Pick the round you like best

[HVVS]

1, 2, 4, 3

#3's table seems a little large for me and I see more table glare from it than the others. (edit: I downgraded it for table glare.)

#1 seems most like the type of H&A diamond that I just bought, and it looked consistently bright in the table area where #3 and #4 did not.

#2 is seems to be a transition cut and I like the look of the older diamonds with their broad flashes.

#4 seemed a little bland compared to #1.

edit: I ranked them without reading more than the first page of this thread. I couldn't get Quicktime to run until today. And #1 was actually the most like the diamond I just bought.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 11/22/2009 2:00:24 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 11/22/2009 1:46:56 PM

Author: Karl_K

Serg I don''t disagree with much of what you said.



Let me put it another way:


Lighting that is busier than real world lighting makes diamonds look busier than they really are.

Karl, I can not translate what is Busier. I think you mean what diamonds has more flashes in our light conditions than in real world

yes

I am agree, We did it specially to do comparison more easy and to receive more consistency results
I don''t see it as a good thing

In real world Diamond could has less than 1 flash per second, so observer needs calculate number flashes per 10 seconds to receive comparison between two cuts( sometimes cut has 2-3 flashes , sometime cut has not any flashes 2-3 seconds. it is very difficult conditions for human comparison )

we increased number of flashes in several times to receive more stable comparison results.( we did it for All diamonds in same way)

And we use same diamonds( as Ideal) in all our movies. So such comparison is correct.

not if diamonds will be rejected for being to busy when they are not, others who want a busy diamond will be disappointed.

 

[Serg]

Date: 11/22/2009 7:00:28 PM
Author: Karl_K

Date: 11/22/2009 2:00:24 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 11/22/2009 1:46:56 PM

Author: Karl_K

Serg I don't disagree with much of what you said.



Let me put it another way:


Lighting that is busier than real world lighting makes diamonds look busier than they really are.

Karl, I can not translate what is Busier. I think you mean what diamonds has more flashes in our light conditions than in real world

yes

I am agree, We did it specially to do comparison more easy and to receive more consistency results
I don't see it as a good thing



Is good consistency in comparison relative to H&A AGS0 RBC a bad thing for you? What is main goal in diamond comparison in such case for you?

In real world Diamond could has less than 1 flash per second, so observer needs calculate number flashes per 10 seconds to receive comparison between two cuts( sometimes cut has 2-3 flashes , sometime cut has not any flashes 2-3 seconds. it is very difficult conditions for human comparison )

we increased number of flashes in several times to receive more stable comparison results.( we did it for All diamonds in same way)

And we use same diamonds( as Ideal) in all our movies. So such comparison is correct.

not if diamonds will be rejected for being to busy when they are not, others who want a busy diamond will be disappointed.



1)All comparison we do with same H&A AGS0 RBC. What is "being to busy when they are not" in such case? We magnify difference , otherwise you can not see the difference between similar cuts. Same you can not see difference between VVS1 and VS1 without microscope. Are VVS1 diamonds are "to busy when are not"? without microscope you can easy mix VS1 and VVS1 diamonds, you can not do consistency comparison without magnifier
2) do you think diamonds in movies without LEDs are to busy too? You are free to use both or more lighting , but you can not compare fire under single light source<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

In the daylight mode without LED''s we can see fire, but it is hard to see the intensity that makes a very bright flash (colored or white). But for me the strength of the bloom or flare is too bright.

I have argued offline with Sergey about the number of LED''s, and their placement. I think there may be too many and they could be positioned so that not as many are at very high anlgles.

But mainly I think the flare is too large. For me with good spectacles, with several very bright halogens in 2M above and 3M above the stone, it is rare to find a flash that extends as much as 1/4 of the stone size in 1 to 3ct diamonds.
However I noticed that when I do see a very large flash that my focus seems to re-accomodate and I focus further away - probably to the light source. This makes the diamond itself appear out of focus for the 10th of a second of the flash duration.
This stops me being able to properly observe any other feature of the diamond.

I also examined diamonds very close to warm not very strong LED''s and I also did not see flare as large as on the video.
We should all conduct our own surveys to establish how large the flares are. May I suggest 2M (2 yards, 6 feet) from diamond to halogen spots.

Can the camera exposure be able to be adjusted to accomodate for the size of the flare?
We do need a minimum # of LED''s because the camera has one eye and we all have 2

 

[Serg]

Date: 11/23/2009 12:44:58 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
In the daylight mode without LED''s we can see fire, but it is hard to see the intensity that makes a very bright flash (colored or white). But for me the strength of the bloom or flare is too bright.


I have argued offline with Sergey about the number of LED''s, and their placement. I think there may be too many and they could be positioned so that not as many are at very high anlgles.


But mainly I think the flare is too large. For me with good spectacles, with several very bright halogens in 2M above and 3M above the stone, it is rare to find a flash that extends as much as 1/4 of the stone size in 1 to 3ct diamonds.

However I noticed that when I do see a very large flash that my focus seems to re-accomodate and I focus further away - probably to the light source. This makes the diamond itself appear out of focus for the 10th of a second of the flash duration.

This stops me being able to properly observe any other feature of the diamond.


I also examined diamonds very close to warm not very strong LED''s and I also did not see flare as large as on the video.

We should all conduct our own surveys to establish how large the flares are. May I suggest 2M (2 yards, 6 feet) from diamond to halogen spots.


Can the camera exposure be able to be adjusted to accomodate for the size of the flare?

We do need a minimum # of LED''s because the camera has one eye and we all have 2

re:We do need a minimum # of LED''s because the camera has one eye and we all have 2.

You can not receive consistency comparison if you use few LEDs. Each single LED gives benefits for cut with specially proportions even if you use tilt +-15 degree.
To received consistency results we should use at least 10-30 LEDs what have different angular positions from camera axis
10-30 is not to much if you compare with 10.000 in Marty Haske Fire System.
Do you think it was easy for Marty Haske create 10.000 light sources?

 

[Serg]

re:In the daylight mode without LED''s we can see fire, but it is hard to see the intensity that makes a very bright flash (colored or white).

Garry,
What intensity you can not see in Light without LEDs? ( Intensity of single facet with flashes or Diamond Brightness )?

I am disagree what you can not see Difference in Brightness . See for example first movie 3x3 , you can easy compare diamond brightness here, can''t you?
first movie 3x3

I asked your several times "What is wrong with movies without LEDs?"
Until now I did not receive any clear explanations from you.

Yes, such movies can not penalty diamonds as P41.2Cr35. to penalty such diamonds you need use IS.
but IS/ASET are helpless to compare Beauty.

ANY system what Score Beauty will have contradictive results with ANY Penalty systems as IS/ASET.

My task is to create SCORE grading system what help consumer to compare BEAUTY between different Cuts .

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 11/23/2009 1:22:53 AM
Author: Serg



My task is to create SCORE grading system what help consumer to compare BEAUTY between different Cuts .

Serg, with all due respect and I respect you a lot you can not do that by adding what is not in the real world to the lighting.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 11/23/2009 12:56:53 AM
Author: Serg


10-30 is not to much if you compare with 10.000 in Marty Haske Fire System.

Do you think it was easy for Marty Haske create 10.000 light sources?

Marty does not to my knowledge claim to represent it as a real world pick your diamond under it lighting condition.
It is a scientific lighting condition to study fire potential.
I find my DC simulation of the lighting very useful for doing that.
I have integrated it into my cut design criteria as such.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/23/2009 1:22:53 AM
Author: Serg
re:In the daylight mode without LED''s we can see fire, but it is hard to see the intensity that makes a very bright flash (colored or white).


Garry,

What intensity you can not see in Light without LEDs? ( Intensity of single facet with flashes or Diamond Brightness )?
I DID NOT GET YOU SERGEY?


I am disagree what you can not see Difference in Brightness . See for example first movie 3x3 , you can easy compare diamond brightness here, can''t you?
ACTUALLY THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 2 LIGHTING SET UPS. I MUCH PREFER THE 3X3 THAN THE 4 ROUNDS SERGEY - SEE THE 4 RADOM SCREEN SHOTS OF THE SAME STONE IN DAYLIGHT AND LED
first movie 3x3


I asked your several times ''What is wrong with movies without LEDs?''

Until now I did not receive any clear explanations from you.


Yes, such movies can not penalty diamonds as P41.2Cr35. to penalty such diamonds you need use IS.

but IS/ASET are helpless to compare Beauty.


ANY system what Score Beauty will have contradictive results with ANY Penalty systems as IS/ASET.

I AM NOT MARRIED TO OR FIGHTING FOR ANY SYSTEM SERGEY. I AGREE THAT YOUR IDEA FOR COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT CUTS IS MUCH BETTER THAN CUT GRADING SYSTEMS FOR FANCY CUTS AND INDEED ALL CUTS. I AM FIGHTING WITH YOU, NOT AGAINST YOU.
(AND I AM NOT SHOUTING - I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SELECT COLORS IN TYPE WITH FIREFOX)

My task is to create SCORE grading system what help consumer to compare BEAUTY between different Cuts .

 

[Serg]

Date: 11/23/2009 1:34:39 AM
Author: Karl_K

Date: 11/23/2009 1:22:53 AM

Author: Serg




My task is to create SCORE grading system what help consumer to compare BEAUTY between different Cuts .

Serg, with all due respect and I respect you a lot you can not do that by adding what is not in the real world to the lighting.

Karl, Real World light conditions are quite different. We consider model Theater , dinner restaurants with candela type light, Hotel lobby with amassing also

we need model at least 2-3 quite different light conditions . Light model with LEDs( small angular size ) is one of most important because you can easy create Cut with high LR under ASET or Office light conditions, but such cut could have weak ability to catch small light sources.

Light model with big number of small light sources is much more important for Beauty estimation than Light model with only bug light sources .

 

[Serg]

Date: 11/23/2009 2:01:31 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 11/23/2009 1:22:53 AM
Author: Serg
re:In the daylight mode without LED''s we can see fire, but it is hard to see the intensity that makes a very bright flash (colored or white).


Garry,

What intensity you can not see in Light without LEDs? ( Intensity of single facet with flashes or Diamond Brightness )?
I DID NOT GET YOU SERGEY?


I am disagree what you can not see Difference in Brightness . See for example first movie 3x3 , you can easy compare diamond brightness here, can''t you?
ACTUALLY THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 2 LIGHTING SET UPS. I MUCH PREFER THE 3X3 THAN THE 4 ROUNDS SERGEY - SEE THE 4 RADOM SCREEN SHOTS OF THE SAME STONE IN DAYLIGHT AND LED

I think It is same light, but exposition time is different. I do not know what set up is better. For my opinion ASGO diamond on first set up is too dull .
when I see diamonds in office light I usually see more bright diamonds than in first "set up".
I prefer second "set up" or may be something between first and second.



I asked your several times ''What is wrong with movies without LEDs?''

Until now I did not receive any clear explanations from you.


Yes, such movies can not penalty diamonds as P41.2Cr35. to penalty such diamonds you need use IS.

but IS/ASET are helpless to compare Beauty.


ANY system what Score Beauty will have contradictive results with ANY Penalty systems as IS/ASET.

I AM NOT MARRIED TO OR FIGHTING FOR ANY SYSTEM SERGEY. I AGREE THAT YOUR IDEA FOR COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT CUTS IS MUCH BETTER THAN CUT GRADING SYSTEMS FOR FANCY CUTS AND INDEED ALL CUTS. I AM FIGHTING WITH YOU, NOT AGAINST YOU.

Garry, you are not fighting with me. Your are fighting aganist yourself.
You know very well what current Light models in Light box are not from me at all.
you did not use any my single idea to create first lights in LightBox.
Current Light models are 80% from you and 20% from Janak and 0% from me.
I have bigger respect to your work than you have.
Btw. I am working today for next Light models in third LightBox prototype

(AND I AM NOT SHOUTING - I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SELECT COLORS IN TYPE WITH FIREFOX)

My task is to create SCORE grading system what help consumer to compare BEAUTY between different Cuts .

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/23/2009 2:44:39 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 11/23/2009 2:01:31 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 11/23/2009 1:22:53 AM
Author: Serg
re:In the daylight mode without LED''s we can see fire, but it is hard to see the intensity that makes a very bright flash (colored or white).


Garry,

What intensity you can not see in Light without LEDs? ( Intensity of single facet with flashes or Diamond Brightness )?
I DID NOT GET YOU SERGEY?


I am disagree what you can not see Difference in Brightness . See for example first movie 3x3 , you can easy compare diamond brightness here, can''t you?
ACTUALLY THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 2 LIGHTING SET UPS. I MUCH PREFER THE 3X3 THAN THE 4 ROUNDS SERGEY - SEE THE 4 RADOM SCREEN SHOTS OF THE SAME STONE IN DAYLIGHT AND LED

I think It is same light, but exposition time is different. I do not know what set up is better. For my opinion ASGO diamond on first set up is too dull .
when I see diamonds in office light I usually see more bright diamonds than in first ''set up''.
I prefer second ''set up'' or may be something between first and second.

Sergey I think closer to the first (with smaller flashes from LED''s) can achieve your goals and enable observers to see "into" the diamonds which seems impossible when the flashes are very bright. This seems to be true in real life as well as on the video''s.

I asked your several times ''What is wrong with movies without LEDs?'' I think for grading negative dark zones even more diffused light is better. I am not sure what explanations you seek.

Until now I did not receive any clear explanations from you. When we were together in India in March and the first prototype was built we never had enough time for me to show you what I preferred.


Yes, such movies can not penalty diamonds as P41.2Cr35. to penalty such diamonds you need use IS.

but IS/ASET are helpless to compare Beauty. I agree. see again the square stone example.


ANY system what Score Beauty will have contradictive results with ANY Penalty systems as IS/ASET.

I AM NOT MARRIED TO OR FIGHTING FOR ANY SYSTEM SERGEY. I AGREE THAT YOUR IDEA FOR COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT CUTS IS MUCH BETTER THAN CUT GRADING SYSTEMS FOR FANCY CUTS AND INDEED ALL CUTS. I AM FIGHTING WITH YOU, NOT AGAINST YOU.

Garry, you are not fighting with me. Your are fighting aganist yourself.
You know very well what current Light models in Light box are not from me at all.
you did not use any my single idea to create first lights in LightBox.
Current Light models are 80% from you and 20% from Janak and 0% from me.
I have bigger respect to your work than you have.
I am happy with the lighting model we developed Sergey, but we never thought LED''s helped make good decisions. Btw. I am working today for next Light models in third LightBox prototype
I am very happy for any improvements or better designs that you can create.




My task is to create SCORE grading system what help consumer to compare BEAUTY between different Cuts .
I think Cut Selection system is a better term. I understand you have a scoring process that you are working on too - but I think the overall system can use that ''score'' just like it can use LR or other Basic Light factors - the important thing is for people to be able to compare and choose for themselves in an open and transperant way with known and repeatable tools.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Here is what is wrong with using ASET and Ideal-scope for grading some fancy shapes

 

[Karl_K]

The biggest problem is that lighting trends are going to flatter lighting with the new technology mandated by law.

My concern is that it is running into the problem of jewelery shop syndrome where the lighting in the store is getting more and more disconnected from real world lighting.
This is a serious problem for diamond shoppers that is going to get worse.

 

[Serg]

Date: 11/25/2009 7:51:49 AM
Author: Karl_K
The biggest problem is that lighting trends are going to flatter lighting with the new technology mandated by law.


My concern is that it is running into the problem of jewelery shop syndrome where the lighting in the store is getting more and more disconnected from real world lighting.

This is a serious problem for diamond shoppers that is going to get worse.

Karl,
Lets discuss concrete.

What is not realistic on this photo?

I think this image is typical for many Well lighting offices . At least I saw similar images in modern offices with 4-5 meters ceiling ( with combination halogen and fluorescent lights). In offices with 2.5meters ceiling diamonds usually more dull

 

[Serg]

Date: 11/25/2009 7:51:49 AM
Author: Karl_K
The biggest problem is that lighting trends are going to flatter lighting with the new technology mandated by law.


My concern is that it is running into the problem of jewelery shop syndrome where the lighting in the store is getting more and more disconnected from real world lighting.

This is a serious problem for diamond shoppers that is going to get worse.

what is not realistic on this photo?

Btw. Lighting in offices and house become better and better. there is big progress in lighting environments last years

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 11/25/2009 8:06:14 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 11/25/2009 7:51:49 AM

Author: Karl_K

The biggest problem is that lighting trends are going to flatter lighting with the new technology mandated by law.



My concern is that it is running into the problem of jewelery shop syndrome where the lighting in the store is getting more and more disconnected from real world lighting.


This is a serious problem for diamond shoppers that is going to get worse.

Karl,

Lets discuss concrete.


What is not realistic on this photo?


I think this image is typical for many Well lighting offices . At least I saw similar images in modern offices with 4-5 meters ceiling ( with combination halogen and fluorescent lights). In offices with 2.5meters ceiling diamonds usually more dull

static it is fine.
When it is in motion is the problem.
The lighting is coming ------- where in the real word it is - -- - where each - is a light source.
With the leds it is ......................

 

[Serg]

Date: 11/25/2009 8:10:21 AM
Author: Karl_K

Date: 11/25/2009 8:06:14 AM

Author: Serg

Date: 11/25/2009 7:51:49 AM


Author: Karl_K


The biggest problem is that lighting trends are going to flatter lighting with the new technology mandated by law.




My concern is that it is running into the problem of jewelery shop syndrome where the lighting in the store is getting more and more disconnected from real world lighting.



This is a serious problem for diamond shoppers that is going to get worse.

Karl,


Lets discuss concrete.



What is not realistic on this photo?



I think this image is typical for many Well lighting offices . At least I saw similar images in modern offices with 4-5 meters ceiling ( with combination halogen and fluorescent lights). In offices with 2.5meters ceiling diamonds usually more dull

static it is fine.

When it is in motion is the problem.

The lighting is coming ------- where in the real word it is - -- - where each - is a light source.

With the leds it is ......................

re:static it is fine. When it is in motion is the problem.

Karl, if each static photo is fine then you can not say what we use unrealistic light environment. ( to much bright or to much fire than in consumer light conditions)

Do you agree?

I suppose what many PS''s have shift sight due too deep using IS/ASET , they overestimating importance of Brightness, and evolute cut performance in FaceUp position mainly

So if you see moves with a lot of flashes , your first though " it can not be in real light conditions. It is cheating"

You need wake up and back to real world. you spend to much time in Internet with IS/ASET, single photo shots, what broke for you connection between real cut performance and Cut grading.
there is huge gap between Lab cut grading, ASET/IS rejections tools and Diamond Beauty

unfortunately "consumer scare-mondering" is main Business idea for Labs and Diamonds "Brands".

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 11/25/2009 8:50:06 AM
Author: Serg

re:static it is fine. When it is in motion is the problem.


Karl, if each static photo is fine then you can not say what we use unrealistic light environment. ( to much bright or to much fire than in consumer light conditions)


Do you agree?

no, I don't because that is not how your using it, it has a movable table and the goal is to use motion

I suppose what many PS's have shift sight due too deep using IS/ASET , they overestimating importance of Brightness, and evolute cut performance in FaceUp position mainly
you underestimate them if anything the movement is towards considering motion more and more

So if you see moves with a lot of flashes , your first though ' it can not be in real light conditions. It is cheating'

when I first saw them I said to myself looks pretty but then when I thought about it pretty isn't the goal being able to compare diamonds and get a correlation to the real world is.


You need wake up and back to real world. you spend to much time in Internet with IS/ASET, single photo shots, what broke for you connection between real cut performance and Cut grading.

you are totally off base there.

there is huge gap between Lab cut grading, ASET/IS rejections tools and Diamond Beauty
that we agree on

unfortunately 'consumer scare-mondering' is main Business idea for Labs and Diamonds 'Brands'.
no, less than honest behavior is the reason for the little respect for the industry that led to the rise of the labs.
It is very saddening to hear some of the comments made about the trade by everyday people.
What is even worse is that in some cases it is true.
So I do my best to tell them about the good in the trade.

 

[Serg]

Karl:static it is fine. When it is in motion is the problem.


Serg:Karl, if each static photo is fine then you can not say what we use unrealistic light environment. ( to much bright or to much fire than in consumer light conditions)


Do you agree?

Karl:no, I don''t because that is not how your using it, it has a movable table and the goal is to use motion


Karl, Sorry, I do not see any logic in your answer. what is connection with our goal? Motion?
Please give more detail answer on below question :

""Karl, if EACH static photo is fine then you can not say what we use unrealistic light environment.


Do you agree?

I do not ask about your perception our movie. I ask you judge our Light environment by our single photos

 

[Karl_K]

Serg,
I am not sure what you are looking for.

When static the images are fine.

It is when the diamonds are moving the lighting is to busy creating more and quicker flashes than the real world.
There are to many light sources with to narrow an angle between them.
I would increase the distance between the tubes and reduce the led count.
I am not a fan of leds to start but when you have to many of them it is even more fake.

 

[Serg]

Date: 11/25/2009 3:32:19 PM
Author: Karl_K
Serg,

I am not sure what you are looking for.


When static the images are fine.


It is when the diamonds are moving the lighting is to busy creating more and quicker flashes than the real world.

There are to many light sources with to narrow an angle between them.

I would increase the distance between the tubes and reduce the led count.

I am not a fan of leds to start but when you have to many of them it is even more fake.

Karl, If Light fake then static images should be fake too.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Karl I think sergey is right.
Now clearly i agree with you regarding the amount of flare on the 4 rounds with LED.

But please review the others and comment specifically. Do screen captures etc.
If need be I can email you specific still photos where I have them as we view these actual stills in a totally different viewer which you can download and use too.

I am sure you agree that this is important work.

 

[Karl_K]

Hi Garry
It is very important work.
I am swamped right now and don''t have a lot of time to play.
Try this test, take a diamond and watch it in the box as it cycles.
Then take the diamond and view it in your office and at home and outside.
Pay particular attention to the number of flashes per degree of movement.

That is my base disagreement with it as it is now.
To many flashes per degree of movement compared to the real world as a result of it catching multiple light sources that are to close together.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/25/2009 7:21:34 PM
Author: Karl_K
Hi Garry
It is very important work.
I am swamped right now and don''t have a lot of time to play.
Try this test, take a diamond and watch it in the box as it cycles.
Then take the diamond and view it in your office and at home and outside.
Pay particular attention to the number of flashes per degree of movement.

That is my base disagreement with it as it is now.
To many flashes per degree of movement compared to the real world as a result of it catching multiple light sources that are to close together.

Karl I do not have a set up here anymore.
But i made a set up and a little video which i emailed to you.
Not sure what you intend to achieve?

But you do not yet understand what Sergey aims to achieve.
A concentrated grading environment crammed into one box with variants that enable anyone to rank diamonds.
Bad stones will stand out - I am sure you can see that in the video''s with 3 by 3 = 9 stones.

 

[innerkitten]

3 and 4, but 2 intrigues me.

However I'm no expert when it comes to diamonds.

So 3 4 2 1

 

[meredith07]

#2 is my favorite.

In order of most favorite: 2, 4, 1, 3.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

thanks everyone for participating.
Here is a table of the results from this small survey.

Stone 2 was the winner.
Stone 1 was either loved or not.
Stones 3 and 4 were not super popular, but not disliked as much as 1 & 2

 

[Stephan]

4, 2, 1, 3.
I love 421, I don''t like 3.
Garry, I made my choice before seeing the angles.

 

[mamong]

Hi,

In daylight, 2 and I can't see much difference between the rest
in LED, 2 and then 4 1 3