# Optical Forums > Progressive Lens Discussion Forum >  Essilor confusion!

## Fezz

Can one of you Essilor Devotees explain something to a wingnut like me who just doesn't get it.

I just received a mailing that introduces the new "Varilux Ellipse 360". Ok, I got that part. They go on to say "With a minimum fitting height of *13mm* , they won't have to sacrifice optimal vision for a fashionable look.". 


The minimum fitting height listed in the 2007 OLA Progressive Identifier is *14mm*.


So...why the difference? Is there one? Is the "360" a different design than the regular Ellipse? If so..why call it the Ellipse?

Ok Essilor drones....help me grasp this one!

----------


## For-Life

I would assume Essilor is pushing it down to combat the Carl Zeiss Ultra Compact.

I would say it is the same design but probably with digitalization the company feels that the lens can lose 1mm. I would probably disagree, but this what the industry has become. Anything you can do I can do better.

----------


## joptician

I can't wait for frame trends to come back around to larger B measurements so our patients can have reasonable distance, intermediate and near zones.  Then and only then life will be good and the roads safer.

It is really funny that lenses are a medical need and the parameters of that medical need are determined by FASHION!  I just like to see the best I can.  I guess that is why I can't give up the 3-piece for myself.

----------


## hipoptical

I'll wait for the drones to spew the rhetoric, but I can tell you from experience (in a meeting with Essilor "Big-Wigs" and tech-guys) that the reason they do these types of things has to do with what people will accept. If you have an old fitting chart for a Comfort, look at the minimum fit height- 23. Later on, they changed the charts, and you'll notice they said 22. Later on, another "new chart to replace your worn ones" would show the minimum to be 18. What changed in the lens? NOTHING. Following the example of Bill Clinton, they stated in the meeting I was in, that it depends on the meaning of "correct add power". The definition of "is" changed. What they said, exactly:
_We found that the acceptable power for most patients is different than the prescribed power. The majority of wearers are comfortable with 85% of the prescribed power, and at 18mm the Comfort gives the wearer the 85% that is necessary."
_If that is what they say about their Comfort, I'll bet that the same applies to the Ellipse 360. Close-enough is good enough.

Just doin' some electrical...
Oh-what are putting in, 220?
220-221, whatever it takes...(_from Mr. Mom_)

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *..................If that is what they say about their Comfort, I'll bet that the same applies to the Ellipse 360. Close-enough is good enough.*


 
..................which is good so you can sell more of their lenses...............make more money and invest in their stock which they are splitting in 4 days.

----------


## MarcE

I'm no Essilor drone, but I do think they make good lenses.

All the previous posts I agree with.  Same with the Compact Ultra.  IMO, no way should it be fit at 13 or even 15mm, unless you want an unsatisfied patient.  Same w/ Summitt CD, I wouldn't fit it less than 16mm.  Kodak rep said that you can Unique at 13, but we don't recommend it.

My dr gets somewhat miffed if she finds only 85% of the add power in her Rx.  It's wrong to her.  I fit an Ovation (MFH=17) at 19mm and the pt complained about not having enough add.  Dr found it to be 0.25 short on the add, so we will redo it w/ no credits in sight.  If any essilor reps are listening, see what you can do for me.

I have noticed that on most Essilor lenses, I can't get the full add at ANY fitting height - even at 22mm on an Ellipse.

Here is my advise - use a smallfit (ellipse), picollo, or minuo (all short corridor) on all your fits less than 20mm high.  Your pts will be happier and only the +2.25 and higher adds will miss the very slight shortening of the intermediate.

To Chris R:  I know, I know.  A PAL is a compromise.
I think they all cheat on the add except Shamir and the Image.

----------


## For-Life

MarcE, I do not think they mean 85&#37; of the add power, but 85% of the add area.

I do remember when I received the first pair of Ellipse lenses in the office, the first thing I did is take it to the lensometer and check it out.  It was bang on.  85% of 2.50 is 2.125, and that would be easy to see on the lensometer.

----------


## hipoptical

85% of the add POWER is what the Essilor folks said. They were very specific about that. The discussion was not about area, it was about useful power.

----------


## bren_03825

I don't know, but I can guess.....(probably wrong) :cheers:


maybe with the digital surfacing they think they can produce 85% of the add at 13 instead of 14.???

anyways, I'm going drinking
:cheers::cheers::cheers:

----------


## orangezero

perhaps on that PAL website we were talking about on another thread, we should list all the minimum fitting heights, what is acceptable now and what was acceptable when they first were introduced.

----------


## For-Life

> 85% of the add POWER is what the Essilor folks said. They were very specific about that. The discussion was not about area, it was about useful power.


But that would not work.  In the exam room they are reading the same with +2.50 add as with their Ellipse lenses at +2.50.  Like I said before, you would only get a +2.12 if that was total add power, which is not even acceptable for a +2.25

----------


## LENNY

> Here is my advise - use a smallfit (ellipse), picollo, or minuo (all short corridor) on all your fits less than 20mm high. Your pts will be happier and only the +2.25 and higher adds will miss the very slight shortening of the intermediate.


I never had a problem fitting Sola XL or Adaptar at 20 high!

----------


## hipoptical

> But that would not work.  In the exam room they are reading the same with +2.50 add as with their Ellipse lenses at +2.50.  Like I said before, you would only get a +2.12 if that was total add power, which is not even acceptable for a +2.25



It "works". How often are lenses dispensed, fitted, adjusted, re-adjusted? How often do dispensers "educate" the wearer about the differences between a standard PAL and a short Pal? What about first-timers going into a short- they don't even know what to expect? How many of you still offer Rx changes, only changing the add? the seg height? Non-adapt? None of those should even be offered with today's supposed "technologically-advanced-super-duper" lenses.
85% "works" for the majority. The rest are acceptable losses. Dispensers don't care, because you still expect the lab to pay for it, thinking the manufacturer will compensate the lab for the redo, but guess what? Doesn't happen anymore. The lab takes the hit. Essilor is gets off free, and you still think that they are doing you a favor. 85% is all you are giving if you fit the lens at the lowest recommended height, which is what many dispensers do. Let me ask this from you docs out there...
How many of you would be happy with your in-house lab giving everyone 85% of what you "prescribed" for reading? It happens every day, because nobody questions the Empire.
_For-Life_- of course it's not acceptable. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen every day (and with full-knowledge and blessing of the manufacturer).

----------


## For-Life

Hipoptical, I never have those problems.  I never have to re-educate the customer, I never have to change the add only in an RX change (unless when the add itself, and not in the glasses, does not work), I fit first timers and previous wearers.

It is not a problem and has been very successful.  But don't just take my word for it, take the others in this thread that jumped to say that the lens is great, not for its ability to fit in small frames but overall.  

85 percent would _always_ equal a non-adapt at certain RX's and that is not happening.  That is why I still contend it is 85 percent of _total add area_ and not total add.

----------


## Judy Canty

Once again, confusion saves the day.  Anyone ready to cry "uncle" yet?

----------


## hipoptical

:)
For-Life... I believe that you don't have those problems. You are the type that proves the point. If you look back, I said I was there when the statement regarding 85% was spoken. It was said to me personally, with a coworker standing next to me, and an owner of another lab waiting to ask a question. There was no confusion, it's 85% of power. You don't have any issues because you fit well. "They" know that the majority are going to work, and that the ones that don't will be remade by labs. The number of non-adapts has declined over the years, yet is still too high. I believe it is due to the FACT that some wearers are only getting 85% of power. Anyone who runs or owns a lab, and pays attention to the reasons for non-adapts will tell you that I am right. Dispensers will never see it. 
Call Essilor and ask to speak to the one honest tech they have. Ask them why the fit height changed on their lenses over the years. You can't ask your rep- they have no idea. Call and ask a tech, ask them if I'm right. Then call and ask a different tech. I double-dog dare ya!:D

----------


## Fezz

> :)
> all Essilor and ask to speak to the one honest tech they have. :D



Oh my, there is hope in the world. I feared that finding an honest tech...anywhere...was next to impossible!

----------


## For-Life

> :)
> For-Life... I believe that you don't have those problems. You are the type that proves the point. If you look back, I said I was there when the statement regarding 85% was spoken. It was said to me personally, with a coworker standing next to me, and an owner of another lab waiting to ask a question. There was no confusion, it's 85% of power. You don't have any issues because you fit well. "They" know that the majority are going to work, and that the ones that don't will be remade by labs. The number of non-adapts has declined over the years, yet is still too high. I believe it is due to the FACT that some wearers are only getting 85% of power. Anyone who runs or owns a lab, and pays attention to the reasons for non-adapts will tell you that I am right. Dispensers will never see it. 
> Call Essilor and ask to speak to the one honest tech they have. Ask them why the fit height changed on their lenses over the years. You can't ask your rep- they have no idea. Call and ask a tech, ask them if I'm right. Then call and ask a different tech. I double-dog dare ya!:D


I can't call a lab tech, I am retired, but it was explained to us by Essilor and other lens companies the other way.  It is also based on verifying the lens through the lensometer which is pretty honest (especially since it is a B&L).

This is why I am waiting for one of the lens guys (Sola, Hoya, Essilor) to chime in on here.

----------


## hipoptical

Where in the lens are you reading? Just curious, because when we started checking lenses at the minimum fitting point, we discovered that it was less than optimum. Different brands, different results, but few were actually right on at the minimum height. If what I understand you to be saying is true, then I should be able to get the same result (as a wearer) in a Varilux Comfort at 23 or 19, which not only doesn't make sense, it isn't right. You may be able to verify the power at 19, but the usable reading area to the wearer is actually less, since the prescribed power is essentially cut off. This is why manufacturers came up with short-corridor lenses. When they figured you could get by with the wearer only looking through 85%, then minimum fit points suddenly became lower in most lenses. 
Come on boys- chime right in. Why did the fit points change, if I'm wrong? Anyone can play, since most manufacturers did the same. We don't have to always talk about the Empire.

----------


## For-Life

> Where in the lens are you reading? Just curious, because when we started checking lenses at the minimum fitting point, we discovered that it was less than optimum. Different brands, different results, but few were actually right on at the minimum height. If what I understand you to be saying is true, then I should be able to get the same result (as a wearer) in a Varilux Comfort at 23 or 19, which not only doesn't make sense, it isn't right. You may be able to verify the power at 19, but the usable reading area to the wearer is actually less, since the prescribed power is essentially cut off. This is why manufacturers came up with short-corridor lenses. When they figured you could get by with the wearer only looking through 85%, then minimum fit points suddenly became lower in most lenses. 
> Come on boys- chime right in. Why did the fit points change, if I'm wrong? Anyone can play, since most manufacturers did the same. We don't have to always talk about the Empire.


I am talking specifically about the Ellipse in the middle of the reading circle (at 14mm).  The reason why I checked it out, because at first I was skeptical of a 14mm fitting height.  Now, if you were to check the Ellipse at 20mm, you would most likely see distortion at the bottom, and not reading add.

----------


## jrctx

Is it getting hot in here?  OK, where are the Zeiss and Essilor people to respond?  

Oh, we only want the real and honest technical guys to respond not the marketing/sales people.  Please identify your position within your post.  I do agree with hip that the information from the tech guys is different than sales/marketing and do know the tech guys frustration with sales/marketing.  I have heard it.

----------


## For-Life

I think it is calm in here, we are just confused on what is meant by 85 percent and need some help with it.

----------


## hipoptical

> I am talking specifically about the Ellipse in the middle of the reading circle (at 14mm).  The reason why I checked it out, because at first I was skeptical of a 14mm fitting height.  Now, if you were to check the Ellipse at 20mm, you would most likely see distortion at the bottom, and not reading add.


That clarifies some things, thanks. I'll give you the Ellipse at 14; I think it's actually a decent Short lens. If you take the Ellipse out of the picture, what do you think about my point now? I'll say it this way...
If a lens that was once said to be 23mm minimum is checked at 19mm, what is the result?
If a lens that was said to be 16mm is checked at 14mm, what is the result?
Less power in both cases, logically.
Therefore, if a manufacturer says 19 is the new 23, and 14 is the new 16, then they are essentially saying that 85% of the power is "good enough".
Am I right?
This whole thing started trying to figure out why the "digital" Ellipse would be lower than then "standard". I still think it's because "close enough" is "good enough". Marketing is king... 13 sounds sooo much better than 14, especially when AO/SOLA/Carl Zeiss Vision/Now just Zeiss comes out with the Compact (still leader in the shorties) in the new "Ultra" short. Gotta compete somehow.... even if you need to stretch the truth.

----------


## For-Life

Oh, I am sure it does not apply to all lenses. I am sure the Comfort which was once set much higher would not workout. I also do not like using the Panamic under 20mm. 

I also do believe that the fitting height for the Ellipse 360 is at 13mm, because that is the advertised (not marketed as marketing is defined as something else) fitting height of the Carl Zeiss Ultra Compact. Essilor did not want to lose out by 1mm, so it decided that it is close enough.

----------


## Fezz

I get a flier in the mail today from Essilor introducing the Ellipse 360, and in that flier, they state a 13mm fitting height. But, I glanced at the July 2007 issue of Eyecare Business, pg 60, and there it lists it at 14!


This is a classic example of one hand not knowing what the other is doing!



:hammer: :angry:  :hammer:

----------


## Barry Santini

> maybe with the digital surfacing they think they can produce 85&#37; of the add at 13 instead of 14.?


Yes, this is a close explanation. I think its really more of a *rounding* issue...i.e., digital surfacing permits a *fudged* 13._5_mm fitting height, which can then be said (through *reverse* rounding...) to be...

_Voila!_ 13mm!

Barry

----------


## bren_03825

> Once again, confusion saves the day. Anyone ready to cry "uncle" yet?


 
UNCLE!!:hammer:

:cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:

----------


## Robert Martellaro

Fezz,

From a marketing viewpoint, Essilor can now match SOLA Compact Ultra's 13mm _minimum_ recommended seg height, lowest in the industry (USA). From a technical standpoint, to the best of my knowledge, it's the same Ellipse design, and is manufactured using the same mold. If true, then the corridor length should be the same. 

However, you'll never fit this low, unless you really want the bottom of the frame smack in the middle of the page, resulting in eyeglasses that are either extremely uncomfortable or unwearable when performing close tasks.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Disclaimer- I am employed by Essilor of America.

Regarding changes in MFH  Due to changes across the industry, the definition of Minimum Fitting Height has changed over the years.  In the past, the listed MFH was the optimal fitting height for a PAL design.  That is, below what height do I begin to cut off usable reading area?  

Given the optimal definition of MFH, I would suggest most PAL designs would have a MFH of around 22-23mm.  Fitting above 23mm or so doesnt greatly expand the reading area.  Either the design loses power stability below this point or, even more importantly, the patient will probably not tolerate the head/eye position necessary to routinely utilize an area much more than 23mm below the fitting cross.  

Today, the definition of MFH has more to do with functionality than optimization of reading area.  The question asked by the ECP has changed to how low CAN I fit this PAL?  Given this definition of MFH, the answer for most PALs is probably around 17-18mm.  Yes, some reading area has been cut off, but the patient should have an area adequate to meet his/her near vision requirements.

Varilux Comfort was launched in 1994.  At that point in time, most popular frame shapes/sizes resulted in fitting heights from 20-26mm.  Therefore, it made sense to indicate the optimal MFH.  As frames became smaller, however, manufacturers began to recommend lower and lower fitting heights (i.e., functional MFHs).  At some point, there were numerous newer products with recommended MFHs in the 18mm range.  Essilor conducted wearer tests to measure performance of these designs at 18mm vs. Varilux Comfort, and found Varilux Comfort compared favorably in performance when fit at 18mm.  Given these market realities, It didnt make much sense to maintain a MFH (optimal) recommendation of 22mm when the market was asking for/ responding to a functional MFH.

Regarding Varilux Ellipse 360, this issue becomes somewhat challenging from a personal point of view.  As a dispenser, I would probably not fit progressives below 16mm- because I personally think I should be able to find a fashionable frame that supports at fitting height of at least 16mm.  However, if an ECP chooses to fit (or if I had a patient who simply insisted on being fit) a PAL at 13-14mm, Essilor has testing which shows Varilux Ellipse functions better than any other small fit PAL on the market.  So, if youre going to go that low, you might as well use a design that functions well at that height.  

One thing I particularly like about the Varilux Ellipse design is that it actually performs BETTER at lower fitting heights.  That is, if you fit a group of patients in Varilux Ellipse in a frame with a fitting height of 14-16mm and then fit them in frames with fitting heights of 17-19mm, the performance of the design at the lower height is actually ranked more favorably.  This is because Varilux Ellipse was designed specifically for small frame fits.  R&D indicated that wearers of small frames particularly value a generous distance zone (which is a different finding than in larger frames, where near zone size is more important).  Varilux Ellipse is specifically designed to provide a very short progression- yet maintain a large distance area.  The reading zone is not as big as some other short corridor PALs, but clinical trials have repeatedly confirmed the soundness of the Varilux Ellipse design.

So, do I RECOMMEND fitting any PAL at 13mm?  No.  If you are going to fit at 13mm, however, I can confidently assert that Varilux Ellipse will provide the best possible performance. 

Pete

----------


## Samuel Jong

> Oh, I am sure it does not apply to all lenses. I am sure the Comfort which was once set much higher would not workout. I also do not like using the Panamic under 20mm. 
> 
> I also do believe that the fitting height for the Ellipse 360 is at 13mm, because that is the advertised (not marketed as marketing is defined as something else) fitting height of the Carl Zeiss Ultra Compact. Essilor did not want to lose out by 1mm, so it decided that it is close enough.


May I hear the comments from your pt's after you fit them with Compact Ultra?

----------


## For-Life

> May I hear the comments from your pt's after you fit them with Compact Ultra?


I have not and will not fit the Compact Ultra.

I have heard too many bad things about it.

----------


## hipoptical

> Disclaimer- I am employed by Essilor of America. Regarding changes in MFH  Due to changes across the industry, *the definition of Minimum Fitting Height has changed* over the years.  In the past, the listed MFH was the optimal fitting height for a PAL design.  That is, below what height do I begin to cut off usable reading area?  
> 
>  Given the *optimal* definition of MFH, I would suggest most PAL designs would have a MFH of around 22-23mm.  Fitting above 23mm or so doesnt greatly expand the reading area.  Either the design loses power stability below this point or, even more importantly, the patient will probably not tolerate the head/eye position necessary to routinely utilize an area much more than 23mm below the fitting cross.  
> 
>  *Today, the definition of MFH has more to do with functionality than optimization* of reading area.  The question asked by the ECP has changed to how low CAN I fit this PAL?  Given this definition of MFH, the answer for most PALs is probably around 17-18mm.  Yes, some reading area has been cut off, but the patient should have an area adequate to meet his/her near vision requirements. Varilux Comfort was launched in 1994.  At that point in time, most popular frame shapes/sizes resulted in fitting heights from 20-26mm.  Therefore, it made sense to indicate the optimal MFH.  As frames became smaller, however, manufacturers began to recommend lower and lower fitting heights (i.e., functional MFHs).  At some point, there were numerous newer products with recommended MFHs in the 18mm range.  *Essilor conducted wearer tests* to measure performance of these designs at 18mm vs. Varilux Comfort, and found Varilux Comfort compared favorably in performance when fit at 18mm.  Given these market realities, *It didnt make much sense to maintain a* MFH *(optimal) recommendation* of 22mm when the market was asking for/ responding to a functional MFH. (BLAH, BLAH, BLAH)
> 
>  
> Pete



:^)
So, as I was saying... it depends on what the definition of "is" is.
Or, since it "works"... close enough is good enough. WHO CARES WHAT WAS PRESCRIBED? :Rolleyes: 
Pete, thanks for taking my side for once.;)

----------


## Samuel Jong

> I have not and will not fit the Compact Ultra.
> 
> I have heard too many bad things about it.


We just started with 1.67, but haven't heard the feedback yet.

----------


## For-Life

I took my feedback from this board.  It seems satisfaction rate was between 50 to 75 percent.  It was mainly the distance issues.  Anyways, you can check it out if you want.

----------


## Samuel Jong

> I took my feedback from this board. It seems satisfaction rate was between 50 to 75 percent. It was mainly the distance issues. Anyways, you can check it out if you want.


Thanks For-Life.

----------


## Fezz

> Disclaimer- I am employed by Essilor of America.
> 
> Regarding changes in MFH Due to changes across the industry, the definition of Minimum Fitting Height has changed over the years. In the past, the listed MFH was the optimal fitting height for a PAL design. That is, below what height do I begin to cut off usable reading area? 
> 
> Given the optimal definition of MFH, I would suggest most PAL designs would have a MFH of around 22-23mm. Fitting above 23mm or so doesnt greatly expand the reading area. Either the design loses power stability below this point or, even more importantly, the patient will probably not tolerate the head/eye position necessary to routinely utilize an area much more than 23mm below the fitting cross. 
> 
> Today, the definition of MFH has more to do with functionality than optimization of reading area. The question asked by the ECP has changed to how low CAN I fit this PAL? Given this definition of MFH, the answer for most PALs is probably around 17-18mm. Yes, some reading area has been cut off, but the patient should have an area adequate to meet his/her near vision requirements.
> 
> Varilux Comfort was launched in 1994. At that point in time, most popular frame shapes/sizes resulted in fitting heights from 20-26mm. Therefore, it made sense to indicate the optimal MFH. As frames became smaller, however, manufacturers began to recommend lower and lower fitting heights (i.e., functional MFHs). At some point, there were numerous newer products with recommended MFHs in the 18mm range. Essilor conducted wearer tests to measure performance of these designs at 18mm vs. Varilux Comfort, and found Varilux Comfort compared favorably in performance when fit at 18mm. Given these market realities, It didnt make much sense to maintain a MFH (optimal) recommendation of 22mm when the market was asking for/ responding to a functional MFH.
> ...


Ah...ok?

So is it 13 or 14?

----------


## Fezz

> Disclaimer- I am employed by Essilor of America......
> 
> 
> _ Essilor has testing which shows Varilux Ellipse functions better than any other small fit PAL on the market.......
> 
> 
> _ Pete


I certainly wouldn't expect you to tell us Hoya functions better!   :Rolleyes:

----------


## MarySue

At a recent Essilor seminar it was explained that the minimum fitting requirement is measured 5mm below the mark where the add power reaches 85%.  My guess is when this new standard came into play - they revised their documentation on recommended fitting heights.  

In New Zealand Essilor also provides Nikon products, which have recommended fitting heights at the point where 100% of the add power is effective on the lens.

Just to confuse you  :Eek:

----------


## Andrew Weiss

Pete, thank you for a clear explication of the change in recommended fitting heights.

Can you address, please, the other major issue being raised in this thread, which is the decrease in actual add power?  If I read your posting correctly, a Comfort fit at 18 high should still reach the maximum add power, even though the reading area will be cut short.  However, others here, and I, are finding that on many Essilor (and other ) lenses the maximum add power in the lens is no more than 85% of the prescribed (and marked) add power.

If what my lensometer tells me is what is accurate, which is that the total add power in the lens is not what the Dr. prescribed, what is the appropriate way to handle this issue?  If I ask the Dr. to bump up the add, aren't I going to get more peripheral astigmatism and therefore a narrower corridor and reading area?

----------


## hipoptical

> on many Essilor (and other ) lenses the maximum add power in the lens is no more than 85% of the prescribed (and marked) add power.
> 
> If what my lensometer tells me is what is accurate, which is that the total add power in the lens is not what the Dr. prescribed, what is the appropriate way to handle this issue?


(I know you didn't ask for my response, but here it is, anyway.)
The BEST way to handle the "issue" is to stop fitting lenses that are not giving you 100% of the prescribed power at the minimum height. 

If you are a pawn of the Empire, then you have two choices:
1. Wait around for the next "explanation" as to why you're wrong and the "testing" they did was right. (Which is what your question seems to indicate you'll likely do.)
2. Get a clue and demand honesty from manufacturers and do everything you can initiate changes in this industry, which will likely not happen because it is unregulated and some companies have so much money that anything you attempt will be squashed, and the ODs don't really care because they don't know any better, although they could actually make a difference if they wanted to.
:D

----------


## Judy Canty

Polycore's progressive lenses, Futurise(18mm) and Micro(16mm) offer *100% of the add power* at the minimum fitting heights.  :bbg:

----------


## MarySue

I have to agree here - I don't use the Essilor product range unless a patient has worn them successfully, or there is plenty of room for the corridor to extend beyond the min fitting heights, etc.  Because I work as a locum, I often must use the lenses to fit in with a companies prescribed rules and preferred supplier system - and therefore needed to learn how to work with this group of products successfully.

You know - they can't be the world leader in sales of lenses without the product actually working - so I took the stand that I would learn how to fit them, and 95% of the time - I do get it right, the other 5% I rationalise as my own insanity getting in my way :)

Two things are for sure:  ONE - If the lens verts at a power that doesn't match the script, AND the lenses are clearly marked with the correct add power you either have a vert that is adjustable to the index of the lens and it is set on the wrong index - OR - the lenses are wrong.

TWO - If you deliver a pair of spectacles that don't match the prescription given - you're not doing your job.

Mary Sue:drop:



> (I know you didn't ask for my response, but here it is, anyway.)
> The BEST way to handle the "issue" is to stop fitting lenses that are not giving you 100% of the prescribed power at the minimum height. 
> 
> If you are a pawn of the Empire, then you have two choices:
> 1. Wait around for the next "explanation" as to why you're wrong and the "testing" they did was right. (Which is what your question seems to indicate you'll likely do.)
> 2. Get a clue and demand honesty from manufacturers and do everything you can initiate changes in this industry, which will likely not happen because it is unregulated and some companies have so much money that anything you attempt will be squashed, and the ODs don't really care because they don't know any better, although they could actually make a difference if they wanted to.
> :D

----------


## wasan

Vx. ellipse MFH 14mm:D

----------


## AWTECH

> I get a flier in the mail today from Essilor introducing the Ellipse 360, and in that flier, they state a 13mm fitting height. But, I glanced at the July 2007 issue of Eyecare Business, pg 60, and there it lists it at 14!
> 
> 
> This is a classic example of one hand not knowing what the other is doing!
> 
> 
> 
> :hammer: :angry: :hammer:


This is a classic example of one hand not knowing what the other is doing!

Fezz;  Its clear to me, the fitting height is what it needs to be. And you certainly are not suppose to pay so damn much attention and compare ads.

Actually if you think this out logically about the smallest true fitting height is about 17 mm from the bottom of the frame to the pupil.  This depends on the bottom curve of the frame near the nazel area also.  I can see a 15mm in a very small frame but how much room is there for near and intermediate in less than 14mm.  Answer 1mm less than 15mm or 3mm less than 17mm (almost a 20% decrease in space available).  

In theory if you can locate the far distance with a 1mm dia far vision and then locate the near with a 1mm dia near area and you space these on 3mm centers, you get a 1mm intermediate, which should work great in a frame with a 4mm B measurement.  

WOW, I wonder why the big lens companies haven't figured out just how small of a fitting height will work.

(The lens designers won't be able to figure this out but the marketing guys will)

----------


## HarryChiling

My offer stands, if anyone has a digital lensmeter that can take a wavefront image of a lens I will send you more than a few progressive lenses to map out for every one, then we can stop relying on the large manufacturers bogus white papers.

----------


## Laurie

Hello,

The closest thing to what you are asking for is the research done by Dr. Jim Sheedy.  I believe there are links here, as well as the optometry school in Ohio.

He used a measuring system, "Rotlex Class One", which measures the topography based on hundereds of points of light (versus one light source, as in lensometry).

Or, you could commission John Young from Colts Laboratory...a non-biased testing lab in Florida.  He also uses the Rotlex, which there are very few in the US

(PS:  Whenever I say "Rotlex Class One System", I can't help but think of 'My Cousin Vinny")...

It is drop-dead, *****-on accurate! (with the Best Marisa Tomei voice I can muster!)

: )

Laurie

----------


## vikramg

Harrychilin.,

We got one of these mappers ,

Posting here the Map of the C*****t from evil empire ..

You can see it takes a full 33 mm along the corridor to get to the addition of 2.01

Please let me know if you need anymore.

----------


## blackbirdy4444

I agree for the most part with this thread too..

I work for HOYA, but dispensed for years before that.  I am impressed that when HOYA tells you corridor length, they give you a figure that represents 100% of add.  All other companies use 85% because they can.  it is misleading.  I am happy to fit the Summit CD at 14, and the patients love it too.  It is a small reading zone, but at least it exists.  I can't say that for other short corridor lenses.

----------


## blackbirdy4444

> Hello,
> 
> The closest thing to what you are asking for is the research done by Dr. Jim Sheedy.  I believe there are links here, as well as the optometry school in Ohio.
> 
> He used a measuring system, "Rotlex Class One", which measures the topography based on hundereds of points of light (versus one light source, as in lensometry).
> 
> Or, you could commission John Young from Colts Laboratory...a non-biased testing lab in Florida.  He also uses the Rotlex, which there are very few in the US
> 
> (PS:  Whenever I say "Rotlex Class One System", I can't help but think of 'My Cousin Vinny")...
> ...


I could be wrong, but didn't Shamir lenses come out looking like gold in the Sheady Study?? and they were they only ones that funded it right???

money talks.

----------


## blackbirdy4444

> Disclaimer- I am employed by Essilor of America.
> 
> Regarding changes in MFH  Due to changes across the industry, the definition of Minimum Fitting Height has changed over the years.  In the past, the listed MFH was the optimal fitting height for a PAL design.  That is, below what height do I begin to cut off usable reading area?  
> 
> Given the optimal definition of MFH, I would suggest most PAL designs would have a MFH of around 22-23mm.  Fitting above 23mm or so doesnt greatly expand the reading area.  Either the design loses power stability below this point or, even more importantly, the patient will probably not tolerate the head/eye position necessary to routinely utilize an area much more than 23mm below the fitting cross.  
> 
> Today, the definition of MFH has more to do with functionality than optimization of reading area.  The question asked by the ECP has changed to how low CAN I fit this PAL?  Given this definition of MFH, the answer for most PALs is probably around 17-18mm.  Yes, some reading area has been cut off, but the patient should have an area adequate to meet his/her near vision requirements.
> 
> Varilux Comfort was launched in 1994.  At that point in time, most popular frame shapes/sizes resulted in fitting heights from 20-26mm.  Therefore, it made sense to indicate the optimal MFH.  As frames became smaller, however, manufacturers began to recommend lower and lower fitting heights (i.e., functional MFHs).  At some point, there were numerous newer products with recommended MFHs in the 18mm range.  Essilor conducted wearer tests to measure performance of these designs at 18mm vs. Varilux Comfort, and found Varilux Comfort compared favorably in performance when fit at 18mm.  Given these market realities, It didnt make much sense to maintain a MFH (optimal) recommendation of 22mm when the market was asking for/ responding to a functional MFH.
> ...


The best possible performance for an Essilor lens?  Or the best performance compared to all comparable lenses?

----------


## HarryChiling

> Today, the definition of MFH has more to do with functionality than optimization of reading area. The question asked by the ECP has changed to “how low CAN I fit this PAL?” Given this definition of MFH, the answer for most PALs is probably around 17-18mm. *Yes, some reading area has been cut off, but the patient should have an area adequate to meet his/her near vision requirements.*


Given this response, how can anyone even possibly justify fitting a patient in a free form design.

Traditional surfaceing = Adequate
Free Form = Optimal

In my opinion and I have stated it before, given the loosening of the standards (I know I'm going to get it for this one) and the accuracy of design with free form processing, why is adequate still in the vocabulary?




> Ah...ok?
> 
> So is it 13 or 14?


Depends on which ring the dart lands in. :D




> Harrychilin.,
> 
> We got one of these mappers ,
> 
> Posting here the Map of the C*****t from evil empire ..
> 
> You can see it takes a full 33 mm along the corridor to get to the addition of 2.01
> 
> Please let me know if you need anymore


I would love to see contours of various designs, absolutely I would love to see more. I would think that various contours of a design are needed:

Plano Add+2.00
Plano -2.00 x 090, 180, 045, 135 Add+2.00

That's 5 lenses per design minimum, I can offer to send you various designs if you would map them and share your images.

----------


## MarcE

> I could be wrong, but didn't Shamir lenses come out looking like gold in the Sheady Study?? and they were they only ones that funded it right???
> 
> money talks.


They did look good.  But the Image did too, especially considering price.  It's interesting that Shamir makes lenses for other companies.  My guess is that the Illumina is made by Shamir (I don't know this to be true, though).  Illumina has a 17mm MFH.  Shamir doesn't have a lens that has a 17mm MFH.  Why not, it would make them more competitive than the Genesis.  It's because they have a different definition of full add.

Sheedy says the MFH of the Piccolo is 15mm, Shamir says 16mm
Sheedy says the MFH of the Ellipse is 15.5 (I think), Essilor says 14

Sheedy says the MFH of the Genesis is 18, Shamir says 19
Sheedy says the MFH of the Panamic is 18.5, Essilor says 18

It's just a different definition of what is acceptable as an add.

I noticed in the Sheedy report, that Essilor more than any mfg tended to report their MFH consistantly shorter than what Sheedy determined it should be.

Conversely, Shamir tended to report their MFH consistantly higher than what Sheedy determined it should be.

This sounds like I don't like Essilor lenses.  Not true, I use them lots and have little problems with them.  My patients seem to prefer the Smallfit to the Piccolo, as an example.

My favorite is a 16mm MFH lens fit at 20mm.  That's a nice reading area.  Like a Comfort at 23, but you don't have to drop your eyes as much - more natural.

----------


## blackbirdy4444

Disclaimer... i work for HOYA.

Upon reading your opinion on fitting heights, i am quite sure you would love HOYA progressives.  As i stated in another thread, HOYA is the only lens manufacturer out their that publisheds corridor length based upon reaching 100&#37; of add.  Everyone is using the standard 85% of add mentality.

If you are happy with 4mm of vertical reading corridor.  Then you could fit a Summit CD or LIfestyle CD at 15 and achieve that.  Our Summit CD was the first compact design to acheive a 'measurable' intermediate as well.  

I don't know for a fact, because Essilor likes to keep consumer's in the dark, but I have heard for over a decade that Essilor has very little to do with designing their own lenses.  They are more of a distributor and markertor than a true lens manufacturer.  They market what makes them profitable, not what is good for vision.

----------


## vikramg

I would love to see contours of various designs, absolutely I would love to see more. I would think that various contours of a design are needed:

Plano Add+2.00
Plano -2.00 x 090, 180, 045, 135 Add+2.00

That's 5 lenses per design minimum, I can offer to send you various designs if you would map them and share your images. 

Dear Harry ,

I would love to get these lenses mapped and share it with everyone .Please have it sent as "samples" to our Mumbai address given below .

You can send as many as you like and we will map them all.

Vikram Gupta
Plot-7 , Cama Industrial Estate
Goregaon-E , Mumbai. India . 400063
Ph +9126866262

----------


## For-Life

> They are more of a distributor and markertor than a true lens manufacturer. *They market what makes them profitable, not what is good for vision*.


Wouldn't providing good vision make them profitable?

I know I will not, and have not dealt with companies that offer poor lenses. One reason why I have dealt with Essilor and Hoya is due to quality.

Also, marketing should not be a dirty word.  Please see the following thread to understand the true definition of marketing:

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24695

----------


## Laurie

Hello Everyone, (especially Blackbirdy4444)

Dr. Sheedy's report was not funded by Shamir Insight, nor any other lens company to my knowledge. Interestingly, at the beginning, the folks at Shamir had not even heard of the report, or Dr. Sheedy, until their lab customers were calling them, congratulating them on the qualitiy of the findings of their lenses.

I attended a meeting at Shamir's headquarters where Dr. Sheedy presented his findings, explained his methodology, etc. This was on the first study...I know that he has done subsequent studies, icluding clinical trials.

Not that Dr. Sheedy needs to be 'stood up for', however, he is very well respected for his work and research, and has sincere motives. It is insulting to put out there that he was paid off in any way.

: )

Laurie

----------


## HarryChiling

> I would love to see contours of various designs, absolutely I would love to see more. I would think that various contours of a design are needed:
> 
> Plano Add+2.00
> Plano -2.00 x 090, 180, 045, 135 Add+2.00
> 
> That's 5 lenses per design minimum, I can offer to send you various designs if you would map them and share your images. 
> 
> Dear Harry ,
> 
> ...


I have ordered the following lenses and will surface and send them to you.
AO CompactAO ProInstinctiveEssilor NaturalEssilor OvationSola SolamaxI will try to get a few more designs in and over to you. Maybe the Adaptar, and more if I can get a hold of a few other designs. I'll let you know when I send them and how hopefully by the end of this week if time permits. Thank you once again for the offer I can't tell you how many times I have offered, but the labs within the US have so far been of no help, the only concern seems to be "what's in it for me". I think that it is really a for the greater good type project so of course it falls under the answer of "theirs nothign in it for you". Other than a thank you very much. I will include my e-mail address to send the images to.
Ploycore FuturisePolycore MiniThanks Judy ;)

----------


## KStraker

I just received a bunch of literature about the new Smallfit pal. They list some specs on competitors lenses. They list Hoya's Summit CD as having a 15 minimum fit ht. All Hoya's literature says 14.

We have recently done a few pairs of Polycore Futurise lenses. The results have been very good so far.

----------


## Judy Canty

Thank you!...Thank you very much!!!!

----------


## RT

> I have ordered the following lenses and will surface and send them to you.


Won't the final contour plots depend upon the quality of your surfacing work?  Since you are proposing to do some cyls at various angles, won't any axis errors show up as "something" in the contour plots?

For that matter, so would any power rounding errors resulting from using rounded lap curves.  Or if your backside curves were actually non-toric, even slightly, because of any calibration or lap quality issues.

I think you'd really have to prove the accuracy of the backside before purporting to make any bold statements about the lens design based on through-power measurements.

----------


## AWTECH

> Won't the final contour plots depend upon the quality of your surfacing work? Since you are proposing to do some cyls at various angles, won't any axis errors show up as "something" in the contour plots?
> 
> For that matter, so would any power rounding errors resulting from using rounded lap curves. Or if your backside curves were actually non-toric, even slightly, because of any calibration or lap quality issues.
> 
> I think you'd really have to prove the accuracy of the backside before purporting to make any bold statements about the lens design based on through-power measurements.


These are excellent point made by RT:

I know Harry is trying to provide proof against hype but unless the controls for the study are very accrate you still will not be able to accurately compare the designs.  If they all are produced on the same generator and polisher by the same person, you do have some consistancy, however unless you know the tolorences for the equipment being used, you can not accuately know the answers.  Having performed valid comparison lens studies I can tell you that the efforts and time required is quite considerable.

How good are the front surfaces?  If made in glass molds, how close to the end of the mold life cycle is one companies lens vs anothers?

Good luck with this endevor, just try to make sure you consider all of the variables.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Won't the final contour plots depend upon the quality of your surfacing work? Since you are proposing to do some cyls at various angles, won't any axis errors show up as "something" in the contour plots?
> 
> For that matter, so would any power rounding errors resulting from using rounded lap curves. Or if your backside curves were actually non-toric, even slightly, because of any calibration or lap quality issues.
> 
> I think you'd really have to prove the accuracy of the backside before purporting to make any bold statements about the lens design based on through-power measurements.


I definately see you points and their are more than just what you mention that would come into play.  Progressive lenses will have slight variances from lens to lens that would probably throw off the contour plots as well.

RT,
The point isn't to see which desing is better or which design works the best, the point is to get the data that is necessary to determine what we are using.  Everyoptician on this board uses many of these progressives and more, every optician on this board has seen the material they get which includes contour plots of the design, and most opticians question wheather these plots are for real or not.  I myself am curious if these plots are accurate from the manufacturers.

I don't understand why everyone seems so hessitant to provide this material in a format where opticians can compare apples to apples.  The excuse I hear all the time is that most opticians would not be able to interpret these plots, which to me sounds liek a cop out.  If your desing is flawed or you have something to hide you use excuses liek this.  If the desing is truly all it is cracked up to be then you release thedata and show people how to interpret the data.  After all not many understand the optimizations applied with free form processing, yet the companies are talkign every opportunity to shove it down our throats and that includes various CE's, lecture, and articles int al the rade rags.

I don't have the money to purchase a hundred of each lens to rule out any duds, so 5 right lenses with various Rx's will do, I use a gerber SGX with foam tools so thetools will be accurate.  I am about ready to send my tool out to be retrued so I would even be able to say that the tool is fresh and I will calibrate the equipment before generating.  Heck if you want it any more accurate put your money where your mouthis and make it happen.

I was told by many manufacturers that they already have available various contour plots of their desings and their competitions desigs, heck the shamir rep travels around with them.  If accuracy is a concern any manufacturers here that feel as though I may not be doing their design justice please send me a surfaced lens in the powers requested for mapping.

----------


## HarryChiling

> These are excellent point made by RT:
> 
> I know Harry is trying to provide proof against hype but unless the controls for the study are very accrate you still will not be able to accurately compare the designs. If they all are produced on the same generator and polisher by the same person, you do have some consistancy, however unless you know the tolorences for the equipment being used, you can not accuately know the answers. Having performed valid comparison lens studies I can tell you that the efforts and time required is quite considerable.
> 
> How good are the front surfaces? If made in glass molds, how close to the end of the mold life cycle is one companies lens vs anothers?
> 
> Good luck with this endevor, just try to make sure you consider all of the variables.


I appreciate the suggestions, but again I must point out that I am doing this more out of frustration then science.  Your companies may have the resources to worry about the variables, but so far most of the lens manufacturers have ignored these variables and placed maps of their product in their marketing brochures after being touched up with photo editing software.  Now I am not saying that they are doctored, but I am saying that it's hard to tell, much harder than if I was to havethe data created myself.

It is nice to hear about variables from manufacturers who consitently have muddyed the waters when it comes to how these products are produced or how they are desinged.  In another thread on this board a simple question of which lenses had been processed with free form technology, digital molding or traditional slumping, not one reply produced any useable data.  The replies were mere obfuscation, I am just a tired lab rat who consistently has to deal with an idiot lens rep who comes into our office and drops rederick about their lenses to the staff and then leaves with me cleaning up the mess.  Most venture into the offce without a clue as to how their product works.

I will be making no judgements, just provideing data.

----------


## hipoptical

Regarding the "suggestions" made about the lenses being sent for evaluation....
Why would it be considered prudent to search for a lens that was made with a "perfect" mold or to make several until you come up with ONE that has no surfacing flaws whatsoever? Finding the ideal lens, and making sure it is in the ideal condition is not how lenses are made and delivered, and don't even pretend that "your" lab does. All labs get lenses in, put them on the shelf, process them, and send them out the door. That's the lens that I want tested and evaluated- the kind delivered to the wearer. The other type- the ideal lens- that's the one the manufacturer wants to test. Ideal lens, ideal results. We have done work for (certain companies) and have seen them send in many samples to get one lens that yields the result they wanted, and have seen that one result get published.
I am interested in seeing what Harry gets back- and have talked with some friends to see if I can get them to send some other types of lenses to be evaluated along with Harry's. I want common results- not ideal.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Regarding the "suggestions" made about the lenses being sent for evaluation....
> Why would it be considered prudent to search for a lens that was made with a "perfect" mold or to make several until you come up with ONE that has no surfacing flaws whatsoever? Finding the ideal lens, and making sure it is in the ideal condition is not how lenses are made and delivered, and don't even pretend that "your" lab does. All labs get lenses in, put them on the shelf, process them, and send them out the door. That's the lens that I want tested and evaluated- the kind delivered to the wearer. The other type- the ideal lens- that's the one the manufacturer wants to test. Ideal lens, ideal results. We have done work for (certain companies) and have seen them send in many samples to get one lens that yields the result they wanted, and have seen that one result get published.
> I am interested in seeing what Harry gets back- and have talked with some friends to see if I can get them to send some other types of lenses to be evaluated along with Harry's. I want common results- not ideal.


Thanks hipoptical, the nice thing about putting your money where your mouth is, is that I can do it even if the manufacturers don't want to help.  I have purchased a few designs and will be moving along no matter what I hear.  The idea is to get the flow of information moving again.  It is interesting the idea of an ideal lens and at first I must admit I was a little offended by the thought that my surfacing might not be up to par, but so far I have meet resistance with this project at every twist and turn, so it must be a good idea right.

----------


## hipoptical

> Thanks hipoptical, the nice thing about putting your money where your mouth is, is that I can do it even if the manufacturers don't want to help.  I have purchased a few designs and will be moving along no matter what I hear.  The idea is to get the flow of information moving again.  It is interesting the idea of an ideal lens and at first I must admit I was a little offended by the thought that my surfacing might not be up to par, but so far *I have met resistance with this project at every twist and turn, so it must be a good idea right.*


I agree.

(I had to edit this post, because I added a signature line, and it looked like the statement went with my new post. Just had to clear that up. I feel better now.)

----------

