Rhino''s Review: The Assessment of Fire Video

[Regular Guy]

John,

I think this was a really helpful video, thanks.

The diamond you call common, though...that is a real barker, right? 7.1 HCA? I''ve never seen one presented here intentionally scoring so poorly.

I think you might really consider doing a part II, which can provide a real value added benefit. Compare for us, perhaps in another video which you might call...close but no cigar...two diamonds which you might consider: ideal, and another which is not quite.

Seeing in these different modes two diamonds, the one of which we might really consider buying in order to save some cash, vs. the ideal, which would cost more, but which you can help demonstrate to us, would be worth the difference...this would be a great follow up.

Many thanks again!

 

[sunkist]

Wow Ellchris, that is cool that this is your stone!! You must be so proud of it

I''m so flattered that in some way I helped you decide to buy it

You really are lucky! Now, I agree with Diamondlove, where are the pictures of your pendant!?? We gotta have pictures

 

[ellchris]

as soon as i find the camera i''ll post pics.
have no idea where my husband put it and neither does he

 

[Rod]

Great Video Rhino!! Thanks

As I've written on numerous occasions I own a GIA graded Very Good, not an Excellent/Ideal cut. My rock has a large table (though not as big as your "lesser" cut stone) and is more Tolkowski in proportion. It's quite a beautiful stone though.

I know you're in the business to make money. And I realize putting an ideal stone up against one in which the table was in the 63% range really showed the difference between an excellent cut and one not so excellent, but I couldn't help but wonder how the comparison would have looked if:

1. The two stones being shown were of identical size (obviously your ideal stone was larger)
2. How the ideal stone would have compared against a stone in which the cut differences were not as significant (say an Excellent vs a Very Good cut)

Again, I think your video was really really good.

Thanks

 

[kenny]

Cool video.

Someday vendors may have the technology and the bandwidth to include not only still pics of the stones but videos of each stone under standardized and tightly controlled lighting conditions.

Then the customer at home can compare two stones side by side as they move and sparkle.

Wouldn''t THAT be cool?

 

[David0722]

Date: 8/7/2006 2:12:13 PM
Author: kenny
Cool video.

Someday vendors may have the technology and the bandwidth to include not only still pics of the stones but videos of each stone under standardized and tightly controlled lighting conditions.

Then the customer at home can compare two stones side by side as they move and sparkle.

Wouldn''t THAT be cool?

... just like the Gem Advisor Virtual Models that are available at Good Old Gold?

 

[scarlet16]

Rhino-
This video is awesome. I showed my significant other and though he''s pretty disinterested in sparklies normally, I think it piqued his interest somewhat...

Now, how do I convince him to take a ride out to Massapequa with me? I tried to play the "well, he''s got lots of toys you could play with" gig...hopefully that works. He''s a scientific-type. (We''re in the city...so as soon as I can do so, I''m coming for a visit)!

 

[Lynn B]

Hey Jon,
I just got done watching the video (AGAIN!) and I was wondering if you have any plans to make another one? I was thinking that a video that plainly showed "brilliance" and "scintillation" would be a nice "sequel" to your "fire" one!!! I know a lot people have a lot of confusion about what *exactly* brilliance and scint are. Just a thought!
Thanks again, awesome movie!
Lynn

 

[Eva17]

dows Media Player cannot play the file because the server is not responding. If you entered a URL or path to play the file, verify that it is correct. If you clicked a link to play the file, the link may not be valid.


Does anyone know what this message means? It comes up when i try to watch the movie.


Any suggestions?????

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Wonderfulo entertainment Rhino, but what a load of codswallop.

The steep deep is a wonderfull example of the difference between a bad and good stone; virtually no contest (and I would not support that stone in a pink fit).

It is clear however that 90% of this video is shot from high angles (relative to the lighting angle) and shows you have still not read the GIA Diamond Dock manual (or choose to justify some sort of ????? i do not know what or why).

You mention the difference between the effects of background dakness - you mixed it up - dark backgrounds make all diamonds appear lighter and light backgrounds make all diamonds appear darker - everyone please try it - it will take 2 seconds.

In some of the environs (eg Tower) you begin filming from a more oblique angle and the differenc between the 2 stones in not apparent. In your preferred top down view slightly shallow stones will out perform Tolkowsky cuts.

When you put your hand over the stones in out door lighting we can really see the true difference in brilliance and contrast cut quality with a wide range of good light. To then say that that is what Diamond Dock does is really drawing a long bow; the images are completely different. You have confused the difference in performance between a very bad stone and a very good stone as a justification. There is no basis for your comparison.

Almost all your examples of how the well cut stone out performs are very close to the position where the table reflects glare = very high lighting angle. Try that with a nice symmetrical slightly shallow stone and it will blow the ideal cut away (which is not a justification for shallow stones - but an exercise that you can perform to help you understand a whole lot of information that you have yet to comprehend Rhino).

Apologies to all those for the complex chart. But i hope this time Rhino that you will try to understand it and why you see what you see when you misuse DD

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/8/2006 8:43:57 AM
Author: Eva17
dows Media Player cannot play the file because the server is not responding. If you entered a URL or path to play the file, verify that it is correct. If you clicked a link to play the file, the link may not be valid.


Does anyone know what this message means? It comes up when i try to watch the movie.


Any suggestions?????

right click the link and select save as and save it to your computer then open it once its downloaded.

 

[Eva17]

Thank you Strm! Once again I have learned something new today from this PS forum and their wonderful professionals!

It worked. I was able to watch the video.

I found it entertaining and informative.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/8/2006 10:44:42 AM
Author: Eva17
Thank you Strm! Once again I have learned something new today from this PS forum and their wonderful professionals!

It worked. I was able to watch the video.

I found it entertaining and informative.

check out the other vids on his website too they are pretty kewl

 

[Rhino]

Just catching up here...

Hi EVA

TOWER RECORDS ROCKS!!! The manager of the store was very accommodating. Their only request was that I let them view the bling and not record any signs etc in their store saying Tower Records.

Interestingly the spot lighting there was far more intense than it is in our store. I totally hear ya on the home depot thing too. During that time while I was wearing a ring I had made for myself at that time Home Depot was another favorite spot for me.

Hey sunkist!

Yes ... a very good lesson with stones of a lower color. Don''t get me wrong though ... I''m not trying to make it out to be something it isn''t but superior cut quality certainly does a stupendous job of masking it.

Hi assherisme,

hehe... the java thing wasn''t intentional. I actually do say that interchangeably with cawfee.

Just not on that vid.

It''d be a pleasure to meet ya one day.

Hi oshinbreeze,

I appreciate your comments. I tried to keep this comparison simple as an introduction to the topic. Glad you liked the other vids as well. After reading the suggestions here I''ll be editing them to add the specs/data on each stone. Regarding Asschers ... I have that on my "to do" list. We generally send back all the poopers but next time one comes in I''ll be sure to record it alongside a top performer as a quick reference (kinda like what we did with the princess comparisons). Stay tuned.

ellchris!!!

I didn''t realize that was yours!!! Very photogenic rock ya got there eh?

More than anything I''m happy that you''re happy.

Hi Lynn

Your kind words and commentary are greatly appreciated. I''ve been thinking about it and you''re right on. I''ll be putting the data at the beginning. Yanno ... that same stone I use in the brightness video and in environments that show white light return that K looks even better! Good to cya around dear.

Hi Kaleigh!

VERY interesting factoid and hey ... I never thought us northerners had accents anyhow. It''s the rest of the world that does!

Always appreciate your input.

Hi Ira,

Haha... yes ... barker would be an understatement.

Regarding your suggestion: "I think you might really consider doing a part II, which can provide a real value added benefit. Compare for us, perhaps in another video which you might call...close but no cigar...two diamonds which you might consider: ideal, and another which is not quite. Seeing in these different modes two diamonds, the one of which we might really consider buying in order to save some cash, vs. the ideal, which would cost more, but which you can help demonstrate to us, would be worth the difference...this would be a great follow up."

It''s funny you should suggest this because this is the project I am currently editing. I have shot all the footage but before I publish this I want to go over the specs of each stone and explain why it failed to make the grade. I''ve been able to capture the nuances in appearance between them in both natural and simulated daylight and I''m excited about finishing this current project. If Leo allows me I''ll post that here for educational purposes as well once it is completed.

Kind regards,

 

[Rhino]

Oops... almost forgot ya''ll on page 2.

How are ya rod,

Thanks for the kind words.

"1. The two stones being shown were of identical size (obviously your ideal stone was larger)
2. How the ideal stone would have compared against a stone in which the cut differences were not as significant (say an Excellent vs a Very Good cut)"

Check out my response to Ira (should be right above this). In the next vid we''ll be looking at these types of comparisons and specifically GIA Ex vs GIA VG but will not only be showing the differences in appearance but teaching on what causes the stones to get the VG instead of the Ex grade (ie. steep/deeps contributing too leakage, shallow/shallow''s etc.).

Kenny ...

You''re reading my mind.

Dave is correct in pointing out that this can actually be done through the virtual models to a certain extent but we''re looking to take things to the next level. One step at a time of course.

Hi Scarlet,

Heh... yea .. us guys I think would rather watch a video than sit and read a website. I hope to meet ya sometime!

Hello again Lynn,

Already done. Check our vid tab on the menu.

Hi Eva,

Glad to see you got it working and thanks for the kind words. The tower records shots were kewl eh? In the 2 places in the store where I shot the vid I liked the 2nd place better. I should have used a Solasfera in there too.

Kindest regards,
Jonathan

 

[Rhino]

Hi Garry,

Mine will be in bold mate and between the lines.

Date: 8/8/2006 8:50:55 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Wonderfulo entertainment Rhino, but what a load of codswallop.

I love you too Garry.

The steep deep is a wonderfull example of the difference between a bad and good stone; virtually no contest (and I would not support that stone in a pink fit).

That is precisely the difference I wanted to show. A common pooper alongside an ideal.

It is clear however that 90% of this video is shot from high angles (relative to the lighting angle) and shows you have still not read the GIA Diamond Dock manual (or choose to justify some sort of ????? i do not know what or why).

Thanks Garry. I have indeed read the GIA DD manual and have viewed diamonds in every possible angle you can see it in there. The views I show are normal viewing distances in accord with my typical focal length except I use macro to show detail. Most people when viewing diamonds are standing and looking down onto the diamond as it is on their hand. This is the view the AGS ASET assumes as well. Each time I view or videotape a comparison I don''t think it is necessary for me to get out a protracter and make sure I am *exactly precisely* at a 45 degree angle especially since diamonds are not static but rocked when they are being observed. In each of the views I am careful to do just that.

You mention the difference between the effects of background dakness - you mixed it up - dark backgrounds make all diamonds appear lighter and light backgrounds make all diamonds appear darker - everyone please try it - it will take 2 seconds.

Are you forgetting about our conversatoin with Rogue in the other thread? Even rogue saw the leaky areas against a black background which is exactly what I''m talking about. Garry I know precisely what I''m talking about in this regard. I think you are mistaken (or on a little too much of that good Aussie wine)

.

Ie. If you take a leaky diamond and place it against a black background the stone appears dark ... you can see through those leaky facets to the background behind it. If you take a leaky diamond and allow backlighting (like in tweezers or a transparent/translucent tray) the stone appears lighter. The video demonstrates this and it is preciely what I saw as well as what rogue reports seeing in the other thread. I''ve attached a photograph demonstrating this. You may recognize the 2 stones. The leaky stone against the black background appears darker.

In some of the environs (eg Tower) you begin filming from a more oblique angle and the differenc between the 2 stones in not apparent. In your preferred top down view slightly shallow stones will out perform Tolkowsky cuts.

I don''t think I''d go so far as saying that they out perform Tolklowsky cuts, perhaps similar but the same stones lack brightness in diffuse daylight which is one main reason they don''t make AGS or GIA Ideal.

When you put your hand over the stones in out door lighting we can really see the true difference in brilliance and contrast cut quality with a wide range of good light. To then say that that is what Diamond Dock does is really drawing a long bow; the images are completely different. You have confused the difference in performance between a very bad stone and a very good stone as a justification. There is no basis for your comparison.

All I was noting is that the comparison I was drawing in those environments (not just for this fire video but also the brightness video as well), was that the DiamondDock does not lead me to a conclusion that is any different than I was observing in these other environments.

Almost all your examples of how the well cut stone out performs are very close to the position where the table reflects glare = very high lighting angle. Try that with a nice symmetrical slightly shallow stone and it will blow the ideal cut away (which is not a justification for shallow stones - but an exercise that you can perform to help you understand a whole lot of information that you have yet to comprehend Rhino).

Au contraire Garry. You think I fail to comprehend. I understand the issue more than you realize.

Apologies to all those for the complex chart. But i hope this time Rhino that you will try to understand it and why you see what you see when you misuse DD

Misuse DiamondDock? I am not misusing it Garry. Not one iota. Once or if you actually acquire one and use it as I do on a daily basis, only then will you comprehend why I use it and feel the way I do. It does not show misleading views as you have suggested in the past. I do not wish to discuss this here in this thread but if you would like we can start a thread or talk about it in email.

Regards,

 

[Rod]

Date: 8/8/2006 4:07:19 PM
Author: Rhino
Oops... almost forgot ya''ll on page 2.

How are ya rod,

Thanks for the kind words.

''1. The two stones being shown were of identical size (obviously your ideal stone was larger)
2. How the ideal stone would have compared against a stone in which the cut differences were not as significant (say an Excellent vs a Very Good cut)''

Check out my response to Ira (should be right above this). In the next vid we''ll be looking at these types of comparisons and specifically GIA Ex vs GIA VG but will not only be showing the differences in appearance but teaching on what causes the stones to get the VG instead of the Ex grade (ie. steep/deeps contributing too leakage, shallow/shallow''s etc.).

Kenny ...

You''re reading my mind.

Dave is correct in pointing out that this can actually be done through the virtual models to a certain extent but we''re looking to take things to the next level. One step at a time of course.

Hi Scarlet,

Heh... yea .. us guys I think would rather watch a video than sit and read a website. I hope to meet ya sometime!

Hello again Lynn,

Already done. Check our vid tab on the menu.

Hi Eva,

Glad to see you got it working and thanks for the kind words. The tower records shots were kewl eh? In the 2 places in the store where I shot the vid I liked the 2nd place better. I should have used a Solasfera in there too.

Kindest regards,
Jonathan

Good, thanks Rhino.......and I''m doing really well, btw. Be careful on this one. You don''t want to hurt us poor folks who believe our GIA VG stones rock!!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/8/2006 4:59:04 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi Garry,

Mine will be in bold mate and between the lines.

Apologies to all those for the complex chart. But i hope this time Rhino that you will try to understand it and why you see what you see when you misuse DD

Misuse DiamondDock? I am not misusing it Garry. Not one iota. Once or if you actually acquire one and use it as I do on a daily basis, only then will you comprehend why I use it and feel the way I do. It does not show misleading views as you have suggested in the past. I do not wish to discuss this here in this thread but if you would like we can start a thread or talk about it in email.

Regards,

Rhino you have been invited many times in many seperate threads to discuss these issues over here: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gia-diamond-dock-simple-summary.42538/

For what ever reason you choose not to.
Your answers posted above today to my questions further show your apparent lack of understanding and are not worth the waste of time to correct since the issue for you is rather like a religious belief debate.

But then we waited and you learned the weaknesses of many of you prior beliefs about your latest toys. I can wait a bit longer.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/8/2006 7:40:38 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/8/2006 4:59:04 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi Garry,

Mine will be in bold mate and between the lines.

Apologies to all those for the complex chart. But i hope this time Rhino that you will try to understand it and why you see what you see when you misuse DD

Misuse DiamondDock? I am not misusing it Garry. Not one iota. Once or if you actually acquire one and use it as I do on a daily basis, only then will you comprehend why I use it and feel the way I do. It does not show misleading views as you have suggested in the past. I do not wish to discuss this here in this thread but if you would like we can start a thread or talk about it in email.

Regards,

Rhino you have been invited many times in many seperate threads to discuss these issues over here: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gia-diamond-dock-simple-summary.42538/

For what ever reason you choose not to.
Your answers posted above today to my questions further show your apparent lack of understanding and are not worth the waste of time to correct since the issue for you is rather like a religious belief debate.

But then we waited and you learned the weaknesses of many of you prior beliefs about your latest toys. I can wait a bit longer.

Garry you crack me up.....
talk about a one track mind..........
If Jon is too far one way on the DD then you are too far the other and the truth is some where in the middle.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/8/2006 7:47:16 PM
Author: strmrdr
Garry you crack me up.....
talk about a one track mind..........
If Jon is too far one way on the DD then you are too far the other and the truth is some where in the middle.

It would be funny Storm, if the consequences were not so dire.
1. GIA give excellent grades to good and very good diamonds.
2. GIA give lessor grades to excellent diamonds
3. Rhino continues to misuse Diamond Dock by filming at high angles with the mistaken belief that tilting of the stones solves the problem. He does not need a protractor, just a seat.

 

[pricescope]

Date: 8/8/2006 4:59:04 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi Garry,

Mine will be in bold mate and between the lines.

Date: 8/8/2006 8:50:55 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Wonderfulo entertainment Rhino, but what a load of codswallop.

I love you too Garry.

....

You mention the difference between the effects of background dakness - you mixed it up - dark backgrounds make all diamonds appear lighter and light backgrounds make all diamonds appear darker - everyone please try it - it will take 2 seconds.

Are you forgetting about our conversatoin with Rogue in the other thread? Even rogue saw the leaky areas against a black background which is exactly what I'm talking about. Garry I know precisely what I'm talking about in this regard. I think you are mistaken (or on a little too much of that good Aussie wine)

.

Ie. If you take a leaky diamond and place it against a black background the stone appears dark ... you can see through those leaky facets to the background behind it. If you take a leaky diamond and allow backlighting (like in tweezers or a transparent/translucent tray) the stone appears lighter. The video demonstrates this and it is preciely what I saw as well as what rogue reports seeing in the other thread. I've attached a photograph demonstrating this. You may recognize the 2 stones. The leaky stone against the black background appears darker.

If I'm not mistaken, Garry isn't talking about leakage but how camera and our eyes adjust to the background and the same diamond under the same light appears darker on lighter background and vice versa.

I tried to capture what Garry suggested to do: same stone under the same light was shot on a white paper background and then paper was removed quickly leaving black cover behind the stone.

See how the camera sees the stone with different backgrounds. On the bright background there is a lot of light entering the camera and camera adjust the settings to capture just a few very bright reflections from the stone (similar to DiamondDock with bright background - wall and tray - and close bright lights).

When you remove bright background, the camera is able to "see" much more secondary reflections from the stone.

 

[pricescope]

on my hand it looks differently as well - somewhat more human?

(added) Still my eyes see it differently than my camera.

 

[pricescope]

Here is a small video clip illustrating camera adaptation when changing background

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/8/2006 9:53:44 PM
Author: Pricescope
Here is a small video clip illustrating camera adaptation when changing background

That is going to vary on a camera by camera basis what yours does isn't the same as another brand will do.
By using center weighting and macro it can be made minimalised.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/8/2006 8:04:06 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/8/2006 7:47:16 PM
Author: strmrdr
Garry you crack me up.....
talk about a one track mind..........
If Jon is too far one way on the DD then you are too far the other and the truth is some where in the middle.

It would be funny Storm, if the consequences were not so dire.
1. GIA give excellent grades to good and very good diamonds.
2. GIA give lessor grades to excellent diamonds
3. Rhino continues to misuse Diamond Dock by filming at high angles with the mistaken belief that tilting of the stones solves the problem. He does not need a protractor, just a seat.

1: has nothing to do with the DD. its mainly because of the trade picking what they are used to as the best. Using pricescopers would have led to very different results.

2: painting makes a difference in scintillation they decided that the difference is a downgrade.

3: in another thread he showed that the angles aren't that big a deal.

There are a lot of things I don't like about the DD but its not evil.
LEDS *cough* *cough* *puke*

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Correct Leonid.
You read what I wrote.
Rhino seems to need remedial reading lessons.

Storm the idea of using a pin point camera exposure setting negates the effect that our eyes perform. You have never quite grasped that from Yuri and Sergey''s example last year.
The camera does not show what we see - but with a normal averaging auto exposure like Rhino used (eg when he put hand infront of sunlight) the camera operates like we do - except we have 2 eyes.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/9/2006 12:26:37 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

The camera does not show what we see - but with a normal averaging auto exposure like Rhino used (eg when he put hand infront of sunlight) the camera operates like we do - except we have 2 eyes.

whats the problem then?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/8/2006 9:53:44 PM
Author: Pricescope
Here is a small video clip illustrating camera adaptation when changing background
That does it and shows the effect Leonid - the video did not play for me until I turned off bill gates.

This is Sergey and Yuri's example from last year - hope it helps you Storm - then you can explain it to Rhino.

Where the stones are dark the close up strong lights are on.

 

[belle]

great example leonid.
garry, i remember sergey''s thread from last year. it was a lightbulb

moment.
well...for me anyway.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/9/2006 1:02:05 AM
Author: belle
great example leonid.
garry, i remember sergey's thread from last year. it was a lightbulb

moment.
well...for me anyway.

good idea Belle - I wrote on the lightbulb on, lightbulb off

(BTW - note the writting even appears dimmer when the lights are on - the power of the background and how our eyes adapt to lighting - even in the case of this on the computer screen.)