Are the computer generated ASET images accurate...

[Dancing Fire]

vs the real images?

 

[Karl_K]

There are 2 kinds of generated images:
1: you put the numbers in a program like diamcalc.. These are not realistic at all, more of an approximation.
2: images based on a 3d scan: Diamcalc can do this and AGS reports use these from their own software. They can range from awful to somewhat useful. The problem is looking at generated images and telling which one is reasonably accurate without seeing an actual ASET image which defeats the reason for the generated image in the first place.

Both types are inferior to properly taken real images.

The biggest beef I have is people not labeling them as generated images and trying to pass them off as real images.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Stormy... AGSL ASET accurate vs the real one?

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

Both types are inferior to properly taken real images.

For the large majority of brilliant cuts I think #2 from Damcalc generated images can be just as useful as a photographed ASET.
Provided the scan is reasonable (some scan error is acceptable) and the output resolution is sufficient they are not lacking in detail to make a full interpretation. Compared to the AGSL ASET camera images (non backlit) I often find them superior.

The computer generated ones on AGSL reports on the other hand are often if not usually terrible and vastly inferior. The resolution is very small as well as many other problems.

I have not seen many suppliers using Diamcalc generated images, they are likely using Sarine technology which I am disappointed to say has thus far produced far inferior images with much less interpretive value.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

Stormy... AGSL ASET accurate vs the real one?

Well the computer generated one doesn't include the visual "enhancements" and post processing, like saturation of colors and mirror reflection being added.

That photographed ASET is a two in one, a beauty shot combined with the tool, I'd prefer it stayed true to a plain technical output as it was intended, without all the post processing.

 

[Karl_K]

Stormy... AGSL ASET accurate vs the real one?

There is actually an issue with the real image.
You have an ASET and the diamond right?
Tell us what it is. :}
The agsl image isn't perfect either.

 

[denverappraiser]

I like them both, but for different reasons.

The computer generated things are very consistent across vendors. The stone is perfectly level, it’s perfectly aligned and the color distribution is ‘correct’. Short of fraud, it makes very little difference who created the image. It’s simply a way of displaying Sarine data. Even the diamcalc/vs AGS PGS generation is really pretty consistent. It’s a problem if the scan is bad, of course, and some scanners are a bit better than others, but it’s very useful for comparing stones between multiple vendors. It’s also worth noting that they’re a lot easier to generate, so it’s more likely that the vendors can generate thousands of them. One of the reasons there are so few vendors that make them available is that photos are a PIA to take and it requires actually having the stone in hand to take them.

The photographic ones have their features too. It’s a real image and so it’s not subject to the rounding and calibration issues of the scanners. It includes more topics that relate to the overall symmetry, transparency and even a clue to ‘eye visible’ inclusions. The problems here have to do with the methodology of the photographs. It’s tough to get the stone exactly level. It’s tricky to get it at the right place in the reflector cone (in ASET everything is based on the girdle plane so if the reflector is at a slightly different point it changes the angles and consequently the colors). If you’re comparing stones from the same vendor who actually took the pictures, it’s likely they were taken in the same way.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Stormy... AGSL ASET accurate vs the real one?

There is actually an issue with the real image.
You have an ASET and the diamond right?
Tell us what it is. :}
The agsl image isn't perfect either.

I don't own a ASET scope. I need to buy one.

 

[denverappraiser]

Beyond the usual issues with photographs having to do with exposures, focus and depth of field, the unique problem here lies in the placement of the stone. The demising line between red and green is supposed to be at a 45 degree angle from the girdle plane and the viewing angle should be centered over the table and perpendicular to the girdle plane. Realistically this is a decidedly setup. It’s not so unusual to photo a stone that’s only 4 millimeters thick so ‘missing’ the alignment with the girdle plain by a single millimeter can turn out to be important. A few degrees of tilt is important. A few mm off center is important. We’ve got some people here who are pretty good at it and there are some tools you can buy that help but it’s not trivial and not everyone deals with it in the same way. There's very much an art to doing it well.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Beyond the usual issues with photographs having to do with exposures, focus and depth of field, the unique problem here lies in the placement of the stone. The demising line between red and green is supposed to be at a 45 degree angle from the girdle plane and the viewing angle should be centered over the table and perpendicular to the girdle plane. Realistically this is a decidedly setup. It’s not so unusual to photo a stone that’s only 4 millimeters thick so ‘missing’ the alignment with the girdle plain by a single millimeter can turn out to be important. A few degrees of tilt is important. A few mm off center is important. We’ve got some people here who are pretty good at it and there are some tools you can buy that help but it’s not trivial and not everyone deals with it in the same way. There's very much an art to doing it well.

Agreed on that one Neil.
A few other considerations: Shape- many fancy shaped stones are decidedly more difficult to level out. Size is a consideration there too.Very large stones are hard, as are very small ones.
Another consideration- is that different types of light return experience different results due to small variations in tilt an placement.
If we are considering a well cut RBC, the combination of colors is one many people are familiar with- and a small tilt is more easily compensated for in interpretation.
When looking at a stone with lots of green and white in dispersed patterns, it's far less intuitive to compensate for tilt and placement in interpretation.

 

[Karl_K]

Stormy... AGSL ASET accurate vs the real one?

There is actually an issue with the real image.
You have an ASET and the diamond right?
Tell us what it is. :}
The agsl image isn't perfect either.

I don't own a ASET scope. I need to buy one.

ah ok, the stone is about 1/2 to 3/4 a millimeter too far into the scope.
It is common when a large fancy that is far from the norm, ASET image is taken in a setup for rounds and or smaller stones without adjustment.
Not Chas' best work on the adjustments to the setup for the stone.

 

[WinkHPD]

Stormy... AGSL ASET accurate vs the real one?

There is actually an issue with the real image.
You have an ASET and the diamond right?
Tell us what it is. :}
The agsl image isn't perfect either.

I don't own a ASET scope. I need to buy one.

You can contact David Atlas, he sells them for Garry Holloway.

Wink

 

[cflutist]

Stormy... AGSL ASET accurate vs the real one?

There is actually an issue with the real image.
You have an ASET and the diamond right?
Tell us what it is. :}
The agsl image isn't perfect either.

I don't own a ASET scope. I need to buy one.

Or you could buy a Crafted by Infinity diamond ... they come with an ASET and Idealscope