Do not request ASET images for round diamonds

[Serg]

I completely agree with these Garry statements and support it.
Black ASET images has less important information about RBC( specially near AGSO) than IS images.
I see too much unfair attacks to this Clear Garry statement and Garry personally
ASET( specially white ASET) is helpful mainly for Fancy cuts.

Black ASET help hide cut disadvantages .

Nobody in this thread gives clear example when ASET is more helpful in selection "classical" RBC than IS.

White ASET and IS have similar level of information about "classical " RBC and choice between these tools is question of Taste and practice
IS has better "durability in selection" ( for RBC)
Black ASET is misleading sometimes

there are many AGS Bias on PS who don't even try to understand tools limitations

it is become more and more uncomfortable to Bring new ideas , opinions and knowledge to PS.

RE: <<Black ASET help hide cut disadvantages>>

There is definitely more information with backlighting. It requires more effort to setup and photograph, for sure, but that should not stop those who wish to provide full information. Especially since it's the foundation of a cut grading system that it well-known and often sought-after; for rounds as well as fancies.

RE: <<Nobody in this thread gives clear example when ASET is more helpful in selection "classical" RBC than IS>>

Here are some examples for consideration. The implications become stronger as the numbers increase.



Corresponding ASET images.

http://www.pricescope.com/files/images/journal/Visible_Effects/image013.jpg[/quote]

John,

what does show your example?

I see in "your" example:

1) Both of Them ( IS and ASET) clearly separate unpainted RBC from strongly Crown painting RBC
2) Neither of Them gives answer what diamond is better( more bright, more Fire,..)
3) ASET is complicated tool to "grade" painting ( IS has much more simple rule to select RBC with strong Crown painting And "Zero Crown-Girdle" Leakage)

please read again :
"
it is important to have good balance between real difference between diamonds( in optical appearance ) and visual difference in Photos( IS, ASET)

such balance for H&A, IS is discussable until now( there are may Persons thinks what IS, H&A TOO sensitive what reduce their real effectiveness ). ASET is even more sensitive than IS. More sensitive does not mean more helpful, practical ( specially for beginners).
Many additional useless information could easy mislead beginners.

2) Other of most important goal Structure light environments is to show Similarity between similar Diamonds

in other words IS and ASET should help clustering . Clustering is helpful for human when you can received 5-7 clear different Groups.

Did anybody try to do clustering RBC diamonds by ASET? even for IS it is not easy. ASET does this task is too difficult for consumers"

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The majority of 'bad' ASET-pics are due to the incorrect position of the stone relative to the cone of the ASET.

If a vendor makes that basic mistake, it means that the same mistake is in their Ideal-Scope-pic. Only, it is more difficult to spot the error there. My point exactly, since the staff doing this may not always be rocket scientists, why set up a system that has a higher failure rate? H&A's hearts images are certainly superior for demonstrating symmetry, and when combined with an ideal-scope photo - surely that is sufficient to indicate optical symmetry? If the stone does not have H&A's patterns, then small differences are usually apparent to most of the boards prosumers?

The big problem (for the consumer) is that both pics thus look better than a correct picture would tell. Sorry to be argumentive, but no - a crooked ASET looks much worse to a newbie than a crooked Ideal-scope pic

Two questions:

1. Why did this thread get moved to 'Diamond Research' where hardly any consumers read it? After all, the original topic was a plea to consumers to not ask ASET-pics anymore. Moving the topic does not make sense. I believe this now shows in both forums Paul, which was the plan and has been fixed - Thanks Andrey

2. What gives Garry the authority to decide or advise which level of information is sufficient for consumers? 'Good enough' might not be what the consumer wants. For sure, what is 'good enough' for Garry definitely is 'less than sufficient' for me.
Please show examples to prove your point that Ideal-scope images on rounds are not good enough for you Paul, and then consumers can judge what that value brings to them.

Live long,

Firstly thank you Sergey and John for the discussion above.
I agree with Sergey (we had no off line conversations) that while there are possible differences, that there is no reasonable way for consumers, or even many prosumers here, to really get better buying info from ASET photo's.

Paul you agree they are much harder to take, and there fore comparing ASET images from different vendors on round stones is pretty much a total waste of time. By setting it as an expectation we also frighten away new vendors who sigh and say "why spend all the time and effort for a low margin sale?"
With fancy shapes the margins can be higher and the ASET info is more valuable. I would prefer to see as many vendors as possible offering additional info to make more demand from manufacturers to produce better performing fancy shapes. But creating competitve pressure to do that for rounds seems to me to be a waste of scarce resources and adding to Pricescope vendors costs.

 

[John P]

John,

what does show your example?

I see in "your" example:

1) Both of Them ( IS and ASET) clearly separate unpainted RBC from strongly Crown painting RBC
2) Neither of Them gives answer what diamond is better( more bright, more Fire,..)
3) ASET is complicated tool to "grade" painting ( IS has much more simple rule to select RBC with strong Crown painting And "Zero Crown-Girdle" Leakage)

please read again :
"
it is important to have good balance between real difference between diamonds( in optical appearance ) and visual difference in Photos( IS, ASET)

such balance for H&A, IS is discussable until now( there are may Persons thinks what IS, H&A TOO sensitive what reduce their real effectiveness ). ASET is even more sensitive than IS. More sensitive does not mean more helpful, practical ( specially for beginners).
Many additional useless information could easy mislead beginners.

2) Other of most important goal Structure light environments is to show Similarity between similar Diamonds

in other words IS and ASET should help clustering . Clustering is helpful for human when you can received 5-7 clear different Groups.

Did anybody try to do clustering RBC diamonds by ASET? even for IS it is not easy. ASET does this task is too difficult for consumers"

Serg,

RE: <<1) Both of Them ( IS and ASET) clearly separate unpainted RBC from strongly Crown painting RBC>>

Thank you. We worked hard to standardize setup, lighting and focal depth so they would (an aside; if I were to do it again I'd employ backlighting in the ASET environment). But it's much harder when using a hand-held or unfamiliar IS in the field to separate the nuances which identify degrees of painting on the border of EX/VG or 0-1 performance.

Imagine the three bottommost examples from my illustrations on the prior page seen under a hand-held IS - as in Garry's profile photo - not oriented precisely the same, under normal lighting and only zoomed to normal IS magnification. The upper halves become far tougher to analyze than in my zoomed photos. I've done it with both hand-held IS and hand-held ASET in the field and I simply lean toward the ASET.



For me it's easier for me to see increasing areas of green reaching for the table-area in dual bands from the girdle, created by the ASET's additional delineation.



RE: <<2) Neither of Them gives answer what diamond is better( more bright, more Fire,..) >>

Or scintillation.

RE: <<3) ASET is complicated tool to "grade" painting ( IS has much more simple rule to select RBC with strong Crown painting And "Zero Crown-Girdle" Leakage)>>

I understand that you feel this way. But after using both for several years I prefer the ASET and believe I make better (and to me) easier distinctions, even with rounds. I also find more harmony in establishing one baseline for all stones; It's interesting to correlate what I see in traditional rounds with new, modified proprietary (extra-faceted) rounds - as well as conventional fancy shapes.

 

[John P]

Firstly thank you Sergey and John for the discussion above.
I agree with Sergey (we had no off line conversations) that while there are possible differences, that there is no reasonable way for consumers, or even many prosumers here, to really get better buying info from ASET photo's.

Well then, I agree with Paul, CCL, Waterlilly, Risingsun & others I apologize for forgetting (and we had no off line conversations) that there are differences. And I would add the benefits of improvement and hopeful standardization through practice and repetition.

Paul you agree they are much harder to take, and there fore comparing ASET images from different vendors on round stones is pretty much a total waste of time. By setting it as an expectation we also frighten away new vendors who sigh and say "why spend all the time and effort for a low margin sale?"
With fancy shapes the margins can be higher and the ASET info is more valuable. I would prefer to see as many vendors as possible offering additional info to make more demand from manufacturers to produce better performing fancy shapes. But creating competitve pressure to do that for rounds seems to me to be a waste of scarce resources and adding to Pricescope vendors costs.

It just seems backwards to lower the bar.

Also, doesn't this punish long-standing vendors here who have invested the time and effort to stay at the forefront of diamond trade research and development?

Let's not forget that ASET is the foundation of the AGS cut grading system which is well-known and frequently sought-after; for rounds as well as fancies. It makes sense for forward-thinking sellers to learn to use the technology behind the requested grade.

Finally, do you recall similar "it's not needed" opposition to your own HCA and Ideal-Scope developments back in another time and place? Prominent folks in that online arena advised their constituents not to request them (in favor of their own preferences). What if everyone had heeded their advice?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Firstly thank you Sergey and John for the discussion above.
I agree with Sergey (we had no off line conversations) that while there are possible differences, that there is no reasonable way for consumers, or even many prosumers here, to really get better buying info from ASET photo's.

Well then, I agree with Paul, CCL, Waterlilly, Risingsun & others I apologize for forgetting (and we had no off line conversations) that there are differences. And I would add the benefits of improvement and hopeful standardization through practice and repetition.

Paul you agree they are much harder to take, and there fore comparing ASET images from different vendors on round stones is pretty much a total waste of time. By setting it as an expectation we also frighten away new vendors who sigh and say "why spend all the time and effort for a low margin sale?"
With fancy shapes the margins can be higher and the ASET info is more valuable. I would prefer to see as many vendors as possible offering additional info to make more demand from manufacturers to produce better performing fancy shapes. But creating competitve pressure to do that for rounds seems to me to be a waste of scarce resources and adding to Pricescope vendors costs.

It just seems backwards to lower the bar.

Also, doesn't this punish long-standing vendors here who have invested the time and effort to stay at the forefront of diamond trade research and development?

Let's not forget that ASET is the foundation of the AGS cut grading system which is well-known and frequently sought-after; for rounds as well as fancies. It makes sense for forward-thinking sellers to learn to use the technology behind the requested grade.

Finally, do you recall similar "it's not needed" opposition to your own HCA and Ideal-Scope developments back in another time and place? Prominent folks in that online arena advised their constituents not to request them (in favor of their own preferences). What if everyone had heeded their advice?

John here is an example of confusion - http://www.infinity-diamonds.com/pr...setscope8001255025138NzY7ztdOcH4NZw9u6OcG.jpg
Note the mixed colors in the center of the table reflection - it happens frequently with stones close to Tolkowsky numbers and could very well be off putting for consumers. We know what causes it, but what value does it add?

Overlay the issue of black vs backlit ASET and with the greatest of respect for AGS, the fact this is a foundation of their grading system - so? Because unfortunately very few people really use the propoer basis which is to rock the stone through ?30 degrees? (as i do with fancies, but only about 10 degrees each side).

You final arguement might carry more weight if we had both had several belg beers

 

[Rhino]

Greetings,

I would like to share what I think are basic reasons why I would want to use an ASET over an IS for standard rounds any day of the week.

Firstly, I would agree with Sergey and others who state ASET's against the black backgrounds are basically useless. I agree that it hides cut characteristics and it is difficult to differentiate between obstruction and leakage (dark blue and black).

With a properly taken ASET image against back/rear illumination and there's no need for an IdealScope but you will get more information hands down in a few ways.

1. In idealscope images I see online it can be difficult to differentiate between the different shades of red/pink which can be due to the quality of the photograph, the position of the diamond or the photographer. In an ASET there are instances these differentiations in red/pink translate to green. Not only around the 16 upper girdle facets but also under the table. ASET shows thsi plainly while IdealScope does not.
2. While painting and digging are not majority cases the ASET shows it plainly while Ideal Scope does not.
3. This next reason requires a little more thought but bear with me as it relates to obstruction or head/body shadow. When one looks at IdealScope images and ASET images it appears the blacks in an IdealScope correllate to blues in an ASET leading one to believe the information is the same. In many cases it can be the same but there are also many cases where it plainly isn't. The black in the IdealScope is the aperature allowing light to enter the camera lens and the black in IdealScope is simply a reflection of the camera lens.

Blues in the ASET is not the result of aperature size but to represent what would be a considerably larger aperature size in the IdealScope. Therefore IdealScopes do not properly and accurately portray obstruction.

A good example of this in practice is why shallow angled combinations have traditionally done well in the HCA, scoring "ideal" <2.0 status (a tool based primarily off the FireScope/Ideal-Scope tool) and why ASET (and AGS PGS) give those same shallow angled combinations non ideal status.

So reason #3 is one does not get an accurate portrayal of obstruction in the IS while they will in the ASET.

All the best,

 

[yssie]

3. This next reason requires a little more thought but bear with me as it relates to obstruction or head/body shadow. When one looks at IdealScope images and ASET images it appears the blacks in an IdealScope correllate to blues in an ASET leading one to believe the information is the same. In many cases it can be the same but there are also many cases where it plainly isn't. The black in the IdealScope is the aperature allowing light to enter the camera lens and the black in IdealScope is simply a reflection of the camera lens.

Blues in the ASET is not the result of aperature size but to represent what would be a considerably larger aperature size in the IdealScope. Therefore IdealScopes do not properly and accurately portray obstruction.

A good example of this in practice is why shallow angled combinations have traditionally done well in the HCA, scoring "ideal" <2.0 status (a tool based primarily off the FireScope/Ideal-Scope tool) and why ASET (and AGS PGS) give those same shallow angled combinations non ideal status.

So reason #3 is one does not get an accurate portrayal of obstruction in the IS while they will in the ASET.

All the best,

Rhino - I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean that the range of incident-light angles that "obstruction" is portrayed by in the IS is smaller than the range of incident-light angles that the blue in ASET indicates?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Greetings,

I would like to share what I think are basic reasons why I would want to use an ASET over an IS for standard rounds any day of the week.

Firstly, I would agree with Sergey and others who state ASET's against the black backgrounds are basically useless. I agree that it hides cut characteristics and it is difficult to differentiate between obstruction and leakage (dark blue and black).

With a properly taken ASET image against back/rear illumination and there's no need for an IdealScope but you will get more information hands down in a few ways.

1. In idealscope images I see online it can be difficult to differentiate between the different shades of red/pink which can be due to the quality of the photograph, the position of the diamond or the photographer. In an ASET there are instances these differentiations in red/pink translate to green. Not only around the 16 upper girdle facets but also under the table. ASET shows thsi plainly while IdealScope does not.
2. While painting and digging are not majority cases the ASET shows it plainly while Ideal Scope does not.
3. This next reason requires a little more thought but bear with me as it relates to obstruction or head/body shadow. When one looks at IdealScope images and ASET images it appears the blacks in an IdealScope correllate to blues in an ASET leading one to believe the information is the same. In many cases it can be the same but there are also many cases where it plainly isn't. The black in the IdealScope is the aperature allowing light to enter the camera lens and the black in IdealScope is simply a reflection of the camera lens.

Blues in the ASET is not the result of aperature size but to represent what would be a considerably larger aperature size in the IdealScope. Therefore IdealScopes do not properly and accurately portray obstruction.

A good example of this in practice is why shallow angled combinations have traditionally done well in the HCA, scoring "ideal" <2.0 status (a tool based primarily off the FireScope/Ideal-Scope tool) and why ASET (and AGS PGS) give those same shallow angled combinations non ideal status.

So reason #3 is one does not get an accurate portrayal of obstruction in the IS while they will in the ASET.

All the best,

Agree about black.

But did you make some typo's Rhino?
Does not make sense?
ASET has 30 degree blue obstruction, and many photo set ups add more black because the lens hole is too small - and people just drill it out too big.
The lens darkness does also replicate obstruction and the only difference is Ideal-scope is (should be) set up to a slightly lower obstruction angle - 25 to 27 degrees IMO. This better represents normal viewing distances. I consider 12 inches close and 14 inches normal.
You consider 15 inches normal as per the EyeClean article:
"3. Good Old Gold

Half an arm’s length in distance or roughly 15” using diffuse/ambient/office lighting and direct/spot lighting and 20/20 vision.

We listen to our clients to learn what they want in clarity. We explain that diamonds which are considered “eye clean” by the trade may not necessarily be “eye clean” to them. Some people want “eye clean” when observing the diamond from the bottom as well."

So perhaps you should prefer 23 degree's

 

[Serg]

John,

re: But after using both for several years I prefer the ASET and believe I make better (and to me) easier distinctions, even with rounds.

1)How much time should spend consumer for education before ASET images become SAFE and Useful for him without ready decision from sales person ?
2) Will you recommend same mountain ski for beginner and advancer downhill skier ?

Thanks you John, I need add details to my statement:

Nobody in this thread gives clear example when ASET is more helpful in selection "classical" RBC than IS for consumer ( specially for beginners)

please back to first Garry statement

"However I feel it is unfair to ask vendors to provide ASET images for round diamonds when taking Ideal-scope images is easier for most vendors AND ASET images provide no real additional info for selection / rejection. Especially since many ASET images have no backlight."
He speaks about consumer request to vendors , doesn't he?

Yes, ASET has more details which helpful to see nuances . But in same time nobody can build correlation between such nuances in ASET images and Fire, Brilliance, scintillations .
In such case why ASET is more helpful for consumer than IS ( for RBC)?

My point what More information from ASET images have more disadvantages than advantages for beginners .( Specially because ASET has boundary between red and green in direction 45 degree . It is significantly reduce ASET utilities . " ASETgreen25" with boundary between red and green in direction 20-30 degree from horizon could be much more useful and powerful tool. Now even Professionals can not correctly "grade" Green in ASET images for cut with unknown for them raytracing( same for RBC ) )

 

[Serg]

John,

re:Well then, I agree with Paul, CCL, Waterlilly, Risingsun & others I apologize for forgetting (and we had no off line conversations) that there are differences. And I would add the benefits of improvement and hopeful standardization through practice and repetition.


Are we speaking about difference in images or about difference in conclusions based on these images?

Until now I did not see any example in this Thread ( for RBC) when IS images give one advice to consumer and ASET images give Opposite advice to consumer.

COuld you publish such example?( for example IS photo tells :" Look, It is nice diamond, Buy it", and ASET photo tells for same diamond" Look, this diamond has problem, do not buy it, try find other")

 

[John P]

John,

re: But after using both for several years I prefer the ASET and believe I make better (and to me) easier distinctions, even with rounds.

1)How much time should spend consumer for education before ASET images become SAFE and Useful for him without ready decision from sales person ?
2) Will you recommend same mountain ski for beginner and advancer downhill skier ?

Thanks you John, I need add details to my statement:

Nobody in this thread gives clear example when ASET is more helpful in selection "classical" RBC than IS for consumer ( specially for beginners)

please back to first Garry statement

"However I feel it is unfair to ask vendors to provide ASET images for round diamonds when taking Ideal-scope images is easier for most vendors AND ASET images provide no real additional info for selection / rejection. Especially since many ASET images have no backlight."
He speaks about consumer request to vendors , doesn't he?

Yes, ASET has more details which helpful to see nuances . But in same time nobody can build correlation between such nuances in ASET images and Fire, Brilliance, scintillations .
In such case why ASET is more helpful for consumer than IS ( for RBC)?

My point what More information from ASET images have more disadvantages than advantages for beginners .( Specially because ASET has boundary between red and green in direction 45 degree . It is significantly reduce ASET utilities . " ASETgreen25" with boundary between red and green in direction 20-30 degree from horizon could be much more useful and powerful tool. Now even Professionals can not correctly "grade" Green in ASET images for cut with unknown for them raytracing( same for RBC ) )

RE: << 1)How much time should spend consumer for education before ASET images become SAFE and Useful for him without ready decision from sales person ? >>

If I'm instructing the consumer it takes about 10 minutes, using a couple of diverse samples to correlate what's being seen IRL with what they see in the viewer. Having taught both IS and ASET interpretation I agree IS is a bit easier to explain. But neither is intuitive. Both require instruction and guidance.

In terms of attempts to spread that education; this year's AGS Conclave featured Debbie Hiss and "The new AGS One-Minute Engagement" based on presentation of ASET to the attendees. While the title "One-Minute" is not realistic I'm glad to see professional-to-professional training in the interest of helping consumers make informed decisions happening.

RE: <<2) Will you recommend same mountain ski for beginner and advancer downhill skier ?>>

I just prefer not to teach them water-skiing for rounds and snow-skiing for fancy shapes.

RE: << ASETgreen25" with boundary between red and green in direction 20-30 degree from horizon could be much more useful and powerful tool >>

Ok. I'm more interested in that dialogue, frankly. And the Belgian beer proposed by Garry.

 

[John P]

John,

re:Well then, I agree with Paul, CCL, Waterlilly, Risingsun & others I apologize for forgetting (and we had no off line conversations) that there are differences. And I would add the benefits of improvement and hopeful standardization through practice and repetition.


Are we speaking about difference in images or about difference in conclusions based on these images?

Until now I did not see any example in this Thread ( for RBC) when IS images give one advice to consumer and ASET images give Opposite advice to consumer.

COuld you publish such example?( for example IS photo tells :" Look, It is nice diamond, Buy it", and ASET photo tells for same diamond" Look, this diamond has problem, do not buy it, try find other")

RE: <<Are we speaking about difference in images or about difference in conclusions based on these images?>>

Conclusions.

RE: <<Until now I did not see any example in this Thread ( for RBC) when IS images give one advice to consumer and ASET images give Opposite advice to consumer.>>

See examples bottom of page one: 4.0°ACP (arguably) 6.2°ACP (definitely for me) and 6.8°ACP (definitely for me). In fact, the 6.8°ACP example was one used long ago, prior to ASET, to illustrate issues that were not showing up in FS/IS. If I have time I'll try to find the thread in the next days.

 

[Serg]

John,

re:Well then, I agree with Paul, CCL, Waterlilly, Risingsun & others I apologize for forgetting (and we had no off line conversations) that there are differences. And I would add the benefits of improvement and hopeful standardization through practice and repetition.


Are we speaking about difference in images or about difference in conclusions based on these images?

Until now I did not see any example in this Thread ( for RBC) when IS images give one advice to consumer and ASET images give Opposite advice to consumer.

COuld you publish such example?( for example IS photo tells :" Look, It is nice diamond, Buy it", and ASET photo tells for same diamond" Look, this diamond has problem, do not buy it, try find other")

RE: <<Are we speaking about difference in images or about difference in conclusions based on these images?>>

Conclusions.

RE: <<Until now I did not see any example in this Thread ( for RBC) when IS images give one advice to consumer and ASET images give Opposite advice to consumer.>>

See examples bottom of page one: 4.0°ACP (arguably) 6.2°ACP (definitely for me) and 6.8°ACP (definitely for me). In fact, the 6.8°ACP example was one used long ago, prior to ASET, to illustrate issues that were not showing up in FS/IS. If I have time I'll try to find the thread in the next days.

re:4.0°ACP (arguably) 6.2°ACP (definitely for me) and 6.8°ACP (definitely for me).

ASET photos better show difference in symmetry between 4.0 ACP and 6.8 ACP diamonds than IS ( but H&A does it much better)
IS images better show difference in leakage ( even white ASET hides such difference between this two diamonds)
Neither of them tell me which diamond is better ( better Beauty , Fire, etc)
Both of them tell me " You can not reject these stones before you check it by your eyes ")

where is additional value from ASET images for these diamonds( for this comparison , selection, rejection)??

Sorry I really do not see any additional value because ASET does not help neither Reject one from these two diamonds, nor Prefer one from these two diamonds.

where is any real help in conclusion for consumer? should he reject 4.0 ACP based on ASET?
Why?

 

[diagem]

Interesting conversation

I tend to understand(and agree) with both sides but would have liked to see different wordings in Garry's initial statement.

Garry's statement: "However I feel it is unfair to ask vendors to provide ASET images for round diamonds when taking Ideal-scope images is easier for most vendors AND ASET images provide no real additional info for selection / rejection. Especially since many ASET images have no backlight."


I dont think its unfair to ask vendors to provide ASET for rounds (or any other shape)..., but do believe its unfair attacking them if they dont have an ASET setup or are practicing it wrong which is the case I witness plenty here on PS lately, vendors who market their cut quality rounds with IS should not be punished for not supplying ASET. On the contrary, I think they should be rewarded for being jewelers who are part of the 'cut conscience' family. definitely above the majority.
Other vendors who do supply ASET can enjoy a leverage in "added value" by supplying wider educational tools for more precise cut evaluation. The consumer should and has the right to chose.

Now I'll sit and read the rest of this thread with interest.

 

[Serg]

Interesting conversation

I tend to understand(and agree) with both sides but would have liked to see different wordings in Garry's initial statement.

Garry's statement: "However I feel it is unfair to ask vendors to provide ASET images for round diamonds when taking Ideal-scope images is easier for most vendors AND ASET images provide no real additional info for selection / rejection. Especially since many ASET images have no backlight."


I dont think its unfair to ask vendors to provide ASET for rounds (or any other shape)..., but do believe its unfair attacking them if they dont have an ASET setup or are practicing it wrong which is the case I witness plenty here on PS lately, vendors who market their cut quality rounds with IS should not be punished for not supplying ASET. On the contrary, I think they should be rewarded for being jewelers who are part of the 'cut conscience' family. definitely above the majority.
Other vendors who do supply ASET can enjoy a leverage in "added value" by supplying wider educational tools for more precise cut evaluation. The consumer should and has the right to chose.

Now I'll sit and read the rest of this thread with interest.

Yoram,
well done correction. thanks

could you change one word in your statements?

"Other vendors who do supply ASET can enjoy a leverage in "added value" by supplying wider educational tools for more precise cut evaluation."

change to

"Other vendors who do supply ASET can enjoy a leverage in "added value" by supplying wider educational tools for more detail cut evaluation."

?

Neither IS, nor ASET could give precise cut evaluation due several reasons( most simplest reason is because both of them are monoscopic and most nuances what we notice in mono are irrelevant for stereo vision)

 

[diagem]

Interesting conversation

I tend to understand(and agree) with both sides but would have liked to see different wordings in Garry's initial statement.

Garry's statement: "However I feel it is unfair to ask vendors to provide ASET images for round diamonds when taking Ideal-scope images is easier for most vendors AND ASET images provide no real additional info for selection / rejection. Especially since many ASET images have no backlight."


I dont think its unfair to ask vendors to provide ASET for rounds (or any other shape)..., but do believe its unfair attacking them if they dont have an ASET setup or are practicing it wrong which is the case I witness plenty here on PS lately, vendors who market their cut quality rounds with IS should not be punished for not supplying ASET. On the contrary, I think they should be rewarded for being jewelers who are part of the 'cut conscience' family. definitely above the majority.
Other vendors who do supply ASET can enjoy a leverage in "added value" by supplying wider educational tools for more precise cut evaluation. The consumer should and has the right to chose.

Now I'll sit and read the rest of this thread with interest.

Yoram,
well done correction. thanks

could you change one word in your statements?

"Other vendors who do supply ASET can enjoy a leverage in "added value" by supplying wider educational tools for more precise cut evaluation."

change to

"Other vendors who do supply ASET can enjoy a leverage in "added value" by supplying wider educational tools for more detail cut evaluation."

?

Neither IS, nor ASET could give precise cut evaluation due several reason( most simplest reason is because both of them are monoscopic and most nuances what we notice in mono are irrelevant for stereo vision)

100% correct, thank you for the correction Sergey..., my English...., oh my English

 

[Rhino]

3. This next reason requires a little more thought but bear with me as it relates to obstruction or head/body shadow. When one looks at IdealScope images and ASET images it appears the blacks in an IdealScope correllate to blues in an ASET leading one to believe the information is the same. In many cases it can be the same but there are also many cases where it plainly isn't. The black in the IdealScope is the aperature allowing light to enter the camera lens and the black in IdealScope is simply a reflection of the camera lens.

Blues in the ASET is not the result of aperature size but to represent what would be a considerably larger aperature size in the IdealScope. Therefore IdealScopes do not properly and accurately portray obstruction.

A good example of this in practice is why shallow angled combinations have traditionally done well in the HCA, scoring "ideal" <2.0 status (a tool based primarily off the FireScope/Ideal-Scope tool) and why ASET (and AGS PGS) give those same shallow angled combinations non ideal status.

So reason #3 is one does not get an accurate portrayal of obstruction in the IS while they will in the ASET.

All the best,

Rhino - I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean that the range of incident-light angles that "obstruction" is portrayed by in the IS is smaller than the range of incident-light angles that the blue in ASET indicates?

Absolutely. With the IdealScope you lose approximately 10 degrees of obstruction (5 degrees on either side) that you get in the ASET.

 

[Serg]

3. This next reason requires a little more thought but bear with me as it relates to obstruction or head/body shadow. When one looks at IdealScope images and ASET images it appears the blacks in an IdealScope correllate to blues in an ASET leading one to believe the information is the same. In many cases it can be the same but there are also many cases where it plainly isn't. The black in the IdealScope is the aperature allowing light to enter the camera lens and the black in IdealScope is simply a reflection of the camera lens.

Blues in the ASET is not the result of aperature size but to represent what would be a considerably larger aperature size in the IdealScope. Therefore IdealScopes do not properly and accurately portray obstruction.

A good example of this in practice is why shallow angled combinations have traditionally done well in the HCA, scoring "ideal" <2.0 status (a tool based primarily off the FireScope/Ideal-Scope tool) and why ASET (and AGS PGS) give those same shallow angled combinations non ideal status.

So reason #3 is one does not get an accurate portrayal of obstruction in the IS while they will in the ASET.

All the best,

Rhino - I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean that the range of incident-light angles that "obstruction" is portrayed by in the IS is smaller than the range of incident-light angles that the blue in ASET indicates?

Absolutely. With the IdealScope you lose approximately 10 degrees of obstruction (5 degrees on either side) that you get in the ASET.

ASET has -15( left side) +15( right side) degree obscuration


For 250mm viewer distance ( what I consider as unrealistic for naked eye. Usually consumer see diamonds from distances 350-400 mm , 1-2m, 10-25m)
right Human eye has -22( left side) +8( right side) degree obscuration

main and most VFs in RBC has cross raytracing, so real angle obscuration is just 8 degree( ASET has in 2 times more).

 

[John P]

Good perspective Yoram.

Other vendors who do supply ASET can enjoy a leverage in "added value" by supplying wider educational tools for more (ed: detailed - agree with Serg) cut evaluation. The consumer should and has the right to chose.

Just so. The title of this thread is what bothered me into this discussion. The consumer should have the right to choose.

Now I'll sit and read the rest of this thread with interest.

I've given my input. Hoping to do the same now.

 

[Karl_K]

Absolutely. With the IdealScope you lose approximately 10 degrees of obstruction (5 degrees on either side) that you get in the ASET.

In my opinion both IS and ASET overstate obstruction and on top of that do not tell you if obstruction is an issue that is going to cause a dark table in a round or over darkness in a fancy in the real world.

The bigger problem with both is they do not provide a real world view of overall contrast in a diamond.
The ASET contrast model does not work, Garry makes a more real world accurate claim by not trying to measure overall contrast based on IS images.

I find ASET and IS image interesting and informative but they must be viewed with a knowledge of their many limitations and not viewed as the ultimate answer to selecting or grading a diamond.
They are but a small part of the puzzle which I know you agree with :}

 

[Stephan]

Great post Karl!

 

[yssie]

Huh.

Rhino - I did not know that, I always assumed they represented the same. Serg - yes, that makes sense. Karl - your summary also makes sense. This has turned into a very informative thread!

 

[Karl_K]

Huh.

Rhino - I did not know that, I always assumed they represented the same. Serg - yes, that makes sense. Karl - your summary also makes sense. This has turned into a very informative thread!

Thanks

Serg's explanation is why you do not see dark arrows except in certain viewing conditions/positions and usually you have to look for them in a RB without contrast issues.
A diamond that shows dark arrows most of the time will look like it has a dark table in common viewing conditions to many people.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

RE: << 1)How much time should spend consumer for education before ASET images become SAFE and Useful for him without ready decision from sales person ? >>

If I'm instructing the consumer it takes about 10 minutes, using a couple of diverse samples to correlate what's being seen IRL with what they see in the viewer. Having taught both IS and ASET interpretation I agree IS is a bit easier to explain. But neither is intuitive. Both require instruction and guidance.

In terms of attempts to spread that education; this year's AGS Conclave featured Debbie Hiss and "The new AGS One-Minute Engagement" based on presentation of ASET to the attendees. While the title "One-Minute" is not realistic I'm glad to see professional-to-professional training in the interest of helping consumers make informed decisions happening.

John you and I have seen one of Debbie Hiss's presentations together (who I like as a person and admire as an aducator) and she really struggled even with AGS jewellers.
And we both know how frustrating Peter and others have found teaching the trade.

I do agree it is usually easier to teach a consumer than a trade member, but as one of the people who has been doing this for a very long time - I do not think many would learn ASET well enough in 10 minutes to make the type of distinctions you are trying (in vain) to show as examples.
BTW my first ASET lectures were to diamond students in the late 1980's using my Firescope with additional colored card board rings) and IS for thousands of customers



RE: << ASETgreen25" with boundary between red and green in direction 20-30 degree from horizon could be much more useful and powerful tool >>

Ok. I'm more interested in that dialogue, frankly. And the Belgian beer proposed by Garry.

Dear all,
Sorry I have not visited for a while.
I am glad to see this topic has developed into a decent study.
Re alternat ASET scopes - see the one I designed ages ago in a thread somwehere that has an observer body.
Here is an image of an even better model because it takes account of the observer's normal viewing angle, and the fact that there is usually less distance to the top of ones head than the other side from one eye.
However Sergey's point that 8 degrees is all that is required means even this head is too wide, since if one eye only sees a flash then that counts almost as much as if 2 eyes see it.
Note the green has been reduced.
I have not made such a model, but it is not a hard one to mock up - any additional suggestions?

Finally remeber in Surat John - we made a stereo ASET with the rocking images
It only works from film. But I did once make a stereo microscope Ideal-scope with some success and it did show that the leakage on a C34.5 P 41.2 is reduced and there is really only a bit at the top and bottom of the table region.

 

[Serg]

re:However Sergey's point that 8 degrees is all that is required means even this head is too wide, since if one eye only sees a flash then that counts almost as much as if 2 eyes see it.

Garry, Cuts with cross raytracing ( as RBC for example) have 8 degree obscuration ( instead 15 degree), other cuts have 22 degree obscuration ( instead 15 degree)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

re:However Sergey's point that 8 degrees is all that is required means even this head is too wide, since if one eye only sees a flash then that counts almost as much as if 2 eyes see it.

Garry, Cuts with cross raytracing ( as RBC for example) have 8 degree obscuration ( instead 15 degree), other cuts have 22 degree obscuration ( instead 15 degree)

Sergey in rounds the 8 degree is what makes contrast dark zones that flash off with slight movement like the dark stars - correct?
Most other fancy cuts draw a lot of light from outside the blue zone (15 degree) in ASET.
So if we were to use ASET and AGS type approach (i.e. different rules for different cuts) we should have different ASET set ups for different cuts?
(which would be very bad)

 

[Serg]

re:However Sergey's point that 8 degrees is all that is required means even this head is too wide, since if one eye only sees a flash then that counts almost as much as if 2 eyes see it.

Garry, Cuts with cross raytracing ( as RBC for example) have 8 degree obscuration ( instead 15 degree), other cuts have 22 degree obscuration ( instead 15 degree)

Sergey in rounds the 8 degree is what makes contrast dark zones that flash off with slight movement like the dark stars - correct?
Most other fancy cuts draw a lot of light from outside the blue zone (15 degree) in ASET.
So if we were to use ASET and AGS type approach (i.e. different rules for different cuts) we should have different ASET set ups for different cuts?
(which would be very bad)

re:Sergey in rounds the 8 degree is what makes contrast dark zones that flash off with slight movement like the dark stars - correct?

Garry,
"8 degree" is Apple
"flash off with slight movement like the dark stars " is Orange

re:So if we were to use ASET and AGS type approach (i.e. different rules for different cuts) we should have different ASET set ups for different cuts?

I do not advice different ASETs for different cuts. I show ASET/IS limitation( critical limitation for using ASET as "grading tool")

ASET/IS can not compare Good cuts
ASET/IS could just :
1)separate Good cuts from Very Bad cuts
2) Compare cut with reference cut( manufacture quality control)

 

[Serg]

re:ASET/IS could just :
1)Compare cut with reference cut( Manufacture quality control)
2)separate Good cuts from Very Bad cuts( Optical performance control, Consumer Quality control)

ASET/IS has great ( big) sensitivity ( precise ) for "manufacture quality control". they can easy diagnose even minor difference in symmetry and proportions

In same time these tools have very low sensitivity for difference in Optical Performance ( as Fire, Brilliance , Scintillation ,..)

ASET has bigger than IS First type sensitivity ( "manufacture quality control", proportions , symmetry ). Most people think what it means ASET has bigger than IS Second type Sensitivity ( to Measure Optical performance ), but it is unfounded inference.

suppose what you use thermometer to find mountain apex. ( you do not know anything about triangulation method but you see strong correlation between temperature in valley and mountains )

Yes, thermometer is very useful ( and very cheap tool) for express method to separate levels 0, 2000 meters, 4000 meters, 6000 meters
but then you have problem. You can forever improve thermometer( add more precise scale, do it faster,..) but it will not help you separate

4000meters apex from 4200 meters apex even if you do measurements in fix conditions as "northern hemisphere daylight, 11 o'clock , bla, bla, bla"

better results you can receive with barometer , but to find and measure highest apex you need use triangulation

 

[yssie]

If a consumer can chime in again-

re:ASET/IS could just :
1)Compare cut with reference cut( Manufacture quality control)
2)separate Good cuts from Very Bad cuts( Optical performance control, Consumer Quality control)

ASET/IS has great ( big) sensitivity ( precise ) for "manufacture quality control". they can easy diagnose even minor difference in symmetry and proportions

In same time these tools have very low sensitivity for difference in Optical Performance ( as Fire, Brilliance , Scintillation ,..)

ASET has bigger than IS First type sensitivity ( "manufacture quality control", proportions , symmetry ). Most people think what it means ASET has bigger than IS Second type Sensitivity ( to Measure Optical performance ), but it is unfounded inference.

True. The inferences made based on what one might expect from a stone with what *a specific setup of the* ASET tells about proportions may or may not reflect reality in all lighting environments (same as a ray tracing simulation is specific to whatever controls are used in that instance)

suppose what you use thermometer to find mountain apex. ( you do not know anything about triangulation method but you see strong correlation between temperature in valley and mountains )

Yes, thermometer is very useful ( and very cheap tool) for express method to separate levels 0, 2000 meters, 4000 meters, 6000 meters
but then you have problem. You can forever improve thermometer( add more precise scale, do it faster,..) but it will not help you separate

4000meters apex from 4200 meters apex even if you do measurements in fix conditions as "northern hemisphere daylight, 11 o'clock , bla, bla, bla"

better results you can receive with barometer , but to find and measure highest apex you need use triangulation

Again, true. I *know* that steep upper girdle in combo w/ steep lower girdle will result in light escape. But what does "green reaching toward the table" as in Johns pictures mean when viewed in real life, under an LED or diffuse office light - what can we infer about real-world visible effects of "green reaching toward the table" in ASET? And are our inferences valid in many environments?

Some of what we see is meaningful because we know what effects are caused by the properties that create those colours/patterns in those locations in the ASET photo. Some is not meaningful, artifacts of setup/photography/printing resolution for webpage/whatever. Some is not meaningful because our inferences are incorrect, or invalid. But we know nothing without some starting assumptions and *causal* correlations for the routine "with 20/20 vision in X type lighting from Y distance perpendicular to the table loose and immotile...

I will go out on a limb and say that the benefit of ASET to consumers is that you can get more information from photos taken with varying setups, and you can get more information to alert you *that* a setup is imperfect, for RBs anyway. Easier to calibrate from the product without the hypothetical manufacturer's charts. The latter is IMO the biggest downside to the IS - lower precision means you may not be alerted to slightly different calibrations.

I too would love to see a 25/30d ASET



ETA I must say I am also interested in the proposal that if one eye sees a flash it is equivalent to both eyes seeing the flash, but perhaps that is a discussion for another thread!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I too would love to see a 25/30d ASET



ETA I must say I am also interested in the proposal that if one eye sees a flash it is equivalent to both eyes seeing the flash, but perhaps that is a discussion for another thread!Sergey, can you find the link to the stereo presentation from IDCC1 please?

Thanks Yssie,
Sergey has some wonderful analogies.

Here is your 30 and 20 ASET's for a tolkwosky 57 table.
Note this is the latest DiamCalc mdel for ASET. Not sure I like it.