brilliance scope of 3 eightstar diamonds

[tarssarb]

Hi,

Brilliance scope of 3 eightstar diamonds. I found some gemex for eightstar on the web and removed identifying info. My goal is to see what can be interpreted from the bscope pictures, not the scores. I think there may be some useful info in there

here is another thread on interpreting brilliancescope : https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/b-scope-results-help.12785/

 

[tarssarb]

another

 

[tarssarb]

last one

 

[tarssarb]

If I were to comment on what I see.

1) main activity only in arrow heads or shafts.
2) All the heads or shafts seem to light up uniformly
3) rich color hues are present, nearly uniformly the same color
4) Some near dead views exist (light being returned at different angle than straightup)

 

[tarssarb]

Hi,

Okay here is a maxed out gemex report for comparision.

 

[tarssarb]

On the maxed out gemex, I see

1) not all heads and or shafts light up the same time
2) color is more yellow white
3) when all shafts are lit up, there are white dots in the peripheral outside rings
4) when the heads are lit up, there are white dots between the shafts
5) no dead views are noticeable

Perhaps this would look more alive compared to the eightstar in side by side, but also perhaps the white dots would blend the colors into a general white light appearance (pixel effects) thus reducing the perceived fire?

Just summarizing some thoughts!

 

[strmrdr]

The 8* are returning mostly colored light
The last one is returning mostly white light.

A very bright diamond returning white light can max out the b-scope in all catagories.
Its a weakness of the b-scope that white light is made up of colors so it gets counted as white yellow and blue light.
Overall light return is likely simular.

 

[tarssarb]

Here is an interesting bit as well, the stats of 8star 1 and 8star 3 are very close

#3) 34.5/40.7 table 56.1, girdle 2.1, 60.2 debth
#1) 34.4/40.7 table 55.6 girdle 2.4, 60.7 debth

#2) 33.4/40.9

#3 looks cool to me (as does the maxed out one!)

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 3/12/2006 10:15:22 PM
Author: tarssarb
Here is an interesting bit as well, the stats of 8star 1 and 8star 3 are very close


#3) 34.5/40.7 table 56.1, girdle 2.1, 60.2 debth

#1) 34.4/40.7 table 55.6 girdle 2.4, 60.7 debth


#2) 33.4/40.9


#3 looks cool to me (as does the maxed out one!)

You will find that 8* mostly cluster around certain crown and pavilion angle combos that enhance the effect they are after.

 

[Stephan]

Date: 3/12/2006 9:53:07 PM
Author: tarssarb
...
Perhaps this would look more alive compared to the eightstar in side by side, but also perhaps the white dots would blend the colors into a general white light appearance (pixel effects) thus reducing the perceived fire?
...

Alive? How can you say that without tilting the diamond?

If I had to choose only with the BScope and no other details, I would take number 2.
I prefer light blue over dark blue in the middle of the stone, and I also prefer that in the "dead" shots (pictures without big flashes), this one still looks a little bit more alive than the 2 other 8*'s.

 

[valeria101]

It looks like 8*s are not Bscope friendly. Maybe it isn''t fair putting them through this machine? I don''t know if there is a bias of some sort or what.

It doesn''t feel right to ignore how much better the scores and pictures look on the non 8*. According to these, sure enough what I''d pick up.

As far as I know, the BScope doesn''t like the painted crown and that''s what might be behind those low scintillation scores. Why the white light score takes a hit, don''t know - it may be because lighting from lower angles in considered. Don''t know what exactly is the lighting configuration inside the Bscope box.


Sure would like to know though

Any ideas?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 3/12/2006 10:15:22 PM
Author: tarssarb
Here is an interesting bit as well, the stats of 8star 1 and 8star 3 are very close

#3) 34.5/40.7 table 56.1, girdle 2.1, 60.2 debth
#1) 34.4/40.7 table 55.6 girdle 2.4, 60.7 debth

#2) 33.4/40.9

#3 looks cool to me (as does the maxed out one!)

just by the specs.i''ll go with #1

if i beleive in the B-scope,then i''ll go with #2

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

It is very likely that some bad, or not very good diamonds will get great Bscope scores.
It is technology like ISee2 that is great for certain round diamonds and of some use with some fancies - but it has many limitations
e.g. it can not discriminate between say various types of cushion or radiant crushed glass looks that have become popular lately, and more radial brilliant cut styles.
(Ideal-scope can not do everything either)

 

[tarssarb]

Date: 3/15/2006 4:45:48 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
It is very likely that some bad, or not very good diamonds will get great Bscope scores.
It is technology like ISee2 that is great for certain round diamonds and of some use with some fancies - but it has many limitations
e.g. it can not discriminate between say various types of cushion or radiant crushed glass looks that have become popular lately, and more radial brilliant cut styles.
(Ideal-scope can not do everything either)

My impression is that the bscope scores are not a normalized absolute scale of say light return but rather a comparison to a standard created by using their image processing algorithms on a library of stones. Therefore as you indicate, it would be a mistake to compare between cut grades though perhaps they do or other people do, not sure.

To spell out my hypothesis of this thread, I believe that the pictures show great insight into the fire potential of the diamonds. I think that their color light return metrics are bunk. But if you look at the maxed out gemex pictures, it has numerous light return paths in the bright light. Some have color and some appear to be spots of white light that show no dispersion. I liken this to the pixel effect of a monitor and believe the eye will see this as white light. The eightstars have deep hues of color and no pixels of white light. The eye will more likely see the dispersion in such stones. My summary read of people's opinion of 8star is that they are great in restaurant conditions and show great fire. My summary of my own eyes (untrained) and seeing others comments is that in direct or office style lighting they have a more greyish hue. Thus the bscope shows the maxed out gemex will be favored in jeweler store/office conditions whereas the 8star may be favored in dimmer single source light conditions.

I have seen say 10 stones in my life up close so this is just my opinion, but I will still suggest that the only way to guage the potential of fire from any tool I have seen on this website, it is the bscope. That is my hypothesis.

Further, I am somewhat skeptical of the FIC concept as derived from a set of 2 angles. Look at the variance in the bscopes of two nearly identical stones (in terms of these 2 angles) and the pixel effect. Now it may be that with such stones, the white pixel light is not achievable and thus fire is readily seen, but that is a not a direct cause-effect in my mind. Anyway, they are so hard to find that I have no educated opinion on this matter, just guessing.

 

[tarssarb]

Here is a nice analogy of light dispersion of a large starting point of swimmers going across a river. They fast (black) to slow (red) mix because of the width of the starting point. Less fire will be able to be seen in this lighting condition.

 

[tarssarb]

Ok, so here is the same thing with a slit... the swimmers are better discriminated. Simply shows why fire shows up in a diamond under conditions of dim light with a candle (effective slit).

 

[tarssarb]

Now there isn''t any refraction when light approaches directly normal to a surface. So the angles definitely play a role in dispersion. But the path length (river width) also determines the degree of separation of the light into colors. But I don''t think I should read this as a bigger carat stone would have the potential to show more fire?

It seems to me also that the ideal-scope / firecope is the #1 tool for determining the appearance of a dimaond in office lighting. To see if a diamond is painted without this tool (and assuming it is an AGS ideal), wouldn''t the simpliest method of seeing if it was painted is to place the stone on black paper and look for the tell tale leakage triangles on the girdle. In the current, "consumers perspective and the technologies" thread, you can see these in the gia stone at 11 oclock. Anyway, it seems that a tool for gauging the potential of fire is completely missing and the only thing I see that offers some direct insight may be the bscope pictures.

 

[strmrdr]

The fic concept works when the lgf, stars and girdle facets are a good match to the angles.
They have a very fiery disco ball look.
yummy but not my favorite.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 3/14/2006 6:49:32 PM
Author: valeria101

It looks like 8*s are not Bscope friendly. Maybe it isn't fair putting them through this machine? I don't know if there is a bias of some sort or what.

Spectrophotometers give different results, depending on the company that designed them so diamond configurations of equal beauty will perform differently according to the metrics of the different machines. The information is interesting but not absolute.

Some of these machines include a scintillation metric, but there is not yet a device capable of analyzing a diamond through a range of tilt, or using many small/distant light sources to correctly estimate scintillation. MSU and AGS both have very complex ray-tracing approaches, trying to crack the code. It is by far the hardest quality descriptor to try and isolate. Nevertheless, the machines are measuring 'something.'

In our experience with optically symmetrical diamonds Brilliancescope returns high scintillation values for diamonds with long lower girdle facets. As the percentage of LGF increases pavilion mains become thinner. With longer LGF, light from the thinner mains is more narrowly focused, suited for bright light environments. BS seems to prefer this. Shorter LGF result in wide pavilion mains, suited for low light environments. BS penalizes this. So diamonds that perform best under intense jewelery store spotlighting also do well in the BS scintillation metric, whereas diamonds that perform best in low light conditions take a hit on BS... Either one of those diamonds could be fabulous, by the way.

The spectrophotometers approach scint differently:

Brilliancescope’s metric seems to look at flash intensity which appears to be tied into those lower girdle lengths.

Isee2’s scint metric compares consecutive images to measure location, colorization and intensity. They use the same language as AGSL in their description (dynamic contrast/fire) if not the same approach.

Imagem differentiates between scintillation (associated with motion) and sparkle (which is a static view). They use standard deviation in gray-scale values for a static judgment of ‘sparkle’ and use that to predict the scint potential, rather than trying to quantify 'scintillation.'

 

[DiamondOptics]

Hi all,


I think that Tarssarb touched on something very significant to this thread, and simply put, the human eye can perceive factors about a diamonds beauty that a machine simply can not.

Light views and bar graphs are helpful indicators for a furtherance in understanding, but ultimately may not provide the complete understanding that only the human eye can do, in terms of a diamonds beauty.

The Eightstar is the perfect example of that point. Its been
known for years that when measured with the brilliance scope the results for Eightstar where not always stellar. However, many consumer reviews for this diamond seem to indicate a loyalty to
this brand of cutting.

Its also clear that some cutters may use the brilliance scope to help fashion their own stones. Achieving VH/VH/VH results which is fine because it meets their objects and goals in cutting.

Yet I find strong evidence to suggest that other cutters in this industry are also fashioning stones to meet a different set of priorities, equally as desirable, yet catered to satisfy and impress the needs of the human eye, instead of a machine.


Kirk

 

[RockDoc]

The B Scope while very good in many respects, doesn''t measure attractiveness to the eye.

So some stones that grade a tad lower may be more attractive to the eye, that what is assumed by the blue bars.

This is particularly true for stones like the 8 star and others which take a scintillation hit due to the preciseness of the faceting.

Rockdoc

 

[tarssarb]

Date: 3/15/2006 12:27:56 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 3/14/2006 6:49:32 PM
Author: valeria101

It looks like 8*s are not Bscope friendly. Maybe it isn''t fair putting them through this machine? I don''t know if there is a bias of some sort or what.

Spectrophotometers give different results, depending on the company that designed them so diamond configurations of equal beauty will perform differently according to the metrics of the different machines. The information is interesting but not absolute.

Some of these machines include a scintillation metric, but there is not yet a device capable of analyzing a diamond through a range of tilt, or using many small/distant light sources to correctly estimate scintillation. MSU and AGS both have very complex ray-tracing approaches, trying to crack the code. It is by far the hardest quality descriptor to try and isolate. Nevertheless, the machines are measuring ''something.''

In our experience with optically symmetrical diamonds Brilliancescope returns high scintillation values for diamonds with long lower girdle facets. As the percentage of LGF increases pavilion mains become thinner. With longer LGF, light from the thinner mains is more narrowly focused, suited for bright light environments. BS seems to prefer this. Shorter LGF result in wide pavilion mains, suited for low light environments. BS penalizes this. So diamonds that perform best under intense jewelery store spotlighting also do well in the BS scintillation metric, whereas diamonds that perform best in low light conditions take a hit on BS... Either one of those diamonds could be fabulous, by the way.

The spectrophotometers approach scint differently:

Brilliancescope’s metric seems to look at flash intensity which appears to be tied into those lower girdle lengths.

Isee2’s scint metric compares consecutive images to measure location, colorization and intensity. They use the same language as AGSL in their description (dynamic contrast/fire) if not the same approach.

Imagem differentiates between scintillation (associated with motion) and sparkle (which is a static view). They use standard deviation in gray-scale values for a static judgment of ‘sparkle’ and use that to predict the scint potential, rather than trying to quantify ''scintillation.''

I find your info very interesting (the correlations with metrics and the minor facets). Rhino also mentioned some of these trends as well.

I did want to suggest it isn''t the spectrophotometer differences rather than the software of the equipment. I am pretty sure taking accurate data of intensity and wavelength isn''t that hard.

By software, I mean the exactly that... the person who was in charge of defining the metric and how to do the image processing. So the programmers definition of scint (or fire) is the problem. Machines are better at regressing data (but just barely actually if you keep plots simple, the human eye is very adept at drawing best fit lines). But interpreting is a no-no. Now you have a human programing the instrument and trying to make the results trend with observation. Tough job even assuming he could fully communicate what still photo features make a diamond beautiful. For example, we all can interpret spoken words but can''t commmunicate how... now teach a computer.

But that wasn''t my main point. Based on the concepts discussed on this site, you can infer much from the pictures.

1) symmetry. do all the arrows light up at the same time? (if not, this would suggest that the averaging trick was used to create the heart pattern. (From what I read, as long as the average angle of opposite sides of the stone are all the same, you will get a nice pattern in the h&a viewer).

2) fire potential - Rich hues or shades of white? Notice that the eightstar lights up completely in the same color. I am sure that would = a broadflash style fire. I think that is a point I haven''t seen made before.

3) Shimmer/life: if all maxed out, I am pretty sure that will correlate with best jewelry store, office appearance.

Rock''s point is that most people just look at metric scores, thus the tool on average can be very tough on good stones as customers always like the max. It may also influence cuts to be tailored to some software some guy wrote to interpret pictures in some small company. That would be truely unfortunate.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 3/16/2006 11:21:57 AM
Author: tarssarb

Date: 3/15/2006 12:27:56 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 3/14/2006 6:49:32 PM
Author: valeria101

It looks like 8*s are not Bscope friendly. Maybe it isn''t fair putting them through this machine? I don''t know if there is a bias of some sort or what.

Spectrophotometers give different results, depending on the company that designed them so diamond configurations of equal beauty will perform differently according to the metrics of the different machines. The information is interesting but not absolute.

Some of these machines include a scintillation metric, but there is not yet a device capable of analyzing a diamond through a range of tilt, or using many small/distant light sources to correctly estimate scintillation. MSU and AGS both have very complex ray-tracing approaches, trying to crack the code. It is by far the hardest quality descriptor to try and isolate. Nevertheless, the machines are measuring ''something.''

In our experience with optically symmetrical diamonds Brilliancescope returns high scintillation values for diamonds with long lower girdle facets. As the percentage of LGF increases pavilion mains become thinner. With longer LGF, light from the thinner mains is more narrowly focused, suited for bright light environments. BS seems to prefer this. Shorter LGF result in wide pavilion mains, suited for low light environments. BS penalizes this. So diamonds that perform best under intense jewelery store spotlighting also do well in the BS scintillation metric, whereas diamonds that perform best in low light conditions take a hit on BS... Either one of those diamonds could be fabulous, by the way.

The spectrophotometers approach scint differently:

Brilliancescope’s metric seems to look at flash intensity which appears to be tied into those lower girdle lengths.

Isee2’s scint metric compares consecutive images to measure location, colorization and intensity. They use the same language as AGSL in their description (dynamic contrast/fire) if not the same approach.

Imagem differentiates between scintillation (associated with motion) and sparkle (which is a static view). They use standard deviation in gray-scale values for a static judgment of ‘sparkle’ and use that to predict the scint potential, rather than trying to quantify ''scintillation.''

I find your info very interesting (the correlations with metrics and the minor facets). Rhino also mentioned some of these trends as well.

I did want to suggest it isn''t the spectrophotometer differences rather than the software of the equipment. I am pretty sure taking accurate data of intensity and wavelength isn''t that hard.

By software, I mean the exactly that... the person who was in charge of defining the metric and how to do the image processing. So the programmers definition of scint (or fire) is the problem. Machines are better at regressing data (but just barely actually if you keep plots simple, the human eye is very adept at drawing best fit lines). But interpreting is a no-no. Now you have a human programing the instrument and trying to make the results trend with observation. Tough job even assuming he could fully communicate what still photo features make a diamond beautiful. For example, we all can interpret spoken words but can''t commmunicate how... now teach a computer.

But that wasn''t my main point. Based on the concepts discussed on this site, you can infer much from the pictures.

1) symmetry. do all the arrows light up at the same time? (if not, this would suggest that the averaging trick was used to create the heart pattern. (From what I read, as long as the average angle of opposite sides of the stone are all the same, you will get a nice pattern in the h&a viewer).

2) fire potential - Rich hues or shades of white? Notice that the eightstar lights up completely in the same color. I am sure that would = a broadflash style fire. I think that is a point I haven''t seen made before.

3) Shimmer/life: if all maxed out, I am pretty sure that will correlate with best jewelry store, office appearance.

Rock''s point is that most people just look at metric scores, thus the tool on average can be very tough on good stones as customers always like the max. It may also influence cuts to be tailored to some software some guy wrote to interpret pictures in some small company. That would be truely unfortunate.

Good observations. Our testing of BS was done before I worked here, but we retain many of the reports. The software has been modified over the years but I don''t have BS handy. Rockdoc, who we get a lot of feedback from, believes that the newer versions are more robust - though the lower girdle lengths still seem to make the difs I noted. I am intrigued by your comment about opposite mains averaging versus all arrows lighting the same - if the scint metric was truly measurnig the quality of scintillation (which it really can''t as this is a measure of taste) that averaging should be rewarded. Of course any tilt whatsoever in the diamond would also influence that judgment in the photos.

 

[kevinyonker]

Personally, I find it interesting that Gemex isn''t necessarilty super friendly to the 8*''s but seem to absolutely max out on the solasferas.

 

[tarssarb]

Date: 3/16/2006 2:52:20 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Good observations. Our testing of BS was done before I worked here, but we retain many of the reports. The software has been modified over the years but I don''t have BS handy. Rockdoc, who we get a lot of feedback from, believes that the newer versions are more robust - though the lower girdle lengths still seem to make the difs I noted. I am intrigued by your comment about opposite mains averaging versus all arrows lighting the same - if the scint metric was truly measurnig the quality of scintillation (which it really can''t as this is a measure of taste) that averaging should be rewarded. Of course any tilt whatsoever in the diamond would also influence that judgment in the photos.

Hi John,

Nice catch... the symmetry comment is taken from a comment from a previous post (I think the one in the first post of this thread). I think the centering of the stone could have the same effect. Next point, it may help scint in real life or on the computer score... true enought again. Who knows if it is good or bad, not me certainly.

I put this thread together more of a summary of my thoughts for future people as I just got my ering (awesome btw) and the diamond came with gemex. My personality led me to research the forums about what the heck gemex tells you. I didnt find much that made the gemex of value to me in the window of time I had to buy the stone. But after reading my notes and the painted girdle thread, I found the "same color in all arrows" of the 8* very interesting.

So today, if I saw that in a gemex with a hit in white or scint, I may get excited. My stone is a hybrid, vivid colors with some white dots. Maxed out in fire and in general has higher scores than the 8*, but less than the completely maxed out stone. Also, not all of my arrows light up at the same time, but I am quite happy with its performance. My gfriend is more into the setting anyway so I went far beyond expectations.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 3/16/2006 3:31:42 PM
Author: tarssarb

Hi John,

Nice catch... the symmetry comment is taken from a comment from a previous post (I think the one in the first post of this thread). I think the centering of the stone could have the same effect. Next point, it may help scint in real life or on the computer score... true enought again. Who knows if it is good or bad, not me certainly.

I put this thread together more of a summary of my thoughts for future people as I just got my ering (awesome btw) and the diamond came with gemex. My personality led me to research the forums about what the heck gemex tells you. I didnt find much that made the gemex of value to me in the window of time I had to buy the stone. But after reading my notes and the painted girdle thread, I found the ''same color in all arrows'' of the 8* very interesting.

So today, if I saw that in a gemex with a hit in white or scint, I may get excited. My stone is a hybrid, vivid colors with some white dots. Maxed out in fire and in general has higher scores than the 8*, but less than the completely maxed out stone. Also, not all of my arrows light up at the same time, but I am quite happy with its performance. My gfriend is more into the setting anyway so I went far beyond expectations.

You''ve arrived in exactly the right place for your purposes. Meaning, you''ve formed logical conclusions studying photos and technical input and have made correlations that are meaningful to you beyond the 3 scores (would the term "BS Enlightenment" be a misnomer?) Not everyone can get past the scores.

 

[belle]

Date: 3/16/2006 3:24:25 PM
Author: kevinyonker
Personally, I find it interesting that Gemex isn''t necessarilty super friendly to the 8*''s but seem to absolutely max out on the solasferas.

this isn''t surprising at all kevin, considering the metric that bs uses to measure these diamonds. the explanation that sir john gave about the results for stones with shorter lgf''s (like 8*) as compared to those with longer ones (like solasfera) are exactly what we would expect to see on bs because of the style of cutting and differing pavilion mains.

Date: 3/15/2006 12:27:56 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

In our experience with optically symmetrical diamonds Brilliancescope returns high scintillation values for diamonds with long lower girdle facets. As the percentage of LGF increases pavilion mains become thinner. With longer LGF, light from the thinner mains is more narrowly focused, suited for bright light environments. BS seems to prefer this. Shorter LGF result in wide pavilion mains, suited for low light environments. BS penalizes this. So diamonds that perform best under intense jewelery store spotlighting also do well in the BS scintillation metric, whereas diamonds that perform best in low light conditions take a hit on BS... Either one of those diamonds could be fabulous, by the way.

The spectrophotometers approach scint differently:

Brilliancescope’s metric seems to look at flash intensity which appears to be tied into those lower girdle lengths.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 3/16/2006 3:24:25 PM
Author: kevinyonker
Personally, I find it interesting that Gemex isn''t necessarilty super friendly to the 8*''s but seem to absolutely max out on the solasferas.

I''ve seen this too with Solasfera. I would speculate that it has to do with the character of the pavilion construction. I mentioned above that the machine prefers longer lower girdle facets on traditional rounds (which result in thinner pavilion mains). The Solasfera is a 10 cut, so not only are the pavilion mains thinner than a traditional 8 cut - there are more of them.

Makes sense to me, but this is just conjecture: I have not seen recent BS software and there may be a separate setting for proprietary cuts that accounts for this (?)

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 3/16/2006 3:45:54 PM
Author: belle

Date: 3/16/2006 3:24:25 PM
Author: kevinyonker
Personally, I find it interesting that Gemex isn''t necessarilty super friendly to the 8*''s but seem to absolutely max out on the solasferas.

this isn''t surprising at all kevin, considering the metric that bs uses to measure these diamonds. the explanation that sir john gave about the results for stones with shorter lgf''s (like 8*) as compared to those with longer ones (like solasfera) are exactly what we would expect to see on bs because of the style of cutting and differing pavilion mains.

I was replying at the same time you were, miss Belle.

 

[RockDoc]

B Scope and Solasfera

Not all Solasfera peg the blue rating bars. Some are a little less than others.

So to assume this is a constant is not factual.

As far as the software goes, the Bscope does NOT have a separate set of metrics for the Solasfera. It is analyzed with the same parameters as it does with other round stones.

Gemex does consistently adjust the software ratings, when a better stone than what as been imaged before is "discovered".

The distance that a stone is "viewed" relative to size, transparency, and the other parameters do have a large impact on the appearance of how a diamond looks. B Scope does provide this in it''s hardware imaging the stone at different distances. It also has a method of considering movement of the stone to get the scintillation rating it does.

In WF''s experience, a combination of their improving their cutting parameters, along with Gemex software changes, has resulted in their stones getting higher "ratings" now than when they did at the time they had their unit, and did their testing.

As previously commented on by others in this thread, it is a machine, and does not have a human eye nor a brain to measure attractiveness. That is more accurately observed in the GemEx Brilliance Scope viewer.

So analysis and observation using both units is really necessary to be able to weigh all the results.

One thing the BScope does do is compare all diamonds in a very equal envronment so the comparison are based on one set of comparison. This is very difficult to accomplish by viewing in a tray with the eye, due to distance, PERSONAL PREFERENCES,acuity of vision of the observer, types of trays, types of lighting, lenses used in viewing, and experience in being able to visually recoginize and interpret what is seen and equally rendering an opinion of the results.


Rockdoc