# Optical Forums > Progressive Lens Discussion Forum >  Physio 360 Gold or Junk??

## EyeFitWell

I am very dissaspointed with the performance of this Physio 360!  I've done about 8 total pairs now (in addition to TONS of regular Physios).  I've used the 360 only on patients with higher powers and every single one of them has been returned.
In the lensometer, they don't look crisp but I was told not to worry about that.  (The first pair I ordered I sent back to the lab three times before I mentioned it to Doc, and he said it's probably just the lensometer that can't read it).  
The most recent one, for example, the right lens was -7.75 sph.  In the lensometer, it definately was most clear at 7.75 (more so than a little above or below) but no matter what I did, it never looked completely crisp.  I calibrated my lensometer just to be sure (I'm the only one who uses it) and still, doesn't look crisp.  I spun the axis wheel to look for waves and didn't find anything.  So I dispensed them, and a week later she's back wanting a Rx check/remake.  She can't see.

Why am I selling an outrageously expensive, "more accurate than anything before" lens that they can't even get on power???  Is there something I should know about these wavefront lenses?  I thought the whole point of the digital surfacing was more accuracy, and yet every other lens in any material looks better in the lensometer... :Confused:  

I'm looking forward to my appointment with the shamir rep.

----------


## Fezz

Rant mode on:



Your first mistake was believing the Essilor hype.
Your second mistake was using an Essilor product.


Rant mode off:

There are many lenses that will cost much less and beat or exceed your expectations.

----------


## EyeFitWell

I've heard you say that many times, and I'm starting to see the light.
I've had lots of success with other essilor products, but the P360 is just hype.

----------


## Jacqui

You'll like Shamir better

----------


## mike.elmes

We have done the best upgrading nikon wearers with the new W, and upgrading Varilux wearers with the physio....or Ipseo. The 360's we've sold haven't come back though.

----------


## Bill West

> Rant mode on:
> 
> 
> 
> Your first mistake was believing the Essilor hype. *AMEN!*
> Your second mistake was using an Essilor product.
> 
> 
> Rant mode off:
> ...


*I sit through a forced, hour of ed, one hour of hype and advertising by a speaker that read almost every word off a essilor rap sheet. Don't buy into a single bit of it.:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: Waste of time.*

----------


## Excalibur

I must have sat through the same info session. The rep stood at the podium and read off a prepared statement. Unbelievable.

I use Seiko Succeed progressives on most patients, although technically they are more beneficial if you are using them on higher cyls or adds. I like to keep things simple and only use several progressives in my office. To date, my non-adapt rate on the Seiko lenses have been less than 0.5%. Not bad.

I also use the Rodenstock lenses too if price is an issue for a patient, although the Seiko free forms are still quite reasonable. The Life 2 and XS products are very good and price is pretty good. 

Is there some hyperbole being spread by some of the lens reps. You bet! If you look at Sheedy's paper at the Ohio State University's School of Optometry site it will show you some interesting measurements of various progressives including aberrations. Shamir products do very well, but as I understand difficult to obtain in Canada where I practice. Shamir apparently does a lot of lens design work for other companies so their knowledge of progressives/optics, etc is excellent.

----------


## AWTECH

Excalibur said:


> I use Seiko Succeed progressives on most patients, although technically they are more beneficial if you are using them on higher cyls or adds. I like to keep things simple and only use several progressives in my office. To date, my non-adapt rate on the Seiko lenses have been less than 0.5%. Not bad.


Check the non-adapt rate! 

In the US you can contact ICE-TECH for both the Seiko Succeed as well as ICE-TECH's own Advanced Lens designs.  ICE-TECH is the only company producing lenses exclusively with digital individualized lens designs.  We can also produce a fantastic wrap around Advanced Polarized Lens in single vision or PAL.  Patented technology lenses produced by ICE-TECH are not available from any other company.

E-mail or private message me for more information or call 888-ICE-TECH

----------


## Bobie

Maybe Essilor needs more time to produce Free Form PALs. :bbg:

----------


## MarySue

I recently attended a session of the Varillux Academy here in New Zealand, and one of the topics delivered by David Wilson, Head Teacher at OTEN, was just this - PAL designs - the advancements being made.

He explained that due to the optimisation of some lenses, the vert was no longer able to neutralise the lens in a flat plane - as the prescription had been adjusted to the plane of the tilt angle of the frame.

This fact had opened my eyes, and I realise now with lenses like the Zeiss Indivdual and Sola EgoOne - we have adjusted RX sheets to verify scripts with - but Physio or the Phsio 360 include no verification sheets.

They say the Coma affect is eliminated with the new technology, but my experience has been the lens is slightly foggy in all planes.  

I've never had a problem with the Hoya ID, Sola One Ego lenses, Zeiss Individual - so for me, when selling premium products those are the products I deal with.

----------


## Bobie

Great post , Mary Sue :bbg: 
Let me find out the truth of all PALs to protect our patient from the empire of PALs who always try to sell their PALs in too expensive price if compared to other PALs from other companies. :bbg:

----------


## OPTIDONN

> Gread post , Mary Sue :bbg: 
> Let we find out the truth of all PALs to protect our patient from the empire of PALs who always try to sell their PALs in too expensive price if compare to other PALs from other company. :bbg:


What "truth" are you talking about? Learn basic optics, read up on progressive lens designs, Darryl has done some terrific articles as well as Pete's CE in 20/20 the other month (sorry I don't have the links) and make an informed decision. I can't tell if your looking for the _PERFECT_ progressive lens, if you are there is NO such thing. If you are attempting to find away to educate ECP's on progressive lens designs so they can make an informed decision then keep up the good work

----------


## Darryl Meister

> I've done about 8 total pairs now (in addition to TONS of regular Physios). I've used the 360 only on patients with higher powers and every single one of them has been returned.


Keep in mind that, while a free-form optimized version of a good progressive lens will ideally perform better than the semi-finished version, you are fitting your most "problematic" Rx ranges in these lenses, which will naturally increase the likelihood of non-adapts. That said, a 0% success rate does seem like something might be amiss; you should consider contacting your Essilor representative about this.




> ICE-TECH is the only company producing lenses exclusively with digital individualized lens designs.


Several of the larger lens companies produce "digital individualized lens designs," and have for some time.




> They say the Coma affect is eliminated with the new technology, but my experience has been the lens is slightly foggy in all planes.


I don't know that anyone is really claiming to "eliminate" coma, in free-form lenses or otherwise. Every progressive lens surface must produce a very predictable amount of coma as a consequence of the changing surface power, though the lens designer can choose to minimize coma in certain regions of the lens -- at the expense of others. "Softer" lens designs, for instance, will often have lower average levels of coma over the entire lens, while "harder" lens designs will often have higher average levels over the lens but lower levels in the central distance and near viewing zones.

----------


## AWTECH

Darryl Meister said:


> Several of the larger lens companies produce "digital individualized lens designs," and have for some time.


In response to:



> ICE-TECH is the only company producing lenses exclusively with digital individualized lens designs.


Yes Darryl I am aware of this but all of these companies produce and surface traditional products using traditional machines and methods.  My point was that ICE-TECH is the only company 100% forcused on the production of digitally surfaced lenses.

----------


## Darryl Meister

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

----------


## Bobie

Hi, OPTIDONN
I have looked all of your URL , but it seems too basic for me.
Please inform me more detail of your PALs. :bbg:

----------


## OPTIDONN

> Hi, OPTIDONN
> I look all of your URL , but it seem like too basic for me.
> Please inform me more detail of your PALs. :bbg:


Sure thing:bbg:  PM me with what you want to know.

----------


## EyeFitWell

Darryl,
My essilor rep is VERY NICE, and I am not bashing him, but my Shamir rep knew more about essilor's products than he did/does.  He used to be in retail sales (outside of optical) and doesn't really quite understand how the lenses work.  He's basically just repeating the hype he's heard, but doesn't seem to understand when I ask questions like, "what is wavefront lens technology?"  or "can you drill 1.74?"  etc.

We're going to try a month worth of getting people into the Creation.  I'll let you guys know how it goes!

----------


## Darryl Meister

> My essilor rep is VERY NICE, and I am not bashing him, but my Shamir rep knew more about essilor's products than he did/does.


Having worked with reps from both companies, I can tell you that there's a good possibility that your Shamir rep only _thinks_ she/he knows more about Essilor's products than your Essilor rep. Now, if your Shamir rep has had considerably more optical training than your Essilor rep, that's another story...

----------


## AWTECH

EyeFitWell said:


> We're going to try a month worth of getting people into the Creation. I'll let you guys know how it goes!


I am curious why you choose the creation rather than a freeform product since your post started with the lack of statisfaction regarding a specific individualized lens (Physio 360).

EyeFitWell also said:


> My essilor rep is VERY NICE, and I am not bashing him, but my Shamir rep knew more about essilor's products than he did/does. He used to be in retail sales (outside of optical) and doesn't really quite understand how the lenses work. He's basically just repeating the hype he's heard, but doesn't seem to understand when I ask questions like, "what is wavefront lens technology?" or "can you drill 1.74?" etc.


If you want to know and understand what you are selling ICE-TECH can provide factory direct information with knowledge about what you are selling from the people who developed the technology you would be selling.  Remember all freeform designs are not alike.  Don't give up on individualized lenses because you are not happy with one design.

The words freeform when talking about the Shamir Creation have nothing in common with an individualized lens that the machine tool manufacturers refer to as freeform lenses.  Shamir is simply applying the word freeform, (which they trademarked in various forms), to traditionally produced PAL designs.  Almost all molds today are built using freeform technology to build these molds so lens companies that are now talking about their digitally produced molds are not really talking about individualized lenses.

As an example with the Shamir Creation there are about 2,500 possible lens designs, with a good individualized lens there are over 2 million different designs available each one individually created.

I hope this helps clear up some of the confusion in the market place regarding individualized lenses.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> As an example with the Shamir Creation there are about 2,500 possible lens designs


I only come up with 72 for Creation in hard resin (6 Bases x 12 Adds)...?

----------


## Bobie

EyeFitWell , I will look forward to your feedback about Shamir Creation. :cheers: 

Darryl , nobody can be smart in PALs if they never tried fitting by themselves over 1,000 real wearer and I never believe what PALs' company rep inform , because most of them work like a robot who informs us what PALs company says and many times they do not inform us the truth.

AWTECH , Please inform me more about Shamir Creation. :D

----------


## EyeFitWell

> Having worked with reps from both companies, I can tell you that there's a good possibility that your Shamir rep only _thinks_ she/he knows more about Essilor's products than your Essilor rep. Now, if your Shamir rep has had considerably more optical training than your Essilor rep, that's another story...


The Shamir Rep was a dispensing optician for 13 years.  The Essilor Rep sold cell phones.  Nuff Said.
I asked him, what is wavefront?  He said, "You know how you put a balloon in the microwave and it puffs up and then you cut the corners and it lays flat again?  That's wavefront."
I know the guy just doesn't understand it himself, and finds it that much harder to explain it to other people, but for 8 months now I've been trying to figure this Physio stuff out and finally a rep said something to me that made sense!  (The shamir rep)  I don't like having to explain a product to my customers if I don't understand it myself.

----------


## EyeFitWell

AW Tech-
We're using the Creation as opposed to the Autograph because
1. Most patients are currently wearing the Comfort.
2. We haven't really had any trouble with the Physio, but we haven't had any real "wows" either.
3. We currently only have an account with essilor labs, and they cannot get the autograph for us.
So, the idea is, if all goes well with the Creation, maybe I can get Doc to open an account with a nonessilor lab and try out the autograph!

----------


## AWTECH

Darryl said:


> I only come up with 72 for Creation in hard resin (6 Bases x 12 Adds)...?


I was thinking about the number of cylinder and sphere cut combinations plus the blanks. (And it was an off the top of my head estimate)

I think what many people are not understanding about direct surfacing is the ability to design a better lens rather than have steps that are close to the correct solution.  Between the steps is where the power errors occur.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> I was thinking about the number of cylinder and sphere cut combinations plus the blanks. (And it was an off the top of my head estimate)


For a semi-finished lens with a traditional back surface, the number of unique designs can be equal to no more than the number of Base and Add combinations for a given lens material. Further, in many cases, there may be only a _single_ unique design that has simply been "scaled" for different Base curves and Add powers; that is, there is really only a single unique progressive lens design for "mono-design" progressives.




> The Shamir Rep was a dispensing optician for 13 years. The Essilor Rep sold cell phones.


I understand that this can be frustrating.




> I know the guy just doesn't understand it himself, and finds it that much harder to explain it to other people, but for 8 months now I've been trying to figure this Physio stuff out and finally a rep said something to me that made sense! (The shamir rep)


But did the Shamir rep truly explain Essilor's technology, or even the basic principles of wavefront aberrations in general, or just the "wavefront party line" for his/her own company (Shamir)? My point earlier was that optical sales people often explain things from the perspective of their own company, usually using their company's marketing language and storyline, which may or may not be consistent with the technologies of another company -- or even reality, for that matter. Though a good sales person will _appear_ to know what he/she is talking about. ;)

----------


## AWTECH

EyeFitWell Said:


> 3. We currently only have an account with essilor labs, and they cannot get the autograph for us.
> So, the idea is, if all goes well with the Creation, maybe I can get Doc to open an account with a nonessilor lab and try out the autograph!


Tell your Doc it is easy and benefical to open an account with another lab.  It is quite simple to open an account with ICE-TECH Advanced Lens Technologies.  You pay your bill and you continue to get the best lenses.

Ask the Doc if you can send me some copies of invoices for the Shamir products and I will prove to you that our quality for the price is unbeatable.  We can make products others can not such as a 68ED lens for a Dior frame with a polarized PAL.

----------


## Bobie

EyeFitWell , Varilux Comfort is the most successful PALs and is still great PALs in the same price. We can say like Comfort still the best PALs of Essilor if you compare with $ per performance. :D 

The Varilux Comfort wearer who have to pay 30% more for Physio and expect about the same performance will be quite happy but if they expect that Physio must be better than Comfort for overall performance , will be not happy at all. :D 

In the end , Physio is better than Panamic more than Panamic better than Comfort. :D That's all.

----------


## Fezz

Bobie,

I enjoy your posts and thank you for your insight.

You mention that one lens is better than others. But, how much of being better is subjective? And as a lens company, does subjective response really play any role into your analysis of various lenses?

----------


## Bobie

Thank you for your comment , Fezz
We will recommended our wearer to switch to another PALs unless it is much better , no other.

In case that our wearer have to pay more , they must get more performance , if not we can not charge them for any $. 

In fact , every PALs have good point and bad point and some PALs is good for some wearer , some are not.

Our mission is to really understand how to choose the right PALs to the right wearer.

The eye movement wearer will suit for harder design PALs.The head movement wearer will suit for soft or semi-soft design.In case that the wearer have conflict about habbit / hobbies and jobs. We have to choose Free Form PALs or will recommended the wearer to have more than one PALs.We mention one lens is better or much better than others in some case , because the PALs Empire try to inform the world that , their PALs is better than others brand for all cases but that is not true.

In the end , we always believe in what the wearer comment how good or how bad in all PALs.

In Thailand , the PALs Empire have to answer my question that , why you say your PALs is the world's best but when our wearer don't like , why we can not get money back ? Where is the adaptation guaranteed ? Why we have to pay in very expensive price of PALs that can not used ?

Instead to answer my quesiton , the PALs Empire choose to shut down my comment by calling my dad and mum and make my parents fear. This is what the PALs Empire do in Thailand. ( Hope they dont do like this in the US and Canada. )

In Thailand , when we are fitting PALs, We always guarantee the same performance in the same price , better performance in more price , much better performance in much more price and totally better in the most expensive price.

Fezz , What you will do when your wearer who trust in you and pay 10 times more for some PALs but the performance is poorer than the 10 times cheaper PALs and it is the old one. ( In Thailand , we give money back to the wearer if they need or make the new one untill they are realy happy , without any discussion ). :D

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Regarding the original post, it seems rather peculiar that a lens that has performed so well in clinical studies- and in offices around the world- has managed to perform so universally poorly in your office. In fact, I would find it peculiar if 8 out of 8 pairs of _ANY_ progressive lens design failed. I'm no longer actively dispensing, but since the launch I've personally ordered Varilux Physio 360 lenses for 6 relatives and colleagues- all of which performed just great (guess its just the luck of the draw).

I won't waste your (or my own) time attempting to explain how the design works. After all, apparently the Shamir consultant is comfortable explaining Essilor technology, and a competitive sales representative is obviously a completely objective source for information regarding other company's products. Nor will I try to troubleshoot the failed lenses you've experienced (since your post doesn't appear to indicate an interest in understanding why the problem occured, and you are apparently looking forward to using Shamir's products).

Best wishes with your future patients- perhaps you will have better success with Shamir's products.

Happy Holidays,
Pete

----------


## MarySue

Hang on Pete

I didn't say it consistantly performed poorly - I said, originally - that the lens was expensive and wasn't an improvement on other designs in the market place.

Interesting how things get misunderstood when only a font speaks.

Mary Sue

----------


## Darryl Meister

> I didn't say it consistantly performed poorly - I said, originally - that the lens was expensive and wasn't an improvement on other designs in the market place.


I think he was referring to EyeFitWell's original post, not yours.

----------


## mike.elmes

> I am very dissaspointed with the performance of this Physio 360! I've done about 8 total pairs now (in addition to TONS of regular Physios). I've used the 360 only on patients with higher powers and every single one of them has been returned.
> In the lensometer, they don't look crisp but I was told not to worry about that. (The first pair I ordered I sent back to the lab three times before I mentioned it to Doc, and he said it's probably just the lensometer that can't read it). 
> The most recent one, for example, the right lens was -7.75 sph. In the lensometer, it definately was most clear at 7.75 (more so than a little above or below) but no matter what I did, it never looked completely crisp. I calibrated my lensometer just to be sure (I'm the only one who uses it) and still, doesn't look crisp. I spun the axis wheel to look for waves and didn't find anything. So I dispensed them, and a week later she's back wanting a Rx check/remake. She can't see.
> 
> Why am I selling an outrageously expensive, "more accurate than anything before" lens that they can't even get on power??? Is there something I should know about these wavefront lenses? I thought the whole point of the digital surfacing was more accuracy, and yet every other lens in any material looks better in the lensometer... 
> 
> I'm looking forward to my appointment with the shamir rep.


_To be fair to Essilor_, what did you do for the 8 people that brought back their Physio 360's?? *What lenses did you use specifically*?
Many of the problems with these difficult progressive wearers can be cured in the chair of the doc that wrote the RX. The goal of Optiboard is not to bash companies, it's to solve problems such as the ones you experienced with the Physio 360. I thought your thread title was unprofessional. gold or junk? I can think of many lenses that deserve the moniker of Junk, certainly not the physio 360. :Rolleyes:

----------


## mike.elmes

> Gread post , Mary Sue :bbg: 
> Let we find out the truth of all PALs to protect our patient from the empire of PALs who always try to sell their PALs in *too expensive price* if compare to other PALs from other company. :bbg:


Bobie, I hope you don't compare all products by price alone...$ for $ new lens technology always costs more. When Nikon introduced the i, we charged the consumer a premium price for this newer technology and the consumer gladly paid a *premium.*
The happy consumers who paid the premium for the new technology sent me friends, neighbors, co workers and the word of mouth spin off was considerable. The market is littered with old technology that consumers get a deal on....the same is true of computer parts and tv's.
At our office we promote the premium lenses( Nikon W, physio and 360,Ipseo, and the Hoya ID.) as well as the more economical older technology that we have better margins on. It all depends on what the budget is. All this new technology by _all_ the lens companies will bring lower prices later on and the consumer benefits now and later when we raise the bar so to speak.

----------


## Bobie

Thank you for your comment , mike
My point is to compare the same level technology of PALs like Hoyalux iD vs Ipseo vs Physio 360 vs Shamir Autograph vs Rodenstock Multigressiv ILT vs Rodenstock Impression ILT to find out which one the best if compare about the price.

I agree with you that the happy comsumers who paid the premium PALs will recommend theire friends , neighbors , co worker to buy that premium PALs , because our club also does it in Thailand for many years.

But we used to have many customers who do not satisfy in very expensive PALs , because some point is better , some point is not. Yes, the expensive PALs can be used , but not totally better than the old PALs they have.

We never have any problem with Rodenstock Impression ILT or Multigressiv ILT and we are very impressed about the totally better performance of the old PALs.

Once again , when the customer have to pay 10 times more they must be able to get totally better PALs , not some point better , some point worst and I dare to say , we still have many expensive premium PALs in unreasonable price ( if compare to each other ) and I mean some premium PALs is cheaper and better. Yes , sometimes the customer have to pay for the name , but they have the right to know that , they can pay less and get better performance if they are going for another primium PALs. :bbg:

----------


## EyeFitWell

> _To be fair to Essilor_, what did you do for the 8 people that brought back their Physio 360's?? *What lenses did you use specifically*?
> Many of the problems with these difficult progressive wearers can be cured in the chair of the doc that wrote the RX. The goal of Optiboard is not to bash companies, it's to solve problems such as the ones you experienced with the Physio 360. I thought your thread title was unprofessional. gold or junk? I can think of many lenses that deserve the moniker of Junk, certainly not the physio 360.


I am sorry you thought it was unprofessional.  I am not an essilor basher.  I have used ONLY essilor products for the whole time I've been doing this.  But I sort of feel like I'm starting to wake up and smell the coffee-that other companies make good lenses too.  As for the Physio 360, I have just had a really bad experience with them.
We used them on a range of different patients, all coming out of a Comfort.  At first, I though they were having a hard time making the lenses on power because the first couple didn't read correctly in the lensometer.  I've heard people say it should, others say it shouldnt... so that leaves me at a loss.  I dispense them to my patient, they don't look quite right to me in the lensometer.  If they don't give me an adjusted power to verify with, I might as well not even look at them-just trust essilor.  And that bothers me.  I work here for a reason, you know?
*All the patients were satisfied going with either a physio (regular) or a comfort, 6 with NO RX CHANGE.*
I am the only one doing fittings and dispensing, and we have a very consistant low remake rate.  So, I don't think I forgot how to measure/adjust progressives.  We looked at EVERYTHING we could to try to determine the problem.  At the end of the day, why sell it if it's going to be such a dissapointment to me and my patients?  
Thus my title.  I didn't say Essilor, Gold or Junk...  just the P360 has been a bummer.

I'm just saying, essilor comes into my store, tell me: 
1. there's this GREAT new lens out!  
2. I can put anyone in this progressive, because it's designed for folks who couldn't wear them before!  
3. It's great for high prescriptions!  
4. It's got a wider corridor!

Then, my experiences tell me:
1. People who had tried progressives and hated them still hate the P360.  Oh well.
2. The P360 (designed for high prescriptions) doesn't even come in very high prescriptions.
3. I cannot even verify that the lenses are made correctly!  I wonder if the 8 patients I've tried this with were just made off power, but how can I check?  I've talked to my reps, lab managers, and no one can tell me how to read the Rx on these.  
4. Not one person has reported an improvement in the corridor.  Granted, some folks went up on their add and into a physio w/o complaining of any loss of width.  But not one person has said, "wow."

So where does that leave me?  I'm pretty young, and relatively new at this (3 years), but this is the first time I've felt like I just can't get a straight answer out of anyone.  I do know this:  I tried it with the best of hopes and excited customers.  We tried it in the same conditions we've successfully used other lenses for years and years.  Everyone complained about them, specifically how blurry the distance, intermediate, and reading were!  That it wasn't "crisp".  (But the very thing essilor was advertizing about these is that they would be crisp!)

I'm not going to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  But for this lens at this time, I'm frustrated and stumped.

----------


## Bobie

EyeFitWell ,
Let we get the Physio 360 naked! :D 

 

Anyone join us ? show me your hands.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

> At the end of the day, why sell it if it's going to be such a dissapointment to me and my patients? Thus my title. I didn't say Essilor, Gold or Junk... just the P360 has been a bummer.



Based on the information you have provided, I can understand your frustration with Varilux Physio 360. To clarify a few points you've raised:




> I cannot even verify that the lenses are made correctly! I wonder if the 8 patients I've tried this with were just made off power, but how can I check? I've talked to my reps, lab managers, and no one can tell me how to read the Rx on these.



I can tell you how to read the Rx on Varilux Physio 360. You should be able to read the power you ordered in the lensometer, since this is not a compensated product. If the product isn't reading as you ordered, there may have been a problem in fabrication.




> The P360 (designed for high prescriptions) doesn't even come in very high prescriptions.


Varilux Physio 360 is available up to a -4.00 cylinder out to somewhere around a -12.00/+9.00 sphere (in the Thin&Lite 1.67) up to a +4.00 ADD. While there are certainly individuals with higher Rxs out there, that range covers over 99&#37; of the Rxs ordered. Unless you are working at a low vision clinic, I would imagine you don't have too many patients beyond the availability range.

Basically, the Varilux Physio 360 is the exact same lens as the Varilux Physio- the difference being the back side is Digitally Surfaced to match the patient's distance Rx to the progression. It sounds as if- for one reason or another- you may have received some bad product.

If you happen to have any of the lenses you ordered which did not work, feel free to contact me by email, and I can arrange to have them sent to someone who can determine whether the product was fabricated properly (additionally, I can provide a voucher for two regular Varilux Physios to make up for your frustration). I authored most of the technical training materials for Varilux Physio- so I can probably help you with any technical question you may have on the product.

Best regards,
Pete Hanlin
phanlin@essilorusa.com

----------


## MarySue

Would the technical materials you wrote be available in Australia/New Zealand?  Our Essilor people provide great training and product information but very little technical data.  It would be good for us to see something a bit more technical - rather than marketing driven.

Using words like "nano-technology" and "wave-front" technology with our patients isn't always the best idea - as there are still many technophobes in the progressive market sector. 

I'd love to understand the depth of corridor, width of mid range before .25 of unwanted astigmatism appears - and a prescription range for best fitting.  For example - a RE: -1.00 with a +2.00 add would work with almost anything, but add a -2.50 cyl to that and what occurs?

Thanks for your information.
Mary Sue:hammer:

----------


## Sergio Muñoz

Dear all,

I have tried Physio in Spain with a not very good result.
I usually works with Shamir lenses; expecially Genesis and Autograph with great adaptation in my patients.
Have you ever compared a Physio lens with an Autograph? Let's assume that in far sight vision both lenses are free of distorsions (what is not correct). But in near sight vision we have a field 50&#37; wider in Shamir lens.
After all, the best way to test is the result on patients.
BR

----------


## Pete Hanlin

After all, the best way to test is the result on patients.

I could not agree more thoroughly with this statement- which is exactly why I am confident in the performance of Varilux Physio and Varilux Physio 360.  Clinical trials are an integral part of the design process for all Varilux designs (this isn't marketing hype, its a fact realized in the form of a design process called the Dioptric Loop).

The Dioptric Loop process starts with the wearer data generated by all the wearer studies Essilor (and independent institutions- mostly Colleges of Optometry) have conducted over the years.  The R&D team develops a list of criteria for the new design and then calculates a design based on the clinical data and the criteria.  

A series of test lenses are then created based on that design (an expensive and time consuming process), and the design is tested on wearers in rigorous clinical settings to determine how well the design matched up to the expected performance.  Based on the input from the clinical subjects, the design is then altered in an effort to better meet the criteria.  

A new series of test lenses is then created and the process repeats until the finished design is proven to a.) offer a significant advantage over previous designs, and b.) meet the criteria originally set forth.  

Once a final design is accomplished, the result is tested again on a broader scale to ensure actual performance.  In the case of Varilux Physio, over 2,000 wearers were fit in clinical settings against both previous Varilux designs and competitor designs.  There was a clear preference for Varilux Physio in nearly all aspects tested across all participant segments (myopes, emmetropes, hyperopes, high ADD, low ADD, etc.).  In some studies, one or two criteria (e.g., criteria includes- but is not limited to- distance vision clarity, distance vision width, intermediate vision clarity, intermediate vision width, near vision clarity, near vision width, dynamic vision, static vision, ease of adaption, overall satisfaction).  Regarding overall satisfaction, Varilux Physio was clearly preferred against all other designs tested.

So, while I certainly welcome the opportunity to troubleshoot when Varilux Physio isn't working for someone, I'm not too worried about reports that "such and so progressive works so much better."  When you remove all the variables in a clinical setting, Varilux Physio is the best PAL overall.  That's simply what I believe- having seen the data.  Naturally, others are free to- and will- draw their own conclusions.

Progressive lenses work (period).  If you are experiencing more than 5-10% non-adapts with ANY PAL design, you should seriously try to eliminate variables (start with fitting- is the pupilometer calibrated, are my fitting techniques optimal, then the lab- are the lenses being processed correctly, etc.).  Given a proper fit and fabrication, any PAL- and certainly Varilux Physio- should provide solid performance.

Regarding "width of zone," and other static measures, another finding of clinical studies is there are far more important design considerations than the spherical size of the channel & zones.  Binocular balance, smoothness of progression, astigmatic alignment, etc. are all factors that do not yield a "wider spherical zone" but do contribute more to wearer satisfaction.

I'm not trying to be arrogant or overly defensive- I'm simply stating that (to my knowledge) there are only two ophthalmic manufacturers in the world which conduct rigorous wearer tests as part of the design process.  Essilor is one of them, and (again, to my knowledge) Essilor spends more in R&D (as both a function of % of gross revenue and in actual Euros) centered around vision & progressive design than any other company.

Therefore, its fairly safe to assume the product is not "junk."  I would also be confident is suggesting that nearly all the products out there from the major manufacturers are not "junk" (not to pick on that term- merely to note most manufacturers practice a certain amount of care in providing quality products).

----------


## Sergio Muñoz

Thanks a lot for the answer Mr. Hanlin.
I am not informed about the processes that other labs follow in the achievement of their designs but I have not doubt that Essilor uses one of the most accurated.




> "Regarding "width of zone," and other static measures, another finding of clinical studies is there are far more important design considerations than the spherical size of the channel & zones. Binocular balance, smoothness of progression, astigmatic alignment, etc. are all factors that do not yield a "wider spherical zone" but do contribute more to wearer satisfaction."


I can not agree 100&#37; with this. Take a serious look to the several studies from Mr. Sheedy (Ohio Univ. - Optometry'06 77 - Pag.23-39). Sorry but I am not able to find any of Essilor PALs in the top list.  :Rolleyes:  
I mean that Comfort was for sure a great progressive, but today there are several options that leaving aside all previous job works even better than Physio.
We could start discussing about "wearer satisfaction", but I prefer something I can measure; and considering smoothness and binocular balance also, Physio is not the most advanced design.




> and (again, to my knowledge) Essilor spends more in R&D (as both a function of % of gross revenue and in actual Euros) centred around vision & progressive design than any other company.


... And it's not important how much you spend; importance is on the result, and I have not doubt that Essilor is the one that spend more money in some other fields, except (to my knowledge) in salaries. :bbg: 

I would be very pleased to read something more about the initial process of the designs (something you commented above). I mean it should be great if you can post a link to any kind of study or pdf with this information.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> I can not agree 100&#37; with this. Take a serious look to the several studies from Mr. Sheedy (Ohio Univ. - Optometry'06 77 - Pag.23-39).


To Pete's point, Dr. Sheedy's report only evaluated the "spherical size" of the central viewing zones. Once other lens design features are factored in, even in Dr. Sheedy's evaluation, the scores for lenses can change dramatically (look at how his scores change for lens designs in the "with astigmatism" tables). Further, Dr. Sheedy's report will favor older progressive lens designs, which are generally _harder_ and have wider zones of clear vision, since no measures of image swim, distortion, binocularity, etcetera are considered.

----------


## Sergio Muñoz

Great, so I must assume that one of the most important points in the PAL analysis, like is the spherical measure is not taken in consideration just because Essilor and Zeiss are not in the top ten list?.
By the way, some of the oldest designs like Comfort are not in the top positions of that analysis.
I am not defending Shamir lenses, but I am just trying to understand optically why Physio should be better than competitors PALs when everyhting is pointing in the opposite direction. And when I reach this question the only answer drives to unmesurable things that depends in many cases from the patient (that by the way and in my case did not get used to Physio lenses).

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Great, so I must assume that one of the most important points in the PAL analysis, like is the spherical measure is not taken in consideration just because Essilor and Zeiss are not in the top ten list?


Both Essilor and Carl Zeiss Vision (ZEISS/SOLA/AO) have been making some of the industry's most successful progressives for decades, so I'm fairly confident in our understanding of progressive lens design and wearer satisfcation.

But I'll pose a question to you: Is binocular vision important? Essilor and Carl Zeiss Vision think so. Yet there are obviously no measures of binocular vision in Dr. Sheedy's evaluation. And what about dynamic vision? Another aspect that is clearly absent from the study. Further, Dr. Sheedy makes no claims as to _how large_ any particular viewing zone really needs to be in order to provide sufficient utility.

Unfortunately, Dr. Sheedy has limited resources and lens analysis tools at his disposal, at least compared to companies that have already made significant investments in R&D and lens design. These tools include the means to more accurately reconstruct progressive lenses (in order to model their performance in the position of wear) and to evaluate those lenses more precisely using optical ray tracing software.

That said, I think Dr. Sheedy should be commended on his efforts to objectively evaluate progressive lenses in order to better match them to visual lifestyles. We have pursued a similar philosophy in our own lens design for many years now, which is why we have a range of progressive lenses available. While I think his methodology could be improved upon (I doubt he would argue that point), there is no overlooking the potential value of his work.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

> I can not agree 100&#37; with this. Take a serious look to the several studies from Mr. Sheedy (Ohio Univ. - Optometry'06 77 - Pag.23-39). Sorry but I am not able to find any of Essilor PALs in the top list.



I've become very familiar with the research to which you refer- in fact, I visited the author of that study an OSU symposium and brought up the following observations...
1.) Spherical width is demonstrably not the most crucial factor in the visual comfort or utility provided by an ophthalmic lens. If it were, no patient would ever leave a FT35 or FT28, since even the "widest" PAL comes nowhere close to a 28mm wide spherical zone at near.
2.) Length of Progression is likewise flawed as a primary indicator- after all, a blended bifocal changes to near in about 1mm- yet PALs are obviously a better visual solution and are preferred by wearers.
3.) Furthermore, the measures do not account for binocular balance, smoothness, or regularity of design- not to mention even considering whether the design is multi- or mono- in nature. In fact, the study tends to employ criteria which were used by PAL designers in the 1980s (which is why some older designs score quite favorably). 

Not that spherical width and length of progression are completely irrelevant, but the general consensus of the various manufacturers represented at the aforementioned symposium was that a.) PAL designers have realized there are design characteristics which are far more important, and b.) the various manufacturers are not willing to share all the criteria they use- since sharing criteria tends to expose proprietary design technologies which are gained by R&D.  Therefore, there are other criteria that are more relevant (either in combination or by themselves) than spherical area and progression length.




> I mean that Comfort was for sure a great progressive, but today there are several options that leaving aside all previous job works even better than Physio.



I don't think I would argue that Varilux Comfort (which is about 12 years old now- but is still referenced as the Gold Standard of PAL design... at least if you look at competitor's ads, which reference it pretty consistently) is a great progressive. Nor, by extension of your argument, that there are technologically superior designs to Varilux Comfort now on the market (including two Varilux designs). Regarding your analysis of Varilux Physio's performance, if you can show me significant independent wearer studies which contradict the superiority of Varilux Physio, I'd take your assertion more seriously.




> We could start discussing about "wearer satisfaction", but I prefer something I can measure; and considering smoothness and binocular balance also, Physio is not the most advanced design.



How disappointing! After all, you were the one who said "the best way to test is the result on patients," which is precisely what clinical wearer tests do.

Since you mention Shamir, I would note that- according to Shamir's website- the primary tool used to design Shamir progressives is a program called Eye-Point Technology. Essilor uses ray tracing programs as well (obviously not Eye-Point Technology), but makes wearer clinical studies an integral part of the design process as well.

Do I doubt you are experiencing great success with Shamir PALs in your practice? Not at all, I've repeatedly noted that most PALs _should_ work extremely well. Given what I know of the various designs, all I can say is- were I fitting patients in a practice on a daily basis, I would expect Varilux Physio to provide performance superior to any other PAL option available to me. If it did not, I would investigate to understand why a design that has been so thoroughly proven on wearers is not performing well for my patients.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

> That said, I think Dr. Sheedy should be commended on his efforts to objectively evaluate progressive lenses in order to better match them to visual lifestyles. We have pursued a similar philosophy in our own lens design for many years now, which is why we have a range of progressive lenses available. While I think his methodology could be improved upon (I doubt he would argue that point), there is no overlooking the potential value of his work.


Extremely well said, and I would be negligent if I did not point out and agree that Dr. Sheedy is pursuing a very valid area of study, with both the best of intentions and the perhaps the best outcome given the resources at his disposal.  Dr. Sheedy has requested cooperation between the various manufacturers- however, given the proprietary nature of PAL design tools and philosophies, very few manufacturers have indicated an interest in cooperating (which I would argue is understandable).

----------


## Fezz

> That said, I think Dr. Sheedy should be commended on his efforts to objectively evaluate progressive lenses in order to better match them to visual lifestyles. We have pursued a similar philosophy in our own lens design for many years now, which is why we have a range of progressive lenses available. While I think his methodology could be improved upon (I doubt he would argue that point), there is no overlooking the potential value of his work.


 
Darryl,

Very well said. I admire his efforts, flawed or not. I think the value of what he is trying to do is wonderful!

----------


## Sergio Muñoz

> How disappointing! After all, you were the one who said "the best way to test is the result on patients," which is precisely what clinical wearer tests do.


Sorry Mr. Hanlin I ment that for analysing in deep the difference between progressive lenses, the only thing I can mathematicaly check is the spherical values. Of course, in optometry, the most important is how does it fit in the patient.




> ...the primary tool used to design Shamir progressives is a program called Eye-Point Technology. Essilor uses ray tracing programs as well...


Coming back to this point. Do you know the differences between the Eye-Point and your ray trace software? Obviously, as you say, the only difference in the result of designs is to consider the outside paraxial rays using these programs. So do you think we have reached our top in PALs research? 




> Is binocular vision important? Essilor and Carl Zeiss Vision think so. Yet there are obviously no measures of binocular vision in Dr. Sheedy's evaluation. And what about dynamic vision? Another aspect that is clearly absent from the study.


We should make a big difference between the optometric and optic values. Optically speaking, binocular vision and dinamic vision are not important. 
If we talk about optometry (in most of cases is much more a kind of philosophy), there is a big impact of those two values in the comfort of the patient. 
But if your question is: Do you prefer a free distorsion progressive lens or a very well balanced one? My answer is the free distorsion lens. 
Why? Because I can work with the prescription and the prisms in order to make a more comfortable PAL without having any other problem, but in the opposite way I will have a very comfortable and unuseful lens  :Rolleyes:  

Maybe I am wrong, but the wrost problem of all manufacturers and designers is the lack of transparency. The 'normal' optician demands to understand clearly why PAL x is much better than PAL y; and the only thing we can measure is the spherical values. We are totally bored of hearing the "swim" effect and the prismatic balance. Show us some kind of studies like Mr. Sheedy's one; even if it consider only the small piece of the cake. If it's truth you invest so many money in R&D you should have done it.

----------


## AWTECH

Sergio Muñoz said:


> Maybe I am wrong, but the wrost problem of all manufacturers and designers is the lack of transparency. The 'normal' optician demands to understand clearly why PAL x is much better than PAL y; and the only thing we can measure is the spherical values. We are totally bored of hearing the "swim" effect and the prismatic balance. Show us some kind of studies like Mr. Sheedy's one; even if it consider only the small piece of the cake. If it's truth you invest so many money in R&D you should have done it.


I believe you are looking for a very comprehensive independant comparision of progressive lenses.  Unfortunately such a project will require a great deal of time and the employment of very sophisticated technical equipment.  The reason I say unfortunately is that all of this testing and evaluation must be paid for.  If a national opticians association was to invest in such a study it could possibly be properly done without bias.  I suspect the only way to fund such a project is from donations and these donations will likely come from lens manufactures who will put pressure either directly or indirectly on the results.

The proof by comparision that you are looking for in progressive is very complex for many reasons.  One is the number of lens powers possible. Comparing all possible powers in a number of lenses is quite a challenge.  Then there are variables in surfacing that would have to be considered.  Example:  One design may preform better when the surfacing is off by an amount within specs. while another one that is off power with specs may not perform as well.

----------


## Bobie

I am with you 100% , Sergio Muñoz :cheers: 
, and I look forward to more whitepaper of Physio & Physio 360 from Pete.
If the Physio & Physio 360 are the great PALs , we would want to know how great they are. :bbg: 

Pete , please inform us that below ;
Physio & Physio is good for eyemovement or headmovement or balance.How many does design of Physio have ?How many variable inset of Physio?Did Physio 360 have custom inset by P.D. or not ?What is the coridor length of Physio & Physio 360 ?How different is it between Physio 360 vs Hoyalux iD vs DEFINITY ?How many does front base curve of Physio have?How many does front base curve of Physio 360 have?Where can we get info about front base curve selection of Physio & Physio 360 ? :bbg:

----------


## Darryl Meister

> We should make a big difference between the optometric and optic values.Optically speaking, binocular vision and dinamic vision are not important.


But we're not designing camera lenses, we're designing _spectacle_ lenses. And factors such as binocular vision and dynamic vision are critical to successful progressive lens wear.




> Do you prefer a free distorsion progressive lens or a very well balanced one? My answer is the free distorsion lens.


I assume by "distortion free" that you are referring to a more spherical-like (or "harder") progressive lens with wider viewing zones of astigmatism-free vision. Some of the oldest lenses currently on the market provide wider viewing zones, including AO Truvision and SOLA VIP, but I doubt your patients would prefer these lenses to a well-designed, modern progressive.




> Why? Because I can work with the prescription and the prisms in order to make a more comfortable PAL without having any other problem, but in the opposite way I will have a very comfortable and unuseful lens


I don't know that there is much your prescription and prism will contribute to improving the overall utility and comfort of the lenses, though an _incorrect_ prescription can certainly compromise the optical performance of a progressive.




> ]Maybe I am wrong, but the wrost problem of all manufacturers and designers is the lack of transparency.


Refer to my example regarding older, "harder" progressive lens designs.




> The 'normal' optician demands to understand clearly why PAL x is much better than PAL y; and the only thing we can measure is the spherical values. We are totally bored of hearing the "swim" effect and the prismatic balance.


I disagree with this statement. Image swim, skew distortion, prismatic imbalance, etcetera, can also be measured; they just weren't in Dr. Sheedy's evaluation. Dr. Sheedy evaluated what he, personally, could measure with the tools at his disposal using his personal understanding of progressive lens optics (which, while very impressive, does not necessarily match the understanding of the lens designers and vision scientists of a large progressive lens company).




> If it's truth you invest so many money in R&D you should have done it.


I, personally, spend a great deal of my time analyzing dozens of progressive lens designs for dozens of optical measures. Perhaps I'll post an example of a typical analysis (though it would be inappropriate for me to show the product name under these circumstances).

----------


## vikramg

There is no doubt in my mind that both Zeiss and Essilor would love to keep the opticians in the dark in order to keep taking the progressive prices in an upward direction by pure marketing b*** talk.

Now when someone like Prof Sheedy comes along and starts measuring and comparing the usefull available widths in various progressives, what is the typical reaction of both these companies ...

It is not important.. Quoting Pete Hanlin..




> 1.) Spherical width is demonstrably not the most crucial factor in the visual comfort or utility provided by an ophthalmic lens. If it were, no patient would ever leave a FT35 or FT28, since even the "widest" PAL comes nowhere close to a 28mm wide spherical zone at near.


Pete did you figure most people are moving to progressives for only visual comfort ?

Also,perhaps the next Essilor design should have ZERO useful sperical areas , (not the most crucial factor !!!) and perfectly balances areas of binocular vision on the the distorted areas, (yes ..customers care more for the vision through the distorted areas ???) Pardon my sarcasm.




> Maybe I am wrong, but the wrost problem of all manufacturers and designers is the lack of transparency. The 'normal' optician demands to understand clearly why PAL x is much better than PAL y; and the only thing we can measure is the spherical values. We are totally bored of hearing the "swim" effect and the prismatic balance. Show us some kind of studies like Mr. Sheedy's one; even if it consider only the small piece of the cake. If it's truth you invest so many money in R&D you should have done it.


Well said Sergio, :cheers: 

If these large manufacturers had any respect for the opticians ability to understand technical issues ,THEY would be giving out the data that is being provided by Prof. Sheedy.. instead of trying to put down his research as being basic and irrelevant.

----------


## Bobie

vikramg ,
I like your post.
India and Thailand not so far.
Let me know when you come to visit Thailand , and we will can exchange our knowledge.

:cheers:

----------


## vikramg

> vikramg ,
> I like your post.
> India and Thailand not so far.
> Let me know when you come to visit Thailand , and we will can exchange our knowledge.


Thanks Bobie ..

WE have got our own Progressive Mapper from Rotlex , the same one Dr Sheedy uses for his analysis and can there fore really see the insignificant differences that exist between progressives .
Anytime you are visiting India do come and meet me too .:cheers:

----------


## Darryl Meister

> There is no doubt in my mind that both Zeiss and Essilor would love to keep the opticians in the dark in order to keep taking the progressive prices in an upward direction by pure marketing b*** talk.


Yet the premium lens of your brand of choice, Shamir, costs more than Zeiss's premium lens from many labs...?

And I would argue that our companies have done considerably more to educate the marketplace on progressive lenses than most lens manufacturers. If you visit the OptiBoard File Archives, for instance, you will find no less than six papers I have submitted on the optics and dispensing of progressive lenses that were produced at Carl Vision Zeiss.




> Now when someone like Prof Sheedy comes along and starts measuring and comparing the usefull available widths in various progressives, what is the typical reaction of both these companies ...


Rest assured, if we felt that it was in the _wearer's_ best interest to do so, we could design a lens today that beats every other product in Dr. Sheedy's list.

In fact, let's put our arguments to the test. Consider the following two progressive lenses, which both have the same Add power and similar corridor lengths (within 0.5 mm of each other):



These are plots of surface astigmatism measured at the 0.50 D boundary, which is comparable to the test methodology used in Dr. Sheedy's evaluation to measure the size (or "spherical-ness" as you might call it) of the central viewing zones.

Now, looking at viewing zone size only, which is the better progressive lens?

Would it surprise you to know that Lens A is a modern progressive lens from _your personal brand of choice_? Lens B is a progressive lens designed by American Optical over 20 years ago, which is a hard, mono-design, symmetrical lens.




> If these large manufacturers had any respect for the opticians ability to understand technical issues ,THEY would be giving out the data that is being provided by Prof. Sheedy.. instead of trying to put down his research as being basic and irrelevant.


I disagree that reading a list of progressive lens rankings in Dr. Sheedy's evaluation is really trying to "understand technical issues." If anything, the eyecare professional is avoiding technical issues by using a list that _someone else_ has put together based on _his_ understanding of technical issues.

I think that eyecare professionals who are truly interested in the "technical issues" will familiarize themselves with the optics of progressive lenses, in general, and then make product selections based on their _own_ technical expertise, not someone else's. For instance, Dr. Sheedy has written several informative articles on the optics of progressive lenses, like this one, which I suspect most eyecare professionals are much less familiar with than his list of progressive lens rankings.

----------


## HarryChiling

> And I would argue that our companies have done considerably more to educate the marketplace on progressive lenses than most lens manufacturers


I don't think you would have to argue.  I for one have received more info from Darryl and our Zeiss rep than ANYONE.  His site has information for free, he contributes articles on this board, he writes programs that address the needs of many on this board.  His company would have stoped him long ago if their intentions were to stop the flow of information.




> I think that eyecare professionals who are truly interested in the "technical issues" will familiarize themselves with the optics of progressive lenses, in general, and then make product selections based on their _own_ technical expertise, not someone else's.


Hah, I have been useing the AO Compacts for a while now and go to them as my personal favorite lens, it does not do so hot on the sheedy report, but my office does well with it and so it is our go to lens.

This slew of contour maps that have been poping up here are just regurgitated picture from pamphlets, I have noticed that none of them have any consitency in color or look.  So if it is technical to scan someones brochure then post the graphics, then we have just seen a slew of technical minded opticians on this board pop up out of no where.

I am curious to know how much importance anyone gives to the axis of astigmatism on these contour plots?  For example if your patients Rx was off 7 degrees on a 0.50 cyl you could dispense that pair (meets ANSI), but on the cyl of the same power if the axis was 90 degrees off you would be wrong to dispense that.  The contour plots that are shown don't show this.  I would be interested in seeing a contour plot of the prescription analyzed with the regions seperated into (meets ANSI) and doesn't.

I would also like to point out that the book Darryl authored with Dr Sheedy is probably one of the best books I own (thanks again Darryl).  I am sure when Dr Sheedy did his research he had such a rough time finding funding because of all the big bad lens companies.  I would like more technical info, but in the US their aren't enough opticians that are educated enough to understand some of the info, so it would just be wasted resources right now.

----------


## Samuel Jong

Darryl :cheers: Harry :cheers: .

----------


## Darryl Meister

> I for one have received more info from Darryl and our Zeiss rep than ANYONE. His site has information for free, he contributes articles on this board, he writes programs that... I would also like to point out that the book Darryl authored with Dr Sheedy is probably one of the best books I own (thanks again Darryl).


I certainly appreciate the positive feedback, Harry.

The fact is, I consider Jim Sheedy a friend, an exceptional clinician, and a heck of a nice guy. Having worked closely with Jim on several projects, I have no doubt that he has forgotten more about ophthalmic and physiological optics than most of us will ever know. Although I've stated that his progressive lens evaluation could be improved upon, especially with the use of more sophisticated lens analysis tools, I am also the first to applaud his efforts and his desire to increase the awareness of the optics and applications of progressive lenses among eyecare professionals.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Although I've stated that his progressive lens evaluation could be improved upon, especially with the use of more sophisticated lens analysis tools, I am also the first to applaud his efforts and his desire to increase the awareness of the optics and applications of progressive lenses among eyecare professionals.


  I am sure the analysis will improve, I think all this talk that is comin up about progressive lenses may be due to a few people getting a hold of some new and snazzy toys.  I am sure that as these same toys become more widely available they will be factored into the newer research on progressives and I have no doubt that Dr. Sheedy will be at the fore front of it.  


> I certainly appreciate the positive feedback, Harry.


  You poke a lion with a stick and you run the risk of getting an arm bite off. :)

----------


## OPTIDONN

I think that I know what's going on here. Bobie may have stumbled into something very, very deep. This goes all the way to the top and includes not only top government officials but many secret societies. They have all combined efforts to to controll and manipulate the masses of ECP's to believe that thier  PAL's are the best. Well now that we have freedom fighters like vikramg and Bobie a regular Mulder and Scully who know the 'truth is out there' we have hope. Just kidding guys! :p 

There is nothing wrong with understanding today's technology but I think you are looking too much into this. Why do you seemed so shocked that marketing people are talking about how great thier product is? That's business. Every comercial and ad that you see does the same thing. Do you get suspicious when a cofee comercial comes on claiming to be made from the best beans? The point is you guys are not getting the whole information. You are picking up pieces here and there and trying to match them together. If you are going to investigate PAL's do it in a uniform and scientific way. Instead of picking of marketing materials here and there and trying to patch them together.

----------


## HarryChiling

> I think that I know what's going on here. Bobie may have stumbled into something very, very deep. This goes all the way to the top and includes not only top government officials but many secret societies. They have all combined efforts to to controll and manipulate the masses of ECP's to believe that thier PAL's are the best. Well now that we have freedom fighters like vikramg and Bobie a regular Mulder and Scully who know the 'truth is out there' we have hope. Just kidding guys! :p


You know too much, I would sleep lightly if I were you.  The PAL goons like to get you in your sleep.

----------


## Fezz

> I would also like to point out that the book Darryl authored with Dr Sheedy is probably one of the best books I own (thanks again Darryl).



I will second that. This book is easy to understand, very thorough, and comprehensive. I for one, am way glad to own it.! Thanks for all your hard work and dedication , Darryl. Many of us truly appreciate it.

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Many of us truly appreciate it.


And I love all five or six of you. ;)

----------


## HarryChiling

> And I love all five or six of you. ;)


But we count like dog years so its actually 35 to 42 of us.

----------


## Samuel Jong

OPTIDONN:cheers: . FEZZ:cheers: .

----------


## Fezz

> But we count like dog years so its actually 35 to 42 of us.



*LOL*.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> If these large manufacturers had any respect for the opticians ability to understand technical issues ,THEY would be giving out the data that is being provided by Prof. Sheedy..


I like to think of it as "faith based aberration control".

Seriously, the best way I've found to compare these designs is to wear them, and if you're to young to do so, use an older staff or family member to be the "guinea pig" or test subject.

Regards,

----------


## KStraker

> You'll like Shamir better


  Good luck with that. My lab has accounts with Essilor, Hoya, Younger, Carl Zeiss, and many of the other manufacturers. I tried without success to open an account with Shamir. It took three calls to them to get any response what so ever. I was informed that in order to maintain their high level of customer service they were not able to open any new accounts right now. If their current low level of service is any indication of business, things must be booming indeed.  Many manufacturers have products that function well, but their service is definately not equal. I recommend using someone else.   my .02, your mileage my vary.

----------


## For-Life

Shamir has cheapened themselves by hooking up exclusively in Canada with the Shopper's Optical chain.

----------


## mike.elmes

I have a Shoppers Optical in the same mall as i'm in. TheA/R lens coatings they use have been unbelievably poor....No matter how good a lens is, if it scratches or peels, the consumer rates it as JUNK...which has been incredibly good for my business.:cheers:

----------


## rdcoach5

We have dispensed many dozens of Physio 360's in our office with an almost universal "wow" response. You should get sharp readings  in your lensometer if you use auxillary prisms to center your target. . You can get crisp readings anywhere on the lens by using prism to center your target and adjusting for axis. I don't know if the Physio is as forgiving for being slightly crooked or off P.D.,but I don't let those pass. It's always been critical for myself, being a high myope, that my lenses are dead on. I would bet that's your problem with the 360. Your local labs will try to tell you that it's okey to have your progressive 5 degrees crooked when you would never allow that on a flattop.  Same thing with P.D. 
                                                   Bob Taylor

----------


## For-Life

> I have a Shoppers Optical in the same mall as i'm in. TheA/R lens coatings they use have been unbelievably poor....No matter how good a lens is, if it scratches or peels, the consumer rates it as JUNK...which has been incredibly good for my business.:cheers:


 
Exactly, that is my point.  Shamir has allowed their lens to go through all of that.

----------


## EyeFitWell

> We have dispensed many dozens of Physio 360's in our office with an almost universal "wow" response. You should get sharp readings in your lensometer if you use auxillary prisms to center your target. . You can get crisp readings anywhere on the lens by using prism to center your target and adjusting for axis. I don't know if the Physio is as forgiving for being slightly crooked or off P.D.,but I don't let those pass. It's always been critical for myself, being a high myope, that my lenses are dead on. I would bet that's your problem with the 360. Your local labs will try to tell you that it's okey to have your progressive 5 degrees crooked when you would never allow that on a flattop. Same thing with P.D. 
> Bob Taylor


You do have an excellent point, and I'm sure that would cause problems.
However, I've dispensed many progressives and very, very rarely have my measurements been determined to be inaccurate.  Besides, I leave my lenses marked up for the dispense and visually triple check the measurements at that time.  We order edged from our lab, but I verify every single job with a fine toothed comb.  I do look for twist, vertical imbalance, PD's dead on, etc.  If my lab ever said "oh, it's okay for it to be that way" I wouldn't be pleased.  I am also a strong believer in accuracy down to the details.

All the 360's are coming from TX, right?  So you're getting them from the same lab I am.  Mine routinely haven't been crisp in the lensometer, or it is on one eye and not on the other.  But I kept reordering the first few pair asking them to get it to read properly, and they continued to come in reading wrong.  Several of them definately had about a quarter of cyl in a lens that was supposed to be spherical.  Finally, after waiting 2 months and remake after remake, I contacted my reps who told me it should not read properly.  Then, I thought, Ok, let's give it a try (Doc said to go ahead and dispense them) so I did, and they all came back complaining of terrible vision.
What am I missing?

----------


## rdcoach5

> You do have an excellent point, and I'm sure that would cause problems.
> However, I've dispensed many progressives and very, very rarely have my measurements been determined to be inaccurate. Besides, I leave my lenses marked up for the dispense and visually triple check the measurements at that time. We order edged from our lab, but I verify every single job with a fine toothed comb. I do look for twist, vertical imbalance, PD's dead on, etc. If my lab ever said "oh, it's okay for it to be that way" I wouldn't be pleased. I am also a strong believer in accuracy down to the details.
> 
> All the 360's are coming from TX, right? So you're getting them from the same lab I am. Mine routinely haven't been crisp in the lensometer, or it is on one eye and not on the other. But I kept reordering the first few pair asking them to get it to read properly, and they continued to come in reading wrong. Several of them definately had about a quarter of cyl in a lens that was supposed to be spherical. Finally, after waiting 2 months and remake after remake, I contacted my reps who told me it should not read properly. Then, I thought, Ok, let's give it a try (Doc said to go ahead and dispense them) so I did, and they all came back complaining of terrible vision.
> What am I missing?


What material are you using?Poly? I have to admit I haven't used any 360's lately since the Kodak Unique came out with their promotion. It is such a better price if you're adding high index and A.R. and transitions. Also, I think it's a better lens according to our co-workers reactions that have tried both. So maybe there is a production problem now that wasn't there when we used it heavily. 
                                      Bob Taylor

----------


## Foveator

Having been a longtime Varilux wearer and coming out of Panamics, I thought the distance of the Physio 360 was outstanding. With my 3D of cyl, peripheral abberations in the distance were greatly reduced and clarity was simply the best I've experienced with a progressive. I cannot compare it with the regular Physio as I haven't tried that lens.

Unfortunately, as soon as I looked at my computer, it was obvious that the midrange made the sacrifice for the better distance acuity. Although near vision was fine, the midrange was significantly constricted. Computer work simply could not comfortably be conducted.

I also tried the Shamir Creation. It was a very close match for crisp distance vision and lack of peripheral blur. However, the midrange was as comfortable and as wide as my previous Panamic lenses and near was great. It felt like a more comfortable lens to wear right from the start.

I interchange both pairs (which were in identical rimless frames) and tend to wear the Creation more often.

----------


## EyeFitWell

rdcoach-
We virtually never use poly.  We prefer plastics and high-index, etc.  
Foveator-
We've actually started using the creation a lot, and with outstanding results!  I'm hoping we'll soon get an acct with a lab which can do the Autograph for us.  I've heard really great things about that lens.

----------


## rdcoach5

> Having been a longtime Varilux wearer and coming out of Panamics, I thought the distance of the Physio 360 was outstanding. With my 3D of cyl, peripheral abberations in the distance were greatly reduced and clarity was simply the best I've experienced with a progressive. I cannot compare it with the regular Physio as I haven't tried that lens.
> 
> Unfortunately, as soon as I looked at my computer, it was obvious that the midrange made the sacrifice for the better distance acuity. Although near vision was fine, the midrange was significantly constricted. Computer work simply could not comfortably be conducted.
> 
> I also tried the Shamir Creation. It was a very close match for crisp distance vision and lack of peripheral blur. However, the midrange was as comfortable and as wide as my previous Panamic lenses and near was great. It felt like a more comfortable lens to wear right from the start.
> 
> I interchange both pairs (which were in identical rimless frames) and tend to wear the Creation more often.



I have to ask this. Is the P.D. narrow? I've had real good response from my 360 pts, but I haven't used any lately because the kodak Unique  promotion and results have been outstanding. Please tell us if the optics are sharp at all points on the lens, because I'm wondering if they are having production problems. By the way, I just tried out my new Creation sunglasses and they are great. No distance blur and a wide arm's length field of vision. I'm dying to try the Autograph. Just dispensed a Zeiss Inividual with so-so- reading width.Great distance

----------


## boorich

I have tried fitting physio 360, typically the performance is over rated.The intermediate and near zones are narrow. Not only that, the lenses are very sensitive to head movement, blur is perceived quite easily at the peripheral. I have many colleagues failed with these physio 360, especially the 1.67 index.
I tried calligraphy from ilt, these back surface free-form are much better.

----------


## Foveator

> I have to ask this. Is the P.D. narrow? I've had real good response from my 360 pts, but I haven't used any lately because the kodak Unique promotion and results have been outstanding. Please tell us if the optics are sharp at all points on the lens, because I'm wondering if they are having production problems. By the way, I just tried out my new Creation sunglasses and they are great. No distance blur and a wide arm's length field of vision. I'm dying to try the Autograph. Just dispensed a Zeiss Inividual with so-so- reading width.Great distance


My PD is about 64.
I've now been in the Creation for about a year. It has the best overall range by far. I've also had an Autograph made in the same Rx/same frame for comparison. I don't see a significant difference between the two. As I understand it, they are similar designs with different manufacturing methods. As of now, Creation is my gold standard. I've been able to successfully convert wearers of virtually every other progressive with the occasional exception of the Hoya ECP, which is also an excellent lens. I haven't compared them yet.

----------


## Opticaldeals

Look into the new Seiko Succeed, price is same as Physio 360 or a little less but the true free form design totally on the back surface seems to be showing big postive results with our patients.

----------

