# Optical Forums > Progressive Lens Discussion Forum >  New progressive lens "welcomed"...........................

## Chris Ryser

*NEW PROGRESSIVE LENS "WELCOMED"*Essilors Varilux X Series lens receives positive feedback from practitioners

15 Jun 2017 by  Emily McCormick

Essilors eighth generation Varilux lens, the Varilux X, has been positively welcomed by the profession, with 94% of practitioners saying they would recommend the product, the company reports. 

More than 200 independent practitioners attended official launches for the new lens in Manchester and Birmingham where they learned about the key features of the lens and how it will change the lives of millions of presbyopes, Essilor said. 

Based on patient feedback, Essilor says that nine out of 10 patients are satisfied with the Varilux X Series lens. While 98% of those surveyed said that would switch and replace the Varilux S series lens with the new Varilux X series product.

See all of it:
https://www.aop.org.uk/ot/industry/e...-lens-welcomed

----------


## Uncle Fester

I don't know about you but I'm holding out for the "Y" series to be released in 2019!!!  :Rolleyes:  :Eek: 

I'm sure X series will be less expensive...this time for sure...What's that? You don't think so???  :Bounce:

----------


## Quince

> The i phone of lenses...


Bwahahaha! Stolen.  :Ninja: 

Did you see there is also a new Crizal?? The _FORTE. Ooh lala!_

----------


## Uilleann

Forte isn't new.  Been around for years.

----------


## Quince

> Forte isn't new.  Been around for years.


Huh, the ad on the Varilux page made it sound like the hot new thing. Never heard of it before, but I'm not really listening either.

----------


## AngeHamm

> Forte isn't new.  Been around for years.


It's an international name for something we call something else in North America, right?

----------


## Quince

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...d-Crizal-Forte

Not sure if this is a link to an answer or just some laughs. You decide!

----------


## Quince

Does this mean that the X Series is even new? OR are we in a loop of same-sh*t-different-name?






-I am using the term 'sh*t' as in 'stuff'- not necessarily meaning that it is 'crap.' Not trying to stir any pots here.

----------


## Tallboy

If its the eighth lens why didn't they call it Varilux "El Ocho"

----------


## EyeManDan

Satisfied is such a weak word to describe a new product.  I was satisfied with my lunch i wasn't excited about it.  It like saying its Just Okay.

----------


## Happylady

Aren't 9 out of 10 wearers satisfied with the other Varilux lenses?

----------


## PartTimer

> Aren't 9 out of 10 wearers satisfied with the other Varilux lenses?


Yes. They just didn't know what satisfaction looked like until the NEWEST Varilux. Now they know. Well, nine out of ten of them do. 
Nine out of ten of them know THIS Varilux is the lens until the next nine or ten Variluxes come out. THEN those will be nine out of ten good, nine out of ten times.

GOT IT?

----------


## bretk0923

I caught about 90% of that...

----------


## acesrwylde

Does anyone have any concrete details on what is different about the 'X' compared to the 'S'? Their website (even the 'for provider' section) uses a bunch of flashy words with no real details, and their white sheet download isn't working. Does anyone from Europe or Canada have any specific details besides "Better, Faster, Stronger"? Thanks!

----------


## Hayde

All I've heard so far is from lab reps--haven't seen hide nor hair from the Varilux rep about this yet.

What I've heard second-hand is that if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then the Shamir A3 "intelli-corridor" should be sincerely flattered.

Also, X will be all freeform, unlike the S Design mold.  Expect a price increase over the S of an Andrew Jackson.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Disclaimer- Essilor Employee

Regarding _Crizal Forte_, that product is known as _Crizal Avance UV_ in the US.

Regarding _Varilux X Series_ progressive lenses, the new technology is _Xtend Technology-_ a new calculation process addressing the #1 complaint of premium progressive wearers.  50% of premium progressive wearers indicate they are not completely satisfied with near and intermediate vision (aka "vision within arm's reach").  Specifically, wearers feel the lenses require them to "find just the right spot" to view objects within arm's reach- requiring them to move their head a lot more than they did before they became presbyopes.

This calculation largely solves that problem, because it enables the wearer to view multiple distances through each point in the lens. It's functionally similar to the "simultaneous vision" concept found in some contact lenses (although without the inherent drawbacks found in contact lenses, because the range of powers involved is much smaller).  The result is a significant reduction in the need to move the head.  More information can be found at this link: http://www.pointsdevue.com/article/v...ld-near-vision

In my wearer study of _n=1_ (I've been wearing _Varilux X Design_ lenses for a couple months now), they're by far the best progressive lenses I've worn.  More importantly, in independently conducted wearer studies (19 worldwide studies involving over 2,700 wearers) the vast majority of wearers shared my perception that _Varilux X Series_ lenses greatly extend the sharp area of vision within arm's reach and greatly reduces the need to find "just the right spot" to view objects.

----------


## drk

Pete, I'm so glad you are "lurking about"!

OK, so see if I'm in the general ballpark.

Classically, we've had distance portion--->a uniform rate of change corridor--->leading to a "stabilized" near zone (meaning: the change stops there).

Now, with Shamir's "intellicorridor" stuff, and now your "X" (and I don't know what "synergies" essilor and Shamir are enjoying) are we seeing the end of the "stabilized near zone"?  Are we seeing not just progressive corridors but progressive near zones in order to increase depth of focus?

The main advantage being reducing the "nasty" head tilting to view different distances?  You can keep your eyes in the (now typically de-facto higher due to aggressive/non-linear corridor progression) near zone and see your phone and your laptop screen equally without any head movement?

----------


## Hayde

> Pete, I'm so glad you are "lurking about"!


Ditto.

If I'm understanding the lit, then the design change is essentially in terms of redistributing add power in the lens to satisfy more contemporary visual needs (with hopefully expanded lens areas of 'adequate acuities.')

This in and of itself is NOT a reproduction of the Shamir A3's 'Intelli-Corridor,' which fluxuates the add power distribution according to each patient's lens power, offsetting basic prismatic disparities.

Pete, without expecting you to a) speak for the competition, or b) explicitly compare/contrast your product with the competition...my pointed questions to you are:

Does the Varilux X vary the rate of add power distribution according to lens power in its calculation of vertical zone placement?  Or is what I'm reading about the 'acuity zones' and percentage ranges already providing the buffer for that variable--based on those population studies?

What range of lens powers were represented in those studies?  Are those impressively improved 'CS stats' limited to a particular range of lens powers?  If so, what is that range?

(Apologies if this is already addressed in the white paper--I'm unable to load it for some reason.)

----------


## Pete Hanlin

I think you are definitely in the ballpark.  I cannot speak to the Shamir technology (other than to note it is completely unrelated to anything found in Varilux- we're having to undergo a fairly extensive project to change the software we use to calculate lenses to make this design possible), but for _Xtend Technology_ yes- the idea is to require far less head movement (which is definitely what I notice about the lens).  Based on my own experience, I wouldn't say it's _zero_ head movement- but I definitely notice a dramatic reduction in head movements.  You've also hit on the change in approach to the design (treating near vision as a static 16" distance doesn't work in today's world... "near" is a much more fluid area these days).  If you are of presbyopic age, I hope you have a chance to try them and provide your own review!

----------


## Pete Hanlin

> Pete, without expecting you to a) speak for the competition, or b) explicitly compare/contrast your product with the competition...my pointed questions to you are:
> Does the Varilux X vary the rate of add power distribution according to lens power in its calculation of vertical zone placement?  Or is what I'm reading about the 'acuity zones' and percentage ranges already providing the buffer for that variable--based on those population studies?
> What range of lens powers were represented in those studies?  Are those impressively improved 'CS stats' limited to a particular range of lens powers?  If so, what is that range?


Not to sound "markety," but _Xtend Technology_ should be a "game changer," precisely because it goes beyond redistributing ADD power.  With _Xtend Technology_, when the eye is at any given point, it is looking through optics which provide acuity over a range of distances.  This is the only way to truly overcome the need to move the head around to find "just the right spot" in the lens (because when you redistribute power- or make the progression longer or shorter- all you're really doing is moving where "just the right spot" is, so head movement will still be necessary).  
Regarding the range of powers included in the studies, normally the goal is to create a group of subjects that accurately represents the overall population.  Although these characteristics will vary from region to region (e.g., in Asia we see a higher prevalence of myopia), we end up with a representative distribution of ametropia and presbyopia (as well as split by gender).
The reporting of satisfaction is based on the findings across the entire population of subjects (at least for claims that will be used in the US market, you cannot "cherry pick" results to support a claim- if you want to report on one finding you have to report on all of your findings).
Personally, I'm looking forward to what this lens will do on the market.  One of the tests measured performance across a number of tasks which are usually challenging for progressive wearers.  The study found 95% of wearers were satisfied with the performance of the design when reading in bed (which is usually a design-buster of a task).

----------


## bretk0923

EDIT: Retracted, I answered my own question after re-reading the literature.

Thanks for posting this, Pete! Great info!

----------


## Hayde

Thanks Pete.  I'm gratified to hear/see a little lit on the new lens.  (It's probably no surprise that 'competitive perspectives' tend to fill any vacuums of information y'all permit to linger....)

I'm going to presume the answer to my first question is "probably not." ;)

----------


## drk

> I think you are definitely in the ballpark.  I cannot speak to the Shamir technology (other than to note it is completely unrelated to anything found in Varilux- we're having to undergo a fairly extensive project to change the software we use to calculate lenses to make this design possible), but for _Xtend Technology_ yes- the idea is to require far less head movement (which is definitely what I notice about the lens).  Based on my own experience, I wouldn't say it's _zero_ head movement- but I definitely notice a dramatic reduction in head movements.  You've also hit on the change in approach to the design (treating near vision as a static 16" distance doesn't work in today's world... "near" is a much more fluid area these days).  If you are of presbyopic age, I hope you have a chance to try them and provide your own review!


 I'm a man.  I'm 54. (Obscure sports reference I would be surprised anyone gets.)

Vouch me anytime!

----------


## Pete Hanlin

> Thanks Pete.  I'm gratified to hear/see a little lit on the new lens.  (It's probably no surprise that 'competitive perspectives' tend to fill any vacuums of information y'all permit to linger....)  I'm going to presume the answer to my first question is "probably not." ;)


Missed that one- sorry.  
The question was:  _Does the Varilux X vary the rate of add power distribution according to lens power in its calculation of vertical zone placement?_

If I understand the question correctly, you're asking if the progression profile changes depending upon distance power and ADD power.  In that case, the answer is "yes."  In fact, that design concept was patented during the development of _Varilux Panamic_ progressive lenses.  Considering that design was launched back in 2000, I would imagine that patent is close to- or has- expired (which means other manufacturers are able to use the same approach to incorporate the same design elements- which might explain why some designs are starting to talk about similar sounding design characteristics).

Early PAL designs were "linear."  The progression was a steady and consistent transition from the distance sphere to the near sphere.  On a progression plot, it would look something like this:

By the time _Adaptar_ rolled around, Essilor designers had figured out that linear progressions are not ideal, because wearers who required higher levels of ADD needed more power at the "top" of the progression.  So, they began to vary the distribution of ADD accordingly, like this.  Note- these are just images I created years ago for a course on the evolution of PAL design- they're just to illustrate a concept and certainly don't represent any specific design (in fact, they're not even all that good, but this represents the extent of my _CorelDraw_ skills in the early 2000s :^).

By the time the _Varilux Panamic_ design was developed, the designers began to appreciate that both the wearer's level of ADD and ametropia had an effect on the near and intermediate requirements of the wearer.  So, the progression from lens to lens started to vary even more.  Considering there are 72 combinations of base curve and ADD, there were 72 different distributions.  The designer knew the power range of a 2 base would be over a certain range of minus powers, whereas an 8 base would cover a certain range of plus powers, and so on.  The variations now began to look something like this:

Of course, by this time the designers also realized the need for varied insets (if I recall correctly, this was another patent from the _Varilux Panamic_ era).  This is why I sometimes react when someone suggests "customization" began with digital surfacing.  In reality, there has been quite a bit of customization available in our (and other's) traditional designs for almost two decades.  Digital surfacing allows the designer to take it to the individual sphere and cylinder power level, but the level of variation possible in traditionally surfaced products is actually pretty robust.

If I haven't understood the question correctly, my apologies.

----------


## Hayde

That was really informative Pete!  Thank you!

Yes, I remember when the design 'models' (labels) started to housing multiple mold designs to be selected at the lab.  I agree it's no less legit than digitally surfaced solutions.  I'm glad digital tech can make that easier on everyone's infrastructure.

This is why Optiboard is so crucial.  It's quite a privilege to be able pick your brains, Pete.  Thanks for stepping up.

----------


## AngeHamm

> Regarding _Crizal Forte_, that product is known as _Crizal Avance UV_ in the US.


That's what I thought!

----------


## Speed

I consider 9 out of 10 satisfaction a horrible failure. 10% dissatisfied!

----------


## Tallboy

> I consider 9 out of 10 satisfaction a horrible failure. 10% dissatisfied!


You know that is a great point.  Unless some of these people went into the study knowing they hated progressives, or had a bad neck or any other of the issues that cause non adapts (which are much fewer than they were 15 years ago) 10% for a super duper top of the line lens is pretty darn high.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Don't confuse "adaptation" with "satisfaction" (the industry often does just this)...

For sure, assuming an excellent fit, most progressive designs should be capable of making 98-99% of people happy enough to wear the lens without bringing it back- after all, progressive lenses work (plus, most people don't get that there are different types of no-line lenses, so they assume whatever performance they are getting is "as good as it gets-" so they don't take them back).  However, if you bring progressive lens wearers together and research their wearing experience, you find only about 50% of consumers are really _satisfied_ with the intermediate and near visual performance provided by their progressive lenses.  I've sat behind the one-way glass in numerous cities for numerous research projects, and it is amazing how consistent the feedback from progressive wearing consumers is.  At the end of each session, I go in to ascertain what design each consumer is wearing (consumers are usually shocked to discover there are markings that indicate what "brand" their progressive is- most do not realize there is more than one "type" of no-line lens).  Even those wearing what I would consider "premium" progressives are often not happy with their near and intermediate performance.  Ask 100 progressive wearers if they are happy with how their lenses work when they're trying to read in bed, and you are not going to find 90+ of them saying they are completely happy...

----------


## Uilleann

Pete, one of the big complaints of MF contact lens styles, is (as you undoubtedly know well) the vision is 'soft' due to looking through multiple optics all at once.  I understand that on a PAL, this could be mitigated to a small degree, as this would only be done in the corridor, and eliminating the distance portion of the equation should simplify things in a noticeable way.

With that said, we also know that Varilux designs of the past couple decades have been rather soft.  I wonder if the softness of the overall design, coupled with the potential added softness due to compounding multiple near corrections in the corridor might lead to overall loss of clarity at mid/near.

Surely the engineers are aware of this and have worked on some complex solutions.  Are you able to expand on that particular at all here?  Thanks!

----------


## AngeHamm

> However, if you bring progressive lens wearers together and research their wearing experience, you find only about 50% of consumers are really _satisfied_ with the intermediate and near visual performance provided by their progressive lenses.  I've sat behind the one-way glass in numerous cities for numerous research projects, and it is amazing how consistent the feedback from progressive wearing consumers is.


This is why I think that the most underrated element of our business is *managing patients' expectations.* Yes, a PAL will give you a graduated reading prescription that is usable at all distances. No, it is not as well-designed for computer use as a dedicated pair of near-variable-focus or intermediate lenses, and you shouldn't expect it to be.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

> Pete, one of the big complaints of MF contact lens styles, is (as you undoubtedly know well) the vision is 'soft' due to looking through multiple optics all at once.  I understand that on a PAL, this could be mitigated to a small degree, as this would only be done in the corridor, and eliminating the distance portion of the equation should simplify things in a noticeable way.
> 
> With that said, we also know that Varilux designs of the past couple decades have been rather soft.  I wonder if the softness of the overall design, coupled with the potential added softness due to compounding multiple near corrections in the corridor might lead to overall loss of clarity at mid/near.
> 
> Surely the engineers are aware of this and have worked on some complex solutions.  Are you able to expand on that particular at all here?  Thanks!


A few notes: In a simultaneous contact lens, the lens is trying to provide far and near power (which requires a range of powers well over 1.00D and sometimes over 2.00D).  As you noted, the simultaneous effect found in _Varilux X Series_ lenses only occurs in the near and intermediate, and the power variation will therefore be much less pronounced (as in a few hundredths to as much as perhaps 0.50D). 

In the development of _Xtend Technology_, the designers actually focused on _acuity_ targets rather than _power_ (I believe in the white paper they have what looks like a contour plot- it's actually a plot of acuity).  For a given point in the lens let's say they established an acuity target of 0.01 log MAR or higher for a viewing distance with a range of 45-54cm.  They then worked to create optics that delivered that performance at the given point.  In the process of hitting those acuity targets, it became necessary to develop a new calculation process (to allow them to more tightly control the optics of each area of the lens).  I know the belief is "going digital" immediately creates infinite control of the surface, but in fact a designer is limited by the power of his/her calculator (because the calculation determines how finely a surface can be defined. 

Finally, although it gets discounted as a "marketing term," _W.A.V.E. Technology 2_ (_Wavefront Advanced Vision Enhancement_) is a real thing that does allow _Varilux_ designers to create surfaces with lower levels of higher order aberrations (we can prove it with actual wearers and everything :^).  When you add the "design based on acuity" approach to the ability to design away aberrations that reduce sharpness, the result is a lens that provides an _"extended range of sharp vision within arm's reach"_ (which is the product claim). 

The ultimate proof is in the pudding (or, in this case, the vision), and personally speaking I do notice sharp, extended vision in the four pairs of _Varilux X Design_ lenses I currently own (only downer about owning a couple dozen pair of glasses is updating them when the Rx changes- or when a new design you like comes out :^).
Hope this helps address any concerns/questions...
Pete

----------


## Uncle Fester

Please let sleeping dogs lie on OB regarding W.A.V.E., lest we doubting Thomas' start resurrecting Darryl Meister's and others posts proving that myth. 

Please?

Have to run to get in line for that iphone 8!!!  :Wink:

----------


## golfnut

Pete, is essilor planning on giving out trial certificates for the x design? Would really like to try it.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Golfnut, your local Essilor Brand or ELOA consultant may be able to hook you up.  They have a limited number of samples they can provide to their accounts.

Pete

----------


## Uilleann

> A few notes: In a simultaneous contact lens, the lens is trying to provide far and near power (which requires a range of powers well over 1.00D and sometimes over 2.00D).  As you noted, the simultaneous effect found in _Varilux X Series_ lenses only occurs in the near and intermediate, and the power variation will therefore be much less pronounced (as in a few hundredths to as much as perhaps 0.50D). 
> 
> In the development of _Xtend Technology_, the designers actually focused on _acuity_ targets rather than _power_ (I believe in the white paper they have what looks like a contour plot- it's actually a plot of acuity).  For a given point in the lens let's say they established an acuity target of 0.01 log MAR or higher for a viewing distance with a range of 45-54cm.  They then worked to create optics that delivered that performance at the given point.  In the process of hitting those acuity targets, it became necessary to develop a new calculation process (to allow them to more tightly control the optics of each area of the lens).  I know the belief is "going digital" immediately creates infinite control of the surface, but in fact a designer is limited by the power of his/her calculator (because the calculation determines how finely a surface can be defined. 
> 
> Finally, although it gets discounted as a "marketing term," _W.A.V.E. Technology 2_ (_Wavefront Advanced Vision Enhancement_) is a real thing that does allow _Varilux_ designers to create surfaces with lower levels of higher order aberrations (we can prove it with actual wearers and everything :^).  When you add the "design based on acuity" approach to the ability to design away aberrations that reduce sharpness, the result is a lens that provides an _"extended range of sharp vision within arm's reach"_ (which is the product claim). 
> 
> The ultimate proof is in the pudding (or, in this case, the vision), and personally speaking I do notice sharp, extended vision in the four pairs of _Varilux X Design_ lenses I currently own (only downer about owning a couple dozen pair of glasses is updating them when the Rx changes- or when a new design you like comes out :^).
> Hope this helps address any concerns/questions...
> Pete


All excellent information as usual Pete!  I appreciate the well above average explanation.  Thank you good Sir!

P.S.  Did you have a look at the eclipse this past Monday?   :Cool:

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Actually, Essilor did the eclipse up pretty well.  ISO eclipse glasses were supplied to everyone at home office (as well as the folks at our remote offices and labs).  Here in Dallas, we also had a supply of _Star_burst candy, _Orbit_ and _Eclipse_ Gum, _Sun_ Chips, and Capri _Sun_ juice boxes (although I have to agree with a coworker who suggested we should have had some _Corona_ as well ;^).

We only had 76% coverage here, but the cloudless day made for great viewing!  I was surprised it didn't get "darker" (felt like a mildly overcast day at the height of the eclipse).  One of my fellow technical marketers also set up a pinhole camera.  So, it was a cool event, but I'm REALLY looking forward to April 2024 (when Dallas will be in the totality area for an eclipse)!

----------


## Happylady

Hi Pete! I met you many years ago when you personally made me a pair of Varilux Comfort progressives and I seem to remember you brought them to me where I worked in Lewisville. I'm sure you remember, it wasn't more then 18 years ago!  :Rolleyes: 

Anyway, I'm excited about these new lenses. I understand they are replacing the S series? How does the cost compare?  And lastly, when will they be VSP approved?

----------


## Pete Hanlin

I actually do remember delivering those lenses- but I don't think it was quite 18 years ago (probably closer to 9-10 :^)!

You are correct- Varilux X Series progressive lenses will be the top of the Varilux portfolio going forward.

Categorization will be the same as Varilux S Series (Varilux X Design = Category O, Varilux X Fit = Category N).  There's a small increase to the wholesale price vs. Varilux S Series (you can get specifics from your local lab or brand consultant).



> Hi Pete! I met you many years ago when you personally made me a pair of Varilux Comfort progressives and I seem to remember you brought them to me where I worked in Lewisville. I'm sure you remember, it wasn't more then 18 years ago! 
> 
> Anyway, I'm excited about these new lenses. I understand they are replacing the S series? How does the cost compare?  And lastly, when will they be VSP approved?

----------


## Happylady

I learned that Varilux X will be VSP approved as of September 12th. 

Pete, our rep was telling us about the new Sapphire 360 AR. Says it's even clearer but since the lens was already 99.5% clear how much real improvement is there?

----------


## edKENdance

So we start with the Varilux S and then the Varilux E and then the Varilux X with Xtenz?!?!?!  I can't be the only one noticing this.

----------


## golfnut

I received my x design today and I was unbelievably surprised! FYI I have been wearing the Id space from Hoya as every progressive that I have worn has fallen well short... Until now... Absolutely smooth transitioning up and down. I really am impressed at this point. My rx is only Plano +1.75 but I usually have a back vertex around 16 to 28 mm... I've used the compensated designs from the other pals and I did provide them with vtx and wrap for the x. If this lense preforms as well with my pt trials as mine we will definitely be selling this lense... Hate to feed essilor but I am over the top on this one. I'll post more when I get some pt feedback. Also, the sapphire 360 coating is huge improvement from previous sapphire... Very low residual color and didn't have to clean my but 1 time when I put them on. We get great pricing on Hoya and shamir lenses but like I said we will work this lense in fast once I get some more feedback. Interested on others take on this one

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *If this lense preforms as well with my pt trials as mine we will definitely be selling this lense... 
> 
> **Hate to feed essilor but I am over the top on this one. I'll post more when I get some pt feedback. Also, the sapphire 360 coating is huge improvement from previous sapphire... Very low residual color and didn't have to clean my but 1 time when I put them on. We get great pricing on Hoya and shamir lenses but like I said we will work this lense in fast** once I get some more feedback. Interested on others take on this one*




They have always made top class lenses, as well as being owner of the largest batch of online opticals.

----------


## Tallboy

> They have always made top class lenses, as well as being owner of the largest batch of online opticals.


I have a theory that there are two Varilux development cycles, so they always have a lens coming out to give their Reps something to talk about.  One makes amazing lenses (Physio series), one makes meh lenses (Panamic, Varilux S)   If the X is as good as I am hearing, they have a reason to be flexing their muscles in the industry right now.

Chris they have a promotion going on this fall that if someone buys a Varilux X Transitions Crizal lens, they get ANOTHER lens completely paid for by Essilor.  They are obviously confident in this lens design and extremely FLUSH with cash.

----------


## Quince

To be fair, the cost of what people are charging for Varilux X with Trans and Crizal _should_ cover two pairs easily. It ain't cheap.

----------


## Uilleann

> I have a theory that there are two Varilux development cycles, so they always have a lens coming out to give their Reps something to talk about.  One makes amazing lenses (Physio series), one makes meh lenses (Panamic, Varilux S)   If the X is as good as I am hearing, they have a reason to be flexing their muscles in the industry right now.
> 
> Chris they have a promotion going on this fall that if someone buys a Varilux X Transitions Crizal lens, they get ANOTHER lens completely paid for by Essilor.  They are obviously confident in this lens design and extremely FLUSH with cash.


Wonder why you feel the S is such garbage, but seem to believe the X isn't.  It's cut on the same S design blank you realize, yes?  The overall design of both series is quite similar according to several of the regional managers out this way we've had extended meetings with.  At any rate, hardly enough difference to see one as terrible, and the other as magnificent it would seem.

Pete?  Your thoughts on the same?

----------


## Tallboy

> Wonder why you feel the S is such garbage, but seem to believe the X isn't.  It's cut on the same S design blank you realize, yes?  The overall design of both series is quite similar according to several of the regional managers out this way we've had extended meetings with.  At any rate, hardly enough difference to see one as terrible, and the other as magnificent it would seem.
> 
> Pete?  Your thoughts on the same?


Well I don't think the S is _garbage_ I just don't think its a better lens than the Physio design series (inluding W3).  It seemed very T design like the IOT lenses I use a lot and Auto II. A bit harder design than the Physio.

As far as why I think the X won't be?  I'm optimisitc? Not to mention that I can't remember the last time Varilux has stopped making a lens design, probably was the Old Comfort.  They must really think the X is a huge step forward.

----------


## Uilleann

Again, it's cut on the same, S design blanks.  So I really don't know how "revolutionary" it can be vs the S series.  YMMV as always, but if you hated the S, it seems likely you will the X as well.  Will be interested to hear your thoughts several months in.  Anecdotally, we have yet to fit the X ourselves, but never had any issues with the S - whatsoever.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Disclaimer- Essilor Employee

A few observations...
As I've mentioned, my personal experience with _Varilux X Series_ progressive lenses (I have four pair at this point) has been exceptionally positive.  I also really like my _Varilux S Series_ lenses, but the vision from arm's length in is dramatically better with the new design (for me, anyway).   The 19 wearer studies (which included over 2,740 wearers worldwide) arrived at the same conclusion.  Wearers found they need far fewer head movements and have dramatically improved vision from arm's length in.
As for designs being more or less similar, you can make a very wide range of designs from the same front surface (e.g., there are 100s of Full Back Surface designs created from the same spherical surfaces).  The front surface used to create both _Varilux S Series_ and _Varilux X Series_ lenses has a profile that manages swim (normalizes magnification) across the lens surface- this feature is called _Nanoptix Technology_, and is shared by both designs.  Both designs also feature _W.A.V.E. Technology 2_, and _SynchronEyes Technology_ (which are both clinically proven to provide measurable wearer benefits).  _Xtend Technology_ is the feature exclusive to _Varilux X Series_ lenses (and there are 15 new patents pending on the product, so it's not surprising that it would perform better than its predecessors :^).

Regarding the Varilux design team, I've met them on several occasions and- unless they have a second team hidden in a closet somewhere (and closets in France tend to be pretty tiny)- there's only one team.  I enjoy being around them, because it gives me a break from being the biggest opti-geek in the room.  These folks eat, drink, and sleep optics... studying progressive design and wearer perceptions is literally their livelihood, and they can be pretty darn passionate about it (when we met a couple years ago to start talking about _Xtend Technology_, they were very excited- now that I'm wearing the lenses, I can understand their enthusiasm). 

The phrase I've adopted for _Varilux X Series_ (which is totally non-official from an Essilor marketing standpoint :^) is *"Try it, you'll like it!"* (for those of us old enough to remember the _Alka-Seltzer_ ad, I am in no way comparing the performance of these products :^).

----------


## Uilleann

Pete - you've sold me!  If the X lenses will cure my gas and indigestion!   :Cool:  :Wink:  :Biggrin:  :Giggle: 

I'm intrigued to try the new design, and deeply appreciate your input to the discussion.  You're the authority when it comes to the straight poop on the latest tech and the outlook of Essilor.

----------


## Tallboy

So you truly believe the Varilux S was a superior design to the Physio W3? Or even the Physio enhanced? Maybe I had a few bad experiences with it early and just said forget this stuff. I get WOWs with my IOT lenses, I get problems solved with the Physio designs. I got a higher price tag and my favorite indy labs having to outsource with the S.

Maybe not two teams per se, but design cycles rather. So are they the same frontside blanks Pete?

----------


## edKENdance

> So you truly believe the Varilux S was a superior design to the Physio W3? Or even the Physio enhanced? Maybe I had a few bad experiences with it early and just said forget this stuff. I get WOWs with my IOT lenses, I get problems solved with the Physio designs. I got a higher price tag and my favorite indy labs having to outsource with the S.
> 
> Maybe not two teams per se, but design cycles rather. So are they the same frontside blanks Pete?


They're the same blanks.  Essilor touted the S as superior to the Physio in every way yet we still have the Physio and they dropped the S.  Something doesn't seem right about that.

----------


## Uilleann

> So you truly believe the Varilux S was a superior design to the Physio W3? Or even the Physio enhanced? Maybe I had a few bad experiences with it early and just said forget this stuff. I get WOWs with my IOT lenses, I get problems solved with the Physio designs. I got a higher price tag and my favorite indy labs having to outsource with the S.
> 
> Maybe not two teams per se, but design cycles rather. So are they the same frontside blanks Pete?


I can't speak for "better" or not per se.  But I can say I have had far fewer adaption issues across the board with S vs anything in the Physio catalog.  And the Physio design was never bad either.  But remember that tech is more than a decade old as well.  I've just never talked to any dispensers who have likes Physio, but hated S.  And so far as I know, the S isn't going anywhere as alluded to in the post above here (edKENdance's comment, not yours I know), so not sure why that comment was made?  *shrug*

----------


## Tallboy

My rep from an Essilor lab said the S was being discontinued, thats where I heard it.  We all know how reliable the grapevine can be though.

People complained of smaller reading/intermediate and a tighter feeling corridor in the S on more than one occasion.  That is PURELY my anecdotal experience though.  I have never had a Physio Enhanced/W3 non adapt that was cured by switching to another lens design though, and I really don't fit a ton of them either - but they are my "problem solver" lens.

----------


## Uilleann

Interesting experience.  I appreciate you sharing yours for sure.  Here's to hoping the X really is the next big thing - commensurate to it's ridiculous price tag!  Sorry Pete, while I have no troubles with Essilor's lenses at all optically speaking, the pricing structure _is_ rather ridiculous, and just getting worse...  :)

----------


## Pete Hanlin

You're the authority when it comes to the straight poop on the latest tech and the outlook of Essilor.
Well, I'm currently raising an 11 month old grandson, so I have a LOT of recent experience with poop!  :)

Regarding the blanks, as several have stated both _Varilux S_ and _Varilux X Series_ progressive lenses are made from the same blanks.  Any future _Varilux_ progressive with _Nanoptix Technology_ (gets rid of swim and that "off-balance feeling" progressives create) will feature a similar- if not the same- blank.  This blank (which is patented and only found on _Varilux_ products) increases its radius in the near zone (the opposite geometry of traditional progressives), which manages magnification across the lens.  It's a pretty cool design feature.

Regarding discontinuation, yes the plan is to eventually discontinue _Varilux S Series_ lenses, but you can still order them now and for the near future.  A few factors to consider: a.) the wholesale price of X isn't considerably higher than S lenses (except on 1.50, which had an anomalous price on S), b.) the two products share the same categorization with the major managed care plans, and c.) studies show complete adaptation from S to X (7 of 10 see a dramatic improvement, and the other 3 don't dislike the new product).  So from a dispensing viewpoint, it's very safe to upgrade the wearer's design- and given the number of complaints I receive about there being "too many lenses out there" I think it's a positive thing we're going to try for a full replacement of our top tier product.  

Regarding design cycles, each new technology will have its own level of performance improvement.  The _Varilux Physio_ family of products delivered sharper vision- which seemed to provide a pretty decent "wow" among wearers.  _Varilux S Series_ lenses reduced/eliminated swim, which created a varying level of wow (depending on how sensitive/adapted you are to swim- for me, it was a lifesaver).  _Varilux X Series_ lenses seem to deliver a pretty consistent wow (probably because who doesn't appreciated extended areas of sharp intermediate and near vision :^).  The new calculation process created to process _Xtend Technology_ just gives the designer a lot more control over the optics (French R&D folks don't often get "giddy," but that's the only way to describe their feelings about their new calculation engine :^).

Now that the product has officially launched in the US (and has been available globally for a little while now), we've started to collect even more data on wearers' experiences with the product.  All signs so far point to this being a game changer product (I definitely don't design these products, but I do help launch them- and I'll admit to pausing by home plate to watch this ball sail over the center field wall... it's a great feeling for this optician-turned-technical marketer guy :^).

----------


## Tallboy

> _Varilux X Series_ lenses seem to deliver a pretty consistent wow (probably because who doesn't appreciated extended areas of sharp intermediate and near vision :^).


I have my problems with Essilor at times, but I will never deny my patients and clients the best products, heck I use Crizal almost all the time.  Can't wait to start working with this lens.

----------


## Tallboy

I'm ordering my first pair of Varilux X lenses for someone who was a Comfort wearer for the last 4 years, +4.25 -50 @180 about each eye and +2.00 add.

I'm excited to see if she loves them :)

----------


## Tallboy

Just finished edging these, they look beautiful and insanely thin in 1.67.  I hope she likes them, the add seems like it was dropped quite a bit from the prescribed numbers, .36 diopeters in the right eye!  Who knows what Varliux does with these lenses, the proof is in the pudding.  Standard POW for this frame, fit like a glove.  I'll let you guys know how she likes the pudding.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Looking forward to hearing your patient's experience with the new glasses.  Hyperopes are always fun to deal with, because the optical gods have given them the _"short end of the stick"_ so to speak (since they have higher total near powers and get to read through all that base up prism that throws the image even further down).

Just a note about compensation, it doesn't change the ordered power at all (whether the compensation is being calculated by Essilor, Zeiss, Hoya, Shamir, etc.).  Even a +4.00 spherical SV lens will read "weaker" than prescribed if tilted in the lensometer (a +4.00 sph lens will read +3.64 +0.27 x090 if tilted 15 degrees in the lensometer).  Progressive lenses are always measured at a point away from the optical center and at a different angle than as worn.  For this reason, manufacturers provide a "compensated power" (which is a misnomer- I wish it was called "measured power").

----------


## Tallboy

I am familiar with what you are describing Pete, and its a good point.  No doubt different lenses come up with slightly different "measured powers" though.

I am confident that Varilux knows a thing or two about lenses though and trust their design.  _Especially_ on hyperopes.

----------


## Lee H

> Just finished edging these, they look beautiful and insanely thin in 1.67.  I hope she likes them, the add seems like it was dropped quite a bit from the prescribed numbers, .36 diopeters in the right eye!  Who knows what Varliux does with these lenses, the proof is in the pudding.  Standard POW for this frame, fit like a glove.  I'll let you guys know how she likes the pudding.



Any feedback yet that you can share?
Thanks in advance!

----------


## Tallboy

> Any feedback yet that you can share?
> Thanks in advance!


She loved the reading and most of the vision, said anecdotally similar things to what Pete said we should expect with it being so easy to find where she needed to read at just about any posture.  Her left eye was very blurry in distance, but that is the case in her CL lenses she just got as well so seems to be a refraction issue. I will report back.

I just am about to order my second pair, around 
-6.50 sph
-7.00 and -1.25 cyl @ 90   with only a +1.00 add, first time wearer.  I'll be interested in what she says because my house design I use would knock this RX out of the park, so I expect smiles and "wow its so easy" with the Varilux X

Only thing I can be sure of right now about the Varilux X is it is _expensive_

----------


## Kwill212

Hey Pete, 

So I ordered a test pair +3.50 -1.00 x 180 +3.00add. B measurement 38, SH- 26. The lenses came with no prism thinning. I don't order a lot of Essilor lenses so I don't really have a comparison from other Essilor designs. The lenses were obviously a lot thicker on top. Is this how it should be?

----------


## Tallboy

> Hey Pete, 
> 
> So I ordered a test pair +3.50 -1.00 x 180 +3.00add. B measurement 38, SH- 26. The lenses came with no prism thinning. I don't order a lot of Essilor lenses so I don't really have a comparison from other Essilor designs. The lenses were obviously a lot thicker on top. Is this how it should be?


The +4.25 
ADD +2.00 example I posted was a SH of 24 and a B of 35,  they came in as thin as I could possible have imagined, amazingly thin.  I can't remember but I think there was definitely prism thinning in them.  What you are saying seems strange but maybe with the +3.00 Add things are different with the design.

----------


## Kwill212

> The +4.25 
> ADD +2.00 example I posted was a SH of 24 and a B of 35,  they came in as thin as I could possible have imagined, amazingly thin.


Thanks for the input. I'm a little confused by the amazingly thin aspect though. Do you think they are somehow thinner than they would have been in any other design? That seems improbable to me.

----------


## Tallboy

> Thanks for the input. I'm a little confused by the amazingly thin aspect though. Do you think they are somehow thinner than they would have been in any other design? That seems improbable to me.


Degree of Asphericity used in the design, prism thinning, front curve, if add is on the front.   It wasn't _that much_ thinner than say a physio W3, but it was much thinner than an Autograph III or many IOT designs would have been. Seemed almost flat on the back, cut on a 5.25 base.  For a +4.25 lens with a +2.00 add, that is impressive if along with that thinness comes superior optics.

The trick isn't making a lens thin, any jerk can do that, its making it thin that you can see out of - and then if you can see superbly? Well thats a thing of art in my opinion.

----------


## Kwill212

> Degree of Asphericity used in the design, prism thinning, front curve, if add is on the front.   It wasn't _that much_ thinner than say a physio W3, but it was much thinner than an Autograph III or many IOT designs would have been. Seemed almost flat on the back, cut on a 5.25 base.  For a +4.25 lens with a +2.00 add, that is impressive if along with that thinness comes superior optics.
> 
> The trick isn't making a lens thin, any jerk can do that, its making it thin that you can see out of - and then if you can see superbly? Well thats a thing of art in my opinion.



Yes, I am aware of how a plus lens can be physically made thinner. Whether or not it has superior optics is yet to be seen IMO.

 I am still perplexed how differently our orders were processed. You received an lens that was prism thinned and almost plano back(maybe even convex in the reading?) on a 5.25 BC, and I received a not-prism thinned 8.00 Base lens with a very concave back curve. If the vision is good, I suspect mine was processed incorrectly since yours is far better cosmetically. Has anyone else ordered these yet that would like to share their findings?

----------


## Tallboy

> Yes, I am aware of how a plus lens can be physically made thinner. Whether or not it has superior optics is yet to be seen IMO.


Oh I'm sorry I thought you were questioning the probability of one plus progressive lens design being thinner than another design, my misunderstanding.

There is no doubt, so far, that it has superior optics to many many lenses out there.  Always a point of diminishing return on investment though when you start splitting hairs between lenses that would retail at $450 to $600 dollars in scratch coated CR39, they are all awfully good.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Hey Pete, 
So I ordered a test pair +3.50 -1.00 x 180 +3.00add. B measurement 38, SH- 26. The lenses came with no prism thinning. I don't order a lot of Essilor lenses so I don't really have a comparison from other Essilor designs. The lenses were obviously a lot thicker on top. Is this how it should be?

Hello Kwill (sorry for the slow response- I'm up at the cabin preparing for deer season :^),
All Varilux lenses should come with prism thinning- so I would consult with your lab regarding the extra thickness you received.  Hopefully, they can resolve the issue and provide some thinner lenses.

Tallboy- don't you see any -2.00 sph patients?!?  Seriously, a high myope with low ADD is usually pretty easy to make happy- so hopefully all goes well (hope I didn't just jinx the order :^).  The absolute WORST patient is that +0.50 sph patient who has always gotten away without wearing Rx who becomes presbyopic (they've put off wearing glasses, and when the piper comes the collect, they are usually miserable :^P).

Best regards,
Pete

----------


## Kwill212

> Hello Kwill (sorry for the slow response- I'm up at the cabin preparing for deer season :^),
> All Varilux lenses should come with prism thinning- so I would consult with your lab regarding the extra thickness you received. Hopefully, they can resolve the issue and provide some thinner lenses.


Thanks Pete, that's what I figured.

----------


## Tallboy

> Tallboy- don't you see any -2.00 sph patients?!?  Seriously, a high myope with low ADD is usually pretty easy to make happy- so hopefully all goes well (hope I didn't just jinx the order :^).  The absolute WORST patient is that +0.50 sph patient who has always gotten away without wearing Rx who becomes presbyopic (they've put off wearing glasses, and when the piper comes the collect, they are usually miserable :^P).


Not nearly enough, though I see some of them :)

For what it is worth I have started using Office Designs for those +0.50 people who are going to use their expensive progressive lenses as glorified readers that will spend their time on the top of their head or hanging off their shirt collar.  Has been a godsend for many of them.

----------


## Happylady

So on the Optical Jedi blog he says that the distance area on the new X is narrower.  From the stuff I've seem on it, it didn't seem to be the case- but is it? I know that in general if a progressive has a superior distance the reading area can suffer and visa versa.

----------


## mordechai

Hi Pete,

Could you tell me what Rx the X is ideal for, i.e. High plus, high minus, high astigmatism, low astigmatism, add.etc.

From what I have read above the X design does not change with the new and improved algorithm, therefore just like with gloves there is no such thing as one size fits all, who is the safest wearer for the X and with which Rx can we expect jitters?

Life experience has shown us that attempts for one size fits all products are usually only somewhat successful. 

If am am going to be giving the X PALs to some customers who are my safest bets? ( I want very happy customers :Bounce: )

Thank you

----------


## Pete Hanlin

> Hi Pete,
> Could you tell me what Rx the X is ideal for, i.e. High plus, high minus, high astigmatism, low astigmatism, add.etc...
> 
> Life experience has shown us that attempts for one size fits all products are usually only somewhat successful. If am am going to be giving the X PALs to some customers who are my safest bets? ( I want very happy customers)
> Thank you


Hello mordechai,
BTW, Your namesake was a pretty cool character in the book of Esther (sorry, my major was theology and some characters just stand out in my memory ;^)...

The R&D process used to create Varilux designs (_LiveOptics_) results in a rather robust multi-design strategy (btw, you can watch a video on LiveOptics heres here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA6UuEh4NfI ).  The intro is a bit lengthy, but it eventually describes how new designs are developed using a lot of wearer studies.

Point being, the Varilux design process involves a lot of prototype testing on real wearers.  The _Varilux X Series_ development process involved 19 separate studies involving over 2,000 individual wearers.  In each of these studies, care is made to represent all Rx categories (myopes, hyperopes, emmetropes, high cyl, various ADD levels, etc.).  Incremental design steps are based on the performance in each category.  The result is the designs used for each category become quite diverse.  Let's say one of the early studies shows really strong improvement for myopes- but no improvement for hyperopes.  The data from that study will be used to inform the next iteration of the design process for the hyperopic range, and changes continue until the hyperopes are experiencing similar increases in performance.  Before the process is considered "complete," the studies will need to show substantial improvement in the targeted visual functions for ALL Rx categories (which means the _Varilux X Series_ "design" will be quite different for a hyperope vs. a myope).  Usually the trickiest Rx category is actually emmetropes (because a +0.25 sph patient is going to be super critical in distance vision, because s/he sees quite well without glasses at distance).  It's actually pretty interesting when you start to drill down into the differences between how a hyperope perceives a progressive design vs. a myope.  Differences in retinal shape, prismatic effects, and visual habits really do result in a situation where a single approach just doesn't cut it.

_"Which Varilux for which Rx range"_ is a very common question, but in reality the design process is based upon ensuring patients across the entire Rx range receive the full benefit of the improved visual function- in the case of _Varilux X Series_, this means all Rx categories receive the same extended range benefit.  

As a premium progressive, Varilux wants to make sure you have very happy customers as well (after all, if the lens doesn't differentiate the practitioner the patient is more likely to try a retailer- where they are extremely unlikely to receive Varilux)!  There will ALWAYS be "outlier" patients (i.e., there is always going to be that one patient who has worn _Varilux Comfort_ for 20 years and just always prefers _Varilux Comfort_), but on the whole patients should notice a real improvement as they go up the Varilux range.

Hope this answers your query,
Pete

----------


## bretk0923

I love this discussion. It's so cool seeing in real time the questions  and answers that come up with a new lens design. I have a couple  questions of my own to add here.




> Before the process is considered "complete," the studies will need to  show substantial improvement in the targeted visual functions for ALL Rx  categories *(which means the Varilux X Series "design" will be quite different for a hyperope vs. a myope)*.


Can  you expand upon this? How is the design different from Rx to Rx?  Perhaps more importantly, do we as opticians have functional control  over which design is selected, or will "design A" always be chosen for a  hyperope and "design B" always chosen for a myope? Do all of Varilux's  lenses operate this way, or is this something that is unique to  X-Series?

----------


## Pete Hanlin

> Can  you expand upon this? How is the design different from Rx to Rx?  Perhaps more importantly, do we as opticians have functional control  over which design is selected, or will "design A" always be chosen for a  hyperope and "design B" always chosen for a myope? Do all of Varilux's  lenses operate this way, or is this something that is unique to  X-Series?


The simplest variable is related to prism.  Consider a +4.00 sph hyperope vs. a -4.00 sph myope.  Since the near zone extends to 8mm or so below the optical center (located at the PRP in a PAL), our hyperope is looking through up to 3.2 diopters of base up prism at near- which displaces the image and requires the eye to rotate downward an additional 1mm.  Meanwhile, our myope is looking through base down prism, which displaces the image upward.  Therefore, the vertical position of the eye will vary by as much as 2-3mm between myopes and hyperopes when reading.  Likewise, the horizontal position of the eye will be vary (distance Rx has a small effect, and ADD power has a greater effect- since higher ADD powers have a shorter focal length which requires greater convergence).  Every Varilux design since Varilux Panamic (launched in 2000) has featured varied progression length and inset based on ametropia and ADD.  As long as the optician places the FRP (cross) right in front of center pupil, the near zone will be optimally placed to provide wearer satisfaction at near.

Eye shape is another variable (since most myopia and hyperopia is related to axial length).  Basically, myopic retinas are larger and myopes tend to have greater tolerance of steeper sphere slopes (rates of power change).  This variable isn't as straight forward from a design perspective, because there are other factors that determine how tolerant a wearer will be to design "hardness" (e.g., does the patient use head movements or eye movements to view peripheral targets).  There are other variables related to optical and physiological variables, but the above is one example of each.

The key to everything is trial on real wearers- because the human visual system has a stubborn habit of being illogical.  A great example of this occurred during the development of Varilux Ellipse.  The general approach to short corridor PALs was "shorten the progression and maintain near area."  Wearer studies showed this approach didn't necessarily deliver wearer satisfaction in smaller frames (the most important zone to maintain in a small frame is actually the distance zone, go figure).

As for manually selecting design features, the _LiveOptics_ concept is to "turn all the knobs, and test all the variations" during design development to determine the settings that result in the highest satisfaction for the most wearers.  Not particularly satisfying (especially for someone like myself that likes to tinker with everything), but it's borne out by the data (e.g., analysis of a database containing over 500,000 orders, remakes are higher when progression length is manually selected vs. allowing the calculation to automatically set the progression length).   A few years back, I was discussing this with a researcher from one of the Optometric programs, and he described a study where they found basically the same thing.  

Sorry for the length, and by no means am I an expert on the design process.  The ladies and gentlemen who do this for a living can go on forever on the variables involved in progressive design (and they get pretty passionate about it).  Hopefully this expands on the subject a bit, though.

Best regards,
Pete

----------


## bretk0923

Don't apologize about length at all! All of this is information that  leads to a greater understanding, and I find it fascinating.

I have to apologize to you, though, because I'm going to nitpick a little. 

I've  long thought that this was the case with Varilux, in that the lab  chooses the right design based on Rx, Add, frame size, materials, etc.  Unfortunately, what I've found is that this causes a greater deal of  difficulty in fitting those who do NOT fall into the optimal design  characteristics set forth by Varilux.

Say for instance that I  have a +6.00 hyperope with a +2.50 add. On every patient I will measure  both distance and near PDs, so let's say I only find an inset of 2mm  total. Being a high hyperope, this patient is less tolerant to changes  in oblique power errors, and Varilux predicts that she will have a _greater_  convergence, so right off the bat I can predict with some pretty high  accuracy that my patient will have problems here. Even choosing a harder  lens design won't solve the problem, simply because I can't control the  lens design's inset on this patient. Now let's compound the issue and  say this patient had neck surgery and can't lift their head up very  high. This would then facilitate the need for a much shorter corridor  length. You can see where things spiral out of control pretty quickly.

Of  course this is only a theoretical example of someone who is a VERY  unique case, but I've unfortunately run into this issue more times than  with other lenses that allow me to have control over those parameters.  Even minor visual behavior idiosyncrasies like a patient just simply not  _wanting_ to lift their head as high to get to the reading area become much more difficult to troubleshoot. 

Again, I apologize for nitpicking, but my underlying point is to see if there is a way that I can  easily troubleshoot these issues while staying in the Varilux family.  Be brutally honest, am I being unreasonable in hesitating with Varilux X  until I can figure out how to fix these issues?

----------


## ThatOneGuy

> Considering that design was launched back in 2000


I thought Panamic was around in the mid and late 90s?

At any rate, rule #1 of educating the public about the latest and greatest: Never mention Panamic (aka, one of very few lenses to actually be discontinued outright in the last 30 years due solely to poor performance).

:)

Just having a little fun!

----------


## Robert Martellaro

Pete,

Nice post. I would add that myopes see a smaller image (minification) that is compressed, slightly raising the near object, with a wider view. Hyperopes see a bigger image (magnification) lowering the near object, with a narrower view. Somewhat like putting a landscape picture on a balloon and adding or subtracting air to make it bigger or smaller.




> I thought Panamic was around in the mid and late 90s?


Comfort in 1993, Panamic in 2000, along with Individual Gradal Top and Sola Max. 

Best regards,

Robert Martellaro

----------


## ThatOneGuy

> Comfort in 1993, Panamic in 2000, along with Individual Gradal Top and Sola Max.


Thank you! The more decades go by, the harder it is for me to remember which decade what happened. :/

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Thank you! The more decades go by, the harder it is for me to remember which decade what happened. :/


I hear you. When I try to remember when something occurred in the past, I always multiply the time by a factor of two. 

Best regards,

Robert Martellaro

----------


## Pete Hanlin

I have to apologize to you, though, because I'm going to nitpick a little. 
No apology necessary.  Around 95% of patients probably fall in the "average patient" category (in a normal distribution of patients).  However, in a large practice that means you're going to see a "special" patient once every two days or so...  Thank goodness for the special patients (they're the ones that allow a skilled optician to make her/his living :^).

The lab chooses the right design based on Rx, Add, frame size, materials, etc. 
Minor point, but the lab doesn't choose the design.  For most digital designs, the design files are set and stored within the lab's desktop, and the system simply picks the appropriate design.  However for lenses such as Varilux X Series, the design is calculated on a remote supercomputer via a networked link.  You are correct in that the calculation engine looks at the Rx, ADD, frame dimensions, fitting parameters, etc., and then calculates a design that is optimally suited.

Say for instance that I have a +6.00 hyperope with a +2.50 add. On every patient I will measure both distance and near PDs, so let's say I only find an inset of 2mm total.
Assuming you are measuring pupillary distance with a pupilometer, you have to also take into account the effects of prism.  The patient may only converge 2mm from distance to near without correction- but the prismatic effect of their lenses will influence (in this case increase) their total convergence while wearing correction.  Still, point taken- there are a few patients out there with special convergence requirements.  (Sorry, now I'm nit-picking :^)

Now let's compound the issue and say this patient had neck surgery and can't lift their head up very high.
Actually, you CAN adjust the progression length of a Varilux W2+, W3+, S Series, or X Series progressive lens.  We don't recommend or talk about it (although I guess I kinda am right now), but you can.  One caveat- you need to be ordering through _VisionWeb_ to a laboratory that is running the ELOA version of _OptiFacts_.  There's a field that's necessary to inform the aforementioned calculation engine that the progression length optimization is being manually over-ridden (the calculation normally automatically adjusts the progression length to optimize intermediate and distance given the fitting height).  Most laboratory management systems (LMS) don't have the field.  However, we are working with the major players (e.g., DVI) to add the necessary field to make it possible for practitioners such as yourself to take control when you feel the need to do so.  The reason most LMS do not have the field is most "variable corridor" products create individual datafiles for each progression length which are stored within the laboratory's computer as individual products.  When a corridor is specified, the lab selects the product file for that particular corridor length.  This doesn't work for Varilux X Series, because there are no "set" designs (the design for each lens is calculated individually based on the parameters mentioned earlier).  One of the reasons we discourage manual selection of progression lengths comes from evaluation of an exceptionally large database of lab orders (which indicate jobs are more likely to be reordered when progression lengths are manually specified... this being across ALL progressive designs with manually variable corridors).  However, for special situations where the practitioner really sees a need for specifying a particular length (usually shorter), the capability is there.

My underlying point is to see if there is a way that I can easily troubleshoot these issues while staying in the Varilux family. Be brutally honest, am I being unreasonable in hesitating with Varilux X until I can figure out how to fix these issues?
I am way too biased to answer this question (because of course I want you to start fitting Varilux X Series :^).  Being as objective as possible, if you would like to give Varilux X Series a try, I think I would try it with that large % of patients who fall within the mythical "normal" category (who is really normal anyway :^).  For the "special" patients, I would continue using the product you can tweak (after all, you might not use your sand wedge for every shot, but it's good to have it in the bag when you find yourself in sand).

At any rate, rule #1 of educating the public about the latest and greatest: Never mention Panamic (aka, one of very few lenses to actually be discontinued outright in the last 30 years due solely to poor performance).  Just having a little fun!
Okay, I just have to say this... Varilux Panamic was an excellent design (I dispensed 1,000s of pairs back when I was still dispensing- mostly upconverting Varilux Comfort wearers).  Varilux Panamic had a challenge that was specific to the US market (which was addressed during the development of Varilux Physio).  My first presentation at Essilor (in 2002) was how to differentiate Varilux Panamic and Varilux Comfort (since this was the first time there were two Varilux designs :^), so Varilux Panamic has a special place in my heart!   :Smile: 

Nice post. I would add that myopes see a smaller image (minification) that is compressed, slightly raising the near object, with a wider view. Hyperopes see a bigger image (magnification) lowering the near object, with a narrower view. Somewhat like putting a landscape picture on a balloon and adding or subtracting air to make it bigger or smaller.
Yes- great analogy.  Along the same lines, the shape of the retina also varies between hyperopes and myopes (imagine projecting a powerpoint onto a screen where the screen has varying levels of concave curvature).

----------


## bretk0923

Wow,  thanks a ton Pete, seriously. This is some really high-level info, and no Essilor or Varilux rep has ever volunteered to actually answer these questions for me.

It's good to know more about HOW Varilux lenses are made (and designs chosen), because it gives me a better understanding of how the end product will function. Then, equipped with that understanding, I can deliver a higher success rate to my patients. I think after reading this that I am much more comfortable beginning to dispense Varilux X, knowing much better now where it should and should not work well.

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain, this helps a ton.

----------

