Transcript Hoyalux ID

Hoya : „Hoyalux ID“
Claims of Hoya
Theoretical and practical evaluation results
Progressive lens- revolution through two progressive
surfaces in one lens with the following benefits:
No Revolution! Design is according existing soft design
concepts. This cann also be realized with only one
progressive surface.
Very little viewing fields in near and far vision area
Largest usful viewing fields.
Lowest swimming effects
Far vision: yes;
Near vision inferior than Impression
Optimized vision in all directions of sight.
No. No individual optimization. Viewing fields not ideal
for every wearer.
Adapted near vision area.
No overlapping near vision areas in binocular vision
(causes problems while reading)
Reduktion of distortions
Static distortion in near vision area higher than with
Impression.
Hoyalux ID vs. ImpressionILT
Hoyalux ID
Impression
Design
Soft design
Balanced design
Power increase
Power starts early to increase
(bluring in far vision area)
For reading higher viewing angle
necessary.
smaller
Power starts increasing significantly underneath
the centering point.
No blur in the far vision area.
Progression zone some smaller (due to design)
Near vision area
Progression zone relatively wide
(due to design)
smaller
Inset
Inset nearly not to perceive
Variable Inset
Peripherie
Max. astigmatism (1.8dpt)
Max. Astigmatism (2.1dpt)
Far vision area
Intermediate zone
wider
bigger
„Ysis“ von R+H
Claims of R+H
Theoretical evaluation results
Ysis considers a so far not used number of different
personal data of the wearer:
No individual optimization. That does not result in optimal
visual fields for every wearer.
Visual habits (head inclination) determine the length of the No noteworthy difference in progression lengths. Solely
progression zone.
from the head inclination the length of the progression
zone is not computable.
Through giving preferences (far, near intermediate vision)
the preferred vision area will be made larger.
No noteworthy design difference between preferences. Ysis
is comparable to Life 2 (similar „hard Design“).
Physiognomy (CVD) and Anatomy (PD) influence
progression zone and inset.
Not evaluated so far.
„Ipseo“ von Essilor
Claims from Essilor
Theoretical evaluation results
Varilux Ipseo – so unique as every single person.
No individual parameters as PD, CVD FFA or PT are
taken into account. No individual optimization. That does
not result in optimal visual fields for every wearer.
Personal viewing strategy of the customer will be calculated No consideration of the head inclination; only one
into the design of Varilux Ipseo.
progression length (18 mm).
Essilor uses obviously existing designs.
A „Eye Mover“ gets a „hard design“.
The „Eye Mover Design“ is comparable to „Varilux
Comfort“.
A „Head Mover“ gets a „soft design“.
The „Head Mover Design“ is comparable to „Varilux
Panamic“.
„Super P1“ von Seiko
Claims from Seiko
Theoretical evaluation results
Individualized progressive lens with progressive
surface on rear side.
No individual parameters as PD, CVD FFA or PT are taken into
account. No individual optimization. That does not result in
optimal visual fields for every wearer.
Maximum compatibility through the choice of 3
different design concepts.
Design A (var vision accented): „Hard Design“.
No remarkable differences in comparison to Design B (balanced)
and C (near vision accented): Both match a „Soft Design“.
Different Designs provide no give no predication about compatibilty
of the lens.
Up to 30% reduction of distortions
No, max. perpheral astigmatism wirh design A : approx. 2.75 D,
Design B: approx. 1.8 D and design C: 2.0 D. Impression: 2.1 D.
5 different lengths of progression zone and 9
different insets.
Not evaluated so far.