Crushed Ice Cushions...BAD???

[Karl_K]

Most offices are diffused lighting rather than directional.

The brightest light is coming from the ceiling diffused or not.
An easy test is walk around with a colored piece of paper and see for yourself where the brightest light is coming from.

So according to you no indoor diffused lighting exists?
Even if the source is the ceiling still mostly diffused light in offices where most would be most of the time.

can I see a picture of your office where you are surrounded 360 degrees by lights?
The lighting is large source diffused lighting(tubes with a diffuser panel) from the ceiling with an occasional window if a person is lucky.

 

[Doc_1]

Most offices are diffused lighting rather than directional.

The brightest light is coming from the ceiling diffused or not.
An easy test is walk around with a colored piece of paper and see for yourself where the brightest light is coming from.

So according to you no indoor diffused lighting exists?
Even if the source is the ceiling still mostly diffused light in offices where most would be most of the time.

can I see a picture of your office where you are surrounded 360 degrees by lights?
The lighting is large source diffused lighting(tubes with a diffuser panel) from the ceiling with an occasional window if a person is lucky.

Thank you!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Yoram, it's important to look at this from all petspectvrs
I understand your need, as a cutter to analyze light
As a diamond buyer my job is to analyze beauty
I believe consumers need to be buyers , not cutters
It matters not if aset "proves" one stone is brighter if the other seems brighter to the eye

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

And here is the video used on a Poll last year:
http://www.octonus.com/oct/projects/foxymovies/MSS_9_diamonds_Daylight+LED.phtml

Note the worst zone in the crushed ice cushion (radiant like) in the lower left is where the reddish and blueish zones are in the ASET image. The point is that to give a uniform crushed ice the more green in the ASET - the better.

Doc I do not think you read this post?

 

[stone-cold11]

Most offices are diffused lighting rather than directional.

The brightest light is coming from the ceiling diffused or not.
An easy test is walk around with a colored piece of paper and see for yourself where the brightest light is coming from.

So according to you no indoor diffused lighting exists?
Even if the source is the ceiling still mostly diffused light in offices where most would be most of the time.

can I see a picture of your office where you are surrounded 360 degrees by lights?
The lighting is large source diffused lighting(tubes with a diffuser panel) from the ceiling with an occasional window if a person is lucky.

Thank you!

Let me get this straight.

You mean to tell me, that to you diffuse lighting means green in the ASET regardless of where the direction the light is coming from and on directional light is represented by red in the ASET, regardless of where the light is coming from?

 

[Doc_1]

And here is the video used on a Poll last year:
http://www.octonus.com/oct/projects/foxymovies/MSS_9_diamonds_Daylight+LED.phtml

Note the worst zone in the crushed ice cushion (radiant like) in the lower left is where the reddish and blueish zones are in the ASET image. The point is that to give a uniform crushed ice the more green in the ASET - the better.

Doc I do not think you read this post?

Go back one page Garry....page 16 first post.

 

[Doc_1]

Most offices are diffused lighting rather than directional.

The brightest light is coming from the ceiling diffused or not.
An easy test is walk around with a colored piece of paper and see for yourself where the brightest light is coming from.

So according to you no indoor diffused lighting exists?
Even if the source is the ceiling still mostly diffused light in offices where most would be most of the time.

can I see a picture of your office where you are surrounded 360 degrees by lights?
The lighting is large source diffused lighting(tubes with a diffuser panel) from the ceiling with an occasional window if a person is lucky.

Thank you!

Let me get this straight.

You mean to tell me, that to you diffuse lighting means green in the ASET regardless of where the direction the light is coming from and on directional light is represented by red in the ASET, regardless of where the light is coming from?

Why do not answer RD's question that will do discussion better.

Here is the question:

What difference doesn't make how a diamond looks with no light coming from the side if such conditions never exist in real life?
My question, again: for the purposes of this discussion what difference does it make whrr the diamond is getting the light from?

 

[stone-cold11]

I am describing what my eyes are seeing in the video, simple.
It is a gorgeous stone. at least to my eyes.
It had all the exposures when he was turning it in all directions in the video, and was supported with the simulation video. Subjective ? yes...who said when any one looks at a diamond and taken by light performance is objective...i never said that. but the OBJECTIVE is the green on ASET and the lack of red and blue did not harm the performance of this crushed ice cut which is the core of the debate, Also the simulation video Garry put is OBJECTIVE, i advice you to see it.
That tells me when I am in the market for a crushed ice look i should not weigh much on the ASET. I never said throw it out of the window.

Directional in ASET, does not mean directional in the environment.

In the ASET, it shows where the light is gathered from. In the environment, that is fixed, main source is always fixed, ceiling or the south window of RD's office. Depending on which orientation, respect to the stone and camera, RD is shooting the video, green zone could be receiving light from main light source rather than reflected light. Same thing with rotating the stone, frame of reference is fixed, direction of light source is fixed just the stone is rotating.

 

[stone-cold11]

Here is the question:

What difference doesn't make how a diamond looks with no light coming from the side if such conditions never exist in real life?
My question, again: for the purposes of this discussion what difference does it make whrr the diamond is getting the light from?

This is why it is important.

Back to the discussion
Is crushed ice bad- and what , exactly, is crushed ice?

Any guesses on which stone is whiter?

For the round, the main light source, red zone in the ASET is clearly block due to obstruction issue with the camera being too close to the stones in question. This makes the RB look dark as most of the light gathered by the RB is from the red zone while the radiant is green zone making it look lively.

In another situation, more normal situation where most light comes from red zone, it will probably be the other way round.

For example, the separation of source image by Karl.
Red zone Only

 

[Karl_K]

In another situation, more normal situation where most light comes from red zone, it will probably be the other way round.

For example, the separation of source image by Karl.
Red zone Only

DC default tolk at 40.8 pavilion the center would fill in.
Red zone only

 

[Doc_1]

Here is the question:

What difference doesn't make how a diamond looks with no light coming from the side if such conditions never exist in real life?
My question, again: for the purposes of this discussion what difference does it make whrr the diamond is getting the light from?

This is why it is important.

Back to the discussion
Is crushed ice bad- and what , exactly, is crushed ice?

Any guesses on which stone is whiter?

For the round, the main light source, red zone in the ASET is clearly block due to obstruction issue with the camera being too close to the stones in question. This makes the RB look dark as most of the light gathered by the RB is from the red zone while the radiant is green zone making it look lively.

In another situation, more normal situation where most light comes from red zone, it will probably be the other way round.

For example, the separation of source image by Karl.
Red zone Only

Am not getting a great impression about your thinking either so it is a mutual.
You seem keep ignoring the video RD posted where there is no camera blocking or black hood on the head ....why you keep omitting his video is beyond me.
I will wait on his new videos and pictures for the cushion diamonds.

 

[Karl_K]

You seem keep ignoring the video RD posted where there is no camera blocking or black hood on the head ....why you keep omitting his video is beyond me.
I will wait on his new videos and pictures for the cushion diamonds.

Which video? link please so I don't have to dig back through this thread.
Thanks!

 

[Doc_1]

You seem keep ignoring the video RD posted where there is no camera blocking or black hood on the head ....why you keep omitting his video is beyond me.
I will wait on his new videos and pictures for the cushion diamonds.

Which video? link please so I don't have to dig back through this thread.
Thanks!

[]http://www.youtube.com/user/diamondsbylauren#p/u/0/0zcR4kIBkCw[]

 

[diagem]

Yoram, it's important to look at this from all petspectvrs
I understand your need, as a cutter to analyze light
As a diamond buyer my job is to analyze beauty
I believe consumers need to be buyers , not cutters
It matters not if aset "proves" one stone is brighter if the other seems brighter to the eye

Nothing matters if you dont compare!
youre not reading my writing and mixing beauty in this discussion which I dont find place for.

You are missing some perspectives, I am not talking about "brighter" I am taling about balanced brightness.
Brighter doesnt mean better if it is lacking other ingredient's like contrast etc, they need to live together.

Please read my writing, its frustrating otherwise !

 

[Rockdiamond]

1- in the top photo the camera is far enough away to allow a lot of overhead light
2- in an identical situation where the head is in place of the camera that is what the eye will see
Just as aset represents a potential so do those photos
I don't believe it's possible to say that the aset possibility is more or less common
3- if we accept th explaination that obstruction is causing this, it's easy to see that the radiant returns more light when exposed to the same obstruction

 

[stone-cold11]

You seem keep ignoring the video RD posted where there is no camera blocking or black hood on the head ....why you keep omitting his video is beyond me.
I will wait on his new videos and pictures for the cushion diamonds.

Which video? link please so I don't have to dig back through this thread.
Thanks!

Why do you need a black hood on the head? The video, how do you know there is no obstruction when there is no comparison round in a tray? Both the radiant and cushion have green dominated ASET. Do a comparison tray with a round and see if that does not show obstruction, then we can say more.

 

[stone-cold11]

1- in the top photo the camera is far enough away to allow a lot of overhead light
2- in an identical situation where the head is in place of the camera that is what the eye will see
Just as aset represents a potential so do those photos
I don't believe it's possible to say that the aset possibility is more or less common
3- if we accept th explaination that obstruction is causing this, it's easy to see that the radiant returns more light when exposed to the same obstruction

1, 2) Care to explain what then is the cause of the black being reflected by the round?

3) which is what the green in the ASET is saying.

 

[diagem]

1- in the top photo the camera is far enough away to allow a lot of overhead light
2- in an identical situation where the head is in place of the camera that is what the eye will see
Just as aset represents a potential so do those photos
I don't believe it's possible to say that the aset possibility is more or less common
3- if we accept th explaination that obstruction is causing this, it's easy to see that the radiant returns more light when exposed to the same obstruction

On one frame shot?
Come on David, kinda naive, no?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

And here is the video used on a Poll last year:
http://www.octonus.com/oct/projects/foxymovies/MSS_9_diamonds_Daylight+LED.phtml

Note the worst zone in the crushed ice cushion (radiant like) in the lower left is where the reddish and blueish zones are in the ASET image. The point is that to give a uniform crushed ice the more green in the ASET - the better.

Garry
If you are saying the more green on a radiant crushed ice the better it is why not simply say to RD........ YES you made a powerful point by saying not to rely much on ASET and it could be misleading in judging what could be a gorgeous stone?

Doc you seem for some reason to be missing my point?
If you wish to have a nice crushed ice effect then use ASET to find them by ensuring there is a lot of green and little red and no blue. ASET is a useful tool to select such stones.
The other question is - are crushed ice radiants and cushions desirable, and the market information based on sales and demand is "no" except in the case of fancy colored diamonds, where the exact opposite is true.

 

[Rockdiamond]

And here is the video used on a Poll last year:
http://www.octonus.com/oct/projects/foxymovies/MSS_9_diamonds_Daylight+LED.phtml

Note the worst zone in the crushed ice cushion (radiant like) in the lower left is where the reddish and blueish zones are in the ASET image. The point is that to give a uniform crushed ice the more green in the ASET - the better.

Garry
If you are saying the more green on a radiant crushed ice the better it is why not simply say to RD........ YES you made a powerful point by saying not to rely much on ASET and it could be misleading in judging what could be a gorgeous stone?

Doc you seem for some reason to be missing my point?
If you wish to have a nice crushed ice effect then use ASET to find them by ensuring there is a lot of green and little red and no blue. ASET is a useful tool to select such stones.
The other question is - are crushed ice radiants and cushions desirable, and the market information based on sales and demand is "no" except in the case of fancy colored diamonds, where the exact opposite is true.

Garry- we all know rounds outsell all other shapes
Radiant and crushed ice cushion are easily as popular as any other non round shape today
I believe you're allowing your own taste to color your observations

Yoram- there's three shot published, a movie and my own observations
Not naive at all

 

[Doc_1]

And here is the video used on a Poll last year:
http://www.octonus.com/oct/projects/foxymovies/MSS_9_diamonds_Daylight+LED.phtml

Note the worst zone in the crushed ice cushion (radiant like) in the lower left is where the reddish and blueish zones are in the ASET image. The point is that to give a uniform crushed ice the more green in the ASET - the better.

Garry
If you are saying the more green on a radiant crushed ice the better it is why not simply say to RD........ YES you made a powerful point by saying not to rely much on ASET and it could be misleading in judging what could be a gorgeous stone?

Doc you seem for some reason to be missing my point?
If you wish to have a nice crushed ice effect then use ASET to find them by ensuring there is a lot of green and little red and no blue. ASET is a useful tool to select such stones.

Am not missing your point Garry, it seems difficult for you to say that a radiant with crushed ice looking like what RD presented can be a great real life performer, objectively by your own simulation video. you do don't have to be a rocket scientist to know where the crown of a diamond is drawing the light from and from what angles on an ASET.

The other question is - are crushed ice radiants and cushions desirable, and the market information based on sales and demand is "no" except in the case of fancy colored diamonds, where the exact opposite is true.

For consumers looking for crushed ice with no pattern the majority will snatch that puppy in a heart beat.

 

[Doc_1]

Too bad that some are intolerant to the other opinion.
They simply cannot see there is other side.
I for one LOVE AVC and i am not in the crushed ice looking and i will never be. However when a vendor goes all the way to post some objectives that made me see the other side i had the open mind to accept his views.
Any thing that flows with a sound logic is accepted to me.
But to go all the way to this level of discussion. i will pull out.
Nothing i would like to waste my time on any more.
Have happy labor day every one.
and god bless you RD you made a hell of presentation.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

In another situation, more normal situation where most light comes from red zone, it will probably be the other way round.

DC default tolk at 40.8 pavilion the center would fill in.
Red zone only

Karl K thanks so much for posting the images and the settings it is much appreciated. Changing the Panorama Radius to 5000mm made a huge difference.

Any idea why I kept getting this under the same conditions as your round, couldn't get rid of it until I saved my HDR settings then the yellow went away.

 

[diagem]

Yoram- there's three shot published, a movie and my own observations
Not naive at all

Since you are not willing to discuss the wider issue and only aim on touching your point of interests it hard to conduct a professional conversation.

Pity..., oh well...

 

[Ella]

Last warning everyone. Please keep all personal knocks and comments out of this thread so that the discussion can continue in peace.

 

[Karl_K]

In another situation, more normal situation where most light comes from red zone, it will probably be the other way round.

DC default tolk at 40.8 pavilion the center would fill in.
Red zone only

Karl K thanks so much for posting the images and the settings it is much appreciated. Changing the Panorama Radius to 5000mm made a huge difference.

Any idea why I kept getting this under the same conditions as your round, couldn't get rid of it until I saved my HDR settings then the yellow went away.

turn off dispersion. the (Disp) button on the left.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

And here is the video used on a Poll last year:
http://www.octonus.com/oct/projects/foxymovies/MSS_9_diamonds_Daylight+LED.phtml

Note the worst zone in the crushed ice cushion (radiant like) in the lower left is where the reddish and blueish zones are in the ASET image. The point is that to give a uniform crushed ice the more green in the ASET - the better.

Garry
If you are saying the more green on a radiant crushed ice the better it is why not simply say to RD........ YES you made a powerful point by saying not to rely much on ASET and it could be misleading in judging what could be a gorgeous stone?

Doc you seem for some reason to be missing my point?
If you wish to have a nice crushed ice effect then use ASET to find them by ensuring there is a lot of green and little red and no blue. ASET is a useful tool to select such stones.

Am not missing your point Garry, it seems difficult for you to say that a radiant with crushed ice looking like what RD presented can be a great real life performer, objectively by your own simulation video. you do don't have to be a rocket scientist to know where the crown of a diamond is drawing the light from and from what angles on an ASET.

The other question is - are crushed ice radiants and cushions desirable, and the market information based on sales and demand is "no" except in the case of fancy colored diamonds, where the exact opposite is true.

For consumers looking for crushed ice with no pattern the majority will snatch that puppy in a heart beat.

Doc and RD, I am the last person to steer people away from fancy cuts - most of the R&D that myself and the Cut Group are doing is directed to fancy cuts.
(Did you look at the MSS collection video with the crushed ice cushion at all?)

But to say that consumers are voting with their $'s for crushed ice is plain wrong.
Here is a survey http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullMazalUbracha.asp?id=30649 that shows that 10% are these styles and of them i suggest only 1/2 are crushed ice.
And since then we have seen a perhaps 20% rise in round brilliants as a result of the need for quick turn on goods and China's demand for XXX.

So please do not put wrong words in my mouth.
My goal in this thread is eductation. I hope it is suceeding.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Yoram, it's important to look at this from all petspectvrs
I understand your need, as a cutter to analyze light
As a diamond buyer my job is to analyze beauty
I believe consumers need to be buyers , not cutters
It matters not if aset "proves" one stone is brighter if the other seems brighter to the eye

Nothing matters if you dont compare!
youre not reading my writing and mixing beauty in this discussion which I dont find place for.

You are missing some perspectives, I am not talking about "brighter" I am taling about balanced brightness.
Brighter doesnt mean better if it is lacking other ingredient's like contrast etc, they need to live together.

Please read my writing, its frustrating otherwise !

Yoram- if you read the thread- even just the first post, you'll see this discussion has been about why people on PS have been putting down crushed ice. I did not ask the original question, however I feel very strongly that this is exactly what's been going on. When you speak of "balanced brightness" you're speaking of what you find beautiful. There's no scale to say what is and is not balanced. Therefore the only arbiter is what you ( or any of us) think is "balanced brightness"

How can we separate beauty from a discussion of diamond cuts?
Well, it's easy here on PS- let's simply use ASET and then we can quantify the cuts based on the way they handle light.
This has been going on here for years.
If we really examine what is going on, and how aset is commonly interpreted here, it's not about science, it's about what some people prefer.
What I have finally had the chance to show here is that "proven" aset performance is not necessarily equal to a well cut stone- in fact, some stones that look horrible on aset ( based in the most vocal PS idea of balanced brightness) can actually be quite well cut, and quite beautiful.

As mentioned, I have compared for everyone to see.
I'll comply with Stone's request and shoot the round next to the radiant to compare how they handle the light, in different environments.
A strong case can be made for the aset in "repeatability"
Garry had mentioned that if you can't have "controls", you can't do a scientific experiment.
I think that this discussion tests the boundary of how much cut is science, and how much is art.

How did GIA arrive at the boundaries for the "EX " cut grade for rounds?
Ray tracing?
That may very well been part of the study, but a lot of weight was placed in samplings- showing diamonds to a large number of people and using the results to create the grade.

Over 70,000 observations were made on more than 2,300 diamonds, using observers from all sectors of the jewelry industry: diamond manufacturers, dealers, retailers, and potential customers. This undertaking was, without a doubt, the largest study of this type ever conducted. To our knowledge, no other organization or research group has validated their models with observation testing of actual diamonds to the same extent GIA has.

Part of their conclusion:

4. We discovered that personal and regional preferences were an inherent part of a truly functional cut grading system. Although we confirmed that most observers could discern five overall grade categories for diamond cut quality, personal and/or regional tastes often dictated which diamond was finally preferred within each of those categories. This underscores the fact that there can be many different, yet equally pleasing, appearances within a grade category.

I'm quoting form the following page on the GIA website
http://www.gia.edu/diamondcut/02_background.html

Garry- Please understand that my questioning certain aspects of the evaluation process should not be taken as a knock on your work.
Since buying this aset and light, I've really gotten to see the utility, and ease of operation in the design.
There are different perspectives and not all people will get the same results by using reflective devises.
They are extremely accurate for certain types of stones- specifically, those with high contrast patterning. H&A rounds , of course would be king of that mountain.
In that case, aset really can help a buyer to refine the search.
In that case, the photographic aspect makes the aset a great "level" for the playing field.
I honestly had no idea the discussion would take this direction, but it has lead me to this conclusion: aset is far less of a valuable tool for consumers looking for what I am calling well cut crushed ice- that is to say: stones exhibiting no pattern, huge amounts of pinfire flashes, insignificant sized areas of darkness.
Although there now seems to be consensus that "green is good" I'm sure majority of those that read aset would still question if the radiant used for this comparison was well cut, if the opinion was based solely on the aset.

Garry- the page you linked to showed Radiant as the fifth most popular cut.
Ahead of Cushion, Pear Shape, Marquise , Asscher, Heart, European, Trilliant, Baguette.
Round was number one, as we knew.
Princess Number two. Emerald and oval were also above Radiant, in that particular study.
We agree, in relation to round, all fancy shapes have "limited appeal"- based on the stones cut.
However, Radiant and cushion could be termed having "strong appeal" to those buyers considering fancy shapes.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

RD said:
I honestly had no idea the discussion would take this direction, but it has lead me to this conclusion: aset is far less of a valuable tool for consumers looking for what I am calling well cut crushed ice- that is to say: stones exhibiting no pattern, huge amounts of pinfire flashes, insignificant sized areas of darkness.
Although there now seems to be consensus that "green is good" I'm sure majority of those that read aset would still question if the radiant used for this comparison was well cut, if the opinion was based solely on the aset.

Garry- the page you linked to showed Radiant as the fifth most popular cut.
Ahead of Cushion, Pear Shape, Marquise , Asscher, Heart, European, Trilliant, Baguette.
Round was number one, as we knew.
Princess Number two. Emerald and oval were also above Radiant, in that particular study.
We agree, in relation to round, all fancy shapes have "limited appeal"- based on the stones cut.
However, Radiant and cushion could be termed having "strong appeal" to those buyers considering fancy shapes.[/quote]

RD the survey was a few years back - Asscher had a good run since then, and I suspect Princess has made a comeback. Crushed ice is a small % and if people are looking for it then what I am showing is how to use ASET for you and other vendors seeking to catch that business, and savvy consumers should please understand I am not fighting you or the.

It is rare to find EVEN well cut crushed ice in other than fancy colored diamonds (because the longer ray path increase the face up colour). If there is genuine demand then buy all your favourite polishers an ASET and point them here or print a few select images.

Below is a fancy yellow from one of my suppliers who lists .gem files.
The lower part shows clearly (I believe) how the best yellow - and the best crushed ice effects - come from the areas that are green. The leakage areas are fairly neutral.

However, and please take this positively, the top 2 images show that that the fire potential has a positive assistance from light that hits the pavillion. But best fire still comes from lights above.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Well cut stones, in general, are more rare Garry.
We agree on that.
However I find that , as a percentage, well cut crushed ice stones may outnumber well cut "patterned" stones in fancy shapes.
If for no other reason that they may be easier to work out, for cutters. There's lot more flexibility in facet placement.
I've spoken to a lot of guys that do this look. They're constantly adjusting facets to get an even look.

In terms of demand- I did an informal study of the PS database of diamonds.
Search G-H, 1.00-1.05 VS2-Si1 in different shapes, and see how many we find.
Round, of course was number one with 4155
Pear had 699
Emerald 494
Heart shape 107
Marquise 245
Oval 349
Princess cut- a whopping 1739- we already agree Princess is number two behind round
Asscher 375
Radiant slots in at number five with 535.
The surprise- and might be a mistake - is cushion, at 1746, number two on this particular list.

Now, how many people are looking for crushed ice? Is it popular?
If we consider that a lot of the "big boys ( Harry Winston has been mentioned as carrying them) carry Cushion Modified Brilliant there's a good chance a lot of people are looking for that look.
It would almost not make sense to ask for help finding it in a place that scorned them, that's got to be considered here- if we're using PS requests as a gauge.
I find a lot of folks looking for that "crushed ice look".