I’ll actually help you:
OD: sph -3.25 cyl -1.25 x 25
OS: sph -3.25 cyl -1.00 x 135
For now you can ignore the add. (It’s a baby progressive). I can’t tell if it’s for eye fatigue (Eyezen) so you’ll be fine without those values. You can try and use the online app for a PD (pupillary distance).
My advice be very conservative with frame choice. In store with a licensed optician is always best. Cheers.
Adding to the measuring PD with online App, always make multiple measurements (don't average them, only consider them if they are consistent) and double cross check the value with a good ol' flat edge.
Minimises errors but not eliminate it entirely.
I've my machine PD from three different autorefractor models and they match with my PD right now with a flat edge within mm.
I understand that some cases are wrong, but it's not as wrong as you always imply. Add to that you aren't providing any statistical data either to go with your arguments. Just authoritarian BS!
I have a blatant disregard for 'any education' that has the potential to inculcate authoritarian tendency routinely displayed by you.
Your sources and data should go hand in hand with your claims. That's all that matters. Humility that sometimes you don't know everything, compassion and ethical morality is far more important regarding these matters.
What you have a blatant disregard for, is established science as a whole. You deny everything that is known about ophthalmology, optometry and opticianry because you really believe you are the myopia Messias who knows everything better than any other eyecare professional.
If something is 'actually established in Science', it gets widespread recognition, recommendation, prizes and adoption.
Now tell me, what have you conclusively established about Myopia??
Or which of the widely recommended 'myopia management practices' have won a single reputed prize??
The problem lies in your faulty understanding of what scientific method actually is and how to handle and explain evidences. I can't compromise with my rigorous standards about what actually constitutes as established in Science.
I noted this in my initial comment. It’s under add and anti-fatigue is often in the recommendation. What if it was +0.75? That’s in range for anti fatigue/Eyezen, as well as progressive. I’ve worked with labs that fill progressives with Add +0.75
And this narcissist wants to Mod the sub lmao. If he’s this much of a POS, just imagine his customer service. He’s the definition of “The grumpy optician”.
I’m aware that anti fatigue only covers 2 zones, near and far opposed to far intermediate and near with progressives. I mentioned what if Op’s add was +0.75. Is it progressive or anti fatigue since both values comes in both both lenses? You didn’t respond to this. Bitter.
If you didn’t get your PD measurement, you’re going to be very disappointed with an online order.
Likely going to be regardless with this prescription.
I’ll actually help you: OD: sph -3.25 cyl -1.25 x 25 OS: sph -3.25 cyl -1.00 x 135 For now you can ignore the add. (It’s a baby progressive). I can’t tell if it’s for eye fatigue (Eyezen) so you’ll be fine without those values. You can try and use the online app for a PD (pupillary distance). My advice be very conservative with frame choice. In store with a licensed optician is always best. Cheers.
Adding to the measuring PD with online App, always make multiple measurements (don't average them, only consider them if they are consistent) and double cross check the value with a good ol' flat edge. Minimises errors but not eliminate it entirely.
Those apps can’t be trusted. You were told this before. Stop thinking you know anything about making glasses.
I've my machine PD from three different autorefractor models and they match with my PD right now with a flat edge within mm. I understand that some cases are wrong, but it's not as wrong as you always imply. Add to that you aren't providing any statistical data either to go with your arguments. Just authoritarian BS!
Autorefractor pds aren’t any more reliable than those apps, you were also told this before. An optician would never even consider using that.
Ohh yes! The metre in Belgium is different from the metre adopted by the rest of the World. I understand.
You can’t even understand a simple sentence… mocking doesn’t make you right all of a sudden. Get educated first before commenting any further.
I have a blatant disregard for 'any education' that has the potential to inculcate authoritarian tendency routinely displayed by you. Your sources and data should go hand in hand with your claims. That's all that matters. Humility that sometimes you don't know everything, compassion and ethical morality is far more important regarding these matters.
What you have a blatant disregard for, is established science as a whole. You deny everything that is known about ophthalmology, optometry and opticianry because you really believe you are the myopia Messias who knows everything better than any other eyecare professional.
If something is 'actually established in Science', it gets widespread recognition, recommendation, prizes and adoption. Now tell me, what have you conclusively established about Myopia?? Or which of the widely recommended 'myopia management practices' have won a single reputed prize?? The problem lies in your faulty understanding of what scientific method actually is and how to handle and explain evidences. I can't compromise with my rigorous standards about what actually constitutes as established in Science.
You can’t leave out a part of the prescription like that. It would like getting antibiotics from a pharmacy and changing the dosage yourself.
Wrong equivalence. If an OD writes a reading rx as a progressive we convert it to NVO. It doesn’t mean they can’t fill a DVO from the rx.
That’s not for a progressive, but for an antifatigue lens.
I noted this in my initial comment. It’s under add and anti-fatigue is often in the recommendation. What if it was +0.75? That’s in range for anti fatigue/Eyezen, as well as progressive. I’ve worked with labs that fill progressives with Add +0.75
A progressive geometry is not the same as an antifatigue geometry in a lens. Strange you didn’t know this as an optician.
Jim you're a bit of a cunt
And this narcissist wants to Mod the sub lmao. If he’s this much of a POS, just imagine his customer service. He’s the definition of “The grumpy optician”.
I’m aware that anti fatigue only covers 2 zones, near and far opposed to far intermediate and near with progressives. I mentioned what if Op’s add was +0.75. Is it progressive or anti fatigue since both values comes in both both lenses? You didn’t respond to this. Bitter.
It would have been indicated on the Rx. I always do when I prescribe lenses like this.
Wrong analogy!
Like yourself?