# Optical Forums > Progressive Lens Discussion Forum >  Digital Progressive lenses

## i care guy

Dear all,

Looks like there are several labs in Asia that are equipped for the digital, freeform lenses.
As an example the Hoya ID lenses are manufactured in Thailand and shipped to Canada.
Essilor lenses are now made in India ( I was told ).

Are you aware of any labs in India, Thailand or China that we can purchase our brand names digital progressive lenses at lesser price that we are currently buying in Canada?

Essilor, Nikon, Hoya lenses are keep going up in price and we as opticians are making a lot less profit.

I would like to offer the better lens to my clients but finding the consumers can't afford the $500.00 - $700.00 pair of lenses. 
If I could offer the same lenses for $300.00 - $500.00 would be more reasonable to the clients.

Please let me know if you're aware of any labs in the orient.

Regards, M:)

----------


## AWTECH

> Dear all,
> 
> Looks like there are several labs in Asia that are equipped for the digital, freeform lenses.
> As an example the Hoya ID lenses are manufactured in Thailand and shipped to Canada.
> Essilor lenses are now made in India ( I was told ).
> 
> Are you aware of any labs in India, Thailand or China that we can purchase our brand names digital progressive lenses at lesser price that we are currently buying in Canada?
> 
> Essilor, Nikon, Hoya lenses are keep going up in price and we as opticians are making a lot less profit.
> ...


You don't have to go 1/2 way around the world for good lens at a fair price.  Send me a PM and I will give you some examples.

----------


## eyemanflying

> Dear all,
> 
> Looks like there are several labs in Asia that are equipped for the digital, freeform lenses.
> As an example the Hoya ID lenses are manufactured in Thailand and shipped to Canada.
> Essilor lenses are now made in India ( I was told ).
> 
> Are you aware of any labs in India, Thailand or China that we can purchase our brand names digital progressive lenses at lesser price that we are currently buying in Canada?
> 
> Essilor, Nikon, Hoya lenses are keep going up in price and we as opticians are making a lot less profit.
> ...


Are you in need of free-form or digital?  There's a big difference and no need to buy from Asia.  PM me.

----------


## bt5050

Can someone pls explain what the differance is exactly ? Not sure if I am correct ?

I thought s digital lens would be a regular boxed front side pal surfaced backside along the lines of a free form product ? But with the same front side moldings ? 

And a freeform product would be a more customized pal with the progression as well as the powers cut into it off say a single vision blank ? 

I could be far off base but wanted some clearification
thanks everyone

----------


## eyemanflying

> Can someone pls explain what the differance is exactly ? Not sure if I am correct ?
> 
> I thought s digital lens would be a regular boxed front side pal surfaced backside along the lines of a free form product ? But with the same front side moldings ? 
> 
> And a freeform product would be a more customized pal with the progression as well as the powers cut into it off say a single vision blank ? 
> 
> I could be far off base but wanted some clearification
> thanks everyone


Don't be fooled by the term digital.  In simple quick terms....although digital is a fairly new technology, it is simply a more accurate way to process conventional lenses.  Although it is faster for a lab to process as they normally go cut to polish from the generator, there are less steps and less labour involved; so they should be less expensive right???

Wrong.  You will pay a premium for these lenses due to the more expensive processing equipment and software technology.  Although you can purchase low end equipment and software starting at around $300K, the average cost for the better, more recognized technology is between $750K to $1M.  

Free-form is a design (available in both PALS and SV) coupled with an even more accurate digital process.  The design can be based on major manufacturer designs (essentially copying the major brands and/or private labelling) or a customized in-house design, hence the term free-form.  There can front and back double surface free form, molded front and back surface free from or 100% backside free form with spherical front (SV lens blank).

Here's a great link which explains in further detail.  Good luck!

http://www.totallyoptical.com/Media/...Handbook09.pdf

----------


## shanbaum

> Don't be fooled by the term digital. In simple quick terms....although digital is a fairly new technology, it is simply a more accurate way to process conventional lenses. Although it is faster for a lab to process as they normally go cut to polish from the generator, there are less steps and less labour involved; so they should be less expensive right???
> 
> Wrong. You will pay a premium for these lenses due to the more expensive processing equipment and software technology. Although you can purchase low end equipment and software starting at around $300K, the average cost for the better, more recognized technology is between $750K to $1M. 
> 
> Free-form is a design (available in both PALS and SV) coupled with an even more accurate digital process. The design can be based on major manufacturer designs (essentially copying the major brands and/or private labelling) or a customized in-house design, hence the term free-form. There can front and back double surface free form, molded front and back surface free from or 100% backside free form with spherical front (SV lens blank).
> 
> Here's a great link which explains in further detail. Good luck!
> 
> http://www.totallyoptical.com/Media/...Handbook09.pdf


Can you please clarify this? It is not clear what you think the difference is between "digital" and "freeform". Perhaps you think that a surfacing process that comprises a generator that produces surfaces with sufficiently high surface accuracy, and sufficiently low surface roughness, to be polished by a small-aperture conformable polishing tool is "digital"? And "freeform" additionally comprises producing curves more complex than spheres and tores, as have been done using traditional technology?

----------


## YrahG

I don't know if the terms that are used between companies have any differences. Here is my quick and simple break down:

*Worst to Best:*
Molded - Slumped Front Surface Pals
Molded - Digital Front Surface Pals
Molded / Freeform - Slumped front surface pals with freeform back surfaces (even the tradition spherical and toric curves can increase in accuracy by at least 0.05D in theory) _(sub categories: sph/toric, aspheric/atoric)_
Molded / Freeform - Digital front surface Pals with freeform back surfaces _(sub categories: sph/toric, aspheric/atoric)_
Molded / Freeform - Spherical front surface with a freeform Pal back surface 
Freeform / Freeform - Freeform front surface with a freeform Pal back surface

Of course design being equal in all cases, which is not the case in real life. This list would be theoretically the most accurate reproduction of curvature. In the case of spherical molding the results are pretty predictable so there is no gain in accuracy to create a spherical surface with a freeform process compared to the molded process, however when it comes to the back surface a spherical back surface can be produced with greater accuracy using the freeform method due to the steps that most labs have tools available in (0.10D). For instance, if the material and the tool are not matched properly the power can be off as much as 0.06D in which case the level of accuracy with the freeform process can get within 0.01D. Can that 0.01D be delivered consistently? Probably not, but the posibility exists. That's the best I have been able to decipher and it does not apply to the functionality of the design.

----------


## eyemanflying

> Can you please clarify this? It is not clear what you think the difference is between "digital" and "freeform". Perhaps you think that a surfacing process that comprises a generator that produces surfaces with sufficiently high surface accuracy, and sufficiently low surface roughness, to be polished by a small-aperture conformable polishing tool is "digital"? And "freeform" additionally comprises producing curves more complex than spheres and tores, as have been done using traditional technology?


Based on the non-generic, general definition, theory and process, your assumption is fairly accurate. 

The mass confusion evolves when major manufacturers develop their own marketing terms and jargon and make false claims...i.e.,there are free-form lenses available marketed as 'digital' or 'HD'. Contraire, there are digital lenses marketed as free-form. 

Excluding lined bifocals and ignoring capital investment equipment costs, every lens in the future could be easily processed using a digital or free-form method. All you would need to inventory is a BC range of Semi-finished SV lens blanks. The computer and generator would do the rest.

Now, based on your lab background, let's hear the objection.

----------


## Jacqui

> Excluding lined bifocals and ignoring capital investment equipment costs, every lens in the future could be easily processed using a digital or free-form method. All you would need to inventory is a BC range of Semi-finished SV lens blanks. The computer and generator would do the rest.


This could be very, very easily done right now.

----------


## shanbaum

I don't think that your usage of the terms "digital" and "freeform" accurately reflects the common usage in the industry, which is unfortunately muddled.  For instance, I don't think that most people would regard ordinary spheres and tores produced on freeform-capable equipment as "digital"... but that's just my impression.

I don't think that "digital" is a particularly appropriate term for such lenses; after all, the previous, non-freeform-capable generation of generators (SGX, SG-8, Lensmakers, Vista, etc.) were every bit as "digital" as the current generation - the new ones are just better at it.

Is a toric lens that's produced on a freeform-capable generator, and polished on a traditional lap, "digital"?  What if it's polished on a small-aperture polisher, is that different?  (I think it is).

I think we need some new words.

----------


## YrahG

> I think we need some new words.


Please no, no more words, I give I give.  Why no accurately define the current terminology then fill in the holes as necessary.  Companies can't be the ones creating definitions it has to come from an organization such as the Vision Council or in the ANSI under definitions.  Why don't we use this thread to define the various terms.

 Freeform - (generic term)
Digital - (generic term)
 Digital Surfacing - (generic term, used by Essilor)
 High Definition (HD) - (non-generic term, used by SOLA)
 360 - (non-generic term, belongs to Essilor)
 Internal - (non-generic term, belongs to Seiko)
 Dual Digital Vision (DDV) - (non-generic term, belongs to Essilor)
Fingerprint Surfacing - ?
 Customized - (generic term)
Precise-form - ?
 Back Surface - (generic term)
Dual Surface - (genric term)
Wavefront - (generic term)
Personalized - (generic term)
 Individual - (generic term, used by Zeiss)
 3D - (non-generic term, used by Zeiss)

A lot of these terms are redundant, instead of creating more we need to define the current generic terms and rid ourselves of the proprietary branded terms.  This will allow for easier communication amoung professionals about the subject.  Above are the most common ones I have heard and where they came from.  The ones in green are generic enough to use, the ones in red are fro the most part marketing terms and cannot apply between the various companies so shouldn't be used, the ones in blue are generic enough to use but still marketing terms that apply to specific lenses or companies line of lenses.

----------


## YrahG

My attempt at definitions, please refine and repost if you see fit.

 Freeform - (generic term) a non-traditional optical surface created using digital surfaceing technology.  Includes atoric, aspheric, and deformed conicoids.

Digital - (generic term) using computer assisted equipment to create surfaces, applied to a lens or mold.

  Digital Surfacing - (generic term, used by Essilor) using computer assisted equipment to create surfaces point by point, applied to a lens.

 Fingerprint Surfacing - ?

  Customized - (generic term) incorporation of patient specific variable in place of global variabels to increase accuracy.

Precise-form - ?

  Back Surface - (generic term) refers to a digital surface of a PAL on the back surface of a lens.

Dual Surface - (genric term) refers to a digital surface of a PAL split between the front and back surfaces, can refer to digital mold on the front and digital surfaceing on the back or digital surfaceing on both surfaces.

Wavefront - (generic term)

Personalized - (generic term) see customized

  Individual - (generic term, used by Zeiss) see customized

----------


## eyemanflying

> I don't think that your usage of the terms "digital" and "freeform" accurately reflects the common usage in the industry, which is unfortunately muddled. For instance, I don't think that most people would regard ordinary spheres and tores produced on freeform-capable equipment as "digital"... but that's just my impression.
> 
> I don't think that "digital" is a particularly appropriate term for such lenses; after all, the previous, non-freeform-capable generation of generators (SGX, SG-8, Lensmakers, Vista, etc.) were every bit as "digital" as the current generation - the new ones are just better at it.
> 
> Is a toric lens that's produced on a freeform-capable generator, and polished on a traditional lap, "digital"? What if it's polished on a small-aperture polisher, is that different? (I think it is).
> 
> I think we need some new words.


I agree.  How does 'cut' on a digital generator sound?

----------


## eyemanflying

> Please no, no more words, I give I give. Why no accurately define the current terminology then fill in the holes as necessary. Companies can't be the ones creating definitions it has to come from an organization such as the Vision Council or in the ANSI under definitions. Why don't we use this thread to define the various terms.
> 
> Freeform - (generic term)
> Digital - (generic term)
> Digital Surfacing - (generic term, used by Essilor)
> High Definition (HD) - (non-generic term, used by SOLA)
> 360 - (non-generic term, belongs to Essilor)
> Internal - (non-generic term, belongs to Seiko)
> Dual Digital Vision (DDV) - (non-generic term, belongs to Essilor)
> ...


I have the solution!!!!!!!  In just two words!  Scroll down for the answer.




















Wait for it!!
















*MUMBO JUMBO*

----------


## shanbaum

I was thinking more along the lines of "digishizzle" and maybe "freefizzle".

----------


## AWTECH

> My attempt at definitions, please refine and repost if you see fit.
> 
> Freeform - (generic term) a non-traditional optical surface created using digital surfaceing technology. Includes atoric, aspheric, and deformed conicoids.
> 
> Digital - (generic term) using computer assisted equipment to create surfaces, applied to a lens or mold.
> 
> Digital Surfacing - (generic term, used by Essilor) using computer assisted equipment to create surfaces point by point, applied to a lens.
> 
> Fingerprint Surfacing - ?
> ...


I think all companies will continue to market with terms that confuse many.  Its up to the buyer, "the Optician" to know what is really going on.

We try to make freeform or digital as easy to understand as possible.

I saw at a recent trade show a banner.

----------


## YrahG

> I was thinking more along the lines of "digishizzle" and maybe "freefizzle".





> I have the solution!!!!!!!  In just two words!  *MUMBO JUMBO*


So now we have:

 Digishizzle - (generic term, used by Snoop Dog and Shanbaum)
Freefizzle - (generic term, used by Snoop Dog and Shanbaum)
Mumbo Jumbo - (generic term, used by eyemanflying)

Those are great terms, but you have to define them also

example:

Digishizzle - (generic term, used by Snoop Dog and Shanbaum) using compizzle assizzled equipment to create surfizzles, applied to a lensizzle or moldizzle. Ya dig!




> I think all companies will continue to market with terms that confuse many. Its up to the buyer, "the Optician" to know what is really going on.


I agree that can be done by defining the varius terms and their application.  I mentioned in a previous thread the differences you see in patents as compared to marketing literature for the same lens or design, it's almost like a secret language if your talking marketing lingo these clues help to determine the type of product you use.  If I walk into XYZ optical and ask the optician what they know about freeform and they say "360" they're using Varilux products, if the mention "High Definition or HD" they more tan likely are using Sola products, if they mention "3D" they are using Zeiss products.  360 = 3D = HD, this isn't to say tht the performance or even the surfaces are equal, but they are terms creted by the marketing department to describe a characteristic of the lens created through digital surfaceing.  Why can't we describe it as a "freefrom surface", generic enough in the terminology and if the company really wants to differentiate their version of it why not give up real data like what their design goal is with their particular implementation.

----------


## AWTECH

Naturally, we have to make it very easy to understand for the end consumer.

If we use all of these manufacturers terms the patient will walk out saying WOW, I have no idea what they are talking about. (Since we on this board can not agree on what we are talking about, can you imagine being just exposed to a freeform lens)

4 years ago most opticians, (in the US), believed that a freeform lens was not any better than a molded lens.  Today that has changed and many opticians acknowledge the better vision enjoyed from a good freeform or digitally surfaced design.

----------


## i care guy

_Dear fellow opticians,

I must say that I enjoy the level of discussion and consultation on the topic of Digital & Freeform.
As long as we're sharing our knowledge and understanding of this new process with respect for each other's opinion. 
Consulting on how to use a better term to simplify things for our clients is a wonderful thing.

A great being described consultation as:

"the lamp of guidance which leadeth the way" and as "the bestower of understanding"

Dear friends,

Referring to my original posting, Are you aware of any labs in North America or the orient that worth looking in to for a better pricing on the digital or freeform lenses?

Regards, M:)_

----------


## Jacqui

> Referring to my original posting, Are you aware of any labs in North America or the orient that worth looking in to for a better pricing on the digital or freeform lenses?
> 
> Regards, M


NO. Check them all out, there seems to be a great variation in prices for the same brand of lens.

:cheers:

----------


## YrahG

> 4 years ago most opticians, (in the US), believed that a freeform lens was not any better than a molded lens.  Today that has changed and many opticians acknowledge the better vision enjoyed from a good freeform or digitally surfaced design.


4 years ago it wasn't.  The designs were just moved to the back surface in some cases, this generation has compensation and what not in the design.  Even todays generation of FF isn't guarenteed to be better than an equivalent molded design, if the power is right certain molded designs are going to be best form so the need for aspheric or atoric back surfaces are not going to be necessary.  I think to truly seperate the FF lenses from the molded designs office need to consistently take measures for panto and dihedral tilts.

----------


## YrahG

> NO. Check them all out, there seems to be a great variation in prices for the same brand of lens.
> 
> :cheers:


The problem with FF is going to be in the quality recieved.  Each lab that has the capability to take a spherical or otherwise lens and digitaly surface the back is in essence becoming their own manufacturer.  We as opticians have become acustomed to stringent quality control standards in our molded progressive surfaces, this all changes.  The key now is finding a lab that provides the same stringent QC on the lenses coming out of the generator as the manufacturers of molded designs provide for their molded lenses.  

This is the achilles heal of FF, the QC at the lab must be top notch, the machines must be properly calibrated on a regular and consistent basis, the machine must sit on a stable and I mean stable platform.  This costs money, so the lenses therfore cost money.  I have heard you say in the past that a FF set-up can be purchased for $300k, yet the larger labs are investing double almost triple that.  You get what you pay for.

----------


## AWTECH

> The problem with FF is going to be in the quality recieved. Each lab that has the capability to take a spherical or otherwise lens and digitaly surface the back is in essence becoming their own manufacturer. We as opticians have become acustomed to stringent quality control standards in our molded progressive surfaces, this all changes. The key now is finding a lab that provides the same stringent QC on the lenses coming out of the generator as the manufacturers of molded designs provide for their molded lenses. 
> 
> This is the achilles heal of FF, the QC at the lab must be top notch, the machines must be properly calibrated on a regular and consistent basis, the machine must sit on a stable and I mean stable platform. This costs money, so the lenses therfore cost money. I have heard you say in the past that a FF set-up can be purchased for $300k, yet the larger labs are investing double almost triple that. You get what you pay for.


I feel I need to step back in and give a different perspective. Some of what you say above is true.  Quality control of any process is needed.  In traditional processing there were labs that could make lense without problems and there were other who could not.  As each technology grows there will be those who adapt and succeed and there will be those who can not.

Unfortunately those of you who are discussing how this quality control needs to work and what the cost of equipment needs to be to produce a high quality lens, have only a good overview of what is involved.  Many labs processing freeform today do not even understand how the systems work, they are dependant on the lens design software, their lab management software and the support of their equipment vendor.

----------


## AWTECH

> 4 years ago it wasn't. The designs were just moved to the back surface in some cases, this generation has compensation and what not in the design. Even todays generation of FF isn't guarenteed to be better than an equivalent molded design, if the power is right certain molded designs are going to be best form so the need for aspheric or atoric back surfaces are not going to be necessary. I think to truly seperate the FF lenses from the molded designs office need to consistently take measures for panto and dihedral tilts.


Why do you say 4 years ago it wasn't?  The lenses we could produce 4 years ago had full compensation.  The were all digitally surfaced.  Digital lenses have been in production for more than 15 years.  This started in Japan and has expanded there.  Freeform and AR have some of the highest percentages of lenses sold with each.

Our system has been in use for years, have there been issues along the way, absolutely, but continued research and development keeps us ahead of the most.  We focused on making a cost effective solution with maximum ease of use for the optician.

Frame angles for example:  Do you take the frame measurement with the frame on the patient?  The slight opening of the frame when fitted can make up to 2 degrees difference in the frame angle.  Now what needed to be determined was how critical was this 2 degrees?

Today we can make lenses alot more accurately than the prescription supplied.  The lens maybe within .002 diopeters while the prescription is within? an 1/8 of a diopter?

It is easy to critique the lens designs if you just listen to the competitors skew on why one lens is not as good as another.   Remember there is the actual lens and then there is the marketing hopla that goes with each.

----------


## shanbaum

> Today we can make lenses alot more accurately than the prescription supplied. The lens maybe within .002 diopeters while the prescription is within? an 1/8 of a diopter?


+/- 0.002 diopters? I'd like to know what you're using to measure, that affords such resolution.

----------


## YrahG

> +/- 0.002 diopters? I'd like to know what you're using to measure, that affords such resolution.


That too caught me off guard, th technology exists but the practicality does not.  Our offices has a Gaugemaster that is accurate to within 6 fringes, I would date the gaugemaster to at least the 80's so the technology to create precision is nothing new, the cost/benefit of that level of precision is where the focus should be.  It is not cost effective to provide a lens that is 0.002D accurate, it's not even cost effective to provide a lens that is 0.01D accurate .  

I think the quality of the lab providing the lens is going to be key in the overall performance.

----------


## AWTECH

> +/- 0.002 diopters? I'd like to know what you're using to measure, that affords such resolution.


Sorry typo not 1/1000 but 1/100 or 0.02 diopters

----------


## masaag123

> Dear all,
> 
> Looks like there are several labs in Asia that are equipped for the digital, freeform lenses.
> As an example the Hoya ID lenses are manufactured in Thailand and shipped to Canada.
> Essilor lenses are now made in India ( I was told ).
> 
> Are you aware of any labs in India, Thailand or China that we can purchase our brand names digital progressive lenses at lesser price that we are currently buying in Canada?
> 
> Essilor, Nikon, Hoya lenses are keep going up in price and we as opticians are making a lot less profit.
> ...


PLs. be in touch with me if FF requirement if any from INDIA
dadiv007@hotmail.com

----------

