Diamonds in Diamond Dock Videos

[pricescope]

Jonathan (aka Rhino) sent me a couple of videos he plan to use for the tutorial on his site. I made them smaller and post below for your amusement and discussion. (click ">" button to play the clips)

Couple of things that should be clarified IMO is the proportions and carat weight of the stones as well as lightning conditions (Diamond Dock)

Video #1: Solasfera and H&A




Video #2: Regular and AGS0 Princess

 

[pricescope]

Garry just sent over this video of the diamonds used in "GIA Excellent Cut Grade: Case Study" article also shot in GIA''s Diamond Dock.

 

[adamasgem]

"Jonathan (aka Rhino) sent me a couple of videos he plan to use for the tutorial on his site. I made them smaller and post below for your amusement and discussion. (click ">" button to play the clips)"

I guess one could call them amusing videos

What we need is the 12 portable LED's to be sold with every stone...

EDIT: Hi Garry.. Your video made me a little seasick there. sort of like on a surfaced submarine in a state five sea...

 

[strmrdr]

the Video #2: Regular and AGS0 Princess is messed up and cant see anything on it. might just be my puter.


also its the Solasfera not Solasphere :}

 

[Kaleigh]

I liked both the videos. #2 was clear on my computer and was very well done IMHO.

 

[Kaleigh]

I am also a little disappointed in the wording that these videos are for our amusement?? Wish it would have said something like here are the videos, what are your thougts?? Amusement to me is for our entertainment, and surely Jonathon didn't do them to amuse us. JMHO. I'm no expert, just here to learn and help other's along the way. []

 

[dbgaap]

Oh my, that was a pretty impressive little demo.
Now we''re going to start seeing these videso appearing on websites.

When I talked to Jim at JA last week, he mentioned that he would be putting a video on his website sometime before too long.

Modern technology!
amazing.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 4/9/2006 11:22:38 PM
Author: dbgaap
Oh my, that was a pretty impressive little demo.
Now we''re going to start seeing these videso appearing on websites.

When I talked to Jim at JA last week, he mentioned that he would be putting a video on his website sometime before too long.

Modern technology!
amazing.

We had a video tutorial here on Pricescope for many years - I think from about 1999 / 2000.

we removed it because it seemed passe''

 

[Kaleigh]

Date: 4/9/2006 11:31:13 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 4/9/2006 11:22:38 PM
Author: dbgaap
Oh my, that was a pretty impressive little demo.
Now we''re going to start seeing these videso appearing on websites.

When I talked to Jim at JA last week, he mentioned that he would be putting a video on his website sometime before too long.

Modern technology!
amazing.

We had a video tutorial here on Pricescope for many years - I think from about 1999 / 2000.

we removed it because it seemed passe''

But not everyone was here back then. I think video tutorials are helpful, especially to the new members.

 

[strmrdr]

I would like to thank Jon and Garry for the vids well done :}

After watching these and the others on the GOG website as well as playing with leds and diamonds and cz my opinions are becoming more clear.

1: I saw the subtle differences in the diamonds performance in the video Garry did under both lighting conditions. Id like to see the same 3 diamonds in lighting Garry feels shows the difference better.

2: I don''t care for led lighting it shows fire to an extent but not in a natural way. I tried 4 different brands of white leds and compared the same stones under sunlight: they were: my .15 h&a, 6mm and 6.5mm signity star h&a CZ''s (what Garry uses as calibration stones for the ideal-scope), and numerous smaller melee.
I also viewed the same diamonds/cz in sunlight and other strong light sources that showed fire, the led lighting did not have a natural look to it.
I haven''t decided yet if the led results can accurately be applied to the real world, while the results didn''t look natural the ones with more fire under the leds did display more fire in the real world.

3: diamonddock overall - I don''t think its as evil as its made out to be but I also don''t think its the ultimate diamond viewing environment. From all the images I seen it gives the diamonds a darkish look.

Again I would like to thank Jon for all the videos that have allowed me to further explore and form my own opinions on the diamonddock and diamond performance.

Thanks for the vid Garry :}

 

[belle]

Date: 4/9/2006 11:15:25 PM
Author: kaleigh

I am also a little disappointed in the wording that these videos are for our amusement?? Wish it would have said something like here are the videos, what are your thougts?? Amusement to me is for our entertainment, and surely Jonathon didn't do them to amuse us. JMHO. I'm no expert, just here to learn and help other's along the way.

amusement and discussion is all that can really happen with these videos because
1. diamond dock does not present a realistic lighting environment (12 led's!?)

2. video cannot capture the same things that our eyes see

it's fun to have the videos, as they are more interesting to look at than still photos but there is not much really tangible that can be gained.

 

[kenny]

Wow

What a great potential tool - both for getting to the truth and for obscuring it.

 

[strmrdr]

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/format/codecdownload.aspx

For those having problems viewing them on a windows computer the codec update there will fix it.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 4/9/2006 11:45:09 PM
Author: belle

Date: 4/9/2006 11:15:25 PM
Author: kaleigh

I am also a little disappointed in the wording that these videos are for our amusement?? Wish it would have said something like here are the videos, what are your thougts?? Amusement to me is for our entertainment, and surely Jonathon didn''t do them to amuse us. JMHO. I''m no expert, just here to learn and help other''s along the way.

amusement and discussion is all that can really happen with these videos because
1. diamond dock does not present a realistic lighting environment (12 led''s!?)

2. video cannot capture the same things that our eyes see

it''s fun to have the videos, as they are more interesting to look at than still photos but there is not much really tangible that can be gained.

Exactly Belle.

Storm I filmed those video''s more than a month ago and never bothered to show anyone because I felt they were inconclusive of anything - they contain no information that is useful to making a distinction between anything but trash and treasure.
Jonathons good and bad princess cut shows that as a grading environemnt it can discriminate between very bad and very good - whoopee do

. We dont need any fancy lighting and unrealistic LED''s for that purpose.

As Sergey has shown - the overly bright background when the fluoro lights are only a foot or so away makes our eyes adapt differently than in any other environment.

In a similar environment in the TOP image - these colored CZ''s stones have no lights on - just the room ambient lighting - and the camera (and our eyes) see the relative brightness of the gems when the background is not brightly lit.
But when the lights are turned on - the gems get darker except for very bright sparkles. - Does that explain what you are seeing Storm? You should see the same effect in direct sunshine.

the light on

 

[strmrdr]

no it isnt what im seeing and those images and the other light box have nothing to do with diamonddock... sorry but thats the truth.
The images in the DD do not display that specific problem the other light box has.
edit: your own video proves it, the lights come on and shock shock the diamonds get brighter not darker.

What im talking about is the general dark tone the diamonds take on from the overly grey envirement.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Maybe Sergey can explain it Storm.

It is the same phenonamon - But the lights are even closer - and the tray and back ground is pure white in sergey and Yuri's example - so the contrast is even greater. It serves to make the point.

 

[strmrdr]

Garry its present in the images with just the leds, in images with both lights off and images with the fluorescent lights.
Its the like someone being in a small room with gray walls wearing a grey shirt looking at diamonds.
Iv done just that to test it and when I change into my usual black shirt and a black environment it gets worse, using blue and it shows blue.
I''m still waiting for images of the DD walls covered in red paper which will prove my theory.

That and the leds are my my problem with the diamond dock.

I don''t feel the DD represents a natural environment for diamond viewing but that''s kind of a no-brainer, what im less clear about is if its a decent environment for judging diamond performance.
For me the answer at this point is in a very limited way maybe from the standpoint that its standardized.

 

[jasontb]

Cool videos guys!

I only watched Gary''s video once, but I was not able to tell the stones apart...

The LEDs are supposed to recreate a direct sunlight environment?

belle: You say that a camera can''t capture what our eyes see? Could you explain what you mean?

Regardless of your answer I''d respond: It''s OK if it''s not the same thing out eyes would see. All that matters is that there is a direct corelation between what our eyes would see and what the camera captures. Just like an ideal-scope image doesn''t capture what our eyes see. But they are still useful.

 

[jasontb]

Date: 4/10/2006 1:08:56 AM
Author: strmrdr

I''m still waiting for images of the DD walls covered in red paper which will prove my theory.

I think everyone will agree that the stones will look red. And I think everyone will agree that the grey walls make the environment darker than if they were white. So the question is why did they choose grey for the walls. They must have had a reason.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 4/10/2006 1:25:25 AM
Author: jasontb

Date: 4/10/2006 1:08:56 AM
Author: strmrdr

I''m still waiting for images of the DD walls covered in red paper which will prove my theory.

I think everyone will agree that the stones will look red. And I think everyone will agree that the grey walls make the environment darker than if they were white. So the question is why did they choose grey for the walls. They must have had a reason.

Storm we now have red walls on my shallow stone - but unfortunatly I cant make you red (ROFL).

Jason - gray is a good choice for the background as long as the lighting was placed so that it was at a normal intensity - 4 times closer = 16 times more intense.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 4/10/2006 12:26:13 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)


In a similar environment in the TOP image - these colored CZ''s stones have no lights on ... But when the lights are turned on - the gems get darker except for very bright sparkles.

Gee! who sucked the life away from those rounds!

''Guessing that the diffuse light source from the first photo was no longer there in the second, right? I sort of get it why directional lighting would darken the diamonds, and those cut for minimal internal reflection (the rounds) more

... but where did the effect of the source in the first photo go ?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 4/10/2006 4:23:50 AM
Author: valeria101

Date: 4/10/2006 12:26:13 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)


In a similar environment in the TOP image - these colored CZ''s stones have no lights on ... But when the lights are turned on - the gems get darker except for very bright sparkles.

Gee! who sucked the life away from those rounds!

''Guessing that the diffuse light source from the first photo was no longer there in the second, right? I sort of get it why directional lighting would darken the diamonds, and those cut for minimal internal reflection (the rounds) more

... but where did the effect of the source in the first photo go ?

It is still there Ana - the same background lighting is still there - but our eyes accomodate the new brightness - pupils dilate - and we adapt - just like we cant see when we walk into a dark room - untill we adapt - and when we walk out from the movies into bright daylight.

 

[valeria101]

Ok, but did the exposure of those photos or something else about them change in a similar way to what human eyes would do?

The appearance of the diamonds is so vastly different in the two images (which now are both in one place, so no eye adaptation from the viewer's part) - regardless of the backgroud.

Sergey's initial post about this picture, explains the lighting in great detail. However, a bit of the description remains on the side - that the images were taken allowing automatic adjustment of exposure. In the end, it still sounds terribly counterintuitive that added light makes those diamonds look darker!

E.g. Jonathan's clip about rounds seems to do something similar: add pinpoint lighting on top of diffuse - the effect looks as expected - a little change in the overall brighteness of the image and a couple more bits of colored flash.

 

[kenny]

Just a note about the photography of Garry's 2 pics of the 6 stones.

Scroll up and compare only the brightness of the backgrounds.
Note that the pic with the darker-looking stones has a *lighter* background.
Since this is the pic with brighter lights it means the camera adjusted for the brighter lights by reducing the exposure.

This means that if that image was adjusted to match background brightness - making comparison of the pics more fair - that those stones would look even darker still.

IMHO this would be closer to an apples to apples comparison.
And this would make Garry's point even stronger.

No?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 4/10/2006 5:31:09 AM
Author: valeria101
Ok, but did the exposure of those photos or something else about them change in a similar way to what human eyes would do?

The camera on auto exposure does a somewhat similar thing to our eyes.
The appearance of the diamonds is so vastly different in the two images try it with a desk lamp up very close to the stones on a very large amount of white background very close to a CZ or diamond Ana (and everyone else) (which now are both in one place, so no eye adaptation from the viewer''s partthere is a huge amount of eye adaption - and allow your eye a minute or 2 to properly adapt) - regardless of the backgroud to see the effect of the background grab some black fabric and see the difference Dont believe me. or disbelieve - try it for yourself..

After close to the lamp black and white back grounds, look away from the bright lamp for a minute and then hold the stone at arms length in a general ambient lit area (eg point the lamp at the wall or ceiling) and you will be amazed that the stone that was maybe 30% bright with strong contrast will go 80% bright - (but not intense bright - just over all bright)

Sergey''s initial post about this picture, explains the lighting in great detail. However, a bit of the description remains on the side - that the images were taken allowing automatic adjustment of exposure. In the end, it still sounds terribly counterintuitive that added light makes those diamonds look darker!

 

[oldminer]

I believe there is just too much light in the GOG videos from the DD. It is blasting away on the stones and it makes it hard to discern which diamond is prettier. You can definitely see some differences between stones and that''s good, but in terms of decision making, I sort of doubt this is objectively diagnostic of which stone would look better in a more standard environment.

Garry, I am still feeling the waves passing over the deck................rocking and looking for the horizon!

You can trust your eyes to select diamonds you prefer, but you need more objective tools to provide measures of performance. Combine both and you get the total package.

 

[strmrdr]

te:[/b] 4/10/2006 5:31:09 AM
Author: valeria101



E.g. Jonathan''s clip about rounds seems to do something similar: add pinpoint lighting on top of diffuse - the effect looks as expected - a little change in the overall brighteness of the image and a couple more bits of colored flash.

[/quote]
A lot of that has to do with the nature of LED''s they are very narrow spectrum and are easily washed out by broad spectrum light.
The relative intensity between the 2 light sources also makes a large difference.

My challenge is for those complaining about the DD is design something better.
requirements:
portable
repeatable
affordable
easy to make

huge bonus points if someone could easily make one at home with free plans available.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 4/10/2006 8:29:35 AM
Author: strmrdr
My challenge is for those complaining about the DD is design something better.
requirements:
portable
repeatable
affordable
easy to make
huge bonus points if someone could easily make one at home with free plans available.

Why?
What purpose would this serve?

I can understand that such a lighting would be valuable for color grading fancy colored diamonds if that must be done by humans.

But why should there be a cut grading ''lighting''

And if there is to be - then I think I won already with this that meets all the above criteria

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/10/2006 9:04:53 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 4/10/2006 8:29:35 AM

Author: strmrdr

My challenge is for those complaining about the DD is design something better.

requirements:

portable

repeatable

affordable

easy to make

huge bonus points if someone could easily make one at home with free plans available.

Why?

What purpose would this serve?


I can understand that such a lighting would be valuable for color grading fancy colored diamonds if that must be done by humans.


But why should there be a cut grading ''lighting''


And if there is to be - then I think I won already with this that meets all the above criteria

Garry, diamond cut grading comes down to the observation and opinion of beauty you cant do that totally with an IS scope or on a computer.
You need to calibrate those systems thru unbiased observation studies (no trade).
To do that you need a consistent lighting and environment to do so.
I strongly agree with GIA there :} but just as strongly think they messed up a good idea :{

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 4/10/2006 8:18:10 AM
Author: oldminer
I believe there is just too much light in the GOG videos from the DD. It is blasting away on the stones and it makes it hard to discern which diamond is prettier. You can definitely see some differences between stones and that''s good, but in terms of decision making, I sort of doubt this is objectively diagnostic of which stone would look better in a more standard environment.

Gee Dave.. I guess the designers succeeded in creating obscurity....