Does anyone remember when progressive lenses used to be sold on the merits of their design? "This lens will give you wider intermediate," "That lens provides you with the most add power," "The other lens wont work with a seg over 17," etc.
Does anyone remember when a new lens hit the market, it would be availble in one or two lens materials only? Other materials and photochromics and polarized versions would come out "eventually."
The promise of freeform lenses was that we would have better correction for unwanted astigmatism and all materials available on all lens designs immediately. Period. That was the promise.
The more complex the design gets on the front surface OF A FRONT SIDE MOLDED PRODUCT, the more limitations you have in product availability and advancement. Also, the SIGNIFICANTLY higher overhead costs to labs who must stock the various complex options available.
Can someone explain to me why camber lenses are being presented as a huge step FORWARD? I fail to see based on any information presented that camber is any improvement over, say, a Hoya lens, or the physio 360. No one lens design works best for everyone, and yet the camber lens seems to present a one size fits all lens via its elephant trunk molded lens. At least the Individual 2 adjusts corridor lengths based on many perameters, and Autograph offers multiple fixed corridor lengths.
So said another way, I guess I'm asking if anyone can explain how camber isn't just a front molded progressive with backside optimization.
The truth about Camber
Does anyone remember when a new lens hit the market, it would be availble in one or two lens materials only? Other materials and photochromics and polarized versions would come out "eventually."
The promise of freeform lenses was that we would have better correction for unwanted astigmatism and all materials available on all lens designs immediately. Period. That was the promise.
The more complex the design gets on the front surface OF A FRONT SIDE MOLDED PRODUCT, the more limitations you have in product availability and advancement. Also, the SIGNIFICANTLY higher overhead costs to labs who must stock the various complex options available.
Can someone explain to me why camber lenses are being presented as a huge step FORWARD? I fail to see based on any information presented that camber is any improvement over, say, a Hoya lens, or the physio 360. No one lens design works best for everyone, and yet the camber lens seems to present a one size fits all lens via its elephant trunk molded lens. At least the Individual 2 adjusts corridor lengths based on many perameters, and Autograph offers multiple fixed corridor lengths.
So said another way, I guess I'm asking if anyone can explain how camber isn't just a front molded progressive with backside optimization.
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire