Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Crushed Ice Cushions...BAD???

David, that is not a simulation,

That is using the light box Garry and Serg is developing.
 
Rockdiamond said:
Cool simulation Garry
I honestly have no idea how the YouTube relates to the question of the broad based relevance of brilliance measurements- but it was cool
Why so short?
Click to expand...

As SC said - it is a real movie with 200 images. The total file size is 41.7mb.
In a video format it plays continuosly but i do not know how to make that happen on Youtube.
You did not see the ASET one did you RD? I posted it earlier.

The point is you can easily compare the brightness, scintillation and fire and sparkle size of each stone. Many people who have seem both the real stones and the movie think the cushion out performs the round.

You are seeing the Youtube compressed version. Seeing this in high definition in 3D stereo is even more amazing when the skin of the diamond appears glassy and you can easily seperate the dust from inclusions. But I digress.

It is not a "measurement" It is a real life comparison with a movie that allows real life comparison. We will always make these comparisons to the best of the best round. I hope you can raise your level of professionalism and give us real comparisons to RD.
 
Garry I am curious about something you just wrote an since this is a box you are creating I understand if you don't want to discuss much. But you said there are 200 images. Does this mean this was created by taking sitll images and 'stitching' them together? If this is the case I imagine that allows a better focus to remain on the diamond at all times since a video camera is more like our eyes and constantly having to refocus.

CCL, I am about halfway through the article. I forgot that I had a few things to do last night and I just ran out of time. First thing that did strike out to me is that I prefer looking at images that have a white background, not a gray or black. Confuses the issue more to me.

One thing that bothers me about this thread is that I get the feeling people think I am pushing "poorly cut" stones. I know Charmy did on another thread for example. Which I am not. Yes I own some slightly above average shallow cut diamonds that I intentionally bought as earrings. I find I am not the only one who prefers them for earrings and pendants though. I do have a really nice pair of studs that woudl be classified as "ideal cut" I have a set of earrings that my husband got as a gift that were made to match as closely as possible to the first set (only larger) as well. After these two I madea choice to not get a third set of the same type of specs, and I have read here that sometimes people have made a similar choice for a reason. It wasn't a money case for me, it was a willing choice.

Yes I own a radiant cut, but it's what my eyes love with a yellow stones. For colorless stones I actually am drawn to vintage cuts above all else.

Just because I don't care for "ideal" RBs or Princess cuts doesn't mean I don't appreciate a well cut stone. I just don't like the patterning of any I have seen. The patterns are a distraciton to my eye, that's all.

My discussion here after my initial response was to take the measured brilliancy and see how our eye translates it. Yes I am asking to see different light source because I am intrested. That part is sparked in part by the discussions here about how many "ideal" RBs go dark in bright lighting. They in fact go from being a very bright looking stone to dark and gray. Why? Because that is how our eye has to focus on the bright source and how it gets translated in our brain. The stone is actually not darker, but it just appears that way.

So I am curious at one point does the eye differentiate different levels of measured brightness. What is visible and what is not.

For instance in Gary's video I see no difference to my eyes on my laptop. I fully admit I am on a laptop and probably need to look at it on a calibrated monitor attached to a much better video card in the computer. The set up on that computer is very close to what the real eye sees. This laptop is not so my thoughts are based on the limitations of this machine.
 
Yes clgwli, they are 200 stills played as a movie in the same motion as DiamCalc movies.

You get a better eg if you leave the video small size and go several yards away - screen resolution should not be an issue
 
clgwli said:
One thing that bothers me about this thread is that I get the feeling people think I am pushing "poorly cut" stones. I know Charmy did on another thread for example. Which I am not.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to imply that you are pushing poorly cut stones. My point simply is that I don't know what your definition of "well cut" is and unable to answer your question. It appears that there is not consensus of what "well cut" means.
 
Is stone correct Garry?
If that's an actual movie of real diamonds, taken with a camera it's phenomenal !
 
CharmyPoo said:
clgwli said:
One thing that bothers me about this thread is that I get the feeling people think I am pushing "poorly cut" stones. I know Charmy did on another thread for example. Which I am not.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to imply that you are pushing poorly cut stones. My point simply is that I don't know what your definition of "well cut" is and unable to answer your question. It appears that there is not consensus of what "well cut" means.
Click to expand...
Well then I am so sorry I misunderstood your comment. I've said it here that text is not always easy to interpret. So please accept my apologies there. For the thread in question a well cut single cut stone would be very bright and full of broad flashes of fire when seen in more than difussed lighting. I would have to find photos, but I have seen some very dead and kind of gray/black/dark looking single cut stones. The ones I have look very white.

I have a feeling that well cut for one is not the same for another. I've seen many use the term "mind clean" here a lot and I fully understand it. It doesn't always have to do with inclusions either. An interesting comment I've seen some make is that for RBs need to be very precicely cut. They need very clean H&As so to speak for them to have a mind clean stone. They may not be able to see a difference but they will know it. While many other here would say an AGS0 that doesn't have perfect H&A is perfect.

Now that is an extreme example, but it just shows that even among those who need "ideal cut" RBs, that there is not a real consensus. IMO it is hard for me to quanitify how much brightness I need, but I know it when I see it.

Gary, I am not sure I'd agree with a blanket statment about resolution since a) I have no idea what resolution your video is in and b) there is so much more behind how an image looks on a computer than just resolution. But we're in a gem forum and not a computer geek forum here but just know my laptop lacks in resolution, color and size. I prefer not to make final judgments on stones w/o looking with our calibrated computer & monitor.

But that is a cool video you have created. I like that idea a lot! Very creative indeed to do it that way. I will come back to view the video again after I finish with some morning work.
 
clgwli, what Garry meant is that, the movie in normal viewing size is the equivalent of viewing a diamond easily over 200 carat weight.

You do not see that in real life, getting that kind of resolution is just not real.
 
Rockdiamond said:
In the interest of full disclosure, both stones in the tray that I photographed are branded diamonds.
The "slushy stone" is a Daussi Cushion.
The Radiant is an "Original Radiant"- I used that one because IMO, the Original Radiant personifies what "good" crushed ice looks like in a colorless diamond.
Click to expand...

The Daussi does not look slushy crushed ice to me at all, nor does the radiant you posted. The radiant looks like bright crushed ice, perhaps, and the daussi not crushed ice at all. These are semantics, but important since it means talking at cross purposes if people are not using terms in the same way.
 
ChunkyCushionLover said:
RD,

Thanks for getting the scan. I need a full .srn file please kindly attach it to a post so that it can be downloaded and imported into Diamcalc.

As for the other things in your post:

If you don't want to feel like I am out to get you some helpful hints from personal experience and given to me by other pricescopers:

i)Cite proper original references of information whenever possible
ii)Paraphrase carefully what others have said to you
iii)Keep your posts as short and concise as possible
iv)Choose your battles carefully, you can't fight every point, try to disagree with two or three points maximum per post. Commenting on only the main point in detail is often the most effective.
v) Avoid commenting on a personal level and remove "color" from your posting style
vi) Proofread your posts carefully, shortening where possible

I am trying to practice these as well.

CCL
Click to expand...

CCL what a thoughtful guide, I am impressed that you have created it and are trying to work with it yourself. Kudos! I think it isa good guide for anyone on PS!
 
I just had a chance to look at the youtube on my desktop- I looked at it earlier on the iphone.

WOW- It's amazing Garry- really great.
Is this equipment currently available?

I will say that even if I am able to produce videos like the one in the youtube, I'd still include the videos we currently feature.
IMO when it comes to photos or video, , more is better.
Can you use a lower resolution to reduce file size?
I have found that youtube is great- you can upload larger files- but smaller ones might bew used as clickable links on a website.
Also, lower res may allow longer videos.


IN terms of the discussion on brightness- I agree that it was possible to get an idea of what we can call brightness from your video- but also from mine.
And- no matter how we slice it, not everyone will agree which stone is brighter.
Which stone did you feel was brighter Garry?

Sarin: I've called them, spoke to the bosses assistant, who feels they can do the scans, and am waiting on the call back


DD- I agree- the terminology is a consideration.
I don't believe we'll ever get it "standardized"
Thank you very much for watching my video, and keeping an open mind- it's greatly appreciated.

Yes CCL- by all means you should study on how to act in a civil manner on public forums.
 
Update: Yesterday I had a lovely conversation with Mr David Atlas- who is shipping us the aset and light.
In ten minutes I'm sending the two stones over to Sarin who will perform the scans, and email the .srn files.
 
Rockdiamond said:
Thank you very much for watching my video, and keeping an open mind- it's greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

I did indeed watch the video, though I edited the comment out of my previous post (for anyone confused by the exchage). I edited it because I thought my comment was not clear.

Basically I thought after watching the video that the Daussi is not what I would term a crushed ice stone, slushy or otherwise, whereas I *might* use the term crushed ice (bright type according to Jon) for the Radiant. I thought the Radiant was pretty.

When I use the term "crushed ice", I am not referring to the bright type.
 
Here is the virtual facet(blue) map for the radiant as you can see there are many small virtual facets.
You can also see a lot of scanner error in the actual facet outline shown in green. (look at the meet points and extra facets it added)
radiantVF.jpg
 
Here is the virtual facet(red) map for the cushion. Again there is scanner error show in the real facet outlines(blue). These are scanner error because of the busted meet points.
I changed the colors a little to make it easier to see.

cushionVFmap.jpg
 
PS wont let me post gem files so im emailing them to David to put on his site and link them.

{ Andrey - It is now allowed and working. :) I attached the files you requested.]
 

Attachments

Ditto Karl not the greatest scans.
Nice VF pattern + wireframe how do you do that in DC? (Edit: Draft + Double Reflection got it)
Here are the generated ASET white faceup images.

Daussi Cushion
simulatedASETWhiteDaussiCushion.jpg

Radiant
ORCRadiantASET.jpg
 
Star 129
Left (VFs and Wire Frame),
Right Photographed White ASET

Star129WireFram&ASET.jpg
 
I acknowledge what you both have said about poor scans- but remember, these were done by the Sarin company themselves. That may say something about the difficulty in using this equipment.

I paid ten bucks a pop.
If you guys think they are really defective, I'll send the stones back for re-scan.

OH- and what would anyone who has an opinion say these images tell us?
 
Im amatuer by the standards of this board but Ill tell you what I look at.

The first thing I focus on is the white. If Im buying a diamond I want just about every bit of light that goes into it to come back to my eye. White areas mean im losing light and thats no bueno to me. Obviously there is no way to completely return everything so I look for one that returns enough where Im happy. My limits are subjective but comparisons between stones and total ammout of white is objective.

Second I look at the colors. I like blue and red. I want lots of red as thats going to mean bright spots of light return . I also want some blue there as that will create obstruction and in turn give dark patches to give contrast. Lots of blue may mean a darker looking stone as it will have more obstruction. Greens are ok cause it is light return but from low angles and will most likely not be as bright as light coming from the red angles.
 
Rockdiamond said:
I just had a chance to look at the youtube on my desktop- I looked at it earlier on the iphone.

WOW- It's amazing Garry- really great.
Is this equipment currently available?

I will say that even if I am able to produce videos like the one in the youtube, I'd still include the videos we currently feature.
IMO when it comes to photos or video, , more is better.
Can you use a lower resolution to reduce file size?
I have found that youtube is great- you can upload larger files- but smaller ones might bew used as clickable links on a website.
Also, lower res may allow longer videos.


IN terms of the discussion on brightness- I agree that it was possible to get an idea of what we can call brightness from your video- but also from mine.
And- no matter how we slice it, not everyone will agree which stone is brighter.
Which stone did you feel was brighter Garry?

Sarin: I've called them, spoke to the bosses assistant, who feels they can do the scans, and am waiting on the call back


DD- I agree- the terminology is a consideration.
I don't believe we'll ever get it "standardized"
Thank you very much for watching my video, and keeping an open mind- it's greatly appreciated.

Yes CCL- by all means you should study on how to act in a civil manner on public forums.
Click to expand...

The LBox is currently only available in Surat incase we need to make lighting modifications. But it will be available as soon as we are all happy with it.

http://www.lexus-com.com/lexusnew/product/productd/grading/lightbox.htm

It does not matter which stone in the video that I prefer RD - it matters if it can be used as a tool by buyers. A lot of work has gone into it. we hope consumers will find it useful and the main point you still did not get - we plan to make video's comparing a Tolkowsky H&A's round with fancy cuts so that it is easy for consumers to compare and buy in confidence.
This helps overcome the lack of effective cut quality information from lab's.

The goal is to encourage production of fancy shape diamonds that outperform rounds.

(RD please read this again)
 
ChunkyCushionLover said:
Star 129
Left (VFs and Wire Frame),
Right Photographed White ASET

Star129WireFram&ASET.jpg
Click to expand...

Would you say that comparing an aset done using a srn file, versus one taken with a camera present incoinsistencies that make comparison far less useful?
I am suggesting that is that case.
Taking theplunge- of course it's your right to use whatever means necessary to select your diamond. A large part of why I don't feel aset assists consumers is the interpretation.
simulatedASETWhiteDaussiCushion.jpg
I'm looking at the diamonds....the large red areas on the cushion ASET are actually darker in real life when the adjacent facets are lit. The aset shows a lot of red dead center- which is not what I see in person.
r3151d.jpg
 
OK- I read it three times Garry.
I did not ask which stone you preferred Garry- I asked which you thought looked brighter.

On my browser, the link was dead- Garry, can you please re-post the link to the Lbox page?
 
Rockdiamond said:
OH- and what would anyone who has an opinion say these images tell us?
Click to expand...

Earlier in this thread I wrote the ASET tells us about the potential brightness of a stone. Or in simple terms which areas of the stone could return light to the viewers eye if it was illuminated by hemisphere containing all angles of light .

DaussiCushion&ASET.jpg

On the left is a screen capture from your video which I told you was the most accurate representation of the diamond that I saw.
Remember I made this comment and screen capture yesterday before you posted the sarin files today.

Now lets play the matchup game:

On the left a screen capture from your video of the Daussi Cushion.
On the right a white generated ASET image of the Daussi Cushion.

Match up the Red regions in the ASET with the White regions in your video, what can you conclude from this?
Now do the same for the white regions in the ASET? What does that tell you?
I will leave this a while for yourself and other posters to comment.
 
I'm very curious CCL- exactly when did YOU see the cushion diamond in person to be able to make such statements as which photo or movie shot looks most like the diamond?
 
Rockdiamond said:
Rd,

I knew you would raise the question of simulated versus photographed ASET images and its a good one. Well here is the same Star129 photographed*(left), photograph ASET (middle) and simulated(right).
PhotoASETSimulatedStar129.jpg

There was significant scan error in the pavilion with this one(which is important), the scanning machines have had trouble with the tiny close together pavilion facets but even still the simulated images reproduced most of the nuances in the potential brightness. The major differences come in the Red/Blue Boundary where the two colors are only seperated by a degree or two.

I could do hundreds of examples, with a good scan and photographed image of a brilliant cut the two are usually very close.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top