Noticeable difference between WF and AGS ASET images...

[benjw]

Can anyone explain why there is a very noticeable difference between the ASET images from WhiteFlash and from AGS for this one particular diamond I bought? As you can see below, the AGS image has a lot more blue around the center than the WhiteFlash image. I understand that AGS images are computer generated, but that shouldn't result in large differences, right?

This is rather concerning, since I bought this diamond, and other ACA diamonds do not have this discrepancy. While we're here, what do you guys think of the cut and light performance?

The purchase was recent and thus still returnable.

Link to diamond: https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3995840.htm

 

[Dancing Fire]

Can anyone explain why there is a very noticeable difference between the ASET images from WhiteFlash and from AGS for this one particular diamond I bought? As you can see below, the AGS image has a lot more blue around the center than the WhiteFlash image. I understand that AGS images are computer generated, but that shouldn't result in large differences, right?

That's the reason . The WF ASET is that of the actual stone which IMO is more accurate.

 

[Johnbt]

I think the diamond is beautiful.

When I was shopping and reading a lot before purchasing in April, I ran across the linked thread. See posts #7 & #8.
www.pricescope.com/community/threads/aset-vs-platinum-ags-computer-generated-image.164393/

To quote the Trade members: "I have seen some large errors in the generated ASET images and do not trust them." & "Ditto."

 

[lovedogs]

Very interesting, since I've never noticed (or maybe just never seen) differences like that. But good to know in case other posters ask or bring it up. But that said, I agree with others that since the AGS one is computer generated it won't be as accurate as the one WF has that's from the stone itself.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Yep, the Whiteflash one is a real ASET image. I never even look at the one on the AGS report! Your diamond is beautiful! Congrats!

 

[diamondnewbieny]

I was going to have the same questions. Since the tread is created, is it ok for me to see a question on my diamond aset image?

The arrows in my diamond aset image from WF shows different color. 4 arrows shows a darker shade and the other 4 is lighter. Does it mean anything a all? Which one is more preferable? All 8 arrows in one color?

 

[AprilBaby]

Spectacular diamond!

 

[Diamond_Hawk]

The actual ASET image is usually the image of best accuracy. Sometimes vendors will even request a corrected scan from the AGS - though that is far more rare now than when the technology was first introduced.

 

[gm89uk]

I don't think accuracy is an issue, just the computer generated ASET has different obstruction parameters than a real life ASET.

 

[bmfang]

The computer generated ASETs have a relatively high correlation to an actual ASET. They are very useful if you are purchasing from virtual inventory to see an approximation of light performance. This is what makes AGS reports far more useful (in my eyes) than GIA reports.

Of course, if you have actual ASETs or Ideascope images on hand, that is far more useful than a computer generated ASET.

 

[Serg]

AGS uses low accuracy 3D scan models

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I don't think accuracy is an issue, just the computer generated ASET has different obstruction parameters than a real life ASET.

This is correct. The basic AGS light performance ray tracing environment is structured at 30 degrees of obscuration, but also analyses and factors in an obscuration cone of 40 degrees to make sure the diamond still performs at closer view and/or people with bigger heads/hair dos.

The various ASET devices and photo setups in the market attempt to replicate the standard 30 degree ASET structure. However, the printed light map on the platinum report is rendered at 33 degrees of obscuration based upon the algorithm used in the grading (two parts 30, one part 40), hence a bit more blue.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

The computer generated ASETs have a relatively high correlation to an actual ASET. They are very useful if you are purchasing from virtual inventory to see an approximation of light performance. This is what makes AGS reports far more useful (in my eyes) than GIA reports.

Of course, if you have actual ASETs or Ideascope images on hand, that is far more useful than a computer generated ASET.

I completely agree with this.

If you make allowance for the extra bit of blue in the CG image, a well captured actual ASET photo will usually correlate closely. Having both images provides valuable cross validation.

 

[WinkHPD]

I don't think accuracy is an issue, just the computer generated ASET has different obstruction parameters than a real life ASET.

Yes, the obstruction angle on the computer generated image is different from the images taken in the equipment designed by AGS to allow jewelers to show potential clients where the light in their possible purchase is coming from.

This leaves me shaking my head after having argued more than once that this is ridiculous with people at the lab when the computer generated image looks like horse manure instead of an incredibly well cut diamond. Sending the diamond back in for a new image will result in a greatly improved image. Having the same angle in the computer as in the physical equipment would probably remove the problem from existence, but the labs giveth and the labs taketh away.

Wink

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

This is correct. The basic AGS light performance ray tracing environment is structured at 30 degrees of obscuration, but also analyses and factors in an obscuration cone of 40 degrees to make sure the diamond still performs at closer view and/or people with bigger heads/hair dos.

The various ASET devices and photo setups in the market attempt to replicate the standard 30 degree ASET structure. However, the printed light map on the platinum report is rendered at 33 degrees of obscuration based upon the algorithm used in the grading (two parts 30, one part 40), hence a bit more blue.

Sadly, AGS Lab changed the blue obstruction lighting to about 33 degrees to be able to show hearts images when virtually flipping the stone. That was bad. They did not inform any of us who make photographic systems
But in any case the entire 30, 33 and 40 degrees is flawed because heads only block the light sources from each eye. AGS use a flawed cyclops observer model. The most it should be is max 15 degrees being the available light sources that can be seen by either eye.
If they did that then AGS and HCA would line up more accurately on the shallower stone border.

Further: When one eye sees a dark spot in a diamond and the other sees it as dark that creates a cognitive dissonance in the mind which is one of the main reasons we see sparkle type brilliance.

And further still, as Sergey mentioned, AGS scanners are (I am told) old and not super accurate