  Once they provide the source code, you don't need them anymore.  Not that a one store optical is going to do this, nor is an individual user of source code going to write their own programs, but a competitor of the lens manufacturer or a competitor of Microsoft would both have an interest in having a very low cost investment compared to the developer.

We are in the process of providing these lens maps for each job with each order.  This should be ready right after the first of the year.  You can get an idea of the usable area of the lens from these, but you can not compare this to the lens you are replacing unless it was made by the same manufacturer.

Unfortunately, what you and others think is so easy to provide, is quite complex and made to see very simple when you read about this type of technology or see the equipment at an optical trade show.

Do we make mistakes, yes.  Do we correct them, yes.  Other than mistakes that are correctable due to human error, such as wrong info entered in the data entry program, we have less than 1% non-adapts.  The lenses we produce are verified by traditional means and the patients can see.  The patients benefit from the improvements in their vision with our lens technology.  You and a few others have asked similar questions and assume that our lenses will not work for your patients because you can not perform a very high level verification.  You have to ask other than the fact you think you need this information, why do you need it?  What is the cost benefit for having it?  Will your patients pay the extra costs of this verification?  Look at what is charged for lens edging and mounting.  If it takes an investment of 2 to 3 times the finishing equipment what will you have to charge your patients for this?

I am trying to explain this so that you and the others will understand that it is not a zero cost solution.  

You can purchase equipment to verify any lens, map each uncut you order, freeform or not.  Your Doctor will have to provide you with the data based on the viewing angles of the bundles of rays concept to verify that the lens is producing the powers at the points desired.  This way you would be providing knowledge that you are having lenses produced to solve the vision problem based on the Doctors prescribed power needs. (Unfortunately this level of Doctor prescribed Rx across the lens is not available.)

I hope this helps clairfy some of the challenges with a complex lens design and the thought that easy verification at no cost to the retail optical is possible.

We provide very functional lens products, that work.  It is surprising that we don't have these type of requests from opticians using our lenses, only from those who are not using them.  If you order and dispense 10 pair and then feel like we are not producing a working product for your patients I can see the push for a solution, but this whole concept is a push by those not using the products for a solution that may not be necessary.  How necessary is this if the cost per retail optical is $150,000?

----------


## TLG

> You and a few others have asked similar questions and assume that our lenses will not work for your patients because you can not perform a very high level verification.


I don't assume that in any way at all and I can practically guarantee you that few others on this board would make that assumption. It isn't about that. Many of us have done this for longer than we wanna admit and we are used to a certain protocol when we receive orders from our lab. One of the primary concerns for us is that the lenses were made as we ordered them. If you haven't been 'one of us' I can understand why it seems so simple for you to think that we can somehow just let that go. Maybe we can in time or maybe we will have to eventually, but it goes against the makeup of any seasoned ecp to receive a pair of lenses and simply call the patient and tell them they are ready. We are all used to making that call after we have personally checked the product against what was ordered. That is the point I was trying to make in my post - I just don't think you understand how important it is to some of us because you haven't been in our shoes. That's not a knock on you (and I thank you for not taking it that way).



> How necessary is this if the cost per retail optical is $150,000?


If my lab had it and provided me with a readout, why would I have to purchase it also?

Take care,

----------


## Uncle Fester

> We are in the process of providing these lens maps for each job with each order.


 Until you provide the mathmatics to those smarter than me I hope you know no paper verification will be acceptable (ie. the X ray pipe welds at Three Mile Island "passed" inspection since they were copies of perfect welds).  

Again I humbling show my ignorance but when you say your lens is 30% wider than others is that from a corridor width of 2,  4, or 6 mm. It would IMHO make a difference.

----------


## AWTECH

TLG said:


> One of the primary concerns for us is that the lenses were made as we ordered them. If you haven't been 'one of us' I can understand why it seems so simple for you to think that we can somehow just let that go.


Look at the above statement: You can confirm that a lens we make using our individual surfacing, just like you confirm a standard front molded PAL. You can use the same equipment. If the far vision sphere is correct, you pass this, if the cylinder power and axis is correct you pass the lens, etc.

You don't confirm the configuration of the molded surface, do you? So why do you have a need to confirm the surface we produce if the standard confirmation methods will verify the lens?

TLG Said:


> If my lab had it and provided me with a readout, why would I have to purchase it also?


Because you said you need to verify the lens yourself. (Why do you need a standard lensometer if your lab could provide you with the powers in the lens?)



Uncle Fester said:


> Again I humbling show my ignorance but when you say your lens is 30&#37; wider than others is that from a corridor width of 2, 4, or 6 mm. It would IMHO make a difference.


This is the approximate additional widith in the corridor for like powers compared to a molded PAL. The corridor width varies depending on the Rx, cylinder and axis. The management of power error and off axis error can be managed much better than a fixed molded design. The patients notice the difference. No distortion in the design by managing these issue with each individual design.

I would like to be able to explain our technology so that more and more optical professionals will better understand this type of technology and how these lenses can benefit their patients.

Please understand that when I first started developing these lenses for individual trials I thought I understood the designs and opportunities for the patients. After three years of producing these lenses I still learn more and more about the benefits. I also am constantly learning more and more about how to explain the many dynamics to this different approach to lens design and production.

----------


## Uncle Fester

> This is the approximate additional widith in the corridor for like powers compared to a molded PAL. The corridor width varies depending on the Rx, cylinder and axis. The management of power error and off axis error can be managed much better than a fixed molded design. The patients notice the difference. No distortion in the design by managing these issue with each individual design


What's the sum difference between the corridor width of a "molded PAL" and a "fixed molded PAL" in a pl/+1.00 +2.00 +3.00 add?

I'm sorry but your qualifying "appoximate width in the corridor" also can't help but raise my eyebrows.

The last sentence has me going huhn :Confused:

----------


## HarryChiling

The Minkwitz Therom:



P=Astigmatic Power
M=Mean Power
x=lateral measure from the umbilic
y=vertical distance to acheive the mean power change

This is a good indicator for how wide a progressives corridor is going to be. If I had a map of a lens I could easil confirm if the lens corridor is 30&#37; wider than it shoudl approximately be. And before desings gets thrown around like some sort of neutralizeing word keep in mind that the minkwitz theorom isn't fool proof and is an estimate, but it holds true for the umbilic of the lens fairly accurately. Now I know that the just the movement of the lens surface from the front to the back gives the increase of the corridor width of 8% negatign any effects of power from the equations.

example of 4mm coridor length, 2.2mm thickness, and back vertex to center of ocular rotation of 27mm.

tan(x)=4mm/27mm+2.2mm
tan(x)=4mm/29.2mm
tan(x)=0.1370
x=7.8o

tan(x)=4mm/27mm
tan(x)=0.1481
x=8.4o

That's a difference of 0.6o which is 0.6o/7.8o=0.0769 or roughly 8% increase in width now that's assumeing some figures here but if the lens was fit closer the numbers look better. I would just like to verify for me personally that the lens supplied isn't just a standard desing surfaced on the back (which is still old technology being wraped in a pretty bow). I would like to check off axis powers, but I can't with my lens clock because the surface has the progressive on it so it's for sure going to throw my clock off, my lensmeter could give me the power in various points but it would take me forever to verify more than a few spots on the lens. So then like metioned above I check the DRP, NRP, and PRP and then just assume the rest is right. The idea is for me to put every patient of mine in a lens that costs me double what I am currently payign for lenses, I have no way of verifyign or obtainign data to confirm the lens is truly better, and my current non adapt rate is 5%. 

So all my progressives cost 2 times more and I am only potentially going to satisfy another 5% of my practice. I might as well start stocking pantyhose as I am sure I can also potentially get abotu 5% of the women to buy panty hose from our office. It may sound idiotic, but it should hold true for many offices, I don't think non adapt rates are going to drastically be reduced by these lenses that are optimized with the help of FF processing, heck one could make an arguement that instead of manufacturers using FF processing they could start making BC's in a wider raneg to help reduce errors (instead of 2, 4, 6, 8 make them in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) this could reduce the error as well. Sure FF processing is a great way of making it possible for the manufacturer to reduce their costs in stocking blanks in all the various permutations that would be necessary in a lens series that had so many BC's.

Another thing I would like to see is the inset, I would want to see that the inset of the lenses and the corridor was palced in such a way that my patient is getting a lens optimized for his/her abiltiy to converge.

If you are afraid that someone is going to reverse engineer your design, I wouldn't worry because it's not your design it's SEIKO's and chances are your competition would already have an idea of your lenses capabilities and they more than likely have more than one map. It would be naive to think that your design has never fallen into the hands of your competition. I am sure the big boys have large databases of various lens maps, I know a few that do just ask your Shamir rep they will show you their lens and their competitors lenses.

I find it disappointing that as an independent lab you are very secretive about all facets of your lens and have even in many cases eluded to that most opticians aren't smart enough for the information, while every month i get articles in various magazines giving infrormation from Zeiss, Essilor, and Scneider.  I have always had a tough time with independent labs, in theory I would love to support independent labs but time after time I have been burnt myself except by one and I don't even order many lenses from outside labs especialy the tough ones those are done in house.  So for me when I hear trust us, I cringe.

I have in the last two months used the Definity twice and my patients have been plesed.  Both case have been high cyl patients and I have another high cyl patient that I will be putting in the Definity as soon as it gets back from the lab and I expect it to go over well also, but I know a bit about the lens and the design.  I would love more info, but understand the hessitance of giving away too much, but believe me over time this truth will get out there and the ones that are holding won't be holding our business.

----------


## AWTECH

> What's the sum difference between the corridor width of a "molded PAL" and a "fixed molded PAL" in a pl/+1.00 +2.00 +3.00 add?
> 
> I'm sorry but your qualifying "appoximate width in the corridor" also can't help but raise my eyebrows.
> 
> The last sentence has me going huhn


Since the width can change with each design and there are over 2 million possible designs the word approximate is the only accurate way to descibe this.  The specific Rx you are asking about will have differences between molded PAL designs:  If you want to provide an uncut in the Rx you are talking about, in a material we offer I can then measure each and give you accurate measurements. (the above Rx does not mention Axis which is a critical component.)




> I also am constantly learning more and more about how to explain the many dynamics to this different approach to lens design and production.


If this is the last sentance you are referering to;  I don't know how to respond other than the complexity of this combined with the proprietary nature of the methods we use to achieve these results is very complex and not easy to explain to someone who has not spent years working with our designs and processes.

Remember you can check our lenses, just like you verify any other PAL.  You don't check the corridor widths on molded designs before despensing.

The process of additional verification is possible but the cost vs. benefit is doubtful in my opinion.

----------


## AWTECH

Harry Said:


> If you are afraid that someone is going to reverse engineer your design, I wouldn't worry because it's not your design it's SEIKO's and chances are your competition would already have an idea of your lenses capabilities and they more than likely have more than one map.


Harry this is not a true statement you have made.  You are very smart but don't make untrue statements about another company's products.

I have in confidence discussed more details about our designs than I am willing to make public.  You are jumping to conclusions with the above statement.  We do have the Seiko Succeed production capabilities.  The ICE-TECH products are not the same.

----------


## AWTECH

Harry said:


> I have in the last two months used the Definity twice and my patients have been plesed. Both case have been high cyl patients and I have another high cyl patient that I will be putting in the Definity as soon as it gets back from the lab and I expect it to go over well also, but I know a bit about the lens and the design.


OK Harry I am 90% sure I will match detail for detail what you received about the Definity.  What information did they provide that I am not willing to provide?

As I have said you can order the lenses we produce and if the patient is not satisfied you can return them for fully credit.  How much risk are you taking?

Harry said:


> I am sure the big boys have large databases of various lens maps, I know a few that do just ask your Shamir rep they will show you their lens and their competitors lenses.


You are asking for a map of each individualized lens, what map do you want Sphere, or Cylinder?  what maps have you been shown?  Cylinder or Sphere?  Showing a plano with a 2.00 ADD is not showing much.

I really think the only way you are going to be satisfied is to invest in your own lens mapping equipment.  You know something about programming and could get this working and solve your problem.

Why not just verify using your current method and let the patient tell you if they have better vision or not.  Just a thought.

----------


## shrimper~dan

The solution to lens verification is readily available at a cost of about $40k. While that is not cheap, when compared to the overall investment required to produce backside progressives, it is a no-brainer for any lab doing this type of work. A printer option is available that will print the resultant data as well as a picture of the lens profile. 
http://www.visionix.com/site/prod/vm/vm2500.asp?s=all

----------


## AWTECH

> The solution to lens verification is readily available at a cost of about $40k. While that is not cheap, when compared to the overall investment required to produce backside progressives, it is a no-brainer for any lab doing this type of work. A printer option is available that will print the resultant data as well as a picture of the lens profile. 
> http://www.visionix.com/site/prod/vm/vm2500.asp?s=all


That is the beginning of a solution for a lab, however there is much more required for the retailer to use such equipment.  There is almost none of the equipment for digitally surfaced lenses that is plug and play.

If you know the power 7mm from the optical center to the left, how do you know if this is the correct power?  Remember the industry has the opticians checking the Doctor prescribed Rx.  There is currently no way for the Doctor to give you this power 7mm from the optical center.  So what are you really checking this against at the optical retail level?

----------


## Craig

> Why not just verify using your current method and let the patient tell you if they have better vision or not. Just a thought.


I am writing to let you know we have done THOUSANDS OF FREE-FORM LENSES and have never had an issue with any brand except Ophthonix; why do we feel a need to map the entire lens?  We don't do this on any other lens we verify!  This is no different than as a rep. clients would call and complain the cyl was off in reading area of the progressive.  They just needed to verify the distance and put them on the patient.  

I know a few producers of free-form do map the entire lens to ensure it was built correctly and the rest will be getting the equipment as volumes increase on free-form.

THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS MY CLIENTS OVER THE PAST 5 YEARS LOVE THE VISION OUT OF THE LENSES!!

I just adjusted a pair of free-form lenses from over 3 years ago and the
client just had a new pair made up north and does not like them as well.  Same RX.  He is going to get a new RX and a pair in clear, transitions and polarized.  That is why the independents need to promote the new technology and look towards the future of the industry.

Just put the lenses on the patient and let them tell you if the RX is correct!
Craig

----------


## shrimper~dan

I agree with Craig, however it is important from a manufacturing QC standpoint to be able to verify that you are in fact making what you think you are making. The ability to print a copy of the finished lens map is an added feature for those dispensers that are interested. Keep in mind that the technology I referenced will also produce a printable map of any progressive, whether it's a "free-form" or a traditional molded design. When a new product or technology is attempting to gain acceptance into the marketplace, it is very often a matter of comfort level with the customer that makes the difference. Remember the first time you heard about shopping "on-line"?

----------


## AWTECH

Craig:

Thank you for the confirmation of the concept of using traditional methods to verify.

Unfortunately most of the opticians asking for this additional information have no way to verify the lens surface.

Your point that you have fitted many different brands of these lenses with good results and without any additional equipment confirms that this traditional verification process works.

If the patient can see better, that is the result the optician and the patient should be looking for, not what the power is 8.5 mm from the optical center.

----------


## AWTECH

shrimper~dan said:


> I agree with Craig, however it is important from a manufacturing QC standpoint to be able to verify that you are in fact making what you think you are making.


This is for the manufacturer.  The retail optician can not really tell that much from the map of the lens.  If the retail optician had such a machine they could compare one molded lens for patient "A" with an individualized lens for patient "A" and see the difference in two maps, but the optical surface design is a very complex result of the lens design software capabilities.

----------


## shrimper~dan

TECH,
I do agree that the dispenser need not invest in this technology, and I don't see where anyone is asking for it. What I get from this string is that the dispensers are leery of the technology because they don't see any proof of quality control. If one of your accounts, or potential accounts, wants to see that the original design is replicated accurately on the lens they have purchased, and you as the manufacturer can provide them with objective data that does just that, why wouldn't you? And if you are a manufacturer and you do not have the ability to verify the accuracy of your finished product, aren't you running a big risk? 
Bottom line is if you are making free-form lenses you absolutely should have a method of verification for QC purposes. There are relatively low cost solutions in the marketplace that will do this, and as a side benefit allow you to show your customers exactly what they are getting and that it meets your quality control standards.

----------


## AWTECH

> TECH,
> I do agree that the dispenser need not invest in this technology, and I don't see where anyone is asking for it. What I get from this string is that the dispensers are leery of the technology because they don't see any proof of quality control. If one of your accounts, or potential accounts, wants to see that the original design is replicated accurately on the lens they have purchased, and you as the manufacturer can provide them with objective data that does just that, why wouldn't you? And if you are a manufacturer and you do not have the ability to verify the accuracy of your finished product, aren't you running a big risk? 
> Bottom line is if you are making free-form lenses you absolutely should have a method of verification for QC purposes. There are relatively low cost solutions in the marketplace that will do this, and as a side benefit allow you to show your customers exactly what they are getting and that it meets your quality control standards.


Yes, from a quality control standpoint you are correct.  Without going into all of the potential points for errors with digital surfacing.  The mapping is a way to see visually what you have, but to prove the surface is as design, you also need to check the surface with comparision x, y and z data.  I don't know how many producers of digitally surfaced lenses use such methods, but I can assure you this is one important part of the QC at ICE-TECH for our digitally surfaced lenses.

----------


## mahmoud.hamza

hy every body
can some one tell me what is the difference between a freeform progressive lens and a convensional progressive lens  :idea: in use!!!!

----------


## NgCognito

:shiner: I do agree with Uncle Fester. Until I get a simplified non-marketing type answer, I will continue to use Creation, Panamic, GT2 lenses. I don't need all the high tech explanations. I want a simple explanation that convinces my patients that it is worth the additional cost on a lens that might or might not show a significant difference. I have yet to come across a patient that has had or got the new lenses Zeiss individual or Shamir Autograph that saw a marked difference.

----------


## AWTECH

> :shiner: I do agree with Uncle Fester. Until I get a simplified non-marketing type answer, I will continue to use Creation, Panamic, GT2 lenses. I don't need all the high tech explanations. I want a simple explanation that convinces my patients that it is worth the additional cost on a lens that might or might not show a significant difference. I have yet to come across a patient that has had or got the new lenses Zeiss individual or Shamir Autograph that saw a marked difference.


A simple explanation for the ICE-TECH Advanced Lens Technology individualized lenses is a wider corridor and no skew distortion.  This is accomplished by managing the off axis error and power errors across the lenses surface.

See the post above by Craig.  He has years of experience with many individualized lenses, including the ICE-TECH products and his patients notice the difference.  I think other opticians patients may also benefit.

The least benefit will be from low cylinder low power lenses where the potential errors in molded lenses are not as noticable.  This technology is not all marketing.

----------


## TLG

> A simple explanation for the ICE-TECH Advanced Lens Technology individualized lenses is a wider corridor and no skew distortion...


Wow, I've never heard that one before. Oh yeah, except for every PAL produced since the original Varilux 25+ years ago:D

----------


## AWTECH

> Wow, I've never heard that one before. Oh yeah, except for every PAL produced since the original Varilux 25+ years ago:D


OK, so you, like others on this board don't believe what a manufacturer says.  If you look at the post by Craig, you see a clear statement from a optician user, (such as most of those not believing in what is actually proven to work).

Just curious how to explain Craig's statements????

I don't know why it is so difficult to admit that an improvement is possible.

----------


## TLG

> OK, so you, like others on this board don't believe what a manufacturer says.  If you look at the post by Craig, you see a clear statement from a optician user, (such as most of those not believing in what is actually proven to work).


Sorry to offend. My comment was totally tongue-in-cheek. I've been an optician since 1973 and have been witness to the introduction of countless new PAL lens designs. I don't remember a single one that hasn't claimed to have a wider reading zone and clearer peripheral vision. Your comment just struck me as funny because I've read/heard it with every new design. I apologize Allen - I have no ill feelings toward you in any way and I certainly did not mean it as a personal attack. And I certainly didn't intend to demean your product. It's obvious you are passionate about it and I admire (and envy) passionate people.



> I don't know why it is so difficult to admit that an improvement is possible.


My greatest hope is that it is possible. Improvement in PAL designs has not grown by leaps and bounds by any means. The improvements are miniscule in my opinion, but I don't think that anything I've posted has suggested that I don't think they could be improved in general. I have worn at least 10 different PAL's, including 2 'Freeform' designs. They all suck. Really. I've worn them every single day for at least the last 12 years. They are a compromise. Yes, I wear them because I don't wanna see the line. But I also wear them because I have tried Flat Tops and Rounds and although my vision was MUCH clearer in each of those, I don't like having to adjust my body position when I want to view near objects at varying distances, preferring to adjust just my head to find the correct area of the progressive instead. We are a long long way from a PAL design that provides the type of vision in distance and near that is anywhere near what the lowly FT28 provides. I respect people like you who have a vision of making them better.

Sorry again to have offended you. Best wishes,

----------


## mahmoud.hamza

:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(
Hi frinds 

  In the TRIVEX test lenses  we found a small problem the  lenses are liitel bit scratched I dont know why but it seems like the polishing process was not very good.
  Can you please clarify it to me ?and have you an idea about the solution 

our machines are OPTOTECH .

  I am a little bit afraid because in our future production we are going to focalize on TRIVEX lenses .our sell will be about 30% TRIVEX so the process must be very good and must be Ok.
  Thank you

----------


## Fezz

Here is a link to Younger Optical's Trivex processing page:

http://www.youngeroptics.com/product...techinfo.shtml

And a link to PPG's Trivex info page. They have a valuable download with all of the Trivex processing info. 

http://corporateportal.ppg.com/NA/ch...ptical/Trivex/

Good luck.

----------


## mahmoud.hamza

> Here is a link to Younger Optical's Trivex processing page:
> 
> http://www.youngeroptics.com/product...techinfo.shtml
> 
> And a link to PPG's Trivex info page. They have a valuable download with all of the Trivex processing info. 
> 
> http://corporateportal.ppg.com/NA/ch...ptical/Trivex/
> 
> Good luck.


Fezz
thank you for your replay.
do you please heve any document or information that can help me to know freeform process better because I am a new ingeneer in our company and the other freeform suplier in our country heve more experience then us.
thanks :)

----------


## AWTECH

I do not know if Optotech has much experience processing Trivex.  I know many of there machines are used to produce the Seiko freeform lenses and Seiko does not offer Trivex.

We process freeform Trivex, but we use a very different process than Optotech.

What type of material settings are you trying to use to process the Trivex?  With the Optotech polishing machine you may need a different polishing tool to be successful.  

What does Optotech say about the polishing problems you are having?

----------


## mahmoud.hamza

> I do not know if Optotech has much experience processing Trivex.  I know many of there machines are used to produce the Seiko freeform lenses and Seiko does not offer Trivex.
> 
> We process freeform Trivex, but we use a very different process than Optotech.
> 
> What type of material settings are you trying to use to process the Trivex?  With the Optotech polishing machine you may need a different polishing tool to be successful.  
> 
> What does Optotech say about the polishing problems you are having?


seiko doas not offer trivex but we have optotech software OEM and it offer TRIVEX 
we we use OEM freeform software.
the polishing tool are : 
-Polishing strip LP26, 1,27mm,
for polishing wheel &#216;70
-FEM-flex. Polishing tool HD25
&#216;65mm for Polishing cap
-Polishing Membrane
&#216;60 R50 incl. GR35 1.27
-Polishing Membrane
&#216;60/100 R50 incl. black felt
optotech did not replay us for this problem yet.
but I know many companys which use optotech machine to produce freeform TRIVEX like TOG from Thailand.

----------


## YrahG

I know this thread is old, but their is a wealth of information here.  What I got from this thread is that their is no QC standard, Darryl mentioned that opticians don't release QC standards to their patients, in my case that is correct and in most cases that is correct, but the QC standard is ANSI and measurements are taken and writen on the work order, these measurements are the fabricated measurements and are compared to the supplied measrements if they meet ANSI they pass and the work goes out to the patient to be dispensed, I think the only reason why I don't give this data to the pateint is becuase no one has asked.  It is written and available and if asked for I would provide this information to a patient and even go over the differences and show them how they meet the tolerances we have set in place which conform to ANSI standard.  

Here is where I see a difference in the FF lab not provideing any QC data, large manufacturers have built their reputation on the quality of their lenses.  Their is a reason why people were using and selling Varilux, Zeiss, Hoya, Shamir, etc blanks instead of genericaly produced blanks from various other manufacturers.  With a molded design the PAL surface is verified byt eh manufacturer to meet their standards although this QC data is not available the reputation of these companies was built on the quality of these lenses which is a reason why ECP's choose these brands.  The lab takes these blanks and further processes a prescription surface onto the back and then verifies that this combined optical system meets the necessary tolerances ANSI at 3 point DRP, PRP, and NRP additionally the blank may be sagged at the surfaceing department but often times the lens is processed in most labs without the need for sagging the lens.  So at the optician level this lens has been through 3 QC processes along it's production:


PAL surface at the manufacturerPrescription (combined optical effects at DRP, PRP, and NRP) at the labPrescription (combined optical effects at DRP, PRP, and NRP) at the dispensary
The digitally surfaced process is created all at the lab, so even though a Zeiss, Varilux, Hoya, or Shamir design is licensed.  The manufacturer does not directly verify the surfaces.  So the QC process is:


Design at the labPrescription (combined optical effects at DRP, PRP, and NRP) at the labPrescription (combined optical effects at DRP, PRP, and NRP) at the dispensary
The process is not much different except that the manufacturer of the design is now the lab, combine this with compensations, compensated Rx's being supplied in 0.01D, and the need for smaller aperature digital lensometers for proper verification and the  dispenser is left  without an adequate way to verify the lens and the manufacturer/lab would have no vested interest other than sales of the product to accurately verify the design and Rx.

Now I know labs that misplace returns and credits accidentaly on purpose, this is not the kind of lab that I would trust with my FF lens production.  Our profession is based on science not faith, so I prefer their be some form of verifiction other than faith available to the dispenser.  This means that somewhere along the line ECPs need to adopt more accurate equipment that can verify these lenses, for the time being I have a lab that I trust that uses sophisticated equipment in their verification process, they are family owned and have built a reputation on quality before FF came out.  I will trust them until a better way to verify comes along.

----------


## AWTECH

> Now I know labs that misplace returns and credits accidentaly on purpose, this is not the kind of lab that I would trust with my FF lens production. Our profession is based on science not faith, so I prefer their be some form of verifiction other than faith available to the dispenser. This means that somewhere along the line ECPs need to adopt more accurate equipment that can verify these lenses, for the time being I have a lab that I trust that uses sophisticated equipment in their verification process, they are family owned and have built a reputation on quality before FF came out. I will trust them until a better way to verify comes along.


There is verification possible today.  

Our designs have specific information to verify to.  We check this with every lens.  Does that mean that a mistake will not be made.  No

Computers can crash, humans can make mistakes, but in our facility we pride ourselves in have some to best digital surfacing and/or freeform knowledge and capabilities.  Our related company Advanced Lens Technologies, LLC develops and consults with companies around the world on freeform and freeform processes.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> What I got from this thread is that their is no QC standard, Darryl mentioned that opticians don't release QC standards to their patients, in my case that is correct and in most cases that is correct, but the QC standard is ANSI... I think the only reason why I don't give this data to the pateint is becuase no one has asked. It is written and available...


We are talking about two very different things.

The ANSI Z80.1 standard is obviously a public document, which your patients could obtain with minimal effort. However, the ANSI Standard tolerances are not the results of a quality audit or inspection, they are the guidelines for conducting one. Providing these guidelines in no way indicates how close a given pair of eyeglasses is to them.

Eye care professionals generally don't submit a report to their patients listing the measured value against each guideline in the ANSI Standard for every pair of eyeglasses, nor do laboratories submit such a report to eye care professionals. At each stage of the supply chain, we only pass it on to the next if we feel that the product meets our own quality guidelines (i.e., the eyewear "passes" inspection).

But the proposed scenario of providing a detailed analysis of the lens, while not without its merits, still assumes that eye care professionals would "take the laboratory's word for it" anyway once they receive a report, contour plot, or whatever from the lab, especially without extensive training in the interpretation of the results. And ECPs are still responsible for independently verifying the results for themselves.

I have no doubt, however, that such a quality assurance system may eventually become the new standard of lens inspection someday, as free-form lenses become more pervasive and digital inspection devices become more affordable, but it will involve a pretty steep learning curve.

----------


## AWTECH

Darryl said:


> I have no doubt, however, that such a quality assurance system may eventually become the new standard of lens inspection someday, as free-form lenses become more pervasive and digital inspection devices become more affordable, but it will involve a pretty steep learning curve.


I agree with the above post.  In addition I would like to add that I believe the Optician inspection detail that is still being performed is a bit overkill today.  I think the correct measurements for fitting are very important but the number of incorrectly made lenses from quality run facilities getting past the internal verification is very few.

It would be interesting to have a study that would check the glasses for patient fit only then see how many patients complain, and see what percentage is due to lenses getting past the final inspection and verification where they were made.   I think the percentage shipped that were incorrectly processed is very low.  My guess is there will many more errors such as, Rx wrong, or PD not right etc.

The quality control for lenses today by quality labs is pretty good.  With lens mapping measurement equipment being available that can be set with specific go or no go settings, lenses can be acurrately verified before leaving the facility where they were produced.  This is an excellent way to verify freeform lenses, then the only final check is the PD, and height and alignment of the engraving marks so that both lenses are on axis. (If the marks are engraved after generation the chance of the design being off axis is almost non-existant.

----------


## Barry Santini

Isolated inspection and verification of finished eyewear, even using advanced technology for QC ensurance, can only...at best, IMHO, ensure that the eyewear has a chance to be considered "adequate".

It can never be excellent, when it is divorced from dispenser/client interaction and experience.

Moving the public to love the idea of wearing eyewear...prescription or not... is not within the payscale of a lab or online delivery.

ANYONE who thinks that "correctly-made" eyewear is all about what goes on just at the lab level, is, again - IMHO, naive about the complete eyewear experience.

Adequate is NOT excellent. Never has been. Never will be.

Choose your weapon.

Barry

----------


## Fezz

Great thread!

Lots of valuable information!

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

----------


## YrahG

> I have no doubt, however, that such a quality assurance system may eventually become the new standard of lens inspection someday, as free-form lenses become more pervasive and digital inspection devices become more affordable, but it will involve a pretty steep learning curve.


Agreed, there has to be a set standard that will be accepted for the verification of FF lenses on both ends the dispenser and the laboratory.  I pointed out ANSI in my post to show that a concrete standard for a tolerance exists and it is transparent.  My lab doesn't supply me with any specific data because I can just as easily check it, but they do tell me that "all lenses meet or exceed ANSI" and they supply me with an ANSI summary at my request.  In contrast with FF their exists no standard to check against and I fear that ANSI is not adequate, with no standard each laboratory is free to make up their own, which is fine, but their is no information available to me the dispenser as to what this standard is or a way for me to feasably check it against this standard if one existed.  This technology is still feeling growing pains, still has issues, and still has room for improvement still very fascinating.

As an example if I was to throw ANSI out the window I could reduce the cost of lenses by a certain percentage since their would be no failed lenses.  An OMD on this board was just suggesting this very same principle regarding prism tolerance as a means to save a few dollars.  With more and more labs offering FF lenses their needs to be a way to verify lenses as competition increases the margins on the product get cut and we'll start to see a rash of poor quality masquaradeing as precision.  Also with the ability of every lab to create their own design I don't want to see  1970's PAL tehnology processed with FF start flooding the market.  That's just not what I want.

----------


## YrahG

> Isolated inspection and verification of finished eyewear, even using advanced technology for QC ensurance, can only...at best, IMHO, ensure that the eyewear has a chance to be considered "adequate".
> 
> It can never be excellent, when it is divorced from dispenser/client interaction and experience.
> 
> Moving the public to love the idea of wearing eyewear...prescription or not... is not within the payscale of a lab or online delivery.
> 
> ANYONE who thinks that "correctly-made" eyewear is all about what goes on just at the lab level, is, again - IMHO, naive about the complete eyewear experience.
> 
> Adequate is NOT excellent. Never has been. Never will be.
> ...


Nicely put, I of course advocate precision on the part of the dispenser as a prerequisite to any eyewear experience.  Thank you everyone lots of great replies and comments, they keep the juices flowing.

----------


## AWTECH

YrahG


> Also with the ability of every lab to create their own design I don't want to see 1970's PAL tehnology processed with FF start flooding the market. That's just not what I want.


I don't know what how you think this will happen.  Designing a PAL for freeform use is not a simple task.

Don't think that only the big name companies can create great lens designs.  People create, whether they work for a large company or small one.

----------


## YrahG

> YrahG
> 
> I don't know what how you think this will happen. Designing a PAL for freeform use is not a simple task.
> 
> Don't think that only the big name companies can create great lens designs. People create, whether they work for a large company or small one.


Agreed, but that same philosophy applies to people cheating.  People cheat, wheather they work for a large company or small one.

I hope you don't get the impression I am talking about your company, I have had no dealings with you to base anything off.

----------


## AWTECH

> Also with the ability of every lab to create their own design I don't want to see 1970's PAL tehnology processed with FF start flooding the market. That's just not what I want.


I was only pointing out the fact that a great deal of good products are available from smaller companies.  In fact there are many smaller companies providing products and services to the big companines. Then the big companies market these products under their own name. (But that is true with many industries)

----------


## YrahG

> I was only pointing out the fact that a great deal of good products are available from smaller companies. In fact there are many smaller companies providing products and services to the big companines. Then the big companies market these products under their own name. (But that is true with many industries)


Agreed.  I wish more specifics were available, but that's business.

----------


## AWTECH

> Agreed. I wish more specifics were available, but that's business.


I know in our case we offer as much specifics as possible unless the questions get into our specific processes we developed.  As an example we are glad to explain in detail to our customers why we and how we our software works, but we won't give you our source code.

Posting or putting to much detail in general product literature just gets lost.  With all of our technology being in the same building that our customers get their lenses from we have better access to specific information than many larger companies.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both large and smaller companies.  The customers of each have to decide which of those advantages they consider more beneficial to them.

----------


## YrahG

> I know in our case we offer as much specifics as possible unless the questions get into our specific processes we developed. As an example we are glad to explain in detail to our customers why we and how we our software works, but we won't give you our source code.
> 
> Posting or putting to much detail in general product literature just gets lost. With all of our technology being in the same building that our customers get their lenses from we have better access to specific information than many larger companies.
> 
> There are advantages and disadvantages to both large and smaller companies. The customers of each have to decide which of those advantages they consider more beneficial to them.


Is your progressive a multi design, does it change based on add alone or prescription as well?
Is your progressive asymmetrical?
Does your lens incorporate horizontal symmetry?
Does your progressive design change based on provided panto, dihedral, and vertex measurements or are these measures used just to compensate the prescritpion?
Does your design have the capability for variable inset?

If I had these questions answered by every manufacturer I would be able to do my job to a greater degree of accuracy, more than what the technology currently offers in the form of accuracy.  If you can provide a break down of PRP to DRP, minimum seg hght, and a cutout chart I would be set.

----------


## AWTECH

YrahG


> Is your progressive a multi design, does it change based on add alone or prescription as well?
> Is your progressive asymmetrical?
> Does your lens incorporate horizontal symmetry?
> Does your progressive design change based on provided panto, dihedral, and vertex measurements or are these measures used just to compensate the prescritpion?
> Does your design have the capability for variable inset?


We design lenses and the terms that different opticians adapt to try to describe various freeform lenses seems to me, to make it more confusing.  The variables the optician can provide are frame information, standard prescription information including vertex distance.  

So first I will have to know what you think each term actually means and what you should be able to specify

----------


## Darryl Meister

> So first I will have to know what you think each term actually means and what you should be able to specify


The terms actually refer to pretty specific lens design features:

Is your progressive a multi design, does it change based on add alone or prescription as well? - _multi-design_ refers to a progressive lens design that changes based upon the addition power; _Design by Rx_ refers to a lens design that changes based upon the addition power and the base curve (distance Rx). These design changes generally include a change in viewing zone size or softness and a change in corridor length. Examples include SOLA Percepta, SOLAOne, Essilor Ovation, Essilor Accolade, etcetera.

Is your progressive asymmetrical? - _asymmetrical_ refers to the use of a lens design with a near zone inset achieved through optical design; _symmetrical_, on the other hand, refers to a lens design with a near zone inset ahcieved through a mechanical rotation of the design. Asymmetric lens designs generally have significantly higher magnitudes of astigmatism in the nasal region of each lens, but much better binocular alignment between the distance, intermediate, and near zones of the right and lenses compared to symmetrical lens designs.

Does your lens incorporate horizontal symmetry? - _horizontal symmetry_ refers to a lens design that has been optimized binocularly by minimizing differences in power, prism, and magnification between corresponding points on the right and left lenses to improve binocular fusion. This essentially achieves the viewing zone alignment benefits of asymmetry without the excess astigmatism in the nasal region of the lens, which would otherwise disrupt binocular fusion.

Does your progressive design change based on provided panto, dihedral, and vertex measurements or are these measures used just to compensate the prescritpion? - This is a very important distinction. Some laboratories may "tweak" the prescription using software in order to compensate the prescription for lens tilt. This is only effective, however, for the optics over a very small region of the distance zone. Certain free-form lenses actually calculate the correct prescription compensation at many points over the lens design in order to improve the optics of the entire lens. This requires a point-by-point adjustment to the asphericity at each point over the lens surface though, which requires pretty sophisticated optical design software used in conjunction with a free-form delivery system.

Does your design have the capability for variable inset? - _variable inset_ refers to an adjustment to the inset of the intermediate and near zones in order to compensate for the effects of prism induced by the distance zone and the additional convergence required for higher addition powers. With traditional lenses, this is often calculated for each base curve and addition power combination. With certain free-form lenses, it is possible to compute the proper inset for every prescription combination as well as for the position of wear, which can also influence convergence. Examples include Zeiss Individual, Hoyalux iD, etcetera.

----------


## AWTECH

What I was trying to point out is these terms are not specific known terms by all opticians.  And too much information offers a great deal of misunderstanding of the capablilties of one lens over another.  Many of these features are maybe included in the design by one company with no marketing splash, while another company talks about how great their variable or multi this or that is.  As an example the term Digital Surfacing was introduced a few years ago and immediately there were molded lenses being marketed as Digital, the devil was in the details, as they were referring to digital molds, which most of their competitors also used, but did not promote.  All of a sudden the word Digital became a misunderstood lens.  Was it digitally surfaced or was it a molded lens produced in a digital mold???  This is just one example

----------


## Darryl Meister

> What I was trying to point out is these terms are not specific known terms by all opticians.


I agree, but I wouldn't necessarily invite people to make up new terms to describe these features, or attempt to redefine existing terms, when there are already perfectly acceptable and commonly used terms in our lexicon of lens design terminology. This would simply add further to the confusion.




> As an example the term Digital Surfacing was introduced a few years ago and immediately there were molded lenses being marketed as Digital,... Was it digitally surfaced or was it a molded lens produced in a digital mold???


I don't know that the term _digital surfacing_ is misunderstood by eye care professionals, but I do agree that some manufacturers have not been enitrely clear when it comes to identifying exactly how digital surfacing is actually used in the manufacturing process of their lenses.

But what troubles me the most is the general assumption in the marketplace that "digital surfacing" is synonymous with optically "customized" lenses, which has been precipitated by some free-form lens suppliers. Not necessarily all lenses that are referred to as "digitally surfaced" offer significant visual benefits to the wearer over traditional, semi-finished progressive lenses.

----------


## AWTECH

Also what enters into the degree of difficulty with the explaination of digital or freeform lenses is the range of optican knowledge and skills.  For example you can have a skilled optician owned one man show store that is extremely knowledgeable the lens company needs to sell to and in another state or anothe town or right across the street you can have an optician in an unlicensed state that 2 weeks ago had another job, where they said, "Would you like fries with that"

Think about the difficulty of how much detail one of these can absorb vs the other.

You can keep feeding more and more information for marketing, such as lenses design using ray tracing.  One type of multiple ray tracing is better than another because of X.

On top of all of this we are being asked to make a lens where the Dr. is prescribing within a 1/4 of a diopter.

Just some of the basic dynamics to work around

----------


## Fezz

> I don't know that the term _digital surfacing_ is misunderstood by eye care professionals, but I do agree that some manufacturers have not been enitrely clear when it comes to identifying exactly how digital surfacing is actually used in the manufacturing process of their lenses.
> 
> But what troubles me the most is the general assumption in the marketplace that "digital surfacing" is synonymous with optically "customized" lenses, which has been precipitated by some free-form lens suppliers. Not necessarily all lenses that are referred to as "digitally surfaced" offer significant visual benefits to the wearer over traditional, semi-finished progressive lenses.


:cheers::cheers::cheers:

----------


## RT

> Does your progressive design change based on provided panto, dihedral, and vertex measurements or are these measures used just to compensate the prescritpion?


If it did, what percentage of the ECP's do you think would actually supply panto, dihedral, and vertex measurements with each order?

----------


## AWTECH

> If it did, what percentage of the ECP's do you think would actually supply panto, dihedral, and vertex measurements with each order?


We digitally surface only and we provide the ability to set panto, dihedral and vertex.

I did a quick calculation to see what the difference was in a nomal non-wrap frame:

Refracted prescription:  -0.50, -0.25, 32

We assume a non-compensated lens has 6 degrees of frame angle and 4 degrees of panto as very few frames have 0 for either of these.  This also assumes a 13.5 vertex distance

Now if the patient picks a frame with 8 degrees of frame angle the new compensated numbers would be:  -0.50, -0.24, 32

Then they pick another frame with an 8 degree frame angle but it sits 1mm closer to their pupil so the vertex distance is 12.5mm now.  This new compensated prescription would be:  0.50, 0.23, 32

You can see by this example what a small change a nomal dress wear lens makes in the required prescription due to these individualized measurements.  What is the chance of all opticians getting the same reading for these values?  If this patient went to 10 stores and saw 10 different opticians, what are the chances each will measure the frame angle, the panto angle and the vertex distance exactly alike?  Likewise if the patient has 10 different eye exams on the same day and asked for the prescription to be accurate to within 0.01 diopters, how many doctors could even write this?  Would any of the 10 be exactly the same?

My point is that after years of developing technically advanced lens making capabilities in both processes and design there is a practical aspect that must be considered.

Does the frame angle get measured by one optician on the counter off of the patient while another one has a way to measure the width of the frame in the as worn position.  These two different ways to measure will almost surely result in two different fram angles for the same frame. (The more correct one would be the one in the as worn position).

----------


## Fezz

> If it did, what percentage of the ECP's do you think would actually supply panto, dihedral, and vertex measurements with each order?


What percentage actually has the tools to take these measurements?

What are the tools to measure these values and how can the average ECP get a hold of such equipment?

Does such equipment exist?

----------


## AWTECH

> What percentage actually has the tools to take these measurements?
> 
> What are the tools to measure these values and how can the average ECP get a hold of such equipment?
> 
> Does such equipment exist?


Great point, yes there are some tools for this then there is the education of how to use these without producing more errors in lenses than good information that will actually produce a product the patient can see better with.  

As I showed in my example the amout of change is so minimal vs the opportunity to really supply bad data for the facility making the lens that in my opinion a simple system that uses the existing known prescription information and the know frame information will result in the production of better quality lenses, maybe not as good as as one made with data that only one out of 100 Opticians could take accurately, but still very good, (and with less tolerance than the refraction produced).

----------


## Fezz

> Great point, yes there are some tools for this then there is the education of how to use these without producing more errors in lenses than good information that will actually produce a product the patient can see better with.


Examples?

----------


## AWTECH

> Examples?


I will let others from the different companies that offer these tools respond.  I know of some but probably not all and I would do their products justice trying to decribe and explain how they work as have not used these on a daily basis.  

We have our own tools in house to measure the frame wrap angles for wrap around frames.

We do make a math calculation for certain prescriptions where vertex distance will make some difference but it is rarely a significant correction to the total power.

Darryl, can probably explain any tools Zeiss has to measure the angles and distance.

----------


## Fezz

> I will let others from the different companies that offer these tools respond.  I know of some but probably not all and I would do their products justice trying to decribe and explain how they work as have not used these on a daily basis.


Good post Awtech.

You do expose one of the major shortcomings of this whole discussion. We have these fantastical, magical, most accurate lenses *EVER*, yet....how in the hell are we as dispensers supposed to measure them and supply you, the manufacturer, with the most accurate measurements to assure that the final end user gets exactly what they paid for? Who supplies the tools to do it? What classes are there to aide us? Are there classes to aide us?

I have yet to see a lens, or lab rep, that has come into my practice with the tools, the know how, and the experience to show me what to do or how to do it. Sure, many have said how accurate the new fangled whatever lens is....but yet, they can not supply me with the tools or the proper fitting techniques to supply them the magic numbers that supposedly make these new lenses so great.

Slight sidetrack:
I was visited by a Carl Zeiss Vision rep today and her manager (?) today. The topic of discussion was about the *NEW* Reveal lens that Zeiss and VSP have. They are pushing this product. The new rep was doing her best to impress me with how easy it is to submit this lens through VSP. I asked how long it has been since she became our new rep?

A year and a half! I have never met her. 

When I pressed her on the measurement issues, she said that they did have a tool and could set up a in-office seminar to instruct me in its use. I told her that I actually had the little square widget tool, and that I had it for a while, and that I didn't need the seminar.

Now, I live and practice outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Not exactly New York or LA, but not exactly Obscure Town, USA either. 

I have not seen a Shamir rep in two, maybe three years. I can't tell you the last time that I saw an Essilor/Varilux rep. I know that those three companies have measuring tools to help us take these various measurements that are supposed to insure the greatest progressives known to man. Yet, not one of these companies has provided my ofice with any of them, let alone the training on their use and why to use them. I have tried to get them, with ZERO success!

I am fortunate to have enough grey matter left, and lucky enough to have a few friends who have gotten me some measuring devices to assist me in these endeavors. But, if I have this hard of a time getting this kind of stuff, what does the ECP in the middle of Nowheresville, USA get this stuff?

This is way long winded, but I think most will see my point. So, where does one start in getting the proper equipment, and the correct use of that equipment to allow folks like Awtech, Shamir, Zeiss, etc, fabricate these so called sophisticated lenses?

It really is rather frustrating.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> You can see by this example what a small change a nomal dress wear lens makes in the required prescription due to these individualized measurements.


I agree that, if you are only applying basic prescription compensation to the lens without modifying the actual lens design for the position of wear, many patients should not expect a meaningful visual benefit.

For that matter, since any eye care professional can download a simple prescription compensation program from OptiBoard free of charge, there is really very little reason to pay more for a lens that offers only prescription compensation without any real improvements to the lens design.

The interaction of the position of wear with the optics of a progressive lens is far more complex than a simple change to the distance prescription at the center of the distance zone though. This is why it is important to understand exactly what your "digital" or free-form lens of choice actually offers to wearers beyond traditional lenses.




> What are the tools to measure these values and how can the average ECP get a hold of such equipment?





> Darryl, can probably explain any tools Zeiss has to measure the angles and distance.


Inexpensive tools to measure the position of wear are available from certain lens manufacturers. Carl Zeiss Vision makes one available to eye care professionals to use in conjunction with Zeiss Individual. You should contact your local CZV representative if you are interested in our line of dispensing tools for customized lenses.

Several companies now offer more sophisticated digital centration devices that take position of wear measurements. The i.Terminal from Carl Zeiss Vision is certainly one example that has already enjoyed a great deal of success in Europe, but there are several more available to eye care professionals as well. I don't want this thread to disintegrate into an infomercial, so I'll keep the product-specific discussions to a minimum.

Of course, there are many benefits that these devices offer in addition to the capability of measuring the position of wear. The better digital centration systems on the market will take extremely accurate and precise measurements with high repeatability (to Fezz's point). Some even offer premium lens treatment demonstrations, patient tutorials, "magic mirror" functionality, and so on.

The overall patient experience is also enhanced with these devices, since digital centration devices a convey the practice's dedication to the use of cutting-edge technology for patient care. Focus groups have demonstrated that eyewear consumers would feel far more confident in purchasing premium progressive lenses that were measured using state-of-the-art digital centration technology compared to lenses that were measured by taking a plastic PD ruler to Vis-a-Vis blobs. Regardless of our dispensing ability, patient satisfaction often boils down to buyer perceptions.

----------


## Fezz

> Regardless of our dispensing ability, patient satisfaction often boils down to buyer perceptions.


That may be the most important statement in this entire thread!

Well said Darryl!


:cheers::cheers::cheers:

----------


## YrahG

> I know in our case we offer as much specifics as possible unless the questions get into our specific processes we developed.





> YrahG
> 
> We design lenses and the terms that different opticians adapt to try to describe various freeform lenses seems to me, to make it more confusing. The variables the optician can provide are frame information, standard prescription information including vertex distance. 
> 
> So first I will have to know what you think each term actually means and what you should be able to specify


I don't expect to be able to specify anything, I was invited by your statement to ask for specifics other than your processes. I have no interest in advertising your progressive lens design if you choose not to discuss it's merits please keep the benefits of your lenses to yourself.




> The terms actually refer to pretty specific lens design features:
> 
> Is your progressive a multi design, does it change based on add alone or prescription as well? - _multi-design_ refers to a progressive lens design that changes based upon the addition power; _Design by Rx_ refers to a lens design that changes based upon the addition power and the base curve (distance Rx). These design changes generally include a change in viewing zone size or softness and a change in corridor length. Examples include SOLA Percepta, SOLAOne, Essilor Ovation, Essilor Accolade, etcetera.
> 
> Is your progressive asymmetrical? - _asymmetrical_ refers to the use of a lens design with a near zone inset achieved through optical design; _symmetrical_, on the other hand, refers to a lens design with a near zone inset ahcieved through a mechanical rotation of the design. Asymmetric lens designs generally have significantly higher magnitudes of astigmatism in the nasal region of each lens, but much better binocular alignment between the distance, intermediate, and near zones of the right and lenses compared to symmetrical lens designs.
> 
> Does your lens incorporate horizontal symmetry? - _horizontal symmetry_ refers to a lens design that has been optimized binocularly by minimizing differences in power, prism, and magnification between corresponding points on the right and left lenses to improve binocular fusion. This essentially achieves the viewing zone alignment benefits of asymmetry without the excess astigmatism in the nasal region of the lens, which would otherwise disrupt binocular fusion.
> 
> Does your progressive design change based on provided panto, dihedral, and vertex measurements or are these measures used just to compensate the prescritpion? - This is a very important distinction. Some laboratories may "tweak" the prescription using software in order to compensate the prescription for lens tilt. This is only effective, however, for the optics over a very small region of the distance zone. Certain free-form lenses actually calculate the correct prescription compensation at many points over the lens design in order to improve the optics of the entire lens. This requires a point-by-point adjustment to the asphericity at each point over the lens surface though, which requires pretty sophisticated optical design software used in conjunction with a free-form delivery system.
> ...


Thank you those definitions are textbook, I don't think I would have come close to the level of thoroughness exhibited in that post.

----------


## YrahG

> If it did, what percentage of the ECP's do you think would actually supply panto, dihedral, and vertex measurements with each order?


If I could take a stab at it less than 5%.  None of the technology that goes into these advanced designs is meant to create an idiot proof lens, unfortunately.

----------


## YrahG

Zeiss:
They have a type of plumb bob tool, which has a weighted dial and is pressed against the patients frame in the as worn position with the dial pointing to the correct panto measure. It is made of blue anodized aluminum about 65mm x 65mm square.

The individuals centration chart has a guage on the back of the chart which allows the frames dihedral angle to be measured.

Varilux:
I receieved a tool from a friend from the UK, it is a sophisticated looking PD device, which incorporates vertex, seg hght, PD, panto, and dihedral measures to be taken. It is made of plastic 190mm x 80mm and comes with printed directions for it's use.

Shamir:
Rumor mill has it they have their own device, I have yet to see one although I have heard about it profusely.

Images attahed below, these are the tools that I use. As discussed above the as worn dihedral angle can be less when taken off the patient. I try my best to adjust frames so that they exhibit 3 point touch even in the case of wrap frames I am looking for very little to no preasure on the side of the face, this will reduce the disparity what little is left was shown above to be negligable in the scheme of things or impractial to measure at best.

----------


## Fezz

> *1.)* Zeiss:
> They have a type of plumb bob tool, which has a weighted dial and is pressed against the patients frame in the as worn position with the dial pointing to the correct panto measure. It is made of blue anodized aluminum about 65mm x 65mm square.
> 
> The individuals centration chart has a guage on the back of the chart which allows the frames dihedral angle to be measured.
> 
> *2.)* Varilux:
> I receieved a tool from a friend from the UK, it is a sophisticated looking PD device, which incorporates vertex, seg hght, PD, panto, and dihedral measures to be taken. It is made of plastic 190mm x 80mm and comes with printed directions for it's use.
> 
> *3.)* Shamir:
> ...


*1.)* DOH!! I got one also...but mine is plastic. I am jealous!

*2.)* Got it too! Lucky us!!

*3.)* I have heard such tales. I have yet to locate one though!

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

----------


## YrahG

> *1.)* DOH!! I got one also...but mine is plastic. I am jealous!
> 
> *2.)* Got it too! Lucky us!!
> 
> *3.)* I have heard such tales. I have yet to locate one though!
> 
> :cheers::cheers::cheers:


I have a plastic Zeiss one as well, I had that first and recently had my rep drop off a metal one. I have been waiting to see the Shamir device.

----------


## Laurie

Hello All,

I am in Indiana right now for an optical thing, and so FREEZING!!!  Forgot what it is like to be up North in winter time!

Fezzy, your ears are good...there is something on the way from Shamir.  They developed a measuring device, the 'Panorameter', to supply measurements for tilt, wrap, vertex...

I understand it is used in other parts of the world, just has not arrived here yet (shipping/customs, something like that)...

Vision Care Product News showed a pic once, it is plastic, with attachments that swivel to get quality as-worn measurements.  Also, a cool thing about it, is that you can dial in the patient's PD when you measure wrap...as the angle will change depending on the PD, it is more accurate than laying the frame down on a wrap-angle chart.

In the meantime, you can find/dust-off your Distometer for VD...   : )

If measurements are not given, the lens design software will default to norms for Panto Tilt and Wrap.

I have one that I am playing around with to help create a tutorial, so when they arrive, ECP's will understand how to use it.

: )

Laurie

----------


## YrahG

> Hello All,
> 
> I am in Indiana right now for an optical thing, and so FREEZING!!! Forgot what it is like to be up North in winter time!
> 
> Fezzy, your ears are good...there is something on the way from Shamir. They developed a measuring device, the 'Panorameter', to supply measurements for tilt, wrap, vertex...
> 
> I understand it is used in other parts of the world, just has not arrived here yet (shipping/customs, something like that)...
> 
> Vision Care Product News showed a pic once, it is plastic, with attachments that swivel to get quality as-worn measurements. Also, a cool thing about it, is that you can dial in the patient's PD when you measure wrap...as the angle will change depending on the PD, it is more accurate than laying the frame down on a wrap-angle chart.
> ...


Thank you for the name of the device Laurie, I found an image:

http://www.visionmonday.com/ViewCont...3/Default.aspx

It looks similar to the Physio F-360 measureing device except it looks like a two piece device.  I look forward to using it.

----------


## Fezz

Thanks for the update Laurie!

:cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:

----------


## rdcoach5

> What percentage actually has the tools to take these measurements?
> 
> What are the tools to measure these values and how can the average ECP get a hold of such equipment?
> 
> Does such equipment exist?


Fezz, my Zeiss rep gave us some pretty simple tools to measure wrap , panto and vertex dist , although vertex dist is just as easily measured with a PD ruler.

----------


## Barry Santini

> The interaction of the position of wear with the optics of a progressive lens is far more complex than a simple change to the distance prescription at the center of the distance zone though. 
> 
> This is why it is important to understand exactly what your "digital" or free-form lens of choice actually offers to wearers beyond traditional lenses.


Thanks, Darryl.  I've added my emphasis.

The thing is, though, that I'm thinking that NONE of the manufacturers are willing to divulge just what their "secret (design) sauce" actually is, so an ECP could begin to differentiate potential design benefits.

My take: all the high quality designs are closer than they are different.

Discussion?

B

----------


## Darryl Meister

> The thing is, though, that I'm thinking that NONE of the manufacturers are willing to divulge just what their "secret (design) sauce" actually is, so an ECP could begin to differentiate potential design benefits


I agree that most manufacturers are very vague regarding the actual lens design attributres of their free-form products, but I'm not sure how much more detail anyone could possibly want from Carl Zeiss Vision regarding our "secret (design) sauce": Individual white paper and Individual Single Vision white paper...

----------


## YrahG

> I agree that most manufacturers are very vague regarding the actual lens design attributres of their free-form products, but I'm not sure how much more detail anyone could possibly want from Carl Zeiss Vision regarding our "secret (design) sauce": Individual white paper and Individual Single Vision white paper...


I apreciate the graph on page 3 "Wavefront Aberrations" I like the visual of astigmatism, defocus, trfoil, and coma. It would be noticed that by the image you could say that coma is reduced by more than 50%, but you can see that this effect is negligable same with trfoil. It's not the information available, but it's raw form that allows the optician to educate themselves.

Another great example that I have liked about this white paper: traditional lens right next to the individual on the base curve chart, it becoems evident that in certain cases the traditional lens is going to offer comparable optics to the individual, this chart can actually be used to see the "WOW" effect that could be expected from the individual version.

Data was calculated using a 6mm pupil diameter, this is important when comparing too small of a pupil size and effects from coma, sph aberration, etc are minimized making the lens performance better than expected in a real life scenario.

Design is produced on the fly with the prescription taken into account, this is very important as I mentioned above in my questions regarding what I need to know about a PAL design, if the lens is compensated for prescription this is done so that the DRP is optimized, however if the compensation is done to the design as well we are ensured that the entire surface matches the optimal perfromance that the designers intended.

"Each Zeiss Individual
lens is optically optimized online by Carl Zeiss Vision’s opticaldesign engine using the wearer’s exact prescription requirements"

Does this mean that the software resides on the Zeiss servers with the lab LMS connecting and sending the needed data to Zeiss and then recieving the required data file to produce the lens? Almost seems that way with the wording.

"By fine-tuning the optical design of the lens for the
exact prescription, residual lens aberrations are virtually eliminated,
resulting in up to 50% wider fields of clear vision."

I make my assumption that this means compared to the minkwitz theory. Is that something that you can confirm or deny?

"Furthermore, unwanted changes to the location and shape of the
viewing zones are also eliminated, preserving the binocular utilityof the lenses with wide, symmetrical fields of view"

The lens has horizontal symmetry.

"Moreover, progressive lenses produced by free-form surfacing must
be frequently validated against the target designs by “mapping”
the optics over the entire lens (Figure 17). Failure to validate the
production quality of a free-form surfacing process on a regular
basis can lead to inferior quality compared to traditional lens
molding, if the process begins to “drift” from best practice. Freeform
progressive lenses from Carl Zeiss Vision must meet stringentquality guidelines and optical design specifications."


Thank you for the open discussion on the QC measures needed to deliver the "promise". This white paper is truly exceptional and I have a copy sitting at both home and work.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Does this mean that the software resides on the Zeiss servers with the lab LMS connecting and sending the needed data to Zeiss and then recieving the required data file to produce the lens?


Yes, that's exactly what it means: The laboratory's computer connects to a central ZEISS server, which calculates the lens design and transmits the data back to the lab.




> I make my assumption that this means compared to the minkwitz theory. Is that something that you can confirm or deny?


In this particular context, the 50% wider claim pertains to the increase in fields of view produced by optimizing the lens design for the wearer's exact prescription requirements and position of wear.

However, because Individual also utilizes a variable corridor length, the viewing zones will also be wider due to Minkwitz's theorem at many fitting heights compared to "standard" progressive lenses with only one or two corridor lengths.




> This white paper is truly exceptional


I certainly appreciate the positive feedback. I also do all of the optical analysis, layout work, and illustrations for our technical pieces, so these take a fair bit of effort to put together. So I'm glad to know that someone out there is reading this stuff!

----------


## Fezz

> Fezzy, your ears are good...there is something on the way from Shamir. They developed a measuring device, the 'Panorameter', to supply measurements for tilt, wrap, vertex...
> 
> I understand it is used in other parts of the world, just has not arrived here yet (shipping/customs, something like that)...


They have hit the shores!


I am now the proud owner of my very own Panorameter!

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

----------


## TLG

> They have hit the shores!
>  I am now the proud owner of my very own Panorameter!
> :cheers::cheers::cheers:


 :cry:  I WANT ONE TOO!!  :cry:

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> They have hit the shores!
> 
> 
> I am now the proud owner of my very own Panorameter!
> 
> :cheers::cheers::cheers:


I got mine from my rep last Friday. Pretty neat how they did the dihedral (face-form angle) measurement. I was using Darryl's "Basic Frame Wrap Angle Protractor" but this looks like it will be more accurate, although the two I checked so far were withing one degree. The Panto measurer seems a little stiff- I'm concerned I might scratch the lens on the finished product at dispense. I'll probably keep using Zeiss's non-contact metal device with the similar plumb line system. The vertex measuring ruler is better than guessing, but for more accuracy I would use a distometer.

----------


## OCP

> I got mine from my rep last Friday. Pretty neat how they did the dihedral (face-form angle) measurement. I was using Darryl's "Basic Frame Wrap Angle Protractor" but this looks like it will be more accurate, although the two I checked so far were withing one degree. The Panto measurer seems a little stiff- I'm concerned I might scratch the lens on the finished product at dispense. I'll probably keep using Zeiss's non-contact metal device with the similar plumb line system. The vertex measuring ruler is better than guessing, but for more accuracy I would use a distometer.


Please note that Shamir are using a different calculation value compared to other devices. The value is 90 degree higher.

Mike

----------


## Fezz

> I got mine from my rep last Friday. Pretty neat how they did the dihedral (face-form angle) measurement. I was using Darryl's "Basic Frame Wrap Angle Protractor" but this looks like it will be more accurate, although the two I checked so far were withing one degree. The Panto measurer seems a little stiff- I'm concerned I might scratch the lens on the finished product at dispense. I'll probably keep using Zeiss's non-contact metal device with the similar plumb line system. The vertex measuring ruler is better than guessing, but for more accuracy I would use a distometer.


 
I like the basic idea of the tool. I chuckled at first glance. My first impression is how can you claim to have such highly sophisticated and accurate lenses, made with highly sophisticated machinery, by using measurements from something so rickety and unsophisticated? 

:o:cheers::cheers::cheers: :cry:

----------


## OCP

> I like the basic idea of the tool. I chuckled at first glance. My first impression is how can you claim to have such highly sophisticated and accurate lenses, made with highly sophisticated machinery, by using measurements from something so rickety and unsophisticated? 
> 
> :o:cheers::cheers::cheers:


This is actually one of the basis ideas from Shamir, not to have sophisticated machinery to make the best lenses out there.
-and the lenses will be ordered with perfect frame curve measure every time.

Look at the little Pat.#. This is the only tool that measure the frame curve where it´s most important....right in the pupil. :)

Mike

----------


## AWTECH

> This is actually one of the basis ideas from Shamir, not to have sophisticated machinery to make the best lenses out there.
> -and the lenses will be ordered with perfect frame curve measure every time.
> 
> Look at the little Pat.#. This is the only tool that measure the frame curve in the must important area....right in the pupil. :)
> 
> Mike


I have not yet seen this Shamir tool, but measuring and/or calculating the frame, (lens curve), is very important.  As the frame angle and lens angle are different.

To illustrate think of an 8 base wrap large A measurement frame.  With a narrow PD. The angle of the front of the lens compared to angle of the frame is much less.  With a 0.50 base curve lens in the same frame the frame angle is now almost the same as the lens angle.

I think there is more room for error by the optician trying to accurately measure the lens curve vs. measuring the frame curve angle.

----------


## Laurie

Hi Fezzy, glad to know all's ashore. : )




> Please note that Shamir are using a different calculation value compared to other devices. The value is 90 degree higher.
> 
> Mike


Correct, Mike, 

My understanding is:

If the ECP supplies a wrap angle (5, 10, degrees), the visual software program (Prescriptor) will know that the frame was likely placed on a printed angle chart, the PD was not involved, and adapt the calculations.

If the ECP supplies a wrap angle (95, 100, 105 degrees), the software will know that the Panorameter was used, and know that the PD is incorporated, and adapt the calculations.

And, Robert, I agree, dusting off the ol' distometer is a good thing....a trusted and trued (no pun intended) device.

: )

Laurie

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> If the ECP supplies a wrap angle (95, 100, 105 degrees), the software will know that the Panorameter was used, and know that the PD is incorporated, and adapt the calculations.


Thanks for the heads up!




> And, Robert, I agree, dusting off the ol' distometer is a good thing


No dust here- I use it almost every day. Mine says "Distometer" by The House of Vision Chicago IL. Pat. Pending.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Hi Fezzy, glad to know all's ashore. : )
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, Mike, 
> 
> My understanding is:
> 
> If the ECP supplies a wrap angle (5, 10, degrees), the visual software program (Prescriptor) will know that the frame was likely placed on a printed angle chart, the PD was not involved, and adapt the calculations.
> ...


That's a great way of differentiating measurements.  Simple yet effective.

----------


## Crickett13

> They have hit the shores!
> 
> 
> I am now the proud owner of my very own Panorameter!
> 
> :cheers::cheers::cheers:


I'm jealous Fezz. I don't even have one yet!  :Rolleyes:

----------


## unbi'ased

I think a lot of  people are brain washed. Most progressives are basically designed the same with about 50-60% distortion (just in different areas) As for the whole free-form digital hype the detection level is so minor.  I have yet to receive a WOW response. It will be the norm in the future which is great but until the cost comes down considerably I cant justify passing the cost on to my customers. which are well informed, consulted and never sold.

klsoptical.com

----------


## AWTECH

> I think a lot of people are brain washed. Most progressives are basically designed the same with about 50-60% distortion (just in different areas) As for the whole free-form digital hype the detection level is so minor. I have yet to receive a WOW response. It will be the norm in the future which is great but until the cost comes down considerably I cant justify passing the cost on to my customers. which are well informed, consulted and never sold.
> 
> klsoptical.com


Maybe you have not seen it yet but the combination of cosmetic results and optical results that are now possible get WOW reports from many other opticians.  The design and capabilities of the manufacturing does matter.  There are some good designs that are not any more expensive than a premium molded lens.

----------


## feelx77

Just thought I'd share. I'm at work so did not have time to look over all 8 pages of posts but I found this site very informative and detailed as to technical characteristics of FreeForm/Digital lens and all progressives. It looks to be kept up and very current. Some of you may be already aware of the site but wanted to share it in this thread post.

http://www.thelensguru.com/index.php

----------


## agger

may i know where to find more information for FreeForm technology?actually i dont quite understand about this design?

----------


## Darryl Meister

You might have a look at *Optics of Free-Form Lenses*.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## eyecandy

When patients ask what the difference is when comparing the same level of technology across brands, I find
I really dont have an answer except to say they are comparably similar - some people prefer certain brands. I try and explain
that the "best" (read:more expensive) doesnt neccessarily translate into a noticeble difference in vision. Except in cases where the Rx is more complicated (high sph/cyl/add); I would prefer to see them in better technology. I unfortunately dont have the Rx to do comparisons myself yet, so I rely on listening to people who have no vested interest : dispensers who have experimented themselves or customers feedback on previous lens choices.

Lastly where is this elusive Pro's Only forum?

----------


## Uncle Fester

> I feel the technology is getting to the point of what I call my laundry detergent analogy so every few years "New + Improved Tide" comes along. Yes the chemists at Tide can prove the formula now used will create a cleaner load of laundry but to me the last version got my clothes to my eye just as clean. Does this make sense:hammer:
> 
> I know a lot of time and technology goes into each new design but I have come to realize that changing patients to these very expensive lenses doesn't guaranty success. I also think that not enough explanation is given to the fact that as the add increases the unwanted peripheral astigmatism also increases. And the Ryser Equation for the success of progressives is always present. 
> :)


Now with "Acti- Lift" technology!

http://www.tide.com/en-US/product/tide-original.jspx

----------

