# Optical Forums > Progressive Lens Discussion Forum >  Frustrated about digitally surfaced PALs

## Bobbi

I work in a small private practice, and my coworker and I love to stay informed on whats new in the industry, so we go to seminars and premiers whenever possible....A couple weeks ago we went to one for the Physio and 360 and we were told that they use a dual add design. We came back very ready to dispense these lenses to all of our presbyopes needing a general purpose lens....it was very exciting. But last night we went to a seminar put on by Shamir about their Creation and Autograph lenses, and I came out of it with the understanding that both physio designs are front surfaced lenses, and they are very similar to the Comfort (which I never dispense anyway). So my point is that at some point I was lied to, and I just wanted to know if anyone out there has the real story.....

----------


## hipoptical

You should not be so naive as to think that any manufacturer would actually tell you the truth. There are never-ending opinions out there, and the real truth is that you will likely have to experience things for yourself to come to a conclusion that you are comfortable with.
Having said that, I will say that I do not believe 90% of what Essilor says. They are THE BEST at one thing in this industry: MARKETING. I have experience with them in retail, lab, and marketing, as a customer, competitor, and partner. They know marketing. They do it well. They have money. You would do well to not believe the hype. No matter what "happylady" and others get on here and say.  I'm not saying they have bad products, but your impression you were left with after the Shamir seminar is likely closer to the truth than whatever else you may hear. They know that the Comfort is more widely and easily accepted than the Panamic, and they needed a new gimmic to focus everyone's naive, uneducated attention to. They want to sell lenses. Surely nobody out there truly thinks that Essilor has the consumer's best interest in mind. They know that people who do not know any better will believe anything. 
What you refer to as digitally-surfaced, most call free-form. No doubt they are better (read more accurate, really) than a traditionally surfaced lens. There are simply more possible calculations, thus providing a more "detailed" lens. The question is: is it really worth the money? My response is: "Not if it's from Essilor".
(Shamir is only gonna give you the best side of their story, too. You know that, right?)

----------


## Happylady

Hipotical, I wish you wouldn't quote me as someone who is saying untrue things about Essilor products. All I have ever done is say that my husband and I have tried the Phyiso and liked it. I have also said I liked the Sola One and the Hoya Wide and neither of them are made by Esslior.

I have not personally tried the Shamir products. I understand they are very nice lenses. The Piccolo looks to have an excellent near though only a fair distance. The Genesis looks to have an excellent distance and a good near. It seems to be a good all around lens.

----------


## Framebender

from Minnesota did you??  I think if I heard him say a million trillion computations one more time I was going to puke!  As for all his hundreds of engineers and their super computers running 24/7.  So what??  We deal with real rocket scientist everyday from Martin Marietta & Ball Aerospace Engineering.  Most of those guys are geeks with very little grasp on reality.

Shamir makes good lenses, but so does Hoya, Sola/Zeiss and Essilor.  What did make sense was that no matter who you use, you're not going to be able to accurately verify a digitally surfaced progressive with a standard lensometer. That means you better trust whichever lab you're using or you could get embarassed big time!

----------


## AWTECH

As a follow up to the quote by framebender:


> What did make sense was that no matter who you use, you're not going to be able to accurately verify a digitally surfaced progressive with a standard lensometer. That means you better trust whichever lab you're using or you could get embarassed big time!


You check a digitally surfaced lens with a standard lensometer, however you will only get the varification of the power at the point you measure. A good standard lensometer or a good digital lensometer can measure a digitally surfaced lens. What a standard lensometer can not do is measure the complete surface. 

Ultimately what really matters is the vision the patient experiences and using great designs digitally surfaced will allow patients to experience better vision in most cases.

I don't agree that all lens companies are not telling the truth: Hipoptical said:


> You should not be so naive as to think that any manufacturer would actually tell you the truth.


I know for a fact that at ICE-TECH Advanced Lens Technologies we only deal with truth. We are one of the smaller lens companies but have some of the best quality lens design and production capabilities. Unlike most we do not try to offer all lenses for all uses. We specialize in digitally surfaced (freeform) lens designs in both ICE-TECH Advanced Polarized backside A-Toric designs and the new Seiko Succeed backside PAL designs. Ask a customer of ours about our products. These are all sold based on technical truths not just marketing hype.

----------


## Bobbi

Yeah it was the guy from Minnesota! Todd was his name I think...

Also, I definitely agree that Essilor's main focus is marketing, and while I think that product awareness in the general public is a good thing, it gets really annoying when a patient comes in dead set on Varilux lenses(you don't go to footlocker and demand nikes, you look for the best pair of shoes for a specific activiy usually), it's hard to tell them that a lens made by a company they've never heard of is far superior, but we've all been burned by Essilor I think (the whole Panamic scheme), and it was naive of me to swallow it whole like that, I'm learning quickly that to get the real truth you need to pick it all apart. My biggest problem is that I might ask some reps from a couple of the private labs that we use for thier honest and unbiased opinion, only to find out a few months later that this lab has quietly hopped in bed with certain lens companies...I guess I'll just keep on trying to stay informed in the industry, but rely most heavily on patient response to the products.

----------


## For-Life

Honestly, whether it is the Seiko Succeed, Varilux Physio 360, Definity, Gradal Individual, Hoya ID, or Shamir Autograph, I do not think you can go wrong.

----------


## hipoptical

> Hipotical, I wish you wouldn't quote me as someone who is saying untrue things about Essilor products.


I said "hype". Never said you told untruths. Hype is overstating ones emotions based upon facts coupled with experience. Hype is a magnification or elaboration, or embellishment of facts due to one's emotional connection with the matter at hand. Essilor is the embodiment of hype. Some buy into the hype, I do not.
AWTECH:
Disagree if you must, however understand that I was "speaking" at least in part hyperbole. I know that there are some out there who will actually talk truthfully about lens matters. My contention, though, is that even the honest ones only speak about the finer points of their product(s). The negative regarding their own products is left out. Some would call this good business sense. I say that Truth would be full disclosure, allowing the hearer to draw his own conclusions. Not disclosing the entire story often has intended results, which may be that a person believes something to be true that isn't. This is all too often the case.
BTW: I agree with you regarding Seiko.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Essilor is the embodiment of hype.*


I have saying this for the last few years.................but still there many optiboarders that sing glory to Essilor every day right here on the Optiboard.

Sometimes I think some people are on the payroll of those major corporations but not identified as such. After a while they disapear and some new promoters pop up.

I am glad that hipoptical has given a very frank opinion and we should have more of them.

----------


## Bill Mahnke

I guess it depends what you mean by "digitally" front surfacing??  It certainly isn't a custom produced front (or back) surface, as Essilor would like you to believe.  Physio, Physio 360, and Ipsio are all mass-produced lenses, you can tell because they're all available in *Transitions!*  Transitions doesn't do a job at a time but rather they process thousands of lenses at a time and the process is done on the front surface.  Any Varilux lab can process Physio; as a result its conventionally back surfaced.

----------


## For-Life

> I guess it depends what you mean by "digitally" front surfacing??  It certainly isn't a custom produced front (or back) surface, as Essilor would like you to believe.  Physio, Physio 360, and Ipsio are all mass-produced lenses, you can tell because they're all available in *Transitions!*  Transitions doesn't do a job at a time but rather they process thousands of lenses at a time and the process is done on the front surface.  Any Varilux lab can process Physio; as a result its conventionally back surfaced.




they do the Ipseo and Physio 360 in France.  Takes 3 to 4 weeks.

----------


## AWTECH

Bill Mahnke:


> guess it depends what you mean by "digitally" front surfacing?? It certainly isn't a custom produced front (or back) surface, as Essilor would like you to believe. Physio, Physio 360, and Ipsio are all mass-produced lenses, you can tell because they're all available in *Transitions!*




Essilor is in a unique position regarding Transissions.  PPG is the majority owner and Essilor owns the other (49%, I think this is the approximate ownership, but I maybe off some).

As far as digitally surfaced individual lenses go.  Currently there are two basic approaches.  One utilizes a spherical front (patented process), and the others use a non-spherical front surfaces either molded or custom made using freeform equipment.  Either front surfaced spherical or molded non-spherical lenses could easily have transitions and then have the backsurface digitally surfaced for a custom made lens.

PS: The Physio and the Physio 360 are not produced in the same way.  It is my understanding that the Physio is traditionally surfaced while the Physio 360 is surfaced using a point file on the rear surface.  The front of a Physio 360 has some of the power molded into the front surface of the lens.

There is a great deal of confusion regarding individualized lenses.  I hope this helps clear up one small area of confusion.

----------


## Barry Santini

> I have saying this for the last few years.................but still there many optiboarders that sing glory to Essilor every day right here on the Optiboard. 
> I am glad that hipoptical has given a very frank opinion and we should have more of them.


I "figured-out" what Essilor stands for:

*E*very
*S*ingle
*S*alesperson
*I*s
*L*ying
*O*r
(w)*R*ong

My three cents

Barry

----------


## hipoptical

That is just hilarious...
and sad...
'cause it's true.

----------


## 66Lenses

> I "figured-out" what Essilor stands for:
> 
> *E*very
> *S*ingle
> *S*alesperson
> *I*s
> *L*ying
> *O*r
> (w)*R*ong
> ...


 
The sad thing is I think that many of us would have to agree with you! And have stopped using Essilor! I used to think that they were a great option but I have since decided that since I can not get a straight answer out of their reps for my questions that I will not use them.

----------


## Bobbi

For the record, I have sorted it all out and have come to a few conclusions. (I want to thank everyone for thier input as well)

The Varilux Physio is nothing special, it is just the comfort at a higher price with new marketing.

The physio 360 is a good lens, but again overpriced...I can get the same technology and performance from the Shamir Creation (aspheric/atoric designs) at a better price.

The Definity has .75 of the add on the backside, and is aspheric, cutting down some of the distortions, and widening the visual field slightly, which is why it's great with smaller add powers. (The downside is that this is an Essilor lens.)

The lenses that are truly personalized with aspheric designs and 100% backside add are the Hoyalux id (which is not available to every office) and the Shamir Autograph. 

After reading everyone's opinions, and speaking with as many people as possible about it, I have been able to assist in developing our packages (good, better, best) and have completely taken Essilor/Varilux lenses out of the mix....They are liars and they cater to the chains.

Thanks again everyone!

~Bobbi

----------


## AWTECH

ICE-TECH Advanced Lens Technologies is producing the Seiko Succeed and we are also about to release a ICE-TECH PAL product.

Seiko has been producing freeform backside lenses longer than anyone.  This technology has only recently been offered being produced outside of Japan.

ICE-TECH has many unique technologies that allow us to produce lenses not available from other lens companies.  We are the only lens technology company that I know of that is 100% focused on freeform technologies.

----------


## hipoptical

> After reading everyone's opinions, and speaking with as many people as possible about it, I have been able to assist in developing our packages (good, better, best) and have completely taken Essilor/Varilux lenses out of the mix....They are liars and they cater to the chains.
> 
> Thanks again everyone!
> 
> ~Bobbi


Victory! 
Welcome to the good side.

----------


## CDOT

> I "figured-out" what Essilor stands for:
> 
> *E*very
> *S*ingle
> *S*alesperson
> *I*s
> *L*ying
> *O*r
> (w)*R*ong
> ...


That just made my day !!!!!!!:D

----------


## Raanan Bavli

Bobbi,

I can offer my help. The advantage that manufacturers have over you (and professionals like you), is that they have the expensive equipment capable of mapping lenses. Well, you too, can have access this information. If you are interested, you can send me lenses and I'll return them to you along with their power and astigmatism maps, without any cost except shipping. 
This will enable you to compare "novel" lens designes, to standards ones.

Raanan

----------


## 66Lenses

Todays world is just surviving on marketting gmicks. Seminars and related make available views and presentatinos from certain people and how they present material to you, is what makes a difference. Usually you would expect them to promote their product only or talk about benefits of their stuff. You return hme with some impression and thats just raw knowledge. You should consult libraries and work out to confirm how truthful or right your formed perception is. Salesmen just need to sell and they will at times lick you to get products promoted. Most may be hiding facts or features, so its always better to have more information and knowledge, before actually starting implementing same on to real life scenario that may at times even affect your own sales.

----------


## Canadian

Well.  Hmmm.  I used to work in an independant optical and all we sold was essilor products, and I liked them.  Not me personally, but my patients seemed to be quite happy.  It was kind of sad though when the odd person would come in and price shop, after just coming from Walmart or Costco across the street.  I was half way into my speech about comparing apples to oranges, quality, etc, and low and behold they would show me a low, low price on the same lenses I was selling.  

   Now I work for 3 optometrists, and only 1% of my jobs go to Essilor.  (doc's request)  Essilor came to town, I went to learn about the physio, and I won an Ipod Nano.  Yeah, the presentation is fairly transparent.  The lenses are expensive, maybe over priced, but cheaper than the multigressiv.  maybe even cheaper than nikon.  I think i will give them a try though, and see if some of my px may like them.  I have fit just one so far, same rx and px can notice less peripheral distortion.  I know they are marketing pros, but for some reason I like that.  Essilor came down to our little town, did a seminar for just a handful of people.  Other companies do not seem so eager to do this, and the more I know about a lens, the better I feel about selling it.

----------


## jasisom

Being a licensed dispensing optician and currently wearing digitally surfaced porgressives I feel that am qualified to comment on the design. Bottom line, optically superior in every respect. The process uses wave front technology similar to lasik except it's used on a progressive lens. The segment is dual sided. The patient has roughly 20% wider intermediate and reading area. I wear Nikon Custom 1.67 with AR. +3.75 sphere, -1.50 cyl, +2.25 add. Tried Zeiss 1.67 progressives. Had to turn to focus for distance when looking more than 20 deg from straight ahead. Perfect focus across entire field of vision with Nikon lenses. I'm a user and a believer. I fully expect this technology will replace current progressive technoloy in the next few years. The intermediate and reading field of vision is as advertised i.e. 20% increase in width. You can read al you want but the only real proof is feedback from your patients. I've fitted numerous pairs of the Nikon Custom lenses in the past few months and have yet to receive a single complaint. I think thats pretty good considering that my vision center dispenses a little more than 200 pair of progressive spectacles a month. You asked, this is my two cents worth on these lenses.

----------


## hipoptical

canadian and jasisom...and others on the dark side...

My original point was not whether or not Essilor lenses work, or are good designs. Sure they work, most do. Sure they're good designs, like MANY others out there. The important thing to know is that they're not better than EVERY other lens in the world. They are not the best in every situation, as they made you believe. In some cases, perhaps an Essilor lens is better than a Zeiss. Sometimes a Navigator is better than a Physio 360. 
jasisom: I don't question the quality of digitally-surfaced PALs. They should be better than traditional PALs. My point is still valid in this area, as well: Essilor's is not better than Shamir's, Zeiss', or Seiko's. They are all very good, and the average wearer will not notice the difference between them. 
I also maintain that proper fitting is key. I sell a lens for 66% less than the Physio 360. I bet that my customers are no less satisfied that yours, and probably more so, since they have enough left over for a nice weekend getaway. The Panamic was supposed to be Varilux's market-killer. If you find an honest Essilor employee (it's hard) they'll tell you that it never worked out like they wanted. They still sell a ton of Comfort's. Reason (directly from the mouth of one of their main techs at a private conference for lab owners only, to me and two witnesses) "the Panamic must be fit 100% correctly at every level. Most dispensers cannot do it right. Most wearers do not wear it correctly."
Sometimes simple is better.

----------


## Andrew Weiss

I hope the point here is to try to find the best lens for each individual patient.  I've never been a 1-size-fits-all practitioner.

I've worn, or wear, the Multigressiv, Zeiss Individual (regular and short), Definity (regular and short), Nikon 13, Genesis, Panamic, Gradal Top and Brevity, Rodenstock Life 2 and XS, and years ago the Comfort.  

I'm a hyperope with moderate astigmatism and a 2.50 add.  I know what works for me.  I also know that what works for me may not work for others, so I try to be observant about what works for patients with Rxs different from mine.

While my personal favorites are the Zeiss Individual and Definity (each for different reasons), I also see the virtue in other lens designs for different Rxs.  Example: people with high astigmatism (over 2.50) I prefer to put in Multigressives because, of the lenses I know, they do the best job of compensating for the distortion caused by cyl.  Moderate to high myopes I prefer to put in the Gradal Top because of its relatively large reading area and its 4mm drop from fitting center.

Are all free-form digitally-designed lenses superior to others?  My take on this: In the abstract, probably yes, but in individual applications, maybe not.  So much depends on our skills as fitters -- not just in knowing how to measure and fit the frame, but also knowing those lens designs and matching the design to the patient.

While I respect Varliux' lens design, I agree that their major contribution to our industry is their amazing skill at marketing.  More than anyone, Varilux has increased awareness in the general public about progressive lenses.  That doesn't mean that their designs superior to others.  They're good; and so are others: Zeiss, Rodenstock, Shamir, Seiko/Pentax amongst them.

PS: Haven't yet tried the Autograph.  With the Multigressiv being phased out in the US, I'll want to see what the Autograph can do . . .

----------


## jasisom

I had no argument about the quality of varilux good or bad. I agree that there are a lot of good lenses out there. My point is simply that digitally surfaced lenses, no matter who makes them, is a superior design. The whole idea for the process is to remove as much distortion as possible throughout the entire lens. With technology that allows us to work both sides of the lens, we are now able to remove much more distortion than with previous methods of lens design. I'm sure that an even better process will come in the future.

The major point you made and I agree with 100% is proper fitting. The best lenses do the patient no good if not properly fitted. I see opticians fitting and  dispensing incorrectly all the time. I really have to restrain myself from saying something when its not my store, customer or business.

----------


## xoptec

> For the record, I have sorted it all out and have come to a few conclusions. (I want to thank everyone for thier input as well)
> 
> The Varilux Physio is nothing special, it is just the comfort at a higher price with new marketing.
> 
> The physio 360 is a good lens, but again overpriced...I can get the same technology and performance from the Shamir Creation (aspheric/atoric designs) at a better price.
> 
> The Definity has .75 of the add on the backside, and is aspheric, cutting down some of the distortions, and widening the visual field slightly, which is why it's great with smaller add powers. (The downside is that this is an Essilor lens.)


Oh now I get it! You are the kind of guy that hates whatever labeled Microsoft, doesn't like starbucks, never ask for a pair of Nike and beat the hell out of every WTO members. You are a ture gen X! ;)

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *The major point you made and I agree with 100% is proper fitting. The best lenses do the patient no good if not properly fitted. I see opticians fitting and dispensing incorrectly all the time. .*


*Any lens system................usually consisting of one or several lens surfaces.........that contains any type of distortion as an end result..............is an imperfect lens system.*

If such a imperfect lens system is mounted and fitted into glasses, as per above quote.................the puiblic is being conned into purchasing a badly fitted lens system for absolut overpriced top dollars just for cosmetic looks as advertised by the major optical corporations.
:finger:

----------


## unbi'ased

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

klsoptical.com

----------


## rdcoach5

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


You do know this is a 4 year old thread?

----------


## gunner05

I've had the "wow" factor, but it depends on the Rx.  Be picky and they'll love you for it.




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

----------


## Spazmonkey

I agree as well. But I've had better luck with 360 and Individual by Zeiss as well as Definity's design is good.

----------


## gunner05

I won't touch a 360 product.  In my mind, not freeform, just digitally enhanced so more precise optics but they do nothing to improve the progressive areas.  Our most common freeform is the hoyalux iD followed by zeiss.

----------


## gunner05

Oh, and since you can essentially get the Physio 360 at wallyworld, I stay far far away for that reason as well.

----------


## Spazmonkey

I didn't now that you can get 360's at wally world. Oh well you learn something new. Is that why the changed there name to Enhanced?
 I must admit I do like the other true free form lenses.

----------


## gunner05

Wallyworld's is the Accolade Freedom.  They call it a Nikon Customized, but the lab they use is Avisa (essilor owned) and have actually subbed in physios from time to time when I was working for the corporation.

----------


## Spazmonkey

Thanks for the heads up.

----------


## sharpstick777

Most Essilor lenses use cast ad powers on the front, even when the back is digitally surfaced. Except in very very high RX's or high cyl's the curve on the add is the steepest and most important area of the lens that requires the most precision and benefits the most from digital processing. The only Essilor lenses that have digital adds are the Definity (in part), Ideal, Ipseo and the Physio Enhanced. 

In a PAL add area, you are on average changing power a total of 2D in a 14mm distance and that induces a lot of problems if not managed well, when the Rx changes power on average of 2.5 D (again on average) over 45mm. the ratio of power to distance is where distortion comes from. You need a digitally processed Ad power to see the full benefits of a true digital lens, so yea... your Shamir rep is correct.

The main reason that Essilor does not use more digital ads is that Seiko owns the patent on digital backside add powers, and Essilor does not want to pay the licensing fees.

----------


## Fezz

> The main reason that Essilor does not use more digital ads is that *Seiko owns the patent on digital backside add powers,* and Essilor does not want to pay the licensing fees.


It is my understanding that this is not true.

----------


## WFruit

To my knowledge, Seiko does hold the US patent for backside add progressives.  Shamir holds a number of patents for lens designs and FreeForm Software.  Zeiss, to my knowledge, also holds some of the patents.

Somewhere in the forums there's a thread with a link to the Seiko patent, but I haven't found it yet.

Essilor _has_ entered the backside add market with their Ideal lens.

----------

