Do marquise have fire and brilliance?

[Serg]

according size classification below
58% area of 1Ct Round cut ideal symmetry are Large facets.
marquise Tips have mainly Tiny facets.
I prefer Cuts with Medium-Small size , Fast facets.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Just to add my take on the comments about L/W ratio, first, defining an "ideal" ratio is largely a matter of personal taste. However, one should also consider the setting. Specifically, if setting a mq (or other elongated fancy) in a halo, a higher L/W ratio for the center stone may be preferrable, because the outline of the halo will necessarily have a lower L/W ratio than the diamond. For example, in my fiancee's engagement ring, the center diamond is almost 2.25:1, while the inner (pink) halo has a 2:1 ratio, and the outline of the outer halo is approximately 1.75:1. In my opinion, this double-halo design would not have been as successful if the center diamond had been closer to the "ideal" 2:1 ratio (this would result in much chubbier outlines for the halos, especially the outer one).

This is a really good point in terms of real world application, particularly in light of the popularity of halo designs today.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

according size classification below
58% area of 1Ct Round cut ideal symmetry are Large facets.
marquise Tips have mainly Tiny facets.
I prefer Cuts with Medium-Small size , Fast facets.

Serg,
This is really interesting analysis. I think it really helps to explain why we might have individual preferences.

When you say ideal symmetry, you are talking about 3D facet alignment (aka 'optical symmetry' or 'optical precision'), correct? As misalignment throws all virtual facets off from their designed size and pattern.

Can you elaborate on how VFs can be large and fast, or small and slow? I tend to think of VF size and duration as being directly proportional.

 

[Serg]

according size classification below
58% area of 1Ct Round cut ideal symmetry are Large facets.
marquise Tips have mainly Tiny facets.
I prefer Cuts with Medium-Small size , Fast facets.

Serg,
This is really interesting analysis. I think it really helps to explain why we might have individual preferences.

When you say ideal symmetry, you are talking about 3D facet alignment (aka 'optical symmetry' or 'optical precision'), correct?

Yes

As misalignment throws all virtual facets off from their designed size and pattern.


Can you elaborate on how VFs can be large and fast, or small and slow?

Take for example "Nail head " type which redirect light to eye.( 90 degree prizm).
you can facet pavilion by very small facet with negligible angles between small facets.
such facet will have low speed and small size.

big facets also may have quite different speeds.

I tend to think of VF size and duration as being directly proportional.

not if we compare single facets.
My be you mean what one big single VF have "half" probability to catch light source then 2 different smaller Vf's with same total area.
Yes, if 1 big and 2 half facets have same speed .

 

[drk14]

DRK Dont ignore what David has written - I agree that above and below the central bright 'bow' region, all these stones show crushed ice looks.
I think what you mean is they have less crushed ice - but they are a long way from large virtual facets.
But its terminology rather than what you or other 'desire' that we are now discussing. And yes - that is personal

I may agree or I may not agree with the bolded part above, depending on how the words are interpreted!
As you and David have both noted, we can only go so far towards a meeting of the mind without more accurate terminology.

By the way, the reason that I personally focus on non-crushed ice (or "less" crushed-ice) types of fancy diamonds, is not so much due to personal preference, but rather it is because that (in my opinion) we don't have the tools to distinguish between attractive and non-attractive crushed-ice type diamonds on the internet. For one, all of the tiny virtual facets that give rise to the crushed-ice look are always out-of-focus in photos, videos, and even reflector imagery (due to the longer path-lengths for these VFs).

Thus, with the visualization technology available online today, I don't think it would be possible for PSers to make recommendations about crushed-ice style diamonds based on a rational* methodology.
[*Disclaimer: I'm using the word "rational" here in it's scientific meaning (i.e., based on objective data and models), and not to imply that preferring the crushed-ice look would be "irrational"!]

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

DRK Dont ignore what David has written - I agree that above and below the central bright 'bow' region, all these stones show crushed ice looks.
I think what you mean is they have less crushed ice - but they are a long way from large virtual facets.
But its terminology rather than what you or other 'desire' that we are now discussing. And yes - that is personal

I may agree or I may not agree with the bolded part above, depending on how the words are interpreted!
As you and David have both noted, we can only go so far towards a meeting of the mind without more accurate terminology.

By the way, the reason that I personally focus on non-crushed ice (or "less" crushed-ice) types of fancy diamonds, is not so much due to personal preference, but rather it is because that (in my opinion) we don't have the tools to distinguish between attractive and non-attractive crushed-ice type diamonds on the internet. For one, all of the tiny virtual facets that give rise to the crushed-ice look are always out-of-focus in photos, videos, and even reflector imagery (due to the longer path-lengths for these VFs).

Thus, with the visualization technology available online today, I don't think it would be possible for PSers to make recommendations about crushed-ice style diamonds based on a rational* methodology.
[*Disclaimer: I'm using the word "rational" here in it's scientific meaning (i.e., based on objective data and models), and not to imply that preferring the crushed-ice look would be "irrational"!]

Excellent point DRK, But. Not entirely true.
HDR photography is used in ViBox and is easy for still photos so by overlaying different focal positions it is possible to show the out of focus longer ray paths in focus.
http://www.lexusindia.in/products/gb-ViBOX.aspx If you scroll about halfway down the page you can see a video where an entire bangle has been made to be in focus from 3 different merged videos. The same is done with larger diamonds, especially fancy colored stones where the ray paths are exceptionally long.

 

[drk14]

Using Serg's semi-quantitative definitions:



The type of mq that I would recommend as a better-than-average performer based on scintillation certainly has the "Large I" VFs in the belly/bowtie area, but also has a fairly uniform distribution of VFs that are maybe 20%-50% of the size of these "Large I" VFs, which would make them "Medium" to "Large III" by the above definitions. To be sure, there will also be smaller VFs mixed in with these. Moreover, at the very tips (i.e ~10% of the length of the diamond, starting from each point), the VFs are by necessity of the "Tiny"/"Small" variety, but compensating for that, we may get direct reflections (glare) from the (real) crown facets in the tips (and those facets are similar in size to the "Large II" and "Large III" VFs, contributing to the balanced appearance).

The flashing speed is definitely also key, as Serg has noted. I tend to think of it in terms of the angular velocity of the light ray that is bringing light to the VF, as compared to the angular velocity of the rotating diamond. The light ray angular velocity must be significantly larger than the diamond's angular velocity in order for the facets to look "alive". For a nail-head, the angular velocity of the light ray is less than the angular velocity of the diamond; for a rotating disco ball, the incoming rays' angular velocities should be double the ball's angular velocity... Not sure what a typical ratio would be for a diamond with lively scintillation, though -- anybody care to simulate it?

 

[drk14]

HDR photography is used in ViBox and is easy for still photos so by overlaying different focal positions it is possible to show the out of focus longer ray paths in focus.
http://www.lexusindia.in/products/gb-ViBOX.aspx If you scroll about halfway down the page you can see a video where an entire bangle has been made to be in focus from 3 different merged videos. The same is done with larger diamonds, especially fancy colored stones where the ray paths are exceptionally long.

Nice! I was aware of this algorithm (it's commonly used in biomedical imaging), but I have not yet seen it in use for diamond imaging. (Note that my comment intentionally referred to "technology available online today" -- I'm very glad to see that ViBOX has this capability, but I have never seen this type of imaging in the wild in online diamond outlets, unfortunately...)

The bangle images you linked are nice, but can you post or link any diamond images acquired with multifocus?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

HDR photography is used in ViBox and is easy for still photos so by overlaying different focal positions it is possible to show the out of focus longer ray paths in focus.
http://www.lexusindia.in/products/gb-ViBOX.aspx If you scroll about halfway down the page you can see a video where an entire bangle has been made to be in focus from 3 different merged videos. The same is done with larger diamonds, especially fancy colored stones where the ray paths are exceptionally long.

Nice! I was aware of this algorithm (it's commonly used in biomedical imaging), but I have not yet seen it in use for diamond imaging. (Note that my comment intentionally referred to "technology available online today" -- I'm very glad to see that ViBOX has this capability, but I have never seen this type of imaging in the wild in online diamond outlets, unfortunately...)

The bangle images you linked are nice, but can you post or link any diamond images acquired with multifocus?

Sergey has just informed me we can not use multi focus on transparent objects. Sorry for misleading.

 

[Rockdiamond]

DRK Dont ignore what David has written - I agree that above and below the central bright 'bow' region, all these stones show crushed ice looks.
I think what you mean is they have less crushed ice - but they are a long way from large virtual facets.
But its terminology rather than what you or other 'desire' that we are now discussing. And yes - that is personal

I may agree or I may not agree with the bolded part above, depending on how the words are interpreted!
As you and David have both noted, we can only go so far towards a meeting of the mind without more accurate terminology.

By the way, the reason that I personally focus on non-crushed ice (or "less" crushed-ice) types of fancy diamonds, is not so much due to personal preference, but rather it is because that (in my opinion) we don't have the tools to distinguish between attractive and non-attractive crushed-ice type diamonds on the internet. For one, all of the tiny virtual facets that give rise to the crushed-ice look are always out-of-focus in photos, videos, and even reflector imagery (due to the longer path-lengths for these VFs).

Thus, with the visualization technology available online today, I don't think it would be possible for PSers to make recommendations about crushed-ice style diamonds based on a rational* methodology.
[*Disclaimer: I'm using the word "rational" here in it's scientific meaning (i.e., based on objective data and models), and not to imply that preferring the crushed-ice look would be "irrational"!]

There's an issue of focus when we're comparing camera to human vision.
The camera can focus on aspects that the human eye can not- and as the technology increases, this issue gets worse.
The net result is that some stones that look terrible on Vibox ( or other rotating camera systems) look great in real life. One example is imperfections that arenot easily visible in real life which look massive in Vibox.

The issue is also central to the discussion of "crushed ice".
The sparkle effect I call crushed ice that we see with our eyes is because we can not focus on the reflections, yet the camera can.
So what may look like bright sparkle in real life may look like either crisp facets ( chunky)- or "mush" in photos.

IMO this leads to a lot of consumers getting "snowed" ( pun intended) by misinformation.
If someone goes into a store and sees a stone they love which happens to be crushed ice, and post about it here, they will be told they need an aset. If the seller does not use aset ( which are far less useful on crushed ice stones anyway) they are warned that the seller is hiding something. This also happens when consumers are shopping online and ask questions here.
They are led to believe it's an inferior cut for the reasons drk identified in bold italic above- which have nothing whatsoever to do with if it's a well cut diamond.

If the goal is to push consumers towards a particular type of diamond, it works. Doesn't matter if the consumer loves the diamond- other people do. If the goal is to assist consumers in finding well cut stones they love, this type of thinking means we're missing the goal.

It's also why Tiffany's , Harry Winston, Graff, and many other well regarded sellers continue to carry and sell "crushed ice" to many satisfied consumers.
I buy diamonds for a living, and if I was forced to only buy what looks good based on ASET and or the lack of tools to quantify what I see, I'd miss out on some of the most amazing stoners that come across my desk.

 

[Serg]

DRK Dont ignore what David has written - I agree that above and below the central bright 'bow' region, all these stones show crushed ice looks.
I think what you mean is they have less crushed ice - but they are a long way from large virtual facets.
But its terminology rather than what you or other 'desire' that we are now discussing. And yes - that is personal

I may agree or I may not agree with the bolded part above, depending on how the words are interpreted!
As you and David have both noted, we can only go so far towards a meeting of the mind without more accurate terminology.

By the way, the reason that I personally focus on non-crushed ice (or "less" crushed-ice) types of fancy diamonds, is not so much due to personal preference, but rather it is because that (in my opinion) we don't have the tools to distinguish between attractive and non-attractive crushed-ice type diamonds on the internet. For one, all of the tiny virtual facets that give rise to the crushed-ice look are always out-of-focus in photos, videos, and even reflector imagery (due to the longer path-lengths for these VFs).

Thus, with the visualization technology available online today, I don't think it would be possible for PSers to make recommendations about crushed-ice style diamonds based on a rational* methodology.
[*Disclaimer: I'm using the word "rational" here in it's scientific meaning (i.e., based on objective data and models), and not to imply that preferring the crushed-ice look would be "irrational"!]

There's an issue of focus when we're comparing camera to human vision.
The camera can focus on aspects that the human eye can not- and as the technology increases, this issue gets worse.
The net result is that some stones that look terrible on Vibox ( or other rotating camera systems) look great in real life. One example is imperfections that arenot easily visible in real life which look massive in Vibox.

The issue is also central to the discussion of "crushed ice".
The sparkle effect I call crushed ice that we see with our eyes is because we can not focus on the reflections, yet the camera can.
So what may look like bright sparkle in real life may look like either crisp facets ( chunky)- or "mush" in photos.

IMO this leads to a lot of consumers getting "snowed" ( pun intended) by misinformation.
If someone goes into a store and sees a stone they love which happens to be crushed ice, and post about it here, they will be told they need an aset. If the seller does not use aset ( which are far less useful on crushed ice stones anyway) they are warned that the seller is hiding something. This also happens when consumers are shopping online and ask questions here.
They are led to believe it's an inferior cut for the reasons drk identified in bold italic above- which have nothing whatsoever to do with if it's a well cut diamond.

If the goal is to push consumers towards a particular type of diamond, it works. Doesn't matter if the consumer loves the diamond- other people do. If the goal is to assist consumers in finding well cut stones they love, this type of thinking means we're missing the goal.

It's also why Tiffany's , Harry Winston, Graff, and many other well regarded sellers continue to carry and sell "crushed ice" to many satisfied consumers.
I buy diamonds for a living, and if I was forced to only buy what looks good based on ASET and or the lack of tools to quantify what I see, I'd miss out on some of the most amazing stoners that come across my desk.

David,

I am very interesting to see " some stones that look terrible on Vibox ( or other rotating camera systems) look great in real life."
please send links to such Vibox movies.

re:One example is imperfections that arenot easily visible in real life which look massive in Vibox.

Did you even try to see movies from right distance? how does same inclusions looks in Microscope?

 

[pinkgem2522]

Those diamonds are gorgeous!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Serg,
Please allow me to rephrase my statement:
The Vibox can make imperfections look terrible, when in person the imperfection is not terrible.

In terms of how to look at the video- it's always my tendency to look at a video or photo at it's largest size that does not cause distortion.
I did notice a site that has a slider which shrinks the image on the screen- an attempt to give a more accurate real life impression of the diamond.
I don't find that to be useful.

Regarding comparisons with a microscope- that's a very good comparison. In fact, there's many times that VS- SI goods need to be looked at without magnification, from arm's length, moving closer to maybe 8 inches to see how an imperfection actually impacts the visual of the diamond.
I love SI2 diamonds for the price, so it's worth it for me to take these steps to find the ones that perform well.

There are indded VS-SI stones that look quite good from 8-24 inches, where a Vibox video will make them look bad.

My vibox videos are on my youtube channel, as well as on listings on the site.
I am not allowed to link to those.

ETA- please don;t take this as a knock on the Vibox- I could not imagine a more technically advanced manner of taking pictures- it's one of the most remarkable uses for a computer I've ever seen.

 

[Serg]

Hi Serg,
Please allow me to rephrase my statement:
The Vibox can make imperfections look terrible, when in person the imperfection is not terrible.

In terms of how to look at the video- it's always my tendency to look at a video or photo at it's largest size that does not cause distortion.
I did notice a site that has a slider which shrinks the image on the screen- an attempt to give a more accurate real life impression of the diamond.
I don't find that to be useful.

Regarding comparisons with a microscope- that's a very good comparison. In fact, there's many times that VS- SI goods need to be looked at without magnification, from arm's length, moving closer to maybe 8 inches to see how an imperfection actually impacts the visual of the diamond.
I love SI2 diamonds for the price, so it's worth it for me to take these steps to find the ones that perform well.

There are indded VS-SI stones that look quite good from 8-24 inches, where a Vibox video will make them look bad.

My vibox videos are on my youtube channel, as well as on listings on the site.
I am not allowed to link to those.

ETA- please don;t take this as a knock on the Vibox- I could not imagine a more technically advanced manner of taking pictures- it's one of the most remarkable uses for a computer I've ever seen.

David,

I love SI2 diamonds for the price, so it's worth it for me to take these steps to find the ones that perform well.

SI2 is very big range from SI to I1. Diamonds with inclusions new boundary SI2/SI1 are "adding value = looks much better than other diamonds with same grade, same paper "
to select adding value diamonds you need either a diamond( a lot of travel, time consuming, expenses) or good quality video.
it is wise to use video with magnification if you want select adding value diamonds by inclusions( SI2 as SI1, SI1 as VSS2).
if you want select adding value diamond by optical performance you need use video either with less magnification ( resolution) or bigger distance from monitor or mobile phone.

Video i IS, ASET, Microscope are instruments.
Business results depend how you use instruments. if you have better skills to use more instruments then you have more opportunity to select adding value diamonds and reduce your expenses in same time .

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Hi Serg,
Please allow me to rephrase my statement:
The Vibox can make imperfections look terrible, when in person the imperfection is not terrible.

In terms of how to look at the video- it's always my tendency to look at a video or photo at it's largest size that does not cause distortion.
I did notice a site that has a slider which shrinks the image on the screen- an attempt to give a more accurate real life impression of the diamond.
I don't find that to be useful.

Regarding comparisons with a microscope- that's a very good comparison. In fact, there's many times that VS- SI goods need to be looked at without magnification, from arm's length, moving closer to maybe 8 inches to see how an imperfection actually impacts the visual of the diamond.
I love SI2 diamonds for the price, so it's worth it for me to take these steps to find the ones that perform well.

There are indded VS-SI stones that look quite good from 8-24 inches, where a Vibox video will make them look bad.

My vibox videos are on my youtube channel, as well as on listings on the site.
I am not allowed to link to those.

ETA- please don;t take this as a knock on the Vibox- I could not imagine a more technically advanced manner of taking pictures- it's one of the most remarkable uses for a computer I've ever seen.

David,

I love SI2 diamonds for the price, so it's worth it for me to take these steps to find the ones that perform well.

SI2 is very big range from SI to I1. Diamonds with inclusions new boundary SI2/SI1 are "adding value = looks much better than other diamonds with same grade, same paper "
to select adding value diamonds you need either a diamond( a lot of travel, time consuming, expenses) or good quality video.
it is wise to use video with magnification if you want select adding value diamonds by inclusions( SI2 as SI1, SI1 as VSS2).
if you want select adding value diamond by optical performance you need use video either with less magnification ( resolution) or bigger distance from monitor or mobile phone.

Video i IS, ASET, Microscope are instruments.
Business results depend how you use instruments. if you have better skills to use more instruments then you have more opportunity to select adding value diamonds and reduce your expenses in same time .

Serg,
This is a really good point that is not well appreciated. Consumers and even prosumers often try to do too much with a single diagnostic tool. Whether it is using HCA in ways for which it is not designed, placing too much faith in the numbers on a GIA report, judging fancy shapes on the basis of ASET alone, or rejecting a stone for small leakage in Ideal scope that might be compensated for by binocular vision, it is easy to get caught up in a narrow analytic and miss seeing the forest for the trees.

Thorough analysis of a diamond requires a holistic approach whereby a variety of accurate information and imagery is considered. Many of the tools serve to cross validate one another, as well as being additive to the equation. Good quality video is a tool that tends to tie many pieces of information together. But video alone does not tell the whole story, particularly since there are various ways to capture video that may reveal or suppress certain important aspects.

 

[drk14]

Sergey has just informed me we can not use multi focus on transparent objects. Sorry for misleading.

That's unfortunate. As David has pointed out, it puts "crushed ice" type diamonds at a significant disadvantage in the internet shopping arena (and frankly, this seems to represent an untapped opportunity to sell more diamonds ).

Sergey -- Does your statement to Garry mean that ViBOX does not currently offer this capability (enhanced depth of focus imaging for diamonds), or that you believe it is not technically feasible to image diamonds in this way?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Sergey- business depends how you use your brain, more than how you use instruments. Of course part of the brain usage includes using the tools and technology. But there's limitations to the tools.
IMO it's not possible using currently available technology to assess clarity without actually looking at the diamond. Hands on assessment might take more time and effort, but it's worth it. There's a lot of money at stake.
Bottom line is that a consumer won't really know if the diamond is for them till they get it and look at it. Regardless if it's Internally Flawless, or SI2.

This opinion is based on having looked at tens of thousands of diamonds and their photographs. And 40 years experience as a diamond grader.
The Vibox takes better pictures than any other system out there. Yet this increase in technology comes at a cost. By seeing the diamond even better, certain clarity characteristics can look far worse in the picture/video than they will in real life.

An argument could be made that using the technology to pick through thousands of candidates to "cull the herd" is a smart way to use the tools.
But using this method, and currently available tools and technology will result in many false negatives- regarding clarity in particular.
Because of all this, consumers are routinely warned away from SI goods by posts on this forum- and by sellers too.
To me, this is unintentional upselling.
If you eliminate SI2 from searches, you're looking at smaller stones for the same money, or more costly stones.

drk- about the focus. My take ( and Serg can/will correct me) is that the depth of focus on the camera is different than the depth of focus of real stereoscopic vision.
So that camera will ( in fact it has to) focus on a plane inside the diamond that humans can not.
So sparkle may look like crisp facets, or mush. But it really can't look like sparkle as we perceive it with our eyes.

 

[Serg]

Sergey has just informed me we can not use multi focus on transparent objects. Sorry for misleading.

That's unfortunate. As David has pointed out, it puts "crushed ice" type diamonds at a significant disadvantage in the internet shopping arena (and frankly, this seems to represent an untapped opportunity to sell more diamonds ).

Sergey -- Does your statement to Garry mean that ViBOX does not currently offer this capability (enhanced depth of focus imaging for diamonds), or that you believe it is not technically feasible to image diamonds in this way?

Vibox has multifocus ( Focus stacking), but it does not work well for diamonds( any transparent objects).
I do not know any Focus Staking software which work well with transparent objects.
usually Focus Stacking algorithm uses best photo for each pixel( a photo which has maximum sharpness for the pixel). but in diamond case a pixel can be sharp on quite different photos( front surface, inclusion, back surface, secondary reflections,...)

 

[Serg]

Sergey- business depends how you use your brain, more than how you use instruments. Of course part of the brain usage includes using the tools and technology. But there's limitations to the tools.
IMO it's not possible using currently available technology to assess clarity without actually looking at the diamond. Hands on assessment might take more time and effort, but it's worth it. There's a lot of money at stake.
Bottom line is that a consumer won't really know if the diamond is for them till they get it and look at it. Regardless if it's Internally Flawless, or SI2.

This opinion is based on having looked at tens of thousands of diamonds and their photographs. And 40 years experience as a diamond grader.
The Vibox takes better pictures than any other system out there. Yet this increase in technology comes at a cost. By seeing the diamond even better, certain clarity characteristics can look far worse in the picture/video than they will in real life.

An argument could be made that using the technology to pick through thousands of candidates to "cull the herd" is a smart way to use the tools.
But using this method, and currently available tools and technology will result in many false negatives- regarding clarity in particular.
Because of all this, consumers are routinely warned away from SI goods by posts on this forum- and by sellers too.
To me, this is unintentional upselling.
If you eliminate SI2 from searches, you're looking at smaller stones for the same money, or more costly stones.

drk- about the focus. My take ( and Serg can/will correct me) is that the depth of focus on the camera is different than the depth of focus of real stereoscopic vision.
So that camera will ( in fact it has to) focus on a plane inside the diamond that humans can not.
So sparkle may look like crisp facets, or mush. But it really can't look like sparkle as we perceive it with our eyes.

David,
A brain is instrument too. it is important to use it in most effective way.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Sergey- business depends how you use your brain, more than how you use instruments. Of course part of the brain usage includes using the tools and technology. But there's limitations to the tools.
IMO it's not possible using currently available technology to assess clarity without actually looking at the diamond. Hands on assessment might take more time and effort, but it's worth it. There's a lot of money at stake.
Bottom line is that a consumer won't really know if the diamond is for them till they get it and look at it. Regardless if it's Internally Flawless, or SI2.

This opinion is based on having looked at tens of thousands of diamonds and their photographs. And 40 years experience as a diamond grader.
The Vibox takes better pictures than any other system out there. Yet this increase in technology comes at a cost. By seeing the diamond even better, certain clarity characteristics can look far worse in the picture/video than they will in real life.

An argument could be made that using the technology to pick through thousands of candidates to "cull the herd" is a smart way to use the tools.
But using this method, and currently available tools and technology will result in many false negatives- regarding clarity in particular.
Because of all this, consumers are routinely warned away from SI goods by posts on this forum- and by sellers too.
To me, this is unintentional upselling.
If you eliminate SI2 from searches, you're looking at smaller stones for the same money, or more costly stones.

drk- about the focus. My take ( and Serg can/will correct me) is that the depth of focus on the camera is different than the depth of focus of real stereoscopic vision.
So that camera will ( in fact it has to) focus on a plane inside the diamond that humans can not.
So sparkle may look like crisp facets, or mush. But it really can't look like sparkle as we perceive it with our eyes.

David,
A brain is instrument too. it is important to use it in most effective way.

Now do you know where I can get one of those special instruments

Seriously- the effects of your invention - as well as the lesser systems out there have been far reaching- and will continue to be.
I agree many ( most) consumers feel they have to trust the tools.
It makes it harder to sell certain stones, and easier to sell others- so there's a real impact on prices.

 

[drk14]

Vibox has multifocus ( Focus stacking), but it does not work well for diamonds( any transparent objects).
I do not know any Focus Staking software which work well with transparent objects.
usually Focus Stacking algorithm uses best photo for each pixel( a photo which has maximum sharpness for the pixel). but in diamond case a pixel can be sharp on quite different photos( front surface, inclusion, back surface, secondary reflections,...)

Sergey,
Algorithms used for fluorescence microscopy of (transparent) biological cells and tissue process the z-stack using maximum intensity rather than maximum sharpness. Do you think something like that would work, if the diamond is not back lit (for example, under "fire" spotlight)? If not, there are other possible strategies.
In my opinion, it should be possible to develop an algorithm that can achieve multifocus imaging for diamonds.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Vibox has multifocus ( Focus stacking), but it does not work well for diamonds( any transparent objects).
I do not know any Focus Staking software which work well with transparent objects.
usually Focus Stacking algorithm uses best photo for each pixel( a photo which has maximum sharpness for the pixel). but in diamond case a pixel can be sharp on quite different photos( front surface, inclusion, back surface, secondary reflections,...)

Sergey,
Algorithms used for fluorescence microscopy of (transparent) biological cells and tissue process the z-stack using maximum intensity rather than maximum sharpness. Do you think something like that would work, if the diamond is not back lit (for example, under "fire" spotlight)? If not, there are other possible strategies.
In my opinion, it should be possible to develop an algorithm that can achieve multifocus imaging for diamonds.

It very well might be possible- but that would move us further form the goal of representation that mimics human vision.
"Fire" spotlights represent on of the least realistic lighting I've seen used in pics/video.

Backlighting ( as well as "frontlighting") is necessary in systems like the Vibox because you need a lot of light to take the extreme close up, extremely sharp. Pls correct me it my brain instrument is not correct on this one Sergey

 

[Rockdiamond]

Here's an interesting series of pictures- both Marquise Brilliant
#2 is clearly a better cut than #1- based on cut quality as discussed here on PS
I'll post asets when I can- likely next week
My observations: Although #2 look like it picks up more color in the pics, in person the increased brilliance makes it face whiter than #1.

The leakage which is visible in #1 in these photos, which I'm sure the ASET will confirm- it's really not that bad in person. Or put another way: if I look at stone #1 on it's own, it is very lively. Nice life.
AS soon as I put it next to #2, the differences in brilliance, and contrast are apparent.
#2 is more likely to exhibit fire- and the flashes returned to the eye are brighter. Brilliance.
If there was an "HCA for MQ's" I'd say #2 scores below 2- and #1 scores 3.5- worth buying if the price is right.
If #1 was Fancy Pink, we'd be drooling over it.
Consider that #1 weighs 5% less than #2, yet #1 it appears 10%-15% larger.
Both stones have merit
When considering fancy shapes, cut includes factors one never need consider when buying a round- like what shape is a marquise. Likely, a percentage of people will choose #1 for it's size, and fatter shape.

 

[Serg]

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Dunning and Kruger set out to test these hypotheses on Cornell undergraduates in psychology courses. In a series of studies, they examined subject self-assessment of logical reasoning skills, grammatical skills, and humor. After being shown their test scores, the subjects were asked to estimate their own rank. The competent group estimated their rank accurately, while the incompetent group overestimated theirs. As Dunning and Kruger noted:

Across four studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.[1]
Meanwhile, subjects with true ability tended to underestimate their relative competence. Roughly, participants who found tasks to be easy, erroneously presumed to some extent, that the tasks also must be easy for others.[1]

I sure same phenomena works in Diamond optical performance grade case.