Maximizing brilliancy is an oversimplificaton

[oldminer]

I think we are all talking about slight increases in dispersion being used to help delineate a "brand", not to truly alter what most folks consider a really beautiful looking diamond. The marketing of diamonds, especially the creation of successful brands, is making slight distinctions about some very similar products. It can be legitimate if there are definite, producer standards for a specific brand which are consistently being met.

I don't doubt that having a non-round shape may help a branded stone achieve more dispersion at some points around the stone. If these stones are consistent in added dispersion and this is the marketing choice of the producer, then I have no problem with it. A fine diamond MUST have brilliancy, scintillation and intensity in certain groups of proportions to look excellent in appearance (beauty). It can have slightly varying levels of dispersion determined by the cut style and continue to be highly attractive.

 

[verticalhorizon]

I see now that what I was referencing was increasing dispersion in a low-RI material. Sorry.

Would, then, a near ideal balance be more like:

1. White Light: Med-H
2. Colored Light: M-VH
3. Scintillation: H-VH

...where there is more of a variation of performance under as many different lighting situations as possible?

Of course, I guess the question has always been: Can this really be quantified and (your question) does it really matter in terms of price/value?

-----

Also, having seen the GIA list of patented fancy cuts, I see two things happening:

1.) The near saturation of patented fancy cuts (even incl. patented Princess which I think ther is 1 or 2)
2.) A relatively low plateau of patented Round Brilliants

If marketing is successful, then how will this affect the focus on brilliancy and scintillation as a determining factor IF RBs are clearly the most brilliant?

 

[glitterata]

----------------
On 6/10/2004 10:02:31 AM oldminer wrote:

A fine diamond MUST have brilliancy, scintillation and intensity in certain groups of proportions to look excellent in appearance (beauty). It can have slightly varying levels of dispersion determined by the cut style and continue to be highly attractive.----------------

In this context, what do you mean by "intensity"?

 

[oldminer]

Intensity may well be called a "pattern visibility measurement". It takes a well defined symmetry showing itself in the black and white light images of a diamond to indicate the degree of intensity present.

Scintillation has to do with the measurement of potential sparkle when the diamond is rotated or moved.

Intensity has to do with the measurement of the contrast differential and what the cut symmetry accomplishes.

 

[Serg]

----------------
On 6/9/2004 12:25:54 PM scotch wrote:

----------------
On 6/9/2004 6:28:51 AM Serg wrote:




Serg:

Along the lines of what strmrdr (Hey strmrdr, can I buy you a vowel?

) said about the mutual influence of the stone itself vs. the lighting conditions it is viewed in: would you say that the following analogy applies to your differentiation of 'technical brilliance' vs. 'perceived brilliance':
Scotch

----------------

Scotch,

I did not make "differentiation of 'technical brilliance' vs. 'perceived brilliance'"

What is technical Brilliance?

 

[scotch]

----------------
On 6/9/2004 6:28:51 AM Serg wrote:


You use the same word 'contrast' for totally different phenomena.
1) Technical value: the difference between maximum and minimum intensity when DISPLAYING an image (for example on TV where you can adjust it with 'contrast' adjustment knob).
2) One of psychophysiological perceptions and evaluations of an image: the difference in the own contrast between two different images for the same contrast knob position on TV. This difference is determined by the image itself but not the TV settings.
With the TV settings you can increase or decrease this difference but not create. Roughly speaking own contrast of image depends on positional relationship, quantity, shapes, sizes, intensities and colors of patches (spots) of image.----------------

Serg: I was referring to your differentiation of 1) vs. 2) in the above quote. I didn't mean to introduce "technical brilliance" as a new term, let's drop it. My question was, if my understanding of your differentiation is correct: 1) the influence of light conditions vs. 2) the effect of characteristics of the stone itself, both with respect to the estimation of brilliance. I guess the rest of my post could be summarized as follows: What are your ideas towards the analytical estimation of brilliance? Would you think that you would want to measure brilliance using one specific, "reference" lighting condition, or would say it is important to measure brilliance in all lighting conditions, e.g. diffuse white light, direct light from one/ more point light sources? What would the process be?

Greetings,
Scotch

 

[Serg]

----------------
On 6/10/2004 1:38:43 PM scotch wrote:

----------------
On 6/9/2004 6:28:51 AM Serg wrote:


You use the same word 'contrast' for totally different phenomena.
1) Technical value: the difference between maximum and minimum intensity when DISPLAYING an image (for example on TV where you can adjust it with 'contrast' adjustment knob).
2) One of psychophysiological perceptions and evaluations of an image: the difference in the own contrast between two different images for the same contrast knob position on TV. This difference is determined by the image itself but not the TV settings.
With the TV settings you can increase or decrease this difference but not create. Roughly speaking own contrast of image depends on positional relationship, quantity, shapes, sizes, intensities and colors of patches (spots) of image.----------------

Serg: I was referring to your differentiation of 1) vs. 2) in the above quote. I didn't mean to introduce 'technical brilliance' as a new term, let's drop it. My question was, if my understanding of your differentiation is correct: 1) the influence of light conditions vs. 2) the effect of characteristics of the stone itself, both with respect to the estimation of brilliance. I guess the rest of my post could be summarized as follows: What are your ideas towards the analytical estimation of brilliance? Would you think that you would want to measure brilliance using one specific, 'reference' lighting condition, or would say it is important to measure brilliance in all lighting conditions, e.g. diffuse white light, direct light from one/ more point light sources? What would the process be?

Greetings,
Scotch----------------

Scotch,

You understanding of my differentiation is not correct. I did not speak about contrast diamond .I spook about proper contrast images and proper contrast TV.

About contrast diamond. Two ways:
1) to count contrast of image diamond for standard viewing condition( Viewer, light condition, diamond , disposition)
2) to estimate diamond ability for creating contrast

 

[scotch]

----------------
On 6/10/2004 2:20:31 PM Serg wrote:

----------------
On 6/10/2004 1:38:43 PM scotch wrote:

----------------
On 6/9/2004 6:28:51 AM Serg wrote:


You use the same word 'contrast' for totally different phenomena.
1) Technical value: the difference between maximum and minimum intensity when DISPLAYING an image (for example on TV where you can adjust it with 'contrast' adjustment knob).
2) One of psychophysiological perceptions and evaluations of an image: the difference in the own contrast between two different images for the same contrast knob position on TV. This difference is determined by the image itself but not the TV settings.
With the TV settings you can increase or decrease this difference but not create. Roughly speaking own contrast of image depends on positional relationship, quantity, shapes, sizes, intensities and colors of patches (spots) of image.----------------

Serg: I was referring to your differentiation of 1) vs. 2) in the above quote. I didn't mean to introduce 'technical brilliance' as a new term, let's drop it. My question was, if my understanding of your differentiation is correct: 1) the influence of light conditions vs. 2) the effect of characteristics of the stone itself, both with respect to the estimation of brilliance. I guess the rest of my post could be summarized as follows: What are your ideas towards the analytical estimation of brilliance? Would you think that you would want to measure brilliance using one specific, 'reference' lighting condition, or would say it is important to measure brilliance in all lighting conditions, e.g. diffuse white light, direct light from one/ more point light sources? What would the process be?

Greetings,
Scotch----------------

Scotch,

You understanding of my differentiation is not correct. I did not speak about contrast diamond .I spook about proper contrast images and proper contrast TV.

About contrast diamond. Two ways:
1) to count contrast of image diamond for standard viewing condition( Viewer, light condition, diamond , disposition)
2) to estimate diamond ability for creating contrast

----------------

I... have to think about that more.
Scotch