# Optical Forums > Progressive Lens Discussion Forum >  What Lens are truly Freeform?

## mpuzio34

We are in the process of reorganizing our optical price structure to a Good, Better, Best system.  What are considered the Best lens that use true free form tecnology?  Zeiss Individual, Hoya ID lifestyle, and Physio Enhanced  are some of the products we are considering.  Is the Reveal Freeform truly a freeform lens?

----------


## Fezz

I like Seiko.

----------


## anthonyf1509

> I like Seiko.


+1
I've been told physio is not free form

----------


## Judy Canty

Optimized free form: Autograph, Autograph II Fixed, Element, Spectrum, Succeed, Supercede, GT2-3D, SightStar365, Unique, Comfort DRx, Physio DRx.
Individualized free form: Autograph II Variable, Individual, Surmount.

----------


## rdcoach5

> We are in the process of reorganizing our optical price structure to a Good, Better, Best system.  What are considered the Best lens that use true free form tecnology?  Zeiss Individual, Hoya ID lifestyle, and Physio Enhanced  are some of the products we are considering.  Is the Reveal Freeform truly a freeform lens?


Yes , but if you read the forum , it is not the most current design. In fact, as I understand it is the original Autograpgh 1 design, or similar. Zeiss Individual is way better in my Rx than Physio enhanced , FWIW. So is Autograph 2

----------


## Judy Canty

Bear in mind, when you read all the marketing, *all free form designs are produced digitally, but not all digitally produced lenses are free form.*

----------


## mpuzio34

Ok, so we will take out Physio Enhanced from that "Best" Category.  From the free form lens that are truly customized what gives the greatest "wow' factor?  We are leaning towards Zeiss Individual at this point in time.  I just wanted to see what other professionals had experienced.

----------


## EyeMaster

All About Freeform: 
The industry really has 3 levels of technology with ALL processes using the same basic equipment.

Level 1: <Not Freeform> Digital processing of a conventional lens (progressive design all on the front), with the design enhanced as one mfg says.  This process doesnt do much for the lens design, so a crummy progressive design that is digitally process will still be a crummy lens.

Level 2: <True Freeform> Process turns a semi-finished single vision lens into a progressive (progressive design all on the back) .  This is the Seiko-Epson process and is what almost freeform is today.   Seiko-Epson licenses the lens companies who in-turn sub-license the production labs.   So the lab process is the same with all products with the only difference from one progressive product to another being the lens design.  

Level 3: <True Freeform>  Process starts with a lens that is neither single vision or progressive (progressive design partly on the front and partly on the back) This HOYA process uses both sides of the lens to create their so-called iD progressives.  This process offers advantages and also provides some availability issues when compared to the Level 2 process/products.    



Summary/My Opinion:
Level 1 is not free-form (forget about it).   *Faux Freeform*

Level 2 products are all the same Seiko-Epson process so they're all made the same way.  Sample them all for lens design differences and advantages/disadvantages.  Great product availability and best for larger eye sizes/base curves because they start with just about any semi-finished single vision lens.  *True Freeform*

Level 3 products may provide less distortion and better optics for dress eyewear because of their front/back design.  This process has some availability issues with larger frames and base curves that Level 2 products like Shamir might address.   *True Freeform*

----------


## TLG

Check out this chart of digitally surfaced lenses. It describes the front and back surface of each to help give you an idea of what is truly freeform.

thelensguru.com/digitalChart.php

----------


## EyeMaster

How do you define "standard" front surface?  I think you're wrong about the HOYA iD LifeStyle product.  
as I recall the Individual produced in this country has a spherical front surface starting with a semi-finished single vision lens.  Higher power prescriptions on lenses only produced in Germany can be cut on the front surface only.  As I understand Zeiss does not digitally cut (surface) both sides of the lens as you describe.

----------


## Judy Canty

http://www.ecpmag.com/1webmagazine/2...orm-lenses.asp

----------


## EyeMaster

Of course I asked TLG how he defined a "standard" front surface since the blank of the HOYA iD LifeStyle front and back surface is neither single vision or progressive.  The design of the blank before freeform cutting is "unique" since they do not start with a single vision or a progressive blank.

Zeiss unless something has changed recently does not free-form cut on BOTH sides of the Individual as TLG indicates.  Zeiss uses the same technique as most of the industry to produce their freeform product, that is starting with a SFSV blank and cutting all of their progressive design on the back.  ON some HIGH POWER prescriptions, and only those processed only in Germany, Zeiss will place all of the power/lens design on the front of the lens.  So it's an all on the front or all on the back deal with Zeiss - they do not cut both surfaces (of the same lens) as TLG indicates.

----------


## EyeCare Rich

Currently, EyeMaster is correct, Zeiss Invididual in the U.S. is all on the back surface.  The original Individual in Germany/Europe is on both surfaces.  Not sure what is to come or what is being processed in Germany currently, hearing some rumors though. 

I'm glad someone knocked the Physio Enhanced off the list earlier.  Isn't it interesting the different levels of education vs. marketing that happens in this industry.  How some will just take what is packaged up neatly and handed to them, without doing a little research and educating themselves.  :Tongue:

----------


## TLG

> Zeiss unless something has changed recently does not free-form cut on BOTH sides of the Individual as TLG indicates.


There are two "Individual" lenses in my db; the "Gradal Individual" version is euro and surfaced front and back. The "Zeiss Individual" is US and all back-side, as stated on the link I posted. You are correct on the HOYA lens and I will get that corrected - thanks.

----------


## sharpstick777

> Level 3 products may provide less distortion and better optics for dress eyewear because of their front/back design.  This process has some availability issues with larger frames and base curves that Level 2 products like Shamir might address.   *True Freeform*


I would digress a bit.  Some of Hoya's lenses are cast on the front, digital on the back, so I would consider those products Hybrid lenses, not True Free-form.

Also, I believe that unless the patient is very high Hyperope, it results in lower potential distortion to keep the front of the lens clean and spherical.  Concave curves will impact light to a greater degree against a convex surface (front) than they will on another concave surface (back).  Hoya, by adding base-up/base-out prism to the corners (concave on convex) of the lenses does reducing geometric distortions, but at the cost of rendering some of those corner less clear.  Its a trade off.

I don't believe just because its dual sided, doesn't make it inherently better, until you get into powers over a +5.00 sphere.  Then the numbers change and moving some of the add power to the front makes sense.  At that point the back gets so flat the distortion on the back exceeds that of the front, and even in Free-form we don't often use 14 base blanks.

----------


## sharpstick777

> We are in the process of reorganizing our optical price structure to a Good, Better, Best system.  What are considered the Best lens that use true free form tecnology?  Zeiss Individual, Hoya ID lifestyle, and Physio Enhanced  are some of the products we are considering.  Is the Reveal Freeform truly a freeform lens?


I would counter that there is no one BEST lens.  Different lifestyles have different needs, so the Best Lens is the lens that compliments a patients lifestyle the most.  In general Wider Fields of view are good, but it depends where that wideness falls.  Although the Auto II is immensely better than the Comfort, the reading can actually be narrower in the Auto II.  If my patient reads a lot, she would be disappointed with her new lenses.  There are Free-form lenses with wider reading than the Comfort though, but you get my drift.

It should be noted too, that those lenses requiring advanced measurements such as Panto, Wrap and Face Form will only benefit about 10% of our patient based on RX.  I see myself better in the Spectrum than the Auto II in my low RX.

----------


## n711

> Optimized free form: Autograph, Autograph II Fixed, Element, Spectrum, Succeed, Supercede, GT2-3D, SightStar365, Unique, Comfort DRx, Physio DRx.
> Individualized free form: Autograph II Variable, Individual, Surmount.


I have had nothing but pure "wow" and sucess with any and ALL Shamir products! (Free-form only) I have been using these lenses pretty exclusively for the past year, and honestly, have never had it easier @ disp!  For PAL's I use the Auto II about 80% of the time..the other 20% is split between the Element or a Spectrum lens.  Now for SV nothing can beat the Autograph II SV either! We give our pt's a slight savings on premium AR to try and get them into this lens, I am that happy with it.
Now the new freeform Relax lens by Shamir is terrific! I doubt I will ever wear anything else!..

My 2cents.

----------


## EyeMaster

Ya...  but Shamir is also available at Lenscrafters and Walmart and most of the other chains

If Walmart has it I don't need it....

----------


## EyeMaster

[QUOTE): I would digress a bit. Some of Hoya's lenses are cast on the front, digital on the back, so I would consider those products Hybrid lenses, not True Free-form.

I've heard that before, are you with Shamir?
I had a Shamir rep once say "that since HOYA lenses are cast on the front there not really true Free-form". 

Perhaps we could have a HOYA expert explain what they're doing with their (so called, if you like) freeform product/products?

----------


## hyperoptic

Let me start off by putting it out there:

Im Kurt Gardner, Sales and Support Manager for IOT America: a independent lens design house dealing exclusively in House branded Digital PAL's

Here is my take on Freeform.  
There is no BEST, rather its all about what works best for the patient, but I would look for a lens that best suits your needs and that if your customer is happy they will keep coming back when the need new ones.  
We could look at a mountain of power maps and each say one is better than the other.  There are disadvantages to having a Spherical front; namely that when fitting base curves on mild hyperopes generally a steeper curve is needed then when using a conventional product because the front curve needs to be chosen for the highest plus power, if a flatter curve is chosen then optics specifically in the near visual field are compromised as the rear surface curve approaches Plano.  However for any myopes or higher hyperopes who are used to steep curves this has little effect.

There are also disavantages to having a dual surface design, the one that effects most dispensers is in availability of materials, and inventory issues.  How many times does a job get delayed because we have the right blank but not the left, or not in transitions, etc.

We also haven't even touched on is the lens optimized (or compensated) or not.  Non Compensated designs offer no great advantage to conventional progressives except the design is more recent.  Where we can really start to show the capabilities of digital processing is when we begin to compensate for environmental factors that effect the wearer experience.

Ok Ill be quiet now

If you want more information just PM me

----------


## n711

> Ya...  but Shamir is also available at Lenscrafters and Walmart and most of the other chains
> 
> If Walmart has it I don't need it....


Eww.... I will have to check into that! Although, it seems like "chains" can get almost everything now. And just because they can "get" it doesn't mean that they use it.

----------


## edKENdance

> Eww.... I will have to check into that! Although, it seems like "chains" can get almost everything now. And just because they can "get" it doesn't mean that they use it.


Sometimes they don't even know what they're using.  My friend manages an LC.  I asked him what they were using for their top of the line digital offering.  He had no idea.

----------


## sharpstick777

> [QUOTE): I would digress a bit. Some of Hoya's lenses are cast on the front, digital on the back, so I would consider those products Hybrid lenses, not True Free-form.
> 
> I've heard that before, are you with Shamir?
> I had a Shamir rep once say "that since HOYA lenses are cast on the front there not really true Free-form". 
> 
> Perhaps we could have a HOYA expert explain what they're doing with their (so called, if you like) freeform product/products?


No, I am independant.  What Hoya is doing is nothing new, in fact it was first pattened in 1917 I believe although it was never put into production.  They apply cyl across the 180 and the 90 on the front.  Its in effect neutral in the lensometer on OC because its on both meridians.  The effect is that they create prism both base up/out on the temporal side, and base up/in on the nasal side.  The result is that it counters the geometric distortions created by every progressive's add power.  Its essentially a small add at top out of central view to balance the add at the bottom.  It does reduce distortion but it also pulls distance periferal vision outside the corrective range in proportion the prism it induces.  They basically trade distance area for spatial control.

----------


## sharpstick777

> We also haven't even touched on is the lens optimized (or compensated) or not.  Non Compensated designs offer no great advantage to conventional progressives except the design is more recent.  Where we can really start to show the capabilities of digital processing is when we begin to compensate for environmental factors that effect the wearer experience.


Kurt, could you please clarify what you define as "compensated"?  There is some word in the market that only Free-form lenses that offer "customized" vertex, face form and panto calculations are truly better. However, I have seen usage studies from both manufacturers and universities where only about 11% of patients benefit from those advanced compensations (Essilors says 9%).

All true-free form are compenstated with at  atoric, base curve, ect, and most use standard averages of tilt and vertex.   So when you say "compenstated" are refering to the standard ones, or the fully customized ones?

And if you mean that only the highly customized compensated lenses are better, do you have any usage studies your company has done (or at least read) to support that? Right now the ones I have seen do not.

----------


## GokhanSF

Essilor doesn't have a true freeform yet, so consider Shamir AutoII, Hoya ID, Zeiss Individual, and Kodak Unique.

----------


## GokhanSF

True and False.... Lenscrafters and Walmart uses discontinued Shamir lenses which means your patient cannot get the latest technology lens they offer from them
.


> Ya... but Shamir is also available at Lenscrafters and Walmart and most of the other chains
> 
> If Walmart has it I don't need it....

----------


## sharpstick777

> Essilor doesn't have a true freeform yet, so consider Shamir AutoII, Hoya ID, Zeiss Individual, and Kodak Unique.


Physio DRx and Physio Enhanced Fit are both 100% Free-form.

----------


## GokhanSF

I don't think they are 100% freeform. Just because freeform surfacing is used doesn't mean you get a freeform lens. You also need a lens blank and design. :)



> Physio DRx and Physio Enhanced Fit are both 100% Free-form.

----------


## hyperoptic

> Essilor doesn't have a true freeform yet, so consider Shamir AutoII, Hoya ID, Zeiss Individual, and Kodak Unique.


 And dont forget IOT designs (shameless plug)

----------


## GokhanSF

:) Of course IOT designs are freeform... Kurt can you please clarify what true freefom is? As far as I know Physio DRx and Physio Enhanced are not true freefom. 



> And dont forget IOT designs (shameless plug)

----------


## hyperoptic

> Kurt, could you please clarify what you define as "compensated"?  There is some word in the market that only Free-form lenses that offer "customized" vertex, face form and panto calculations are truly better. However, I have seen usage studies from both manufacturers and universities where only about 11% of patients benefit from those advanced compensations (Essilors says 9%).
> 
> All true-free form are compenstated with at  atoric, base curve, ect, and most use standard averages of tilt and vertex.   So when you say "compenstated" are refering to the standard ones, or the fully customized ones?
> 
> And if you mean that only the highly customized compensated lenses are better, do you have any usage studies your company has done (or at least read) to support that? Right now the ones I have seen do not.


By compensated I am referring to ether using an average value, or individual measurments to compensate for, at least in the case of IOT Digital Ray Path technology the oblique aberration experienced by a wearer, our non compensated designs do not take these values into consideration when calculating the back surface of a lens thus providing a digitally surfaced progressive that supplies prescribed power, not compensated power.

As far as the effect of compensation by percentage, to my knowledge there have been no published independent studies about the effects of compensation but I will ask our Designers and if they have a link Ill provide it here for your pleasure, however if we as optical people take an objective look at this technology I think we can all see that someone who is a -.25 sph will not see benefits from compensation the same way a person with a -8.00 -2.25 x142 with a +2.25 would in a standard ophthalmic frame.  Wrap frames are a different story of course be cause the light incoming to the lens is farther from perpendicular to the eye.  

I generally use a rule of 3's.  If the sum distance power is greater that a +3.00 or -3.00 then patients will begin to see benefit from compensation and this sum power value decreases as the angles of the frame become more extreme.

Its also important to note that certain Rx's are not the best choice for digital lenses over conventional.  example Rx:+4.00 with a +2.00 add, in a conventional lens we would choose a 6 base with a 2.00 add.  That conventional blank front would be ~6.00 at the top and ~8.00 BC at the near portion with a ~2.00 curve on the back, now being done on a SV blank and surfaced digitally we have ~6.00 on the whole front surface meaning we have a ~2.00 rear curve at the top, and ~ 0.00 at the near.  This has a negative effect on the visual acuity of the near area unless a steeper base curve is used (like an 8 base).

Sharpstick I hope this answered your question.

----------


## sharpstick777

Yes...  There is some rhetoric out now that for a lens to be "truly" free-form it must include wearer measured and customized face-form, panto, and tilt.   I am just trying to crush that rhetoric. 

As well, your points on plus power I have noted in other forums but is seldom discussed, there are limits to FF advantage on higher plus powers. 




> By compensated I am referring to ether using an average value, or individual measurments to compensate for, at least in the case of IOT Digital Ray Path technology the oblique aberration experienced by a wearer, our non compensated designs do not take these values into consideration when calculating the back surface of a lens thus providing a digitally surfaced progressive that supplies prescribed power, not compensated power.
> 
> As far as the effect of compensation by percentage, to my knowledge there have been no published independent studies about the effects of compensation but I will ask our Designers and if they have a link Ill provide it here for your pleasure, however if we as optical people take an objective look at this technology I think we can all see that someone who is a -.25 sph will not see benefits from compensation the same way a person with a -8.00 -2.25 x142 with a +2.25 would in a standard ophthalmic frame.  Wrap frames are a different story of course be cause the light incoming to the lens is farther from perpendicular to the eye.  
> 
> I generally use a rule of 3's.  If the sum distance power is greater that a +3.00 or -3.00 then patients will begin to see benefit from compensation and this sum power value decreases as the angles of the frame become more extreme.
> 
> Its also important to note that certain Rx's are not the best choice for digital lenses over conventional.  example Rx:+4.00 with a +2.00 add, in a conventional lens we would choose a 6 base with a 2.00 add.  That conventional blank front would be ~6.00 at the top and ~8.00 BC at the near portion with a ~2.00 curve on the back, now being done on a SV blank and surfaced digitally we have ~6.00 on the whole front surface meaning we have a ~2.00 rear curve at the top, and ~ 0.00 at the near.  This has a negative effect on the visual acuity of the near area unless a steeper base curve is used (like an 8 base).
> 
> Sharpstick I hope this answered your question.

----------


## sharpstick777

> I don't think they are 100% freeform. Just because freeform surfacing is used doesn't mean you get a freeform lens. You also need a lens blank and design. :)


Free-form is any progressive where any lens has curves modified in any area to improve VA over standard curve powers.  Although Shamir trademarked the name, Zeiss first used it 1997 to explain the Zeiss Individual (which later became the "i", and back to the individual).  At that time the only Free-form curve was customized atoric compensation for cyl power.  Digital CNC lathe surfacing is now the standard way of producing FF but it has been made with thermo micro casting (2C Optics 1996, Warelite Currently) or a "router" type surfacing machine.

Both the Varilux Physio DRx and Enhanced Fit are back side only lenses with the entire RX processed digitally including distance and add.  Essilor uses standard measurments for the DRx for axial length, pupil size, listings law, vertex, and face form, but those are calculated based on human averages.  The Enhanced Fit included POW measurements including Face-form, vertex and panto that are specifically measured for each patient.

Whether they are good or not is another question, but they are without a doubt Free-form.

----------


## GokhanSF

Ok, I got your point. I think we have a different understanding of the term freeform. 




> Free-form is any progressive where any lens has curves modified in any area to improve VA over standard curve powers. Although Shamir trademarked the name, Zeiss first used it 1997 to explain the Zeiss Individual (which later became the "i", and back to the individual). At that time the only Free-form curve was customized atoric compensation for cyl power. Digital CNC lathe surfacing is now the standard way of producing FF but it has been made with thermo micro casting (2C Optics 1996, Warelite Currently) or a "router" type surfacing machine.
> 
> Both the Varilux Physio DRx and Enhanced Fit are back side only lenses with the entire RX processed digitally including distance and add. Essilor uses standard measurments for the DRx for axial length, pupil size, listings law, vertex, and face form, but those are calculated based on human averages. The Enhanced Fit included POW measurements including Face-form, vertex and panto that are specifically measured for each patient.
> 
> Whether they are good or not is another question, but they are without a doubt Free-form.

----------


## Fezz

> As well, your points on plus power I have noted in other forums but is seldom discussed, there are limits to FF advantage on higher plus powers.


Why?

----------


## hyperoptic

> Why?


Hi Fezz,

Basically its because to use digital designs on plus patients the base curve selection must be made using the highest plus power, cosmetically there would be a mutiny if some one who is a +4.00 +200 add was given an 8 or even 10 base lens to cope with the negative effects of the flatter near vision (this will cause a smaller "sweet spot" and reduce the magnification factor of the NV area of the progressive if a flatter curve is used)

----------


## Fezz

Thanks.

----------


## hyperoptic

> Yes...  There is some rhetoric out now that for a lens to be "truly" free-form it must include wearer measured and customized face-form, panto, and tilt.   I am just trying to crush that rhetoric. 
> 
> As well, your points on plus power I have noted in other forums but is seldom discussed, there are limits to FF advantage on higher plus powers.


Honestly I think the word Freeform is used by many lens designers and it is used without consistency, the best thing to do is ignore the buzz words and find out which lenses do what you want for your patients, we all have our own idea of what is best.  I want to also say that if the designs are properly used in plus patients the results are stupendous (I am a plus 7.25 and my VA is vastly superior to my conventional lenses, the difference is I made them on a 8.50 base not a 7.)

----------


## sharpstick777

> Why?


Another way, If we use Vogels Rule to determine optimal base curve, the base curve rate in Plus Powers rises fairly quickly.  Free-form gives us tremendous ability to fix that (Free-form is still great for plus powers, but not to an infinite point) only to the point where the backside curve starts getting flat.  With the add on the back, it gets flat faster than on the add on the front.  We can't have a convex lens on the back-side even with Free-form.  Free-form works great up to a +4.00 total power (spherical plus add), but after that the advantages decrease with each increase in plus power.  Good, but just not as good.   

We see the same thing in minus, the front can only get so flat but its usually so high of an RX that its rarer, and then we could go bi-concave if we wanted to.

----------


## sharpstick777

> Honestly I think the word Freeform is used by many lens designers and it is used without consistency, the best thing to do is ignore the buzz words and find out which lenses do what you want for your patients, we all have our own idea of what is best.  I want to also say that if the designs are properly used in plus patients the results are stupendous (I am a plus 7.25 and my VA is vastly superior to my conventional lenses, the difference is I made them on a 8.50 base not a 7.)


You will gain a lot of advantages with plus powers and FF, but if we could ideally move some of the add to the front, and steepen your backside curve a little, we would gain a little more VA in theory.   The only lens that does this now is the Zeiss Individual (German version only) I believe.  

The definition of Free-form has morphed since 1997 when Zeiss first used it to describe a modified and customized atoric cyl curve.  Now with more lens choices we have the option of great to mediocre free-form.  Its nice problem to have though.

----------


## Fezz

Thanks!

----------


## hyperoptic

> Another way, If we use Vogels Rule to determine optimal base curve, the base curve rate in Plus Powers rises fairly quickly.  Free-form gives us tremendous ability to fix that (Free-form is still great for plus powers, but not to an infinite point) only to the point where the backside curve starts getting flat.  With the add on the back, it gets flat faster than on the add on the front.  We can't have a convex lens on the back-side even with Free-form.  Free-form works great up to a +4.00 total power (spherical plus add), but after that the advantages decrease with each increase in plus power.  Good, but just not as good.   
> 
> We see the same thing in minus, the front can only get so flat but its usually so high of an RX that its rarer, and then we could go bi-concave if we wanted to.


Speaking from personal experience I will stick with digital compensated lenses because if the proper Base curve is chosen it is certainly better than a conventional alternative, but the key is proper base curve selection which often times makes to much cosmetic compramise.

----------


## AustinEyewear

> Check out this chart of digitally surfaced lenses. It describes the front and back surface of each to help give you an idea of what is truly freeform.
> 
> thelensguru.com/digitalChart.php


I was just looking at your chart yesterday, which is exactly what brought me to the Optiboard (and all over the net) in an attempt to get clarification and lo-and-behold, this thread, and your post!  Is Essilor really producing a Free Form, Digitally Surfaced Backside Progressive?





> Essilor doesn't have a true freeform yet, so consider Shamir AutoII, Hoya ID, Zeiss Individual, and Kodak Unique.


What is Essilor up to here?  I'm unclear, are they true free forms?

http://dualoptix.com/varilux.html

http://www.luzerneoptical.com/pdf/va...-portfolio.pdf  (good for seeing where Dualoptix is applied)

http://www.luzerneoptical.com/top-wh...e-2.html?sl=EN  (video says digitally surfaced)

http://www.totallyoptical.com/Media/...rt_May2011.pdf

----------


## Judy Canty

Digitally surfaced and free form are NOT the same thing.

----------


## AustinEyewear

> Digitally surfaced and free form are NOT the same thing.


  Ah, but true free form lenses are digitally surfaced on a CNC machine!  Do you happen know the answer to my question above?

----------


## Judy Canty

Indeed they are, but you can digitally produce any lens design.  Digital processing will not make a bad or an old design better.  Free form lenses have both the design and the rx digitally produced on the back side of the lens.  So in answer to your question, the Varilux DRx lenses are free form, as are products from Zeiss, Seiko, Shamir and Hoya.  The point is that you need to understand the technology, not simply depend on the marketing.

----------


## AustinEyewear

> Indeed they are, but you can digitally produce any lens design.  Digital processing will not make a bad or an old design better.  Free form lenses have both the design and the rx digitally produced on the back side of the lens.  So in answer to your question, the Varilux DRx lenses are free form, as are products from Zeiss, Seiko, Shamir and Hoya.  The point is that you need to understand the technology, not simply depend on the marketing.


Thanks CuriousCat.  I have a pretty good handle on what freeform technology is.  I won't claim I have a great understanding of optics/physics, but I TOTALLY get what freeform is about.  When I look at the Essilor brochure, I'm confused on if they are actually producing a freeform lense.  Many people say no.  Essilor does not come out and make it a distinct point either, which further confuses me, why wouldn't they just say it clearly?  If designed correctly, freeform WILL be a superior technology.  The mathmatics prove it.  If the machines are calibrated and all variables are kept under control, it is my opinion freeform is superior.  But I'm not here to discuss this thoeology.  I'm trying to figure out if Essilor ACTUALLY produces a TRUE freeform lense. Whether it be a good or bad design is irrelevant to me. 

From the literature and links I provided, it would seem that they produce several free form lenses, some with a backside CNC surface, and using their latest technology called DUALOPTIX, it appears they are using a CNC machine to surface both sides of the lense.  And of course, I am assuming they are using sofisticated software  to produce the topograpical maps of the lens surface  a.ka. freeform.

What do you think?  Is it the DrX only,  the literature seems to say otherwise?  What is this DUALOPTIX?

----------


## Judy Canty

You know I wish I could tell you, but I can't.  The waters in Dallas are pretty muddy.  Perhaps there's a Varilux rep out there who would like to help me out?

----------


## MakeOptics

I use the seiko surmount for my plus patients which is super flat and have never had issues with the lens. I would counter the smaller sweet spot with a wider apparent field of view by moving the constrained surface to the back and even making it convex as is the case with the surmount.  

Also eccentricity can be applied to the front and back surfaces of lenses to counter choices in curves.  In the case of plus powers we really can't discus higher plus powers and best form without a discussion of aspherics.  A high plus lens can have asphericity applied to one or both surfaces to imporve optics.  When applied to the front eccentricity flattens the curve, to the back steepens the curve, the overall effect for all intensive purposes is the same.

----------


## TLG

> I'm trying to figure out if Essilor ACTUALLY produces a TRUE freeform lense. Whether it be a good or bad design is irrelevant to me. 
> What do you think?  Is it the DrX only,  the literature seems to say otherwise?  What is this DUALOPTIX?


Well, the Ipseo is also full freeform but nobody uses that so that leaves the DRx. ALL of the other Physio flavors have a molded front PAL design and are 'digitally surfaced' on the backside; yes, the front side mold IS cast from a digitally surfaced glass mold and yes, they ARE cut on CNC generators... but few people (outside of Essilor) would agree that that make it 'freeform' - it is not. As far as "dual add" goes, consider that half of the 'duo' is *molded* onto the front, with the other half - and the rest of the PAL design and Rx - digitally surfaced on the back. I'll let you decide if that is a 'true' freeform. 
Essilor is far from alone in being vague about their product technology.

----------


## AustinEyewear

> Well, the Ipseo is also full freeform but nobody uses that so that leaves the DRx. ALL of the other Physio flavors have a molded front PAL design and are 'digitally surfaced' on the backside; yes, the front side mold IS cast from a digitally surfaced glass mold and yes, they ARE cut on CNC generators... but few people (outside of Essilor) would agree that that make it 'freeform' - it is not. As far as "dual add" goes, consider that half of the 'duo' is *molded* onto the front, with the other half - and the rest of the PAL design and Rx - digitally surfaced on the back. I'll let you decide if that is a 'true' freeform. 
> Essilor is far from alone in being vague about their product technology.


Thanks for the follow up Tony.  I'm furiously studying the subject right now.  It appears that 

Physio Enhanced FIT, Physio Enhanced Eyecode, and Ipseo Eyecode all take into account monocular PD, Fitting Height, Frame Wrap, Panto, VD and some the (special Eyecode/Head Cape/Posture) which would may place them in the category of a freeform.   

The DrX only accounts for PD, Fitting Height, but PAL is cut on backside.  For what its worth,  I would not consider this in the category of a freeform.  To me, its more akin to a traditional lens being digitally surfaced on the backside, part way there, but no cigar.  No ability to move the optimal reading zone around as one would normally do with a free form lense.


The others mentioned, all appear to be true freeforms, but then they have to throw a wrench into the equation by having this so called DUALOPTIX.  As you mention, its hard to know what this would do.  I perceive it as a "set" PAL on the frontside, with a "freeform" PAL on the back and it somehow compensates the front design.  My gut feel concerning the molded PAL on the front, is that it would ruin the whole reason for going freeform in the first place, but what do I know about this subject, next to nothing, at least compared to the gurus :)  To me, a big part of using a PAL freeform design is to provide the ability to adjust the corridor length and move the reading zone to the most optimal position in the frame, and it feels like a molded PAL on the front side would hamper the ability to do this?

----------


## dash1

> I would counter that there is no one BEST lens.  Different lifestyles have different needs, so the Best Lens is the lens that compliments a patients lifestyle the most.  In general Wider Fields of view are good, but it depends where that wideness falls.  Although the Auto II is immensely better than the Comfort, the reading can actually be narrower in the Auto II.  If my patient reads a lot, she would be disappointed with her new lenses.  There are Free-form lenses with wider reading than the Comfort though, but you get my drift.
> 
> It should be noted too, that those lenses requiring advanced measurements such as Panto, Wrap and Face Form will only benefit about 10% of our patient based on RX.  I see myself better in the Spectrum than the Auto II in my low RX.


You say there are freeform lenses with wider channels than the comfort? which ones? I've tried moving a couple people from the comfort to the Auto II, unique, etc... and most I've had to switch back? One pt brought in a display visually showing me what he was seeing with both ( he was a wierdo, oops i mean an engineer..)  Also, what are some of you using if a pt wants or needs a really wide intermediate but still have a low seg ht, other than restyling to a larger one? I feel most people would benefit from a wider intermediate than reading due to all the electronic gadgets we use.

----------


## sharpstick777

If you are interested in better computer area than the Auto II, the widest I have seen is the Seiko Surmount, the second widest the Definity, the third the Hoya ID.  The last two are Plus shaped in the effective area so the distance narrows significantly.  In both the Definity and the Hoya ID I only turn my head a hair in the distance and it gets blurry.  With the Surmount I get an effective distance zone that is about 5 or 6 times wider than the Plus shaped lenses mentioned, the Surmount is more Barrell shaped for the effective areas.  Any of these will give you about 5-8 times the intermediate zone of the Auto II or Comfort, and about 1.5x more reading.  The Definity does have more reading than the Surmount by about 25% but it will depend on RX.

----------


## shanbaum

> Essilor doesn't have a true freeform yet, so consider Shamir AutoII, Hoya ID, Zeiss Individual, and Kodak Unique.


That is incorrect, see, e.g., the Ideal.

----------


## RKJ

I tier Free Form lenses this way:  Lowest tier is first generation Free Form, the optics are better but are not compensated for vertex, panto, and wrap.  Regardless of sphere power and cylinder power, the lensometer measured Rx will match the written Rx.  Next tier is Free form designed with published default values for vertex, panto, and wrap.  There is a compensated Rx which will be different than the written Rx for high spheres, high cylinders, and high adds. The next tier is topography unique to each prescription with some default values and some customizable values.  For example Seiko has a Wrap Tech where the wrap measure is required with the order.  Again, there is a compensated Rx.   The top tier is fully customizeable for vertex, tilt, and wrap - though if the optician does not provide the numbers, the program will use default values.   With these criterea in mind, I study the lenses, quiz the reps, and tier lenses within any given brand.  For Hoya, look at Lifestyle, In Style, and My Style.  For the Physio look at Enhanced, Enhanced Fit, Enhanced Fit with Eye Code.    Using this method you can tier the Reveal and also private label Free Form lenses independent labs are bringing to market.

I should add that you can tier Free Form lenses into good better best, however the 'best' lenses will have the same optics as the 'better' lens if the optician measures that vertex, panto, and tilt are very close to default values.  Additional customization will yield the same optical result.  Also, in low sphere powers with little cylinder and low adds, the good better and best are likely to be clinically equivalent in terms of optics.  Use optics equations to calculate the compensated Rx to verify this is true.  (I trust the optiBoard gurus to set me straight if I have any of this wrong.  I love this group!)

One additional comment.  I am of the opinion that the power profile from the fitting cross to the full add is a huge determinant of patient satisfaction.  Some patients enjoy short corridor lenses, and some prefer longer corridors.   Top tier lenses give the optician the freedom to order both a fitting height and a fixed segment height, and the optician can tailor the fixed segment height based upon the previous progressive min fit height and changes in prescription and the patient's report about what they wish they could improve over their previous progressive.  From what I have seen, all of the great software programs for top tier progressives are taking a history including questions about the previous lens worn and patient satisfaction.  

I hope this helps.  I'd like to see a whole discussion around the concept of tailoring Free Form progressives....and it is possible I missed it.  I haven't been on OptiBoard for a while.

Cheers,

----------


## AustinEyewear

> I should add that you can tier Free Form lenses into good better best, however the 'best' lenses will have the same optics as the 'better' lens if the optician measures that vertex, panto, and tilt are very close to default values.  Additional customization will yield the same optical result. Cheers,


That is an excellent point that I hadn't considered.  Although you probably can not make a blanket statement like that, because the design may not be as good to begin with, although you would think it would be.  I say this because even a non free form PAL might work better than this tier you refer to.  So you could probably extrapolate that over to FF as well.

----------


## Stephenpratt1990

The Zeiss Individual and the Zeiss Gradal Top 3D are two freeform lenses that I deal with most often

----------


## Tito

> Thanks for the follow up Tony.  I'm furiously studying the subject right now.  It appears that 
> 
> Physio Enhanced FIT, Physio Enhanced Eyecode, and Ipseo Eyecode all take into account monocular PD, Fitting Height, Frame Wrap, Panto, VD and some the (special Eyecode/Head Cape/Posture) which would may place them in the category of a freeform.   
> 
> Your gut feeling is correct.What will the big E do with millions of $$$ worth of front molded progressive lens inventory and equipment,they can't discard them over night,so they might as well ask their marketing gurus to keep on marketing their molded front side progressives ' Enhancing' them with back side digital surfacing.It's all about money
> 
> 
> The DrX only accounts for PD, Fitting Height, but PAL is cut on backside.  For what its worth,  I would not consider this in the category of a freeform.  To me, its more akin to a traditional lens being digitally surfaced on the backside, part way there, but no cigar.  No ability to move the optimal reading zone around as one would normally do with a free form lense.
> 
> ...


Your gut feeling is correct.What will the big E do with millions of $$$$ worth on molded front side lens inventory and the equipment to manufacture it.They might as well ask their  marketing gurus to keep 'marketing' their molded semifinished blanks,and so they came up with their 'enhanced' marketing theory,front side mold progressive with digitally surfaced,aspheric,atoric back side.You can do this with any other front side digital mold progressive brand.

----------


## Tito

> Thanks for the follow up Tony.  I'm furiously studying the subject right now.  It appears that 
> 
> Physio Enhanced FIT, Physio Enhanced Eyecode, and Ipseo Eyecode all take into account monocular PD, Fitting Height, Frame Wrap, Panto, VD and some the (special Eyecode/Head Cape/Posture) which would may place them in the category of a freeform.   
> 
> Your gut feeling is correct.What will the big E do with millions of $$$ worth of front molded progressive lens inventory and equipment,they can't discard them over night,so they might as well ask their marketing gurus to keep on marketing their molded front side progressives ' Enhancing' them with back side digital surfacing.It's all about money
> 
> 
> The DrX only accounts for PD, Fitting Height, but PAL is cut on backside.  For what its worth,  I would not consider this in the category of a freeform.  To me, its more akin to a traditional lens being digitally surfaced on the backside, part way there, but no cigar.  No ability to move the optimal reading zone around as one would normally do with a free form lense.
> 
> ...


Your gut feeling is correct.What will the big E do with millions of $$$$ worth on molded front side lens inventory and the equipment to manufacture it.They might as well ask their  marketing gurus to keep 'marketing' their molded semifinished blanks,and so they came up with their 'enhanced' marketing theory,front side mold progressive with digitally surfaced,aspheric,atoric back side.You can do this with any other front side digital mold progressive brand.

----------


## n711

> True and False.... Lenscrafters and Walmart uses discontinued Shamir lenses which means your patient cannot get the latest technology lens they offer from them
> .


Thank you so much Gok!!!  That makes much more sence than them getting the same product as us "independents" ....  I wonder if the Wally-World or LC employees even know what they are using?????

----------


## RKJ

> I've tried moving a couple people from the comfort to the Auto II, unique, etc... and most I've had to switch back?


This representative was incredibly knowledgeable when I was looking at similar challenges.*
Jerry Thornhill*   Technical Services

*Shamir Insight, Inc.* | 9938 Via Pasar, San Diego, CA 92126
T: (858) 444-3863| C: (858) 740-6518 | F: (877) 285-4863 
jthornhill@shamirlens.com

Jerry said successfully moving patients from Comfort to Autograph II is a challenge, and that the Spectrum design is especially good for these patients and also for patients with higher plus prescriptions.  You might want to talk with him.

I had a lengthy conversation with a Kodak Unique rep at Vision Expo East.  My contention is that the software does not allow the optician to tailor the lens.  All big frames get long corridors by default, even if the patient has successfully and happily worn a short corridor prior to the Unique.  In my opinion, that is the reason so many offices experienced failure with Free Form when they tried to move patients wearing traditional Essilor lenses to Kodak Unique lenses.  

The rep essentially explained that the optician should always put the patient into the longest corridor possible, for Every Day progressives AND sell second pair computer progressives.  I was not persuaded.  Personally, I greatly prefer to wear short corridor lenses.  AND, I believe ECPs should have a well defined comprehensive product mix with Free Form lenses a skilled optician can tailor to the patient rather than letting the software tailor progressives to the frame selected.  Because so many offices have had non-adapt problems with Kodak Unique, it is not high on my list of favorite lenses.

----------


## spekladie

I am also a huge fan of the the Zeiss Individual lens.  I have had great success with fitting this lens.

----------


## RKJ

> I am also a huge fan of the the Zeiss Individual lens.  I have had great success with fitting this lens.


Thank you SpekLadie.  

I did not mean to sound like I am promoting Shamir, though I did mean to sound less than enamored with the Kodak Unique.  I prefer lenses that allow the optician to tailor the Free Form power progression.

There are many Free Form progressives that can be customized.  Zeiss, Seiko, Shamir, Hoya, and independent labs with private label Free Form lenses - All have Free Form lenses that allow the optician to specify the fixed fitting height.

----------


## Mark Mattison-Shup

Just saw this post and thought I'd add 2 cents.

Freeform and digital surfacing are manufacturing methods that can accomplish a designers targets for their lenses. The levels of "freeform" that was the original request of the post for good, better and best for me are defined by the level of optimization i.e., combined progressive and Rx, atoric, optimized (compensated for peripheral errors using default fitting values), fully optimized using position of wear values, personalized adding either wavefront, lifestyle or head turn, eye mover, eye center rotation distance. However, the success of the designs are still based on the original designer's (companies) design philosophy. 

I added a variety of posts on this on the Opticians Handbook (opticianshandbook.com) Freeform pages. You might find the information helpful in addition to these posts.

Mark
Mark Mattison-Shupnick
Dir., Education and Training, Jobson Medical Information LLC

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> My contention is that the software does not allow the optician to tailor the lens. All big frames get long corridors by default...


Not only that, but for narrow frames, the software will decrease the corridor length for those who rarely read with their eyeglasses (distance -2.50 DS Add +2.50). Many PALs do this now, including those from Zeiss, Essilor, Shamir, and others. At least Shamir offers a fixed lens for those dispensing opticians that are giving some thought to what this all means, from the wearer's perspective. 




> The rep essentially explained that the optician should always put the patient into the longest corridor possible, for Every Day progressives AND sell second pair computer progressives.


That's what I do with my eyeglasses, and for most of my clients (Adds over +2.00) who have significant intermediate tasks. I wouldn't necessarily use the longest corridor, but I would choose a PAL design that had above average distance vision, something you won't find with any of the more aggressive short corridor PALs.

----------


## Peter J Shaw OD

> Kurt, could you please clarify what you define as "compensated"?  There is some word in the market that only Free-form lenses that offer "customized" vertex, face form and panto calculations are truly better. However, I have seen usage studies from both manufacturers and universities where only about 11% of patients benefit from those advanced compensations (Essilors says 9%).
> 
> All true-free form are compenstated with at  atoric, base curve, ect, and most use standard averages of tilt and vertex.   So when you say "compenstated" are refering to the standard ones, or the fully customized ones?
> 
> And if you mean that only the highly customized compensated lenses are better, do you have any usage studies your company has done (or at least read) to support that? Right now the ones I have seen do not.


Perhaps I can help you, IOT supplies true freeform software to manufacture lenses so that the lens performs like the Rx that the OD prescribed no matter what the position of wear plus they have many design options to meet the lifestyle and ergonomic needs of the patient. IOT are one of the true free form companies, Rodenstock also comes to mind with their new offerings. Another point IOT is 50% owned by Younger so I guess that they are at least half American (if that's important)

----------


## sharpstick777

> Mark Mattison-Shupnick
> Dir., Education and Training, Jobson Medical Information LLC


Welcome to Optiboard Mark...  how were you never here before?

----------


## Peter J Shaw OD

Our lens design considers the position of wear and tailors the full reading zone of our standard lens  to start at 23 degrees downward gaze, it is independent of the depth of the frame but requires the fitter to establish the face form, vertex and pantoscopic angle.

----------


## Mark Mattison-Shup

Thank you Robert M. and yes you are correct. Many of the lenses that are optimized use the fitting height and B of the frame to deliver a corridor length that is manufacturer determined, not dispenser chosen. As a result, as you and others have found out that a patient moving from a short corridor molded lens may in a freeform replacement, in a larger B frame get a longer corridor. The result is a chin up, tilt to get to the reading.

As you and Peter S. point out, the higher the add, the more important that the corridor not be lengthened since the need of the over +2.25 Add wearer is a shorter (me being one of them) rather than longer path to reading. With no reserve reading needs to be where it is comfortable. So, the onus is on the dispenser to really understand the lenses that they are using. If the frame is larger, the corridor will usually be longer so record the design used in the habitual eyewear, then understand if the patient was happy. You might be doing them a favor lengthening the corridor for available intermediate, but they will notice the difference.

The design options are large and as most on this forum know, just being a freeformed lens does not mean that the lens is any better. Digitally enhancing lenses is an opportunity for opticians to differentiate themselves from the online sellers. In fact, as I usually teach in classes I'm fortunate ot present, optimized single vision is the better opportunity. In progressives, there's still unwanted error that we must manage.

Sharpstick - been lurking at times in the background. As you know, there's limited time to participate everywhere. Thanks, Mark

----------


## Diopterman

> Our lens design considers the position of wear and tailors the full reading zone of our standard lens to start at 23 degrees downward gaze, it is independent of the depth of the frame but requires the fitter to establish the face form, vertex and pantoscopic angle.



What should the "fitter" use to accurately measure those values? 

Do you provide a high quality measuring tool to do these measurements?

----------


## sharpstick777

> As you and Peter S. point out, the* higher the add, the more important that the corridor not be lengthened* since the need of the over +2.25 Add wearer is a shorter (me being one of them) rather than longer path to reading. 
> Sharpstick - been lurking at times in the background. As you know, there's limited time to participate everywhere. Thanks, Mark


Mark, If you shorten the corridor, in a higher add, you can reach a point where you effectively destroy the intermediate.  Although its easier to get the reading in a short corridor lens (and the reading effectively larger) its at the cost of mid-range and intermediate.  Each step just gets too small to be useful, like a set of stairs where each step is only an inch.

Many of us use the intermediate far more than our reading, cel phone use and all.

----------


## Mark Mattison-Shup

_Mark, If you shorten the corridor, in a higher add, you can reach a point where you effectively destroy the intermediate._ Yes, wearing a 2.50 add now demonstrates the variety of manufacturer's designs that work better or worse than others for intermediate. No argument that too short is ineffective for intermediate but its the "Goldilocks" design that works for me, not too short, certainly not long, just right. Regardless, they are all general purpose and I wear computer progressives at the laptop. 

Since the thread started about freeform and the variability of the received corridor length, having a maximum length, regardless of B unless otherwise stated is a reasonable attribute (Thanks Peter).
Mark

----------


## RKJ

> What should the "fitter" use to accurately measure those values? 
> 
> Do you provide a high quality measuring tool to do these measurements?


This is a two part response:

1.  I am very interested to know what tools offices are using to take vertex, panto, and wrap measures.  I know of the Shamir panorameter kit.  Does anyone here have top of the mind knowledge of all of the hand held and automated options for taking these measures?

2.  Peter, like Diopterman, I am interested to know how you are teaching methods for taking measures accurate enough to ensure the most natural visual experience through the lenses.  

It has been my experience that the expense of automated tools is one of the hurdles to widespread acceptance of Free Form lenses.  I anticipate that this challenge is a problem for independent designers like you, especially with the growing success of automated tools, and growing belief that they are necessary for providing best possible measures.   

Having said that, Free Form lenses have wider sweet spots and should be more forgiving of small measurement errors than conventional progressives.  Peter, what is working best for you, and if possible, any tips on what to avoid?

----------


## opticallens



----------


## Diopterman

> 


Do you have a picture of a left lens to confirm that these are truly free form?

----------


## opticallens

Just want to share the picture of our 1.56 free form lenses.

----------

