Fire Performance Scope and other questions

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/12/2005 6:30:53 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)



Marty you are talking a whole heap of tommy rot.

Gary, you are a very good marketer, but not such a good engineer. I have clearly stated what I see in the data, have shown the data, publically presented i, and gave my best engineering judgement on the cause of what I see. You however, continually feed the community unsubstantiated misinterpretations of others work.(line edited by Pricescope request to remove what I really said and felt). If you want to criticize or make comments then please state your scientific basis or reasoning for what I have seen.

Fire is spectral colors Yes
if you have developed a method to show fire as second or third order dispersion colors then I for one will not pay you a cent for it and no one else should either

1) I probably wouldn't sell you any of my technology, .. just because you are you

2) You call what I photograph second and third order dispersion colors. Could you please enlighten the community on the scientific basis for YOUR "analysis" as stated?

As you can see on the thread with the calcite, it takes something like double refraction to cause 'muddy colors'.

You appear to be entirely wrong, based on my phototgraph evidence. Do you have the any analysis to explain what I see and have photographed? I seriously doubt it. Maybe Sergy can explain the internal mixing of light, but his simulations are based on non absorbing diamonds, and my photographs are real, and include the internal absorption of light as a function of the color of a diamond, which can be shown to reduce chromatic flare. Simplistically, as the color of a cape series diamond increases, there is more and more internal absorption of the light rays in the blue region of the blue to green region of the spectrum. Physical fact, baby. My SAS2000 clients have the capability to do such a ray trace analysis, and if you would like to pay me, I be happy to do such an analysis on any diamond that you can supply the wavelength dependent absorption coefficients. To due the analysis correctly you have to measure this through a known pathlength, but you probably already knew that.(Line editited by Pricescope request to remove personal opinion).

Maybe a totally unrealistic 5000 point light source will do that.

Oh, "unrealistic", you say! Put your money where your mouth and marketing is. (line edited by Pricescope request to remove more descriptive language) I can prove that it emulates a natural and realistic environment.)

And btw I checked the thread you keep referring to that Saergey was supposed to have got frightened of - that was all pretty wierd too.

It is too bad that you couldn't understand it, but YOU did post a Diamondcalc Photoreal side by side image that clearly showed my analyses on potential problems with metics based on a tilted viewpoint was correct.

And when I took the same data averaged over all azimuths and plotted it versus tilt angle, the thread stopped, because the data showed apparent discontinuities (50% drops) in a limited FOV metric, in the same range where DiamondCalc used a 30 degree tilt metric, the thread stopped.
I merely discussed my data, which seemd to point out a potential for serious errors in relative assesment of diamond cut if one relied on limited FOV perspectives based on reverser (or forward) raytrace, and that blindly making an assesment of the relative goodness of a diamond at some randomly selected tilt angle could give erroneous results. Now doing a million or so rays is very computationally intensive, so people who arbitrarily choose a tilt and/or azimuth to judge one diamond over another haven't done their homework, but perhaps in your infinate wealth of knowledge you profess to this community, you missed the point, but actually you didn't, as IT WAS YOU who proved my point, for which I thanked you.

This goes to my long held belief that GIA ORIGINALLY HAD IT CORRECT when they chose to do a weighted light return which considered the ENTIRE diamond, instead of one or two limited viewpoints, and that their cosine squared qeighting function for brillance made sense. What DIDN"T make sence, is that they continue to use a uniform intensity illuminated hemisphere, which IS NOT A REALISTIC illumination environment, and doesn't emulate ANY typical enviroment one might see in the real world, other than through their viewing hemisphere (half of an integrating sphere)

I also showed the technical data that high angle lighting in such an environment WOULD NOT HAVE ZERO illumination from HEAD obscuration, and that the HEAD reflects a not insignificant amount of light, otherwise we wouldn't be able to see anyones face, and therefore a "black hole" head obscuration in NOT REALISTIC in ANY NORMAL VIEWING environment, and can severly alter relative metrics of diamond brilliance.

 

[Serg]

Marty,

You try oppose tilt to cosine squared weighting function.
It is mistake . Its are different instruments for different tasks.
I use both instruments( of course I use head and body now). My advice to try use both instruments too.
The main problem with cosine squared weighting function Is baselessness degree of cosine.
Sometimes I more like fourth degree.

Re: And when I took the same data averaged over all azimuths and plotted it versus tilt angle, the thread stopped, because the data showed apparent discontinuities (50% drops) in a limited FOV metric, in the same range where DiamondCalc used a 30 degree tilt metric, the thread stopped.

Very funny. I see other reasons .

 

[Serg]

Cos(2x) some could be more interesting sometimes than Cos(x)*Cos(x)

Unfortunately 2D sphere space make difficult using Fourier, but even simple combination
1, cosx, sinx, cos2x,sin2x in azimuth direction could be much more interesting than cos*cos .
cos(x)*cos(x)= (cos(2x) +1)/2

Unfortunately it work correctly( easy to use) only for simple linear BLRs like LightReturn.
For example it is not full correctly for Brightness

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/13/2005 4:56:49 AM
Author: Serg

Cos(2x) some could be more interesting sometimes than Cos(x)*Cos(x)

Unfortunately 2D sphere space make difficult using Fourier, but even simple combination
1, cosx, sinx, cos2x,sin2x in azimuth direction could be much more interesting than cos*cos .
cos(x)*cos(x)= (cos(2x) +1)/2

Unfortunately it work correctly( easy to use) only for simple linear BLRs like LightReturn.
For example it is not full correctly for Brightness

Well, admittedly, the cosine squared weighting function was quazi arbitrary, as a look angle probability function, but it captured the essense that people rock the diamond and tend to look at the diamond from a face up viewpoint with decreasing probabilities at greater tilts.. It is CERTAINLY better than a limited set of viewpoints.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/13/2005 4:26:04 AM
Author: Serg

Marty,

You try oppose tilt to cosine squared weighting function.
It is mistake . Its are different instruments for different tasks.
I use both instruments( of course I use head and body now). My advice to try use both instruments too.
The main problem with cosine squared weighting function Is baselessness degree of cosine.
Sometimes I more like fourth degree.

Re: And when I took the same data averaged over all azimuths and plotted it versus tilt angle, the thread stopped, because the data showed apparent discontinuities (50% drops) in a limited FOV metric, in the same range where DiamondCalc used a 30 degree tilt metric, the thread stopped.

Very funny. I see other reasons .

Well, Gary showed the rendering at two different azimuths which clearly illustrated the effect. Unfortunately, I don''t do a reverse ray trace at this time, but I think it should result in smoothing of my 1 degree latitude/longitude approach, but I think it clearly illustrates a problem with a limited viewpoint approach. Perhaps you could look at a sufficient number of tilted viewpoints on the same diamond (or three diamonds), and look at the distributional statistics and plot them in the same manner as I did my data (which was based on 1 million rays binned in 1 degree lat/long). My data is strictly a qualitative approach.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/12/2005 6:30:53 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Marty you are talking a whole heap of tommy rot.

Fire is spectral colors..

I said Yes to this in a previous post, but don''t we actually "see" the mixed result. You maydefine fire from the standpoint of a zero width/area ray and and, as a metric look at the length of a continous chromatic flare, but you always have interference or mixiing. And I see more pure spectral hues in well cut stones, than in lower makes, and I have 5000 or more finite size beams of light.Too bad Paul Shannon (beam tracing) isn''t here to comment on this.

 

[Serg]

Marty,
re:It is CERTAINLY better than a limited set of viewpoints.


Please read it again:
You try oppose tilt to cosine squared weighting function.
It is mistake . Its are different instruments for different tasks.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Marty I have seen ''muddy colors'' in strongly fluoro diamond and in doubly refractive gems (Diamond is singly refractive and for this purpose is essentially singly refractive even when stressed). I have not seen the mixing of colors effect in diamond. You rasied a seperate and strangely spurious issue of cape colored diamonds. Does that mean the stones you compared to the EightStar for your fire toy were all lower colors and that is why they were muddy?
Even low colors of diamond can stilll be very firey, and I do not believe they show muddy colors either.

Your photographic system does not replicate what people see? And you would like me to pay for it............ because you are an engineer?

Would you like me to offer some marketing advice? Call and I will give you a project or an hourly quotation.

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 6/12/2005 6:30:53 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Marty you are talking a whole heap of tommy rot.

Fire is spectral colors
if you have developed a method to show fire as second or third order dispersion colors then I for one will not pay you a cent for it and no one else should either.

As you can see on the thread with the calcite, it takes something like double refraction to cause ''muddy colors''.

Maybe a totally unrealistic 5000 point light source will do that.

And btw I checked the thread you keep referring to that Saergey was supposed to have got frightened of - that was all pretty wierd too.

Gary

I''ve been following this thread in an attempt to garner some knowledge.....

We are all in the learning stage here, but I just don''t understand why you say this:

if you have developed a method to show fire as second or third order dispersion colors then I for one will not pay you a cent for it and no one else should either.


That seems very unfair why you attact Marty for expressing the results of what he''s observed. Many times we all have dissenting opinion, but we discuss and debate it, and it is this that we all learn and develop ways to improve things for the readers here.

If you decide not to pay anything for what Marty sells, that is of course your own decision and choice, which you are certainly entitled to - but to say that no one else should do business with him, I think is a little over the edge, and very non-professional of you given Marty''s credentials and volumimous research.

Rockdoc

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Roc it is only BECAUSE of Marty''s credentials that I am incredulous that he could offer such a strange product in the name of gemological science.
He has developed a system that shows that one cut is better than another, but does not tell us why - other than to say that lessor cut quality diamonds (than the one he was being paid to promote) appear to have second order dispersion.

There is nothing like this that you or I have ever observed with our eyes. If a camera system can show something we cant see then that is a good system? Or an inept system?

I have tried very hard to find some value in this idea - it was presented first to me last year - but so far it has no value.

Roc what I read into your coment is "Marty is smart". There are many smart people. Do you follow all their advice blindly?

Marty is unquestionably super intelligent. If he chooses to he can tell us what its all about. if he wants to claim it is a super duper business opportunity like the BScope and other hitherto unexplained and non peer reviewed technologies then he should expect to have a full and open peer review right here in the same manner that you and others have pulled HCA apart. The same approach that AGS used and that you and others have devoted pages on your website too in critiques. But at least i published a full and complete account of the methodology and system at www.diamond-cut.com.au (which has never been edited - even though there are things there I would acknowledge today are mistakes or my view has changed / developed).

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 6/13/2005 8:16:55 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Roc it is only BECAUSE of Marty''s credentials that I am incredulous that he could offer such a strange product in the name of gemological science.
He has developed a system that shows that one cut is better than another, but does not tell us why - other than to say that lessor cut quality diamonds (than the one he was being paid to promote) appear to have second order dispersion.

There is nothing like this that you or I have ever observed with our eyes. If a camera system can show something we cant see then that is a good system? Or an inept system?

I have tried very hard to find some value in this idea - it was presented first to me last year - but so far it has no value.

Roc what I read into your coment is ''Marty is smart''. There are many smart people. Do you follow all their advice blindly?

Marty is unquestionably super intelligent. If he chooses to he can tell us what its all about. if he wants to claim it is a super duper business opportunity like the BScope and other hitherto unexplained and non peer reviewed technologies then he should expect to have a full and open peer review right here in the same manner that you and others have pulled HCA apart. The same approach that AGS used and that you and others have devoted pages on your website too in critiques. But at least i published a full and complete account of the methodology and system at www.diamond-cut.com.au (which has never been edited - even though there are things there I would acknowledge today are mistakes or my view has changed / developed).

Gary, that isn''t what my reply was about. It was about you saying that NO ONE should do business with him.

Plus in the above you say I pulled the HCA apart. My only objection is that its rating scale does NOT follow an accepted standard.

Rockdoc

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thats what they told Einstein

AGS might disagree?

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 6/13/2005 10:18:49 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Thats what they told Einstein

AGS might disagree?

Gary .... What does this really mean? That you''re comparing yourself on a level equal to Einstein ????


Correct me if I''m wrong, but doesn''t AGS have one of Marty''s units as well ?


Rockdoc

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/13/2005 10:44:07 AM
Author: Serg

Marty,
re:It is CERTAINLY better than a limited set of viewpoints.


Please read it again:

You try oppose tilt to cosine squared weighting function.
It is mistake . Its are different instruments for different tasks.

Something is lost in thr translation here, I don''t understand what you are saying.
What I have said is that a limited (like one) prespective of a diamond at a tilted angle may be very dependent on the tilt angle and azimuth, so much so that I believe that some sort of average of look angles over the entire stone should be used to avoid, what appears to be a potential to seriously over or under state the quality of a particular cut. I don''t oppose tilted perspectives, I only point out with my data that you could inadvertantly select conditions at points where there appear to be discontinuities in the metric, and that some "weighted" method of averaging over the entire stone (with a multitude of perspectives), like GIA''s weghted light return seemed reasonable from a physical perspective.

Different weighting functions may give different differing relative results, just as lighting environments used, can influence the results.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/13/2005 10:18:49 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Thats what they told Einstein

AGS might disagree?

Are you saying Gary, that AGS considers you, like one would consider Einstein? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I think what Marty is saying is that you can not "measure" in one only of these directions Sergey.

Marty Sergey has explained that he has not made this mistake.
It is more like a chess knight.

Also Marty you might like to answer RocDoc''s question?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I have no need to ask AGS to prove my worth Marty.
Anyone who has bothered to read the explanation of the development of HCA would have seen this part that describes the use of DiamCalc with the virtual Firescope (pre Ideal-Scope) and a multi colored scope even more complex that the ASET. I quote:

http://www.diamond-cut.com.au/10_method.htm
" Method of Analysis

Much of the development of HCA was done using observations of DiamCalc ‘virtual’, Firescope™ and Gilbertsonscope images, as well as other MSU website based virtual diamond tools. Comparing the effects of variations in diamond proportions using virtual diamond analysis eliminates problems with variation in color, clarity and the minor facet groups, all of which are encountered in studies using real diamonds. Diamcalc ray path analysis was also used to gain an understanding of many seemingly inexplicable anomalies that were encountered........

Virtual diamond studies were all based on the DiamCalc settings for:

GilbertsonScope the lighting scheme as described above.

Images were created for 2197 photoreal virtual diamonds, these were then collated in 13 charts for table sizes between 53% and 65% in a range of commonly encountered diamond proportions with pavilion angles 39.5° to 43° in 0.5° steps and crown angles between 28° and 40° in 1.0° steps. The series of images in the GIA review is typical. The minor facets for all comparisons were set at 50% for upper girdle / star facet ratio’s and 82% lower girdle facet lengths.

Brilliance was assessed by comparing DiamCalc Firescope and Gilbertsonscope images within each table sized grid in columns of crown angle and rows of pavilion angle. Each was subjectively rated and each virtual stone compared to the others with that table size. Stones with the least leakage and the brightest images were given a score of zero, and the worst a score of four. The author then compared images with the same values from different areas on the grid and adjusted scores for consistency where necessary.

This comparison was done for each table size grid from 53% to 65%. A mathematical formula (discussed later) was devised as a penalty factor for the deleterious effect of larger and small tables. This was then added to the primary score. For instance a diamond with a 65% table has an additional penalty of 1 compared to a diamond with a table size of 60%. "
Now this might not qualify as pure science in your book Marty, but it worked and HCA has stood the test of time. AGS have done far smaller splits in their DiamCalc ASET image charts - but it is this process that AGS used before taking the more advanced step of using ray tracing analysis to rank the light return, leakage, contrast and fire with algoritms that were not available to me at that time.

AGS are using the same process to define the range of various fancy cuts that they should do the more complex analysis on.

I am not Einstein and have no chance of being like him I am sad to say. But i do the very best I can with the abilities I have (inspite of my substandard education).

 

[Michael_E]

This thread has been one of the most entertaining that I''ve seen all week. Thanks to all the combatants ! I kind of look like Einstein, so maybe I could make some simple comments and ask some simple questions here.

When discussing this as a science based methodology it is often helpfull if the strategy behind the device is divulged so that others can test it''s validity and pry apart it''s strengths and weaknesses. Is there any way that you could toss a bone out here and explain how these images were created Marty ?

I have seen this sort of intense fire in both diamonds and CZ''s and have also seen the muddy spectral interference that you refer to Marty. The only problem is that it only happens under very specific lighting conditions and I''m not too sure that trying to analyze this sort of spectral patterning and then claim that it is closely tied to high quality in a cut diamond really makes sense for anything other than views of that diamond that are nearly perpendicular to the table.

For those of you who like messing around with "high tech" stuff and want to see this effect yourself I will now divulge my Einstein like observance with the understanding that you must always refer to this by the name that I have given it. I call it the "Christmas Scope". I know, it sounds stupid, but if you get yourself a strand or two of those little Christmas lights, plug them in, stack them all around the lense of your camera and take a pic of the stone perpendicular to the table, or just look at the stone you will see a similar effect.

I think that what happens is that if the light sources are close enough together,you have the same optical effect that you would get with a highly birefringent stone. After all you are talking about two close but divergent light beams in a birefringent stone. Not much different with two small light bulbs placed very close together. You will also notice that some stones, whether they have highly aligned facets or just facets with large surface ares, I.E. OEC''s, will display larger "harlequin" type flashes of color. It just makes sense, sort of like the windows of the crown and the mirrors of the pavilion are more open.

The problem with extrapolating this effect into our normal lighting environment is that the "normal" light that enters the stone is not a full spectrum light, it usually only comes from one or two rasdiating sources and it is not nearly as intense. This means that the normal light that you see reflecting from a diamond is mostly white light, or at least the color of the background. This background light is much stronger than the fire from dispersion effects and overpowers them to the extent that you only see "fire" when the light causing it is relatively intense and is entering or exiting the stone at high enough angles that the seperation between different wavlengths is maximized. Since those high entrance or exit angles mostly occur in the crown and the highest crown angles are near the girdle, that''s where you normally see fire.

There are two things about this scenario that I don''t get. One, how can any modern cut that has lower crown angles and a larger table than a typical OEC ever claim to have the same sort of distinct fire ? This claim by Eight Star and backed up by this Fire Performance Scope baffles me. Do those guys have some secret to getting around the necessary high incident or exit angles Marty ?

Question two. The round spot that shows up as green in many of those ASET scope pictures is caused by low incident angles of light entering the table. So where''s the fire in the center of the stone ? That center spot under most lighting conditions looks mostly light in color with no fire and when I look into this I am coming up with incident angles that are very low, like 10 to 20 degrees or even less in some cases. Can someone explain this seemingly contradictory behavior in that area ?

Thanks for any insight that you could share on these questions !

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Just woke up Michael, so i am a bit foggy.
Will think about your input

Can you "see" the muddy colors with Xmas lights?
Or only see it with the camera / photo?
Are the fairy lights all colors or just the usual yellowish white?

 

[Michael_E]

Garry,
The ones I used were all the same color and were called white, but the actual color was not very intense and quite yellow. You could see the effect with your eyes and it kind of looked like that calcite. I''m not sure that I''d call it "muddy", but the pictures that it took were too strange to use, so I just dropped the idea. I''ll try to get a picture in the next day or two and see how it looks.

 

[Serg]

Re:What I have said is that a limited (like one) prespective of a diamond at a tilted angle may be very dependent on the tilt angle and azimuth, so much so that I believe that some sort of average of look angles over the entire stone should be used to avoid, what appears to be a potential to seriously over or under state the quality of a particular cut. I don''t oppose tilted perspectives, I only point out with my data that you could inadvertantly select conditions at points where there appear to be discontinuities in the metric, and that some "weighted" method of averaging over the entire stone (with a multitude of perspectives), like GIA''s weghted light return seemed reasonable from a physical perspective.


Marty, method used by you and GIA doesn''t produce the reasonable estimation of diamond appearance from different sides.

If you tilt a stone or a direction of observation then image of diamond will be strongly changed and it is important to estimate the beauty (or at least Light Return) of just this image.

Operation when you average out the rays which go out from diamond getting by the method of direct ray-tracing isn''t equivalent of average estimation of different positions of diamond.

The simplest example is NailHead diamond (prism 90 degrees).

If you rotate the stone or the observation direction then you will always get the bad diamond image. In the same time the estimation like "some "weighted" method of averaging over the entire stone (with a multitude of perspectives), like GIA''s weghted light return seemed reasonable from a physical perspective" produces sufficiently not bad result for this object because this object returns a lot of light in upper hemisphere (in the place where light source is situated but not observer).

Marty, I have already give this explanation repeatedly and it is very strange for me that you still maintain obviously mistaken method of diamond estimation.


Some remarks:
1)"Cos*cos" is reasonable function to model the probabilistic position of light source and hence the probabilistic response of diamond during its static position.

2)"Cos*cos" isn''t reasonable function to weigh all exited rays from diamond with aim of estimation of diamond response* from different points of observation. At first it is necessary to get the response for every point of observation and then it is possible to average out these responses. Otherwise you will get average temperature in hospital. At that averaging-out should be geometrical not arithmetical.

3)The experiment made by Marty using direct ray-tracing and facet reflections doesn''t describe practically the change of value of Light Return of diamond in the pupil of the eye of observer during rotation of diamond. In this experiment principles are absent which are present during diamond rotation and registration of whole light that goes out from diamond and enter in the observer''s pupil. On the other hand in this experiment principles are present which are absent during diamond rotation and registration of whole light that goes out from diamond and enter in the observer''s pupil.

* Probably this method could be reasonable approximation (with point of view of simplification of calculations) if we would need to estimate just reflections. But the reflections from facets have small contribution to forming of diamond beauty. And this method is absolutely incorrect to estimate the contribution of rays entering in the diamond and exiting from it.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/4/2005 10:41:51 AM
Author: JohnQuixote
According to visual specialists, that is also a practical distance of accomodation (clear near focus) for all. Young''uns can focus clearly as close as 7cm. By age 45 accomodative ability drops to 25cm.

So, while close-in, it is not too close to disrupt accomodation in most of us.

John..

I think it depends on whether you are near sighted or far sighted.
As one gets older there is a tendency to get far sighted, and whether you are looking with one or both eyes.
If I take my bifocals off (I''m very near sighted since my childhood), my near distance binocular sharp focus distance is about 3 inches or approximately 7.5 cm

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/13/2005 12:32:13 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Would you like me to offer some marketing advice? Call and I will give you a project or an hourly quotation.

I don''t "market", I ask for, and tell the truth. There is way too much "markeing" here on Pricescope based on undefined criteria.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/13/2005 11:15:49 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
I think what Marty is saying is that you can not ''measure'' in one only of these directions Sergey.

Marty Sergey has explained that he has not made this mistake.
It is more like a chess knight.

Also Marty you might like to answer RocDoc''s question?

If that easily made "mistake" has not been made, then what does the 30 degree tilt metric in diamond calc really mean.

My point is that multiple (and defined) perspectives need to be done, such that results of ANY metric not be aliased. That is why the ORIGINAL GIA weighting function made common sense.
I disagreed with their uniformly illuminated lighting mode with a black hole at the girdle plane, as in that model, the distrubution of allowable angles of incidence of incident light rays varyied with the particular crown facet, and the distributions were truncated.

Not being a grand master, but knowing how a chess knight moves, would you be so kind to DEFINE the multiple perspectives.

I do think that Sergey''s binocular viewpoints analysis is interesting and usefull.
As a past member of the AGS cut grade task force, I DID recommend, a meeting with the DiamondCalc people, which I unfortunately was not able to attend. Reverse raytracing has its uses (and its limitations) to enable understanding of diamond performance, just as the full blown forward mente carlo analyses do, BUT, the usefullness and applicbility of the results DEPEND on a coherent (and hopefully DEFINED) lighting envionment.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/14/2005 1:12:53 AM
Author: Michael_E

When discussing this as a science based methodology it is often helpfull if the strategy behind the device is divulged so that others can test it''s validity and pry apart it''s strengths and weaknesses. Is there any way that you could toss a bone out here and explain how these images were created Marty ?


Thanks for any insight that you could share on these questions !

When the patent application is published, there will be full disclosure, other than that, the environment mimics a common physical environment which brings out the observability of fire, and is scientifically designed to try to ELIMINATE any potential aliasing or biasing of the results. The pictures I have published are the result ONE photo where the source has overr 5000 incident rays of WHITE light.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/13/2005 11:30:45 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

I have no need to ask AGS to prove my worth Marty.

Well, it certainly sounded like it to me, like you were G-ds gift to AGS

Anyone who has bothered to read the explanation of the development of HCA would have seen this part that describes the use of DiamCalc with the virtual Firescope (pre Ideal-Scope) and a multi colored scope even more complex that the ASET. I quote:

Well, it is easy to take a set of data and find the point that matches the 3D data set and regurgitate the results of some undefiend analysis. Hey, I computerized and published cut grading analysis in the early 90''s, and it made it easier for people to sort through, what at the time were accepted "standards"

I am not Einstein and have no chance of being like him I am sad to say. But i do the very best I can with the abilities I have (inspite of my substandard education).

And neither am I an Einstein, nor portend to be, but MY comments here are based sound technical reasoning, and I feel I have had the BEST TECHNICAL education available in the world at MIT (except for the humanities), along with three decades of continuing interface, interchange, teaching, and learning with the BEST in the world, and my comments tend to be short and to the point, telling what I know and what I don''t know. I don''t try to spin intentionally.

And sometimes you don''t do too badly, and at other times, you don''t.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/14/2005 11:59:32 AM
Author: Michael_E
Garry,
The ones I used were all the same color and were called white, but the actual color was not very intense and quite yellow. You could see the effect with your eyes and it kind of looked like that calcite. I''m not sure that I''d call it ''muddy'', but the pictures that it took were too strange to use, so I just dropped the idea. I''ll try to get a picture in the next day or two and see how it looks.

Color temperature is typically about 2800 degrees Kelvin for those incandescent tungsten filliment light sources. What you are doing is called dappled lighting..

 

[RockDoc]

Got a question.... for Gary, Serg, Michael E, and Marty


I have a firescope.....what I see in the firescope is a very different image from what I see when viewing Virtual Images from Diamond Calc.

I know it is a computer generated graphic, but all of them appear to be perfectly symmetrical. This may be fine and of like appearance for symmetrically perfect diamond viewed and compared, but very few stones are " symmetrically perfect".

I do know that there is a program that will take the Sarin data and generate a graphic in Diam Calc. but I haven''t seen Diam Calc images that look even remotely similar to the images viewed by eye in the Firescope.

If the images don''t appear in Diamond Calc they way they appear in the Firescope, can one or more of you explain the validity or the limitations in using these images?

Rockdoc

 

[Serg]

Date: 6/22/2005 2:36:28 AM
Author: RockDoc
Got a question.... for Gary, Serg, Michael E, and Marty


I have a firescope.....what I see in the firescope is a very different image from what I see when viewing Virtual Images from Diamond Calc.

I know it is a computer generated graphic, but all of them appear to be perfectly symmetrical. This may be fine and of like appearance for symmetrically perfect diamond viewed and compared, but very few stones are '' symmetrically perfect''.

I do know that there is a program that will take the Sarin data and generate a graphic in Diam Calc. but I haven''t seen Diam Calc images that look even remotely similar to the images viewed by eye in the Firescope.

If the images don''t appear in Diamond Calc they way they appear in the Firescope, can one or more of you explain the validity or the limitations in using these images?

Rockdoc

Please see last two images on http://www.octonus.ru/oct/products/helium/features.phtml

Is it similar images or not?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/22/2005 2:36:28 AM
Author: RockDoc
Got a question.... for Gary, Serg, Michael E, and Marty


I have a firescope.....what I see in the firescope is a very different image from what I see when viewing Virtual Images from Diamond Calc.

I know it is a computer generated graphic, but all of them appear to be perfectly symmetrical. This may be fine and of like appearance for symmetrically perfect diamond viewed and compared, but very few stones are '' symmetrically perfect''.

I do know that there is a program that will take the Sarin data and generate a graphic in Diam Calc. but I haven''t seen Diam Calc images that look even remotely similar to the images viewed by eye in the Firescope.

If the images don''t appear in Diamond Calc they way they appear in the Firescope, can one or more of you explain the validity or the limitations in using these images?

Rockdoc

Rockdoc.. "photoreal" real images generated by DiamondCalc (or any other graphic imaging program) are limited by the accuracy of the input and modeling.. What you are probably looking at are idealized symmetry vis-a-vie real world assimitry.


I believe that DiamondCalc can read in Sarin and Helium files, such that the physical model of the diamond can be made to "approach" reality,(but probably never get there), I''m only familiar with the old pubished Sarin specs stated angles having an accuracy of +/- 0.4 degrees and dimensions of +/- 0.02mm. No Sarin never stated, as far as I know, what these figures mean. Are they one sigma standard deviaition, three sigma bounds or what? That needs clarification. i don''t know what the "specs" are for the russian Helium machine, but I have heard they are better, and that the Sarin acuuracies are improved, but not defined in a statistical sense.

Perhaps Sergey can enlighten us there regarding Helium

Then there is the issue of the "little" details, things like the fact that diamonds absorb light, and that isn''t modeled in DiamondCalc reverse ray tracing, so the nonabsorbing diamond model will "never" look like the real thing, close, in a qualitative sense, but I think of limited use quantitatively.

It can be a usefull tool for a qualitative "feel" of the symmetry aspects, given proper inputs, but unless "real world" phenomena are modeled, the graphics might be somewhat misleading.


The general ray trace problem is non-linear in reality, and doesn''t "scale" easily from one size diamond to another and is a primary function of the color absorption spectrum of the diamond in question, as well as its cut parameters.

The work I have done in a symmetric model, with known path length transmission spectra, has indicated sinificant light absorption such that the whole value of a non absorbing metric may overstate "brilliance", as in the GIA study, by factors of two, as a function of the size of the stone, and WILL change the RELATIVE goodness of one "cut" versus another "cut".

The non absorbing diamond model and raytracing, foreward or reverse, gives us a "better" feel for relative performance, but it is in no way "exact", unless you model internal absorption of light.

In anothe thread we talked about the GIA modeling of chromatic flares as a metric for fire, but I can state unequivically, that a D color diamond of the same cut as a G, will, in reality have more "fire" as defined by any chromatic flare metric so far defined for the non absorbing diamond.