The BrillianceScope: A Problem with Pixels

[Superidealist]

Introduction

The BrillianceScope scores "white light," "color light," and "scintillation" according to the following scheme:

The images are made up of thousands of "pixels". The analysis program then examines each pixel and determines if it is a White pixel, Color pixel or other. The software then counts the number of White pixels in all five images and divides it by the total number of pixels in the diamond. Thus a percentage number is arrived at i.e. the White Light Performance (WLP).

We measured thousands of diamonds to find the best WLP and the worst WLP. A simple linear scale was developed with the worst WLP on the left and the best WLP on the right. The software then plots the WLP number of the measured diamond on the scale. This allows anyone at a glance to determine how this diamond compares to others in the world.

The exact procedure and steps apply to the Color Light Performance. Scintillation is slightly different in that the number of "points of Light" that turn on and off as the lighting changes is plotted on the graphs. (Source: www.gemex.com/htmdocs/consumer/old/technical_faqs.html, now inactive)

In short, each measure ("white light," "color light," and "scintillation") is determined by first classifying pixels as white, color, or other, then counting them, and finally assigning a score based on this count.


Summary


Each pixel is classified as either white, color, or other according to an undisclosed rule chosen by GemEx. The choice of classification rules influences the scores generated. Three claims are made regarding this:

• Different classification rules can lead to different pixel counts for the exact same image.

• BrillianceScope scores of diamonds with different characteristics can differ based on the rule chosen to classify pixels even if the total area covered by the flashes is exactly the same.

• The choice of rule used to classify pixels can result in the BrillianceScope favoring diamonds with certain characteristics over other better-performing diamonds.

The Problem

As stated by GemEx above, each pixel in an image is classified as either white, color, or other. Some rule is used to make this assignment, but the specifics of this rule have not been made public. We will show that different classification rules lead to different pixel counts for the same image and to different rankings for diamonds having different characteristics - even to the extent that diamonds favored by the chosen rule can outscore other better-performing diamonds.

To simplify, let us confine our attention to the "white light" scale. (Similar arguments apply to "color light" and "scintillation.") Furthermore, in the interest of clarity, we consider only the case where the image is strictly black and white. (Rules for color images are necessarily more complex but the principles outlined still apply.)

Consider the three classification rules listed below.

Rule A: A pixel is classified as a "white" pixel if and only if it is 100% white.
Rule B: A pixel is classified as a "white" pixel if and only if it is at least 50% white.
Rule C: A pixel is classified as a "white" pixel if and only if it is at least 25% white.

Consider the simplified diamond image shown below. Under Rule A, this image contains exactly one white pixel. Under Rule B, this image contains exactly five white pixels. Under Rule C, this image contains exactly nine white pixels. So, as claimed, different classification rules can lead to different pixel counts for the exact same image.

 

[Superidealist]

Now consider the three images shown below. Diamond 1 is an idealized representation of a diamond producing a few large flashes of light. Diamond 2 is an idealized representation of a diamond having more slightly smaller flashes of light. Diamond 3 is an idealized representation of a diamond with many tiny flashes of light. Note that the total area of the white region in each of the three diamonds is exactly the same.

Under Rule A, Diamond 1 contains exactly four white pixels while Diamonds 2 and 3 contain exactly zero white pixels. So if Rule A were used by the BrillianceScope to classify pixels, Diamond 1 would be assigned a higher "white light" score than Diamonds 2 and 3.

Under Rule B, Diamond 1 contains exactly four white pixels, Diamond 2 contains exactly eight white pixels, and Diamond 3 contains exactly zero white pixels. So if Rule B were used by the BrillianceScope to classify pixels, Diamond 2 would be assigned a higher "white light" score than Diamonds 1 and 3.

Under Rule C, Diamond 1 contains exactly four white pixels, Diamond 2 contains exactly eight white pixels, and Diamond 3 contains exactly sixteen white pixels. So if Rule C were used by the BrillianceScope to classify pixels, Diamond 3 would be assigned a higher "white light" score than Diamonds 1 and 2.

So, as claimed, BrillianceScope scores of diamonds with different characteristics can differ based on the rule chosen to classify pixels even if the total area covered by the flashes is exactly the same.

 

[Superidealist]

Finally, consider the two images shown below. Diamond 1 is an idealized representation of a diamond producing a few large flashes of light while Diamond 2 is an idealized representation of a diamond having several tiny flashes of light. Note that the area of the white region in Diamond 1 is exactly twice that of the area of the white region in Diamond 2. Notice, however, that under Rule C, Diamond 2 contains exactly twice as many white pixels as Diamond 1. This higher white pixel count will be recorded as a higher "white light" score by a BrillianceScope using Rule C. So, as claimed, the choice of rule used to classify pixels can result in the BrillianceScope favoring diamonds with certain characteristics over other better-performing diamonds.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Interesting Riley.
What about camera lens flare?

 

[Superidealist]

I know this is old news to several Pricescope regulars as I first posted it on Diamond Talk more than two years ago, but it may be new to some.

 

[Superidealist]

Lens flare, calibration, backlighting of the pavilion and all other issues aside, even if the BrillianceScope works perfectly, the arbitrary nature of the classification rule unduly rewards some diamonds and unduly penalizes others.

From my correspondence with the Isee2 people, it seems that the Isee2 takes the more sensible approach of assigning a weight to each pixel rather than simply classifying it as "on" or "off".

 

[purduephotog]

I used to do this when working with ... displays. We'd have to over sample the region, obviously, to avoid this problem. As with any sensor, newer ones are cheaper to make.

Ideally you'd want a 5k array linearly scanned at 14bit (16 bit marketing, hah) and sample each one individually.

Sadly, that would take, oh, about 3 hours per stone.

It's all a tradeoff.... if all the images are archived then at some point someone with lots of time can develop new algorithms. GA's come to mind as a fast way of teaching a 'good' stone from a bad one. Course it'll learn from the teacher, and if the teacher grades a particular bias... the algorithm will have it.

Sorry it's late, can't sleep and this touched on something I've worked extensively in (Before being Laid Off, hah!)

 

[wonka27]

I have to say...that is over the top. I like to think I'm a somewhat intelligent individual, but I didn't follow it at all. I'll have to re-read a few times.

I personally have enjoyed having the brilliancescope as a tool as I shopped for diamonds online. While maybe there are technical flaws that can be exposed, it appears to me the machine can perform an analysis at a relatively respectible clip. Having something like this to help with purchasing decisions when you can't have the diamond in front of you make it a lot more appealing for some consumers. I have seen posts by other pricescope members about the machine, and personally take Rhino at his word when he says the consumer can pick out the highest scoring diamond everytime. I think he has too much of a reputation to go around telling stories on the forum.

Is it for everyone...certainly not. But for someone like myself that wants visual proof when purchasing online, it made me feel a lot more secure in my decision. Had the diamond not lived up to its BScope analysis when I saw it with my own eyes, I would have returned it immediately.

 

[mdx]

----------------
On 8/30/2004 9:32:10 PM Garry H (Cut Nut) wrote:

Interesting Riley.
What about camera lens flare?----------------

I would think that lens flare (secondary reflections) would be a real problem for pixel counting systems.

johan

 

[oldminer]

I am certainly not going to defend GemEx in this matter. I have other allegiances and other technology that I am aligned with, but it seems that every "device" or technology needs to rely on rules and scenarios that do their best to mimic human results and human perception.


I won't claim to know about how GemEx works and the above explanations make it very evident there could be problems with the end grading result.




Do you have a more valid way of dealing with this important issue that you could share? If we want to have machines and technology assess performance, then we want the end result to mimic human perception. Is there some simple enough solution that has been overlooked?

 

[purduephotog]

="padding-bottom:0;marginTop:0;marginBottom:0;">----------------
On 8/31/2004 7:54:01 AM oldminer wrote:


Is there some simple enough solution that has been overlooked?

----------------[/quote]


*snicker*

The technology we were going up against was .... displaced workers. Yep, thats right- they'd have the panels coming off the line and someone would plug them in, note any dead pixels, mura, lines, slow... and move onto the next one.
Never underestimate the power of a large group of like minded individuals who believe their work is the most important- they can crank thru anything.

In defense of GemEx, and without knowing their pixel pitch or how there system is designed... you'd need some mighty small 'sparkles' in order to render 1/4 a pixel. And since there's no access to said machine I can't comment on what a true 'on' or off is. After all, you could define an 'on' pixel as 5000 eV, or an 'on' pixel could be 50,000 eV (when the potential well overflows). It's all gaining- just take an image into photoshop and crank up the contrast until you've got a black or white image.

Lense flare wouldn't contribute that much- surprisingly enough, those that photograph at 40x probably already know this but diffration is your biggest enemy. Thus if you take a system limited by optical diffraction you can't get beat it unless you do some very clever mathematical operations to remove said diffraction.

Anyways, from the pics I've seen it would appear they're photographing downwards; assume they have a low resolution kodak digital science sensor present (typically 2Kx2K square), then that means the surface of the largest stone that can be run in there will be covered in one direction with 2K pixels. Lot of assumptions here...

I have 20x20s on my wall from a camera with 2K in one direction- and I'm quite satisfied with the quality of these images when viewing from 8".

I'd love to be turned loose with one of these machines. Anyone have one in Rochester NY?

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 8/30/2004 11:04:39 PM wonka27 wrote:

I have seen posts by other pricescope members about the machine, and personally take Rhino at his word when he says the consumer can pick out the highest scoring diamond everytime. I think he has too much of a reputation to go around telling stories on the forum.----------------

I don't think that Rhino (or anyone else) intentionally runs around *telling stories*. The fact is he *believes* in the technology, so he supports it. That doesn't make him right or wrong, nor does it necessarily prove or disprove the relevance/veracity of the results the b/scope produces.

Others don't believe in the technology, and they bring great points about it's possible flaws.

 

[wonka27]

I'm just curious...have any of the naysayers of the technology looked at any diamonds analyzed by the BScope? What did you find? I understand the scientific and technical doubt that some may have, but have you taken it a step further to investigate your ideas by looking at some of the diamonds?

 

[Rhino]

Never caught this on the other forum.

While this is one of the more lengthy and seemingly more educated rebuttals of the BrillianceScope it still falls flat on it's face for a number of reasons.

First ... D. Riley... don't take my response personal. I happen to think you're nice guy and you certainly add color to the forum.

I always find your responses interesting whether I agree with them or not. What readers here may not also be aware of is your history of *not liking* the BrillianceScope once you saw how a certain brand, which you like performs on it.

One thing that all must understand before I type this out is this.

Beauty in diamond is subjective. The quality and quantity of it's light return IS NOT. Many people, including those on the forums have difficulty differentiating. While there are those of us who do prefer diamonds with the strongest * most intense light return possible within round brilliant cuts, as you point out (and with which I would also agree) is that what a person considers *the most beautiful* to *them* may not be a diamond with those characteristics.

Regardless of the varying opinions and what some think is more beautiful or not, what is not subjective is the actual light output of the diamond and how much light is being directed at the high, medium and low angles.

Regarding BrillianceScope results and your hypothesis however, a few of the reasons why this reasoning does not stand up is the following...

1. First and foremost this is nothing but pure speculation. Gemex has stated very plainly "each pixel in an image is classified as either white, color, or other."

To add anything to this (which you're entire arguement is based upon speculative additions to Gemex's statement) is pure speculation and has no basis in fact. While what you are saying regarding pixel identification may indeed be true, unless Gemex says so, all the rules you attempt to apply to their analysis is speculative and it is impossible to arriave at a concrete conclusion based on a speculative response.

I prefer to keep things simple and I have not seen any reason to doubt what Gemex has already stated. To break things down into Rules A, B, C, etc. is forcing a definition on their results that has absolutely no proof. I approach every technology with an extremely skeptical eye and as I learn more and more about it, if I find reason to doubt it's veracity I would state so plainly. As a matter of fact I do point out it's flaws in our tutorial on the subject. The flaws, in brief deals with it's measurement of scintillation in diamonds of .6xct and lower and the fact that it does not grade optical symmetry (which the Isee2 does). It is also important to point out that it's results reflect diamond appearance in direct light conditions as opposed to suffuse light conditions.

2. Reason #2 why this arguement is not sound is because it correlates *perfectly* with 2nd generation red reflectors. When I would examine a diamond in a FireScope (especially those with solid edge to edge light return) I would scratch my head figuring out why it didn't peg every meter on the BrillianceScope. With our 2nd gen LightScope, I now know *exactly why* it got the BrillianceScope results it did. LightScope not only shows me whethter the facets are functioning as mirrors or windows but it also shows me what angles those mirrors are positioned. The BrillianceScope, very plainly, rewards those diamonds that are reflecting back more light at the high to medium angles (indicated by the blacks and dark reds via LightScope). This proves to be true not only in round brilliant cut diamonds but in fancy shapes and multifaceted modified rounds as well.

One weakness of first gen red reflectors is it will show you whether facets are functioning as mirrors or windows but it will not show the viewer accurately what position the mirrors are tilted. The angles in which the facets are reflecting back light to the viewer will determine the intensity or weakness of the light being reflected back to the viewer. When you are in direct light conditions, the more facets that are reflecting back light at the high angles (by high angles I mean that light which is exiting perpendicular or near perpendicular to the table), the more intense the fire/scintillation within the diamond will be.

3. Reason #3 is that it's results also correlate with GIA's research on the subject as well. Before GIA even published their research on DCLR (abbreviation for "dispersed colored light return) we had already determined through BrillianceScope technology that diamonds with longer lower girdles and longer star facets produced greater fire coupled with more intense scintillation. This is due to the fact that cutting a stone in such a manner produced more areas within the diamond that reflects back more light at those high angles. Shortening the lower girdles and the stars produces less light exiting at the high angles. It's not just about quantity of light return but quality of light return as well. Particularly the angles in which it is reflecting back light to the viewer.

I can demonstrate this phenomena with TWO technologies, not just BrillianceScope but LightScope as well.

4. Reason #4 involves the human element. In our store we carry both types of H&A. Those of the longer star/lower girdle ilk as well as those with the shorter star/lower girdle. We have many different light conditions in our store with which we show our clients under and in direct light conditions, while there are some who prefer the shorter star/lower girdle kind, the greater majority prefer the longer star/lower girdle due to more action *they can observe* between the 2 when comparing. Some people don't see that much of a difference some people pick it up and see it immediately. Regardless of anyone's preference when there's a 40% difference in price the buyer then has to determine how much they really *prefer* that difference since the comparison is certainly not between the pretty diamond and the ugly one.

I would like to go on record saying that I LOVE BOTH TYPES OF H&A. I can appreciate the beauty of a precision cut diamond whether it's of the longer star/lower girdle type or shorter star/lower girdle type. I recommend anyone to compare the two types should the opportunity present itself. Your preference for beauty may be one or the other or neither! That however does not determine or conflict with BrillianceScope results.

The BrillianceScope is not a predictor or what you may or may not prefer. It records and reports the actual light return & intensity of it, within a diamond. Whether you think those are more beautiful or not is up to the viewer. I am one who happens to like those stones with the most intense output in direct light conditions. I actively seek those out to purchase for my inventory and they do represent the rarest optical results an H&A can get via the technology.

IMO it is the most accurate tool for determing *overall brilliance* in direct light conditions.

 

[jesrush]

D. Riley,

Your argument\explanation is clear and understandable: Essentially, GemEx had to decide on some *subjective* algorithm which they made up out of thin air to determine which pixels qualify as "white" "color" or "other" (i.e. too dark to consider). For example, under a loose algorithm a given pixel might qualify as "white" while the same pixel under a tighter algorith might qualify as "other" (i.e. too dark to consider).

This is a good, reasonable, sensible point.

Where I part with you, is where you begin calling this a "problem." Most everyone (consumers, and professionals) seems to agree that a stone which scores VH-VH-VH on the B'Scope looks very bright, firey, and scintillating in real life. In other words, the ***subjective*** algorithm which GemEx *did* arrive at and implement (probably after extensive testing) seems to have been validated by the consumer (and professional eye).

*Perhaps* there IS a problem with the B'Scope when measuring 8* stones. Perhaps their subjective algorithm which works well for your average diamond has pixel-counting-issues when faced with the unusual cutting of an 8*. But even if that's true--so what? 8* stones (beautiful as they are) make up .000001% of the diamond market. If the tool works well for your average diamond, let's use it!

-J

 

[smaggard]

----------------
On 8/31/2004 11:25:14 AM aljdewey wrote:

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

Others don't believe in the technology, and they bring great points about it's possible flaws.
----------------

All I want to know is what percentage of these people with the *great points* have access to a BrillianceScope and hundreds or even thousands of loose stones to play with??? My guess is not many, most are consumers who have read these forums until they're blue in the face....but still aren't diamond experts! Someone looking at the BScope output of lots of diamonds isn't the same as HAVING those diamonds and the machine to experiment with.
I buy cars and motorcycles....does that make me an automotive engineer? Of course not! I know how much horsepwer they have, I might know all about the suspension, the tires...everything....but at the end of the day I'm just a consumer....like the other 99.9% of individuals on these forums with their *expert opinions*

peace
Scott

p.s. I sure haven't posted here in a long time, however I do still read the forum daily...waiting for my *diamond expert pin* to arrive in the mail...hmmm...where's that damn pin???

 

[Rhino]

----------------
On 8/31/2004 5:01:15 PM jesrush wrote:



*Perhaps* there IS a problem with the B'Scope when measuring 8* stones. Perhaps their subjective algorithm which works well for your average diamond has pixel-counting-issues when faced with the unusual cutting of an 8*. But even if that's true--so what? 8* stones (beautiful as they are) make up .000001% of the diamond market. If the tool works well for your average diamond, let's use it!

-J
----------------

Good response J. Let me clarify one point however. The BrillianceScope has no problem measuring any diamond (or any material for that matter) regardless of who or which factory cut it. It is entirely impartial and could care less whether you put an 8*, Eighternity, Whiteflash, Flanders, Jubilee ... or Australian crystal for that matter. Regardless of the algorithm used, it uses that same algorithm on each and every stone is analyes and is completely impartial when giving the results. The settings do not change from one round stone to the next. This is an important point to note.

Since 8* was brought up let me also say that 8*'s get *excellent* results via the technology. Pierre of Christian Bernard (also a B'scope user) and myself approached Richard wanting to publish B'scope results to further confirm the incredible fire within the 8* diamond and use that as another sales tool. True they never got triple VH's but as D. pointed out (and with which I would also agree) a diamond does not have to get triple VH's to qualify as a *beautiful* diamond.

 

[Superidealist]

Rhino wrote:
What readers here may not also be aware of is your history of *not liking* the BrillianceScope once you saw how a certain brand, which you like performs on it.

I have never liked the BrillianceScope because its maker implies that it measures certain quantities but does not prove that it does. That it may disagree with personal perceptions is, however, also a valid reason for doubting it.

Beauty in diamond is subjective. The quality and quantity of it's light return IS NOT.

I agree with this. The problem at present is that there is no proven device for measuring the quantity and quality of light return. Many of Jon's arguments are predicated on the assumption that the BrillianceScope is such a device. Whenever he uses terms like "most intense", he is operating under this assumption.

While there are those of us who do prefer diamonds with the strongest * most intense light return possible within round brilliant cuts, as you point out (and with which I would also agree) is that what a person considers *the most beautiful* to *them* may not be a diamond with those characteristics.

How does Jon know that the diamonds he prefers have the "strongest" and "most intense" light return? To back up these statements, he would need a device that actually measures these things. Jon assumes without solid proof that the BrillianceScope does this. I do not.

Regardless of the varying opinions and what some think is more beautiful or not, what is not subjective is the actual light output of the diamond and how much light is being directed at the high, medium and low angles.

I agree, but without a device that can measure this output, all we have to go on is our opinions and perceptions.

First and foremost this is nothing but pure speculation. Gemex has stated very plainly 'each pixel in an image is classified as either white, color, or other.'

To add anything to this (which you're entire arguement is based upon speculative additions to Gemex's statement) is pure speculation and has no basis in fact. While what you are saying regarding pixel identification may indeed be true, unless Gemex says so, all the rules you attempt to apply to their analysis is speculative and it is impossible to arriave at a concrete conclusion based on a speculative response.

Either a rule exists or it does not. My post assumes that a classification rule exists. I have shown that the choice of this rule affects the scores generated by the BrilliaceScope. If you want to question my assumption, you are welcome to, but if what I have assumed is untrue, what is the alternative? That the BrillianceScope classifies pixels at random?

I approach every technology with an extremely skeptical eye and as I learn more and more about it, if I find reason to doubt it's veracity I would state so plainly.

Jon accepts that the BrillianceScope measures what it says and bases many of his arguments and much of his "analysis" on this assumption. I'm more skeptical. I say let's see some hard scientific proof that the machine does what is claimed.

Reason #2 why this arguement is not sound is because it correlates *perfectly* with 2nd generation red reflectors. ... I can demonstrate this phenomena with TWO technologies, not just BrillianceScope but LightScope as well.

I don't doubt that BrillianceScope results could be inferred from Firescope/Ideal-Scope/LightScope images. But remember when reading Jon's tutorials on these that what he considers to be desirable characteristics of these images is based on which characteristics correlate with diamonds having high BrillianceScope scores. What is "good" or "bad" in Jon's LightScope depends on what correlates with "good" or "bad" BrillianceScope results. Again, Jon is basing his analysis on the unproven assumption that the BrillianceScope is accurate.

Reason #4 involves the human element.

This has nothing to do with whether or not the BrillianceScope accutately measures what it claims and so should be considered separately. As I've said many times, the BrillianceScope may be a valuable tool for those whose perceptions happen to agree with its results. Others' perceptions may disagree. For these people, the BrillianceScope is of less use.

The BrillianceScope is not a predictor or what you may or may not prefer.

I agree completely.

It records and reports the actual light return & intensity of it, within a diamond.

This is Jon again assuming the BrillianceScope to be accurate. I'm not as trusting as Jon.

IMO it is the most accurate tool for determing *overall brilliance* in direct light conditions.

I have no objection to this. This is Jon's opinion to which he is entitled. It has not been established as fact and should be given weight as opinion rather than as fact. Those of you who value Jon's opinon and with whom Jon's perceptions agree may find the BrillianceScope useful.

 

[Superidealist]

jesrush wrote:
Most everyone (consumers, and professionals) seems to agree that a stone which scores VH-VH-VH on the B'Scope looks very bright, firey, and scintillating in real life.

I agree that there may be some correlation between BrillianceScope results and what is seen. My problem with the BrillianceScope is that it is claimed to measure quantities that it is not proven to measure. Anecdotal evidence does not, to my mind, constitute hard proof.

Consumers should keep in mind Jon's words: "The BrillianceScope is not a predictor [of] what you may or may not prefer." Sadly, for those who are buying online, there really is no predictor. So for consumers in this position, it may be something to consider.

 

[Superidealist]

smaggard wrote:
All I want to know is what percentage of these people with the *great points* have access to a BrillianceScope and hundreds or even thousands of loose stones to play with???

If only those with BrillianceScopes were allowed to critique it, the results might be influenced by the fact that many of the critics had paid a hefty fee for exclusive rights to their BrillianceScope territories. Robin and Todd of Nice Ice have criticized it and would, I hope, qualify in your eyes as experts.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Just a small point Rhino (Jon).
You have continually referred to Lightscope hot spots (dark parts seen thru Firecopes, Idealscopes etc) as having a value of some sort or another.

I have read your tutorial on this topic and we have discussed the idea here before.

I do not beilieve your understanding and reasons for your views are valid. Light from directly above a diamond when viewed in a face up direction is absent when ever the observer is present (as shown by Bruce Harding G&G 1975).

The fact that the Brilliancescope 'measures' or whatever it does, light that comes from these high angles is bad. It should not be held up as a strength.

I have examined the Bscope for a couple of days with a young guy trained in optics who was working developing new cuts for a major manufacturer. This manufacturer had many concerns about the instrument, as did AGS>

I have asked Randy to submit to peer review. He should do it. EGL USA should publish their review if they are going to hnag their reputation on the system.

 

[valeria101]

As far as I understand, the Bscope not only measures light return from "reflectors", but does not tell it apart from the overall light return. The Ideal Scope would tell the difference (black versus red). So the straight-in-your-face reflected light contributes to a positive bias in both the white and colored light return indeces of the Bscope...

Atually, one would not need know much bout optics or diamonds to somewhat question the Bscope results: of the three measures used only two are maximized (the more light return the better) and the third is not (more scintillation is not always better since there is a trade-off with light return). As is, one cannot build a straight ranking of the objects under analysis based on a combination of these three

I know that the Bscope does not produce an aggreagte index to actualy rank choices, but this is what it is used for... so no excuse IMO.

It would reasonably straightforward to test this bias of the 'scope statistically.

(edited to catch up with Garry's update)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I reworded that Ana.
it was not clear.
Sorry folks

 

[wonka27]

I love this thread! I'm doing my best to understand, but frankly, I don't want to understand. I'm just a lowly business education teacher from Pennsylvania and I wanted to get a fantastic diamond for a reasonable price.

I have a great deal of admiration for those of you who understand enough about optics, technology, and whatever the heck else is going on here. Your banter here is a great display of civilized debate. I can't help but throw in the side of the average consumer, though.

Some Internet consumers need a visual representation of what they are getting. The inclusion photos are nice, sarin reports are great, scans of certs can be impressive. What the Internet consumer is missing in all that is a visual representation of what they will receive. If we are going to buy unseen, many want as much information as possible to take the plunge. This is where the BScope becomes a great tool for the consumer.

You can argue what rules the machine works by or is it missing something in some diamonds because of smaller points of light. However, I feel that if you take four diamonds...one with triple lows, one with triple mediums, one with triple highs, and one with triple very highs, you will be able to order them from lowest scoring to highest scoring. I may not have done this test, but I've seen some diamonds with BScope reports, and could see the difference.

The best use of this tool seems to be for showing diamonds with high performing cuts. It may miss some if SuperIdealists theories are true, but I think it would be hard to argue that a customer purchasing a diamond with triple VH's is not getting a staggeringly strong light performing diamond. This is what the consumer wants to know. We need to know that we are getting an awesome diamond. Sure there are those who would be willing to sacrifice light performance for color/clarity, but for those who want the great optics, the BScope will deliver. It may not be 100% accurate, but it is accurate enough to distinguish between different cuts.

Ultimately, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The BScope can tell you the light performance is awesome, but ultimately we must decide if that form of performance is what we desire.

The BScope is said to be a marketing tool by many. I believe it is, but it is one that helps both the business owner and the consumer. I like it and so do many other consumers.

I hope I'm semi-understandable tonight because I'm tired. I hope this excellent debate continues, but as I said, seeing things through the eyes of the average joe and what it means to him/her is an important part of what this technology does. Bottom line is it can and should be questioned and scrutinized, but if your looking for a blistering diamond, it can point you in the right direction.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 8/31/2004 11:49:44 PM wonka27 wrote:




... I can't help but throw in the side of the average consumer, though.

Some Internet consumers need a visual representation of what they are getting.

What the Internet consumer is missing in all that is a visual representation of what they will receive.

I think it would be hard to argue that a customer purchasing a diamond with triple VH's is not getting a staggeringly strong light performing diamond.

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

Hope the shortened version of your post abive catches the point (leaving marketing aside). Now, you have been looking for an ideal round - and that particular cut already does wanders to keep Bscope being nice, useful and accurate. But the Bscope also grades fancies

So, let's say you are looking for a top brilliant princess cut and have the pics below to choose from... Would you bother to call for more info on these two guys?

 

[wonka27]

Val -

If your asking me these questions, I have no clue because I haven't really studied princess cuts yet. And frankly, for the average consumer, I think they can relate better to the BScope with a rating system and "cool" light pictures than trying to decipher an Idealscope or Lightscope image. That takes some practice to truly understand what your seeing.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 9/1/2004 7:10:54 AM wonka27 wrote:


That takes some practice to truly understand what your seeing.----------------

True... and good to know, really.

 

[Rhino]

D. ... your response reveals the fundametal differences between our approaches to this subject. You're attitude is not that of "I can't believe the BrillianceScope's results to be true" but that of "I will not believe it's results to be true regardless of the evidence put forth". I presented to you 4 proofs that agree with it's results.




1. My own research on the subject with regards to the minor facets and red reflector technologies.


2. GIA's research on light output, particularly regarding our common research on the minor facets.


3. It's agreement with red reflector technologies.


4. The most important of the 4... it agrees with the majority concensus of all people who have had the chance to compare the results of various diamonds side by side.




You and I D. are both skeptics but the difference is I am willing to listen to reason while you are not regardless of how many evidences point to the validity of the technology. I have presented to you 4 other testimonies (that actually involve hundreds of others who have seen with their eyes) that agree with its results. My arguement is based on other agreeing testimonies. Your argument is based on pure speculation with no hard evidences to back it up. Ie. there is nothing that agrees with your arguement or disagrees with your arguement and you can not prove a point when there is no point to be drawn from your arguement.




Your arguement, when the smoke is cleared simply says ... Gemex may use this algorithm, this one, or this one.




While you are busy trying to figure out which algorithm, my studies show me that whichever algorithm they did use does in fact agree with my own research, GIA's, the red reflectors, and majority human opinoin.




This isn't even a debate.




Also, if we are to question this photospectrometer then I guess every photospectrometer is equally as bogus??? Or perhaps every other spectrometer is accurate and perfectly acceptable except Gemex's? This is at best a good straw man.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 8/31/2004 5:58:50 PM smaggard wrote:

----------------
On 8/31/2004 11:25:14 AM aljdewey wrote:

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

Others don't believe in the technology, and they bring great points about it's possible flaws.
----------------

All I want to know is what percentage of these people with the *great points* have access to a BrillianceScope and hundreds or even thousands of loose stones to play with??? My guess is not many, most are consumers who have read these forums until they're blue in the face....but still aren't diamond experts!

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

Your guess is wrong.

The "others" I referred to are actually several vendors I spoke with when shopping for my diamond. Vendors who indeed had hundreds/thousands of loose stones to play with, and in doing so determined that the results for any given stone weren't necessarily repeatable. Vendors who opined that it measures *something*, but who are not convinced *what* that something is.

So, to answer your question (what percentage of "others with great points" that *I* referred to had access to many, many stones and the b/scope?) is 100%. All of them had access, put it to the test, and don't feel the results are meaningful.

 

[jesrush]

Rhino wrote:

----------------
Your arguement, when the smoke is cleared simply says ... Gemex may use this algorithm, this one, or this one.


While you are busy trying to figure out which algorithm, my studies show me that whichever algorithm they did use does in fact agree with my own research, GIA's, the red reflectors, and majority human opinoin.

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

This to me, seems to be the key conclusion... whatever algorithm\rule they came up with--seems to work well.

-J