Wavefront glasses

My eye doc will soon be offering wavefront, or "high def" (or
something) glasses. They have a fancy machine (aberometer) and make
the lenses accordingly, instead of just doing sphere and cylinder. I'd
be interested to hear opinions and experiences related to this. I'm a
sucker for this type of thing, so I'll probably give it a shot, but
does it really work noticeably better than the old way?
--

On Jan 11, 9:47*am, "Chuck" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> My eye doc will soon be offering wavefront, or "high def" (or
> something) glasses. *They have a fancy machine (aberometer) and make
> the lenses accordingly, instead of just doing sphere and cylinder. *I'd
> be interested to hear opinions and experiences related to this. *I'm a
> sucker for this type of thing, so I'll probably give it a shot, but
> does it really work noticeably better than the old way?
> --

I wear them.

I like them, but ... don't particularly LOVE them.

Much will depend on the amount of higher-order aberrations YOU have.
The MORE you have, the MORE you will, theoretically, benefit. The
wavefront aberrometry will determine this.

Mine simply weren't that high, so ... no overnight miracles, but ...
good, crisp vision.

Neil
Not a doctor

"Chuck" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:sopal.464843$TT4.102212@attbi_s22...
>
> My eye doc will soon be offering wavefront, or "high def" (or
> something) glasses. They have a fancy machine (aberometer) and make
> the lenses accordingly, instead of just doing sphere and cylinder. I'd
> be interested to hear opinions and experiences related to this. I'm a
> sucker for this type of thing, so I'll probably give it a shot, but
> does it really work noticeably better than the old way?

There are two kinds of wavefront lenses, those requirement special
measurements, and those which use a regular Rx. The ones that require a
special measurements with the machine you mentioned are mostly hype,
although for certain kinds of problems it may be useful.

Here is an article that explains it in more detail lists all the
manufacturers of wavefront lenses individually ground to your Rx.
http://www.allaboutvision.com/lenses...ont-lenses.htm

The Hoya ID is considered by many to be the best.

On Jan 11, 10:47*am, "Chuck" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> My eye doc will soon be offering wavefront, or "high def" (or
> something) glasses. *They have a fancy machine (aberometer) and make
> the lenses accordingly, instead of just doing sphere and cylinder. *I'd
> be interested to hear opinions and experiences related to this. *I'm a
> sucker for this type of thing, so I'll probably give it a shot, but
> does it really work noticeably better than the old way?
> --

You might have better luck with wavefront soft contact lenses which
actually move along with the eye. The correction of higher order
aberrations requires very close registration of the optical
correction, and this is difficult to accomplish in spectacle lenses.
Some aberrations are more forgiving, however, such as spherical
aberration, one of the more common and prevalent ones. WaveTouch
Technologies is the manufacturer of the wavefront generated soft lens.

I'm a little puzzled, however. If you are the same Chuck who is being
fitted with some type of semi-scleral GP lens, wearing the contact
lenses will change your aberrations profile enough to make the
spectacles useless.

What's going on here?

In article
<563e0235-b65c-4658-b2c8-(E-Mail Removed)>,
Neil Brooks <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Jan 11, 9:47*am, "Chuck" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > My eye doc will soon be offering wavefront, or "high def" (or
> > something) glasses. *They have a fancy machine (aberometer) and make
> > the lenses accordingly, instead of just doing sphere and cylinder. *I'd
> > be interested to hear opinions and experiences related to this. *I'm a
> > sucker for this type of thing, so I'll probably give it a shot, but
> > does it really work noticeably better than the old way?
> > --
>
> I wear them.
>
> I like them, but ... don't particularly LOVE them.
>
> Much will depend on the amount of higher-order aberrations YOU have.
> The MORE you have, the MORE you will, theoretically, benefit. The
> wavefront aberrometry will determine this.
>
> Mine simply weren't that high, so ... no overnight miracles, but ...
> good, crisp vision.
>
> Neil
> Not a doctor

I am not a vision professional. But I do have reasons why wavefront
(figured) corrected glasses are not a good idea.

Wavefront correction can be carried out for looking in a particular
direction. If done on the cornea of an eye, it will correct errors for
looking in a particular direction. That would be for looking in the
direction that images onto the fovea, As you look in different
directions by turning the eye,the correction turns with the eye. Light
that does not focus on-axis is likely to be aberrated more than if there
were no wavefront correction. That would not be expected to be a problem
because sharpest vision is desired for foveal vision. Off-axis
aberration is not that great a problem because the eye's retina is
losing acuity anyway.

For wavefront corrected glasses, however, your eys turn to see through
portions of the lens that are designed to correct best in another
direction.

Bill

--
Private Profit; Public Poop! Avoid collateral windfall!

Dr. Leukoma wrote:

> On Jan 11, 10:47*am, "Chuck" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > My eye doc will soon be offering wavefront, or "high def" (or
> > something) glasses. *They have a fancy machine (aberometer) and make
> > the lenses accordingly, instead of just doing sphere and cylinder.
> > *I'd be interested to hear opinions and experiences related to
> > this. *I'm a sucker for this type of thing, so I'll probably give
> > it a shot, but does it really work noticeably better than the old
> > way?
> > --
>
> You might have better luck with wavefront soft contact lenses which
> actually move along with the eye. The correction of higher order
> aberrations requires very close registration of the optical
> correction, and this is difficult to accomplish in spectacle lenses.
> Some aberrations are more forgiving, however, such as spherical
> aberration, one of the more common and prevalent ones. WaveTouch
> Technologies is the manufacturer of the wavefront generated soft lens.
>
> I'm a little puzzled, however. If you are the same Chuck who is being
> fitted with some type of semi-scleral GP lens, wearing the contact
> lenses will change your aberrations profile enough to make the
> spectacles useless.
>
> What's going on here?

Yeah, I'm the same guy, and I'm just taking many stabs in the dark
trying to find satisfaction. My eyeglass Rx has changed a bit since
wearing RGP, so I understand that I might be wasting money on wavefront
if I change my contact wearing habits.

On the "macrolens" front, my eye doctor is not proficient enough to
deal with the fact that my astigmatism is persisting. I went in for a
follow-up today and we decided to just give up on them. I wasn't going
to argue if he didn't feel confident going forward. I also was kind of
down on them due to the difficulty of getting them in without bubbles
and out without making my eyes bloodshot. I don't doubt these issues
could be dealt with with practice though.

I think wavefront soft lenses will be an option here, so I'll follow up
on that next visit. He had some new (to him?) custom soft contact that
he said he's had good luck with, so we're giving that a shot next. My
experience with soft lenses so far is that they don't stay oriented
right and are generally worse than nothing, but we'll see. He seems to
think that these hold some promise that "off the shelf" ones don't.

Back on the wavefront glasses, what I've read on-line is mostly a lot
of skepticism and negativity, but I asked him today and he said that
many of his patients (at his other office that already offers it) are
really impressed and happy with it. I guess I'll just wait and see.

--

On Jan 12, 6:30*pm, "Chuck" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Dr. Leukoma wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 10:47*am, "Chuck" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > My eye doc will soon be offering wavefront, or "high def" (or
> > > something) glasses. *They have a fancy machine (aberometer) and make
> > > the lenses accordingly, instead of just doing sphere and cylinder.
> > > *I'd be interested to hear opinions and experiences related to
> > > this. *I'm a sucker for this type of thing, so I'll probably give
> > > it a shot, but does it really work noticeably better than the old
> > > way?
> > > --
>
> > You might have better luck with wavefront soft contact lenses which
> > actually move along with the eye. *The correction of higher order
> > aberrations requires very close registration of the optical
> > correction, and this is difficult to accomplish in spectacle lenses.
> > Some aberrations are more forgiving, however, such as spherical
> > aberration, one of the more common and prevalent ones. *WaveTouch
> > Technologies is the manufacturer of the wavefront generated soft lens.
>
> > I'm a little puzzled, however. *If you are the same Chuck who is being
> > fitted with some type of semi-scleral GP lens, wearing the contact
> > lenses will change your aberrations profile enough to make the
> > spectacles useless.
>
> > What's going on here?
>
> Yeah, I'm the same guy, and I'm just taking many stabs in the dark
> trying to find satisfaction. *My eyeglass Rx has changed a bit since
> wearing RGP, so I understand that I might be wasting money on wavefront
> if I change my contact wearing habits.
>
> On the "macrolens" front, my eye doctor is not proficient enough to
> deal with the fact that my astigmatism is persisting. *I went in for a
> follow-up today and we decided to just give up on them. *I wasn't going
> to argue if he didn't feel confident going forward. *I also was kind of
> down on them due to the difficulty of getting them in without bubbles
> and out without making my eyes bloodshot. *I don't doubt these issues
> could be dealt with with practice though.
>
> I think wavefront soft lenses will be an option here, so I'll follow up
> on that next visit. *He had some new (to him?) custom soft contact that
> he said he's had good luck with, so we're giving that a shot next. My
> experience with soft lenses so far is that they don't stay oriented
> right and are generally worse than nothing, but we'll see. *He seems to
> think that these hold some promise that "off the shelf" ones don't.
>
> Back on the wavefront glasses, what I've read on-line is mostly a lot
> of skepticism and negativity, but I asked him today and he said that
> many of his patients (at his other office that already offers it) are
> really impressed and happy with it. I guess I'll just wait and see.
>
> --

What's your goal? What's your overall Rx?

Have you considered wearing contacts to take care of the near/
farsighted, and then glasses (over the contacts) to take care of the
astigmatism?

This might give you a much broader choice of contacts, stable vision,
and a good 'cosmetic' appearance.

I wear my wavefront glasses over Boston Foundation Scleral Lenses.

Neil Brooks wrote:

> On Jan 12, 6:30*pm, "Chuck" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > Dr. Leukoma wrote:
> > > On Jan 11, 10:47*am, "Chuck" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > > My eye doc will soon be offering wavefront, or "high def" (or
> > > > something) glasses. *They have a fancy machine (aberometer) and
> > > > make the lenses accordingly, instead of just doing sphere and
> > > > cylinder. *I'd be interested to hear opinions and experiences
> > > > related to this. *I'm a sucker for this type of thing, so I'll
> > > > probably give it a shot, but does it really work noticeably
> > > > better than the old way?
> > > > --
> >
> > > You might have better luck with wavefront soft contact lenses
> > > which actually move along with the eye. *The correction of higher
> > > order aberrations requires very close registration of the optical
> > > correction, and this is difficult to accomplish in spectacle
> > > lenses. Some aberrations are more forgiving, however, such as
> > > spherical aberration, one of the more common and prevalent ones.
> > > *WaveTouch Technologies is the manufacturer of the wavefront
> > > generated soft lens.
> >
> > > I'm a little puzzled, however. *If you are the same Chuck who is
> > > being fitted with some type of semi-scleral GP lens, wearing the
> > > contact lenses will change your aberrations profile enough to
> > > make the spectacles useless.
> >
> > > What's going on here?
> >
> > Yeah, I'm the same guy, and I'm just taking many stabs in the dark
> > trying to find satisfaction. *My eyeglass Rx has changed a bit since
> > wearing RGP, so I understand that I might be wasting money on
> > wavefront if I change my contact wearing habits.
> >
> > On the "macrolens" front, my eye doctor is not proficient enough to
> > deal with the fact that my astigmatism is persisting. *I went in
> > for a follow-up today and we decided to just give up on them. *I
> > wasn't going to argue if he didn't feel confident going forward. *I
> > also was kind of down on them due to the difficulty of getting them
> > in without bubbles and out without making my eyes bloodshot. *I
> > don't doubt these issues could be dealt with with practice though.
> >
> > I think wavefront soft lenses will be an option here, so I'll
> > follow up on that next visit. *He had some new (to him?) custom
> > soft contact that he said he's had good luck with, so we're giving
> > that a shot next. My experience with soft lenses so far is that
> > they don't stay oriented right and are generally worse than
> > nothing, but we'll see. *He seems to think that these hold some
> > promise that "off the shelf" ones don't.
> >
> > Back on the wavefront glasses, what I've read on-line is mostly a
> > lot of skepticism and negativity, but I asked him today and he said
> > that many of his patients (at his other office that already offers
> > it) are really impressed and happy with it. I guess I'll just wait
> > and see.
> >
> > --
>
> What's your goal? What's your overall Rx?
>
> Have you considered wearing contacts to take care of the near/
> farsighted, and then glasses (over the contacts) to take care of the
> astigmatism?
>
> This might give you a much broader choice of contacts, stable vision,
> and a good 'cosmetic' appearance.
>
> I wear my wavefront glasses over Boston Foundation Scleral Lenses.

I have a pretty mild Rx, basically all astigmatism, 0.75 diopter when I
regularly wear RGP and 1.0-1.5 diopter when they settle out. I had
some issues adapting to the astigmatism correction in glasses as my
astigmatism creeped up past 1.0 (or possibly I have higher order stuff
for which cylinder was the best approximation). Anyway, I tried RGP
and life was great except that wind and AC irritate my eyes with them
in and my night vision is marginal. Comfort is also not great,
especially around 12 hours of wear.

So, I'm just trying to find my best solution. Nothing complex, just
comfort, vision, wear time, etc.
--

On Jan 12, 7:30*pm, "Chuck" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Dr. Leukoma wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 10:47*am, "Chuck" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > My eye doc will soon be offering wavefront, or "high def" (or
> > > something) glasses. *They have a fancy machine (aberometer) and make
> > > the lenses accordingly, instead of just doing sphere and cylinder.
> > > *I'd be interested to hear opinions and experiences related to
> > > this. *I'm a sucker for this type of thing, so I'll probably give
> > > it a shot, but does it really work noticeably better than the old
> > > way?
> > > --
>
> > You might have better luck with wavefront soft contact lenses which
> > actually move along with the eye. *The correction of higher order
> > aberrations requires very close registration of the optical
> > correction, and this is difficult to accomplish in spectacle lenses.
> > Some aberrations are more forgiving, however, such as spherical
> > aberration, one of the more common and prevalent ones. *WaveTouch
> > Technologies is the manufacturer of the wavefront generated soft lens.
>
> > I'm a little puzzled, however. *If you are the same Chuck who is being
> > fitted with some type of semi-scleral GP lens, wearing the contact
> > lenses will change your aberrations profile enough to make the
> > spectacles useless.
>
> > What's going on here?
>
> Yeah, I'm the same guy, and I'm just taking many stabs in the dark
> trying to find satisfaction. *My eyeglass Rx has changed a bit since
> wearing RGP, so I understand that I might be wasting money on wavefront
> if I change my contact wearing habits.
>
> On the "macrolens" front, my eye doctor is not proficient enough to
> deal with the fact that my astigmatism is persisting. *I went in for a
> follow-up today and we decided to just give up on them. *I wasn't going
> to argue if he didn't feel confident going forward. *I also was kind of
> down on them due to the difficulty of getting them in without bubbles
> and out without making my eyes bloodshot. *I don't doubt these issues
> could be dealt with with practice though.
>
> I think wavefront soft lenses will be an option here, so I'll follow up
> on that next visit. *He had some new (to him?) custom soft contact that
> he said he's had good luck with, so we're giving that a shot next. My
> experience with soft lenses so far is that they don't stay oriented
> right and are generally worse than nothing, but we'll see. *He seems to
> think that these hold some promise that "off the shelf" ones don't.
>
> Back on the wavefront glasses, what I've read on-line is mostly a lot
> of skepticism and negativity, but I asked him today and he said that
> many of his patients (at his other office that already offers it) are
> really impressed and happy with it. I guess I'll just wait and see.
>
> --- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm sorry to hear about your experiences. I know precisely what you
are going through.

Robert Martellaro wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:02:57 -0600, "Mike Tyner"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > It may be better, a little, if you're always looking through the
> > center of the lenses.
> >
> > If I understand it correctly. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
> >
> > -MT
>
> No better than a spot on refraction along with lenses utilizing
> free-form technology for .01D accuracy. See the link I posted above,
> primarily the posts by Xiaowei and Meister.
> Robert Martellaro
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Optician/Owner
> Roberts Optical
> Wauwatosa Wi.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself."
> - Richard Feynman

I'm not an expert in this field, but why would you expect everyone's
error to be fully corrected with only sphere and cyl corrections?
Surely some people have other errors that remain uncorrected with only
those.

--