The crushed ice look

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 1/7/2010 10:00:44 AM
Author: Catmom
Hmmm, I''m trying to decide if I should be insulted or not with this thread, lol. I do understand where most of you are coming from as I didn''t ever like the ''crushed ice'' look before I found my stone. But I have to say once I looked into this stone it was like looking into space with never ending stars. I think it''s a matter of preference and I think the look has it''s place. Hmmmm maybe I should go back to my jeweler and tell him that he sold me an undesireable stone and I want a partial refund. I think he''d knock me upside the head for sure, lol.

I don''t think you should be insulted. The better the light return in your yellow fancy diamond the lighter the yellow color would be. You paid a premium to have that deep yellow color and that is why the cutter chose a radiant for that piece of rough. Radiants are much more common in colored stones as the light return is not as good in this cut allowing a long ray path and more absorption thus enhancing the intensity of the color.
Worse light return = better color retention.

But again I wouldn''t call your stone crushed ice because I see an intense yellow color, and I haven''t seen any crushed ice that looks like this unless well a dog really reallly had to go to the bathroom on that patch of ice and he/she had been holding it in for many days so the urine was that saturated

.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 1/7/2010 8:37:27 AM
Author: Laila619
I could be off, but I believe I once read on here that the crushed ice look of radiant cuts is good for colored diamonds i.e. yellow as it makes the color more saturated. That is why you see many fancy colored radiants and not too many fancy colored rounds.

Yes you are exactly right.

 

[Hest88]

Simply, the "crushed ice" look is the classic radiant look. I agree it tends to be used disparaginly here when people talk about why they prefer chunkier facets (me included), but it truly is personal preference.

I liken it to people talking about blindingly white skin displayed during swimsuit season, which I, as someone who prizes pale skin, always thought was silly. Yet, if you were to listen to conventional conversation you would assume that only tanned bodies were pleasing.

 

[Liane]

Interesting thread.

I also tend to avoid "crushed ice" diamonds (although the yellow one posted up-thread is very pretty, and I can definitely see the "field of stars" effect going on there!) because it''s just not a look that I personally prefer. IMO it works better in larger stones, just because the facets are bigger and that mitigates the effect. Small ones do not look nice to me.

When I was first getting into diamonds and hadn''t really developed an eye for them (not that my eye is so great now, of course!), I found it difficult to tell the myriad facet lines of a crushed-ice diamond from inclusions. So, to me, radiants and crushed-ice cushions often looked like they just had really poor clarity. To be honest, in some lighting conditions, some of them still kinda do. (It then usually turns out that the diamond is actually VVS or something and I feel like a dope.)

I have a strong preference for blocky facets anyway (stronger than I realized; the RB in my avatar is bugging me because its facets are too small and, after only a couple of months wearing it, I''m already saving up to swap it for an OEC), so probably I would not like crushed-ice diamonds anyway, but the plain truth of the matter is that they look heavily included to my amateur eye and that''s another reason I''m not a fan.

 

[waterlilly]

I not a big fan of the "crushed ice" look...but it might have different meanings for different people. If the facets themselves are clean, I don''t mind if they aren''t perfectly symmetrical (like how some OECs look), but when they appear to be sort of scratchy or blurred (that''s for sure a technical term

) then I really dislike it. I totally relate to what Liane said, it''s sometimes confusing to me how a post will show a picture of a stone that is VS but it''s all crunchy looking...
I feel it must take a ton of skill and practice to cut a stone with symmetrical facets, and understand some cuts are much harder than others to do, but for (please - I hope no offense is taken by this question, I simply am not educated enough to understand) is it equally as difficult to cut a stone that looks like crushed ice in the end?

 

[risingsun]

Kenny~The example of the "crushed ice" look that Garry showed you in the cushion comparison looks nothing like your Octavia. Now tell me why are you not going to be wearing that beautiful stone

I will be more than glad to wear it for you

 

[Rhino]

I've seen the expression used in more than one way here on the forum but more generally applied to those watery, slushy, crushed ice that CCL has pointed out and what I use in my video when talkign about the term in relation to cushions. So the 2 definitions I've seen used of it are ...

1. The watery type caused by excesseive light leakage and shared in many other shapes as well. Radiant cuts come to mind.
2. The other way I've seen "crushed ice" use and in a positive sense is describing diamonds that emphasize fine optics but in a more splintery appearance particularly in modern facet structured varieties be it modified rounds (Star129, Eighternity) or even modern faceted cushions with fine light performance. Some people have described these as crushed ice in a positive sense.

It is always relative to what it is being compared to really.

Kenny, in your instance you are comparing an Octavia to a finely cut traditional Asscher that was very carefully selected. In the Octavia there are moer smaller flashes as opposed to the dominant straight edges/reflections of your other, hence you are using crushed ice in a flattering manner to describe your Octavia and rightly so.

The same comparison can be drawn with August Vintage Cushions and modern facet structured with fine light performance and the modern be described as crushed ice.

Another interesting analogy is comparing an August Vintage OEC with a modern Hearts & Arrows round ... using that same definnition one could say the modern H&A round has more of a crushed ice appearance in comparison to the broad wide facet design of AV. I've never thought of H&A's as being splintery in appearance but when you compare them to the vintage facet design you begin to see that. It's relative to what its being comnpared to but I generally associate the crushed ice look with excessive leakage with regards to fancies because so many suffer from too much leakage. This latter definition describing diamonds with fine optics can include leakage but is not a focus on it while the former is generally the result of too much leakage.

No waking up dead.

 

[Serg]

Main reason of crushed-ice phenomena is high number ray bounces inside diamond. ( more then 10 bounces , very often it could 30-50 bounces. Round cut has 2 two internal bounces mainly )

Such high rate bounces create next first level consequences :
• Huge number virtual facets what mean huge number virtual cones which are catching light sources with high angular speed.
• More or less even angular distribution of cones which are catching light sources
• Big optical distance between virtual facets ( all virtual facets can not be in focus in same time specially when you take photos with high magnification )

Second level consequences:
• Leakage is relative high due more or less even distribution of cones( due stochastic bounces a lot of rays go to bottom hemisphere . Of course there are crashed-ice cut which redirect 60+% rays to upper hemisphere , but most probably you never see crushed-ice diamond which redirect 85+% rays to upper hemisphere )
• But Leakage is not easy visible because a lot of small bright virtual facets( which catch primary light sources ) are not in focus in same time and hide dark virtual facets due blur
• There are many bright but very small flashes.
• Crushed-ice Diamonds look bright in most light conditions ( more bright than background, because cut collects a lot of primary light sources and average its)
• Crushed-ice diamond has not bright flashes as you can see in cuts with big virtual facets
• Crushed-ice diamond has not easy visible attractive colorful( due dispersion ) flashes as you can see in cuts with big virtual facets
• Bright background significantly increases optical appearance for crushed-ice diamonds.
• “gemological and diamond trade light environments” give a lot of benefits for crushed-ice diamonds

Crushed-ice cuts are defiantly good for fancy color diamonds. For colorless diamonds crushed-ice phenomena have many pros and cons.
For colorless diamonds crushed-ice technology could be nice if crushed-ice zones alternate by virtual big facet zones.

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/7/2010 5:01:29 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Hi Kenny,


I read this thread with interest.


Let me first try to give my definition of ''crushed ice'': a preponderance of small virtual facets, with almost no bigger virtual facets. This is most often caused by too many facets and/or asymmetry. Depending on the shape and faceting-pattern of the diamond, it can occur more or less frequently, in other words, some shapes and faceting-patterns lend themselves easier to a crushed-ice-look.


I personally would not use the term for a stone, being observed from an angle, since that stone will probably still show bigger virtual facets, and if in movement, the nature of the stone will continually change. A stone with ''crushed ice'' observed face-up will likely not have bigger-size virtual facets when tilting the stone.


From experience with consumers, my feeling is that the general preference of unprepared consumers in real-life-observations is not for a crushed-ice-look. So, I definitely consider it as a negative term.


For that reason, I suppose that many producers of multi-facet-stones often use huge models of their stones to show them off compared to a regular round-brilliant. Because of the size of these models, they probably indeed look better.


On a side-note, that is also one of the pitfalls of online-observations. Pictures are a lot bigger than the actual stones, and the observation is not the same as in-real-life. As a reference, look at the current Cushion-poll of Garry. He indicates a preference for stones with more virtual facets. I wonder if this is not due to the size of the pictures.


Live long,

reictures are a lot bigger than the actual stones, and the observation is not the same as in-real-life. As a reference, look at the current Cushion-poll of Garry. He indicates a preference for stones with more virtual facets. I wonder if this is not due to the size of the pictures.


Where is such Garry Cushion-Poll? Who did see it?
Last Garry Cushion-Poll clear shows what Ps''s prefer Cushions with big virtual facets.
Same result was for first Garry MSS-Poll

 

[waterlilly]

Date: 1/7/2010 3:38:04 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 1/7/2010 5:01:29 AM

Author: Paul-Antwerp

Hi Kenny,



I read this thread with interest.



Let me first try to give my definition of 'crushed ice': a preponderance of small virtual facets, with almost no bigger virtual facets. This is most often caused by too many facets and/or asymmetry. Depending on the shape and faceting-pattern of the diamond, it can occur more or less frequently, in other words, some shapes and faceting-patterns lend themselves easier to a crushed-ice-look.



I personally would not use the term for a stone, being observed from an angle, since that stone will probably still show bigger virtual facets, and if in movement, the nature of the stone will continually change. A stone with 'crushed ice' observed face-up will likely not have bigger-size virtual facets when tilting the stone.



From experience with consumers, my feeling is that the general preference of unprepared consumers in real-life-observations is not for a crushed-ice-look. So, I definitely consider it as a negative term.



For that reason, I suppose that many producers of multi-facet-stones often use huge models of their stones to show them off compared to a regular round-brilliant. Because of the size of these models, they probably indeed look better.



On a side-note, that is also one of the pitfalls of online-observations. Pictures are a lot bigger than the actual stones, and the observation is not the same as in-real-life. As a reference, look at the current Cushion-poll of Garry. He indicates a preference for stones with more virtual facets. I wonder if this is not due to the size of the pictures.



Live long,

reictures are a lot bigger than the actual stones, and the observation is not the same as in-real-life. As a reference, look at the current Cushion-poll of Garry. He indicates a preference for stones with more virtual facets. I wonder if this is not due to the size of the pictures.



Where is such Garry Cushion-Poll? Who did see it?

Last Garry Cushion-Poll clear shows what Ps's prefer Cushions with big virtual facets.

Same result was for first Garry MSS-Poll

First thread in the forum? Is that the one?

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/7/2010 3:40:22 PM
Author: waterlilly

Date: 1/7/2010 3:38:04 PM

Author: Serg

Date: 1/7/2010 5:01:29 AM


Author: Paul-Antwerp


Hi Kenny,




I read this thread with interest.




Let me first try to give my definition of ''crushed ice'': a preponderance of small virtual facets, with almost no bigger virtual facets. This is most often caused by too many facets and/or asymmetry. Depending on the shape and faceting-pattern of the diamond, it can occur more or less frequently, in other words, some shapes and faceting-patterns lend themselves easier to a crushed-ice-look.




I personally would not use the term for a stone, being observed from an angle, since that stone will probably still show bigger virtual facets, and if in movement, the nature of the stone will continually change. A stone with ''crushed ice'' observed face-up will likely not have bigger-size virtual facets when tilting the stone.




From experience with consumers, my feeling is that the general preference of unprepared consumers in real-life-observations is not for a crushed-ice-look. So, I definitely consider it as a negative term.




For that reason, I suppose that many producers of multi-facet-stones often use huge models of their stones to show them off compared to a regular round-brilliant. Because of the size of these models, they probably indeed look better.




On a side-note, that is also one of the pitfalls of online-observations. Pictures are a lot bigger than the actual stones, and the observation is not the same as in-real-life. As a reference, look at the current Cushion-poll of Garry. He indicates a preference for stones with more virtual facets. I wonder if this is not due to the size of the pictures.




Live long,

reictures are a lot bigger than the actual stones, and the observation is not the same as in-real-life. As a reference, look at the current Cushion-poll of Garry. He indicates a preference for stones with more virtual facets. I wonder if this is not due to the size of the pictures.




Where is such Garry Cushion-Poll? Who did see it?


Last Garry Cushion-Poll clear shows what Ps''s prefer Cushions with big virtual facets.


Same result was for first Garry MSS-Poll

First thread in the forum? Is that the one?

Waterlilly,

in this Poll first three places are occupied by Cushions with big virtual facets.
Did you see Garry Cushion-poll where won cushion with small virtual facets?
Please reread Paul post

 

[Karl_K]

To me the crushed ice look is small to very small virtual facets many of which are infective due to long light paths and leakage.

Kenny the differences you are seeing are as I explained before:
Octavia: mostly medium virtual facets some large.
Your asscher: mostly large to very large virtual facets some very very large.
Both are beautiful and have a different look by design.
At 3ct Octavia it would move up to the large to very large range.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 1/7/2010 3:38:04 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 1/7/2010 5:01:29 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Hi Kenny,


I read this thread with interest.


Let me first try to give my definition of ''crushed ice'': a preponderance of small virtual facets, with almost no bigger virtual facets. This is most often caused by too many facets and/or asymmetry. Depending on the shape and faceting-pattern of the diamond, it can occur more or less frequently, in other words, some shapes and faceting-patterns lend themselves easier to a crushed-ice-look.


I personally would not use the term for a stone, being observed from an angle, since that stone will probably still show bigger virtual facets, and if in movement, the nature of the stone will continually change. A stone with ''crushed ice'' observed face-up will likely not have bigger-size virtual facets when tilting the stone.


From experience with consumers, my feeling is that the general preference of unprepared consumers in real-life-observations is not for a crushed-ice-look. So, I definitely consider it as a negative term.


For that reason, I suppose that many producers of multi-facet-stones often use huge models of their stones to show them off compared to a regular round-brilliant. Because of the size of these models, they probably indeed look better.


On a side-note, that is also one of the pitfalls of online-observations. Pictures are a lot bigger than the actual stones, and the observation is not the same as in-real-life. As a reference, look at the current Cushion-poll of Garry. He indicates a preference for stones with more virtual facets. I wonder if this is not due to the size of the pictures.


Live long,

reictures are a lot bigger than the actual stones, and the observation is not the same as in-real-life. As a reference, look at the current Cushion-poll of Garry. He indicates a preference for stones with more virtual facets. I wonder if this is not due to the size of the pictures.


Where is such Garry Cushion-Poll? Who did see it?
Last Garry Cushion-Poll clear shows what Ps''s prefer Cushions with big virtual facets.
Same result was for first Garry MSS-Poll

Please do a bigger sized video full screen with a 5 minute cycle of slow tilting if you want people to really make an infomed choice on those cushions.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/7/2010 3:33:31 PM
Author: Serg
Main reason of crushed-ice phenomena is high number ray bounces inside diamond. ( more then 10 bounces , very often it could 30-50 bounces. Round cut has 2 two internal bounces mainly )
Please see the DETAS images below - they were made for a Round, crushed ice radiant and a brilliant style cushion. All are set at 2ct. I made the images with 30 bounces. I think it shows what Sergey explains below.
Such high rate bounces create next first level consequences :
• Huge number virtual facets what mean huge number virtual cones which are catching light sources with high angular speed.
• More or less even angular distribution of cones which are catching light sources I think in this example there are very small angular ranges but many more opportunities to return smaller amounts of light.
• Big optical distance between virtual facets ( all virtual facets can not be in focus in same time specially when you take photos with high magnification ) that is not a problem for an observer at a normal distance, but it will be for any photography.

Second level consequences:
• Leakage is relative high due more or less even distribution of cones( due stochastic bounces a lot of rays go to bottom hemisphere . Of course there are crashed-ice cut which redirect 60+% rays to upper hemisphere , but most probably you never see crushed-ice diamond which redirect 85+% rays to upper hemisphere )
• But Leakage is not easy visible because a lot of small bright virtual facets( which catch primary light sources ) are not in focus in same time and hide dark virtual facets due blur
• There are many bright but very small flashes.
• Crushed-ice Diamonds look bright in most light conditions ( more bright than background, because cut collects a lot of primary light sources and average its)
• Crushed-ice diamond has not bright flashes as you can see in cuts with big virtual facets
• Crushed-ice diamond has not easy visible attractive colorful( due dispersion ) flashes as you can see in cuts with big virtual facets
• Bright background significantly increases optical appearance for crushed-ice diamonds.
• “gemological and diamond trade light environments” give a lot of benefits for crushed-ice diamonds

Crushed-ice cuts are defiantly good for fancy color diamonds. For colorless diamonds crushed-ice phenomena have many pros and cons.
For colorless diamonds crushed-ice technology could be nice if crushed-ice zones alternate by virtual big facet zones.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/7/2010 3:33:31 PM
Author: Serg
Main reason of crushed-ice phenomena is high number ray bounces inside diamond. ( more then 10 bounces , very often it could 30-50 bounces. Round cut has 2 two internal bounces mainly )

Such high rate bounces create next first level consequences :
• Huge number virtual facets what mean huge number virtual cones which are catching light sources with high angular speed.
• More or less even angular distribution of cones which are catching light sources
• Big optical distance between virtual facets ( all virtual facets can not be in focus in same time specially when you take photos with high magnification )

Second level consequences:
• Leakage is relative high due more or less even distribution of cones( due stochastic bounces a lot of rays go to bottom hemisphere . Of course there are crashed-ice cut which redirect 60+% rays to upper hemisphere , but most probably you never see crushed-ice diamond which redirect 85+% rays to upper hemisphere ) This image shows a side view of a round and the crushed ice stone. Note the pattern or bounce rate for both is again set at 30x
• But Leakage is not easy visible because a lot of small bright virtual facets( which catch primary light sources ) are not in focus in same time and hide dark virtual facets due blur
• There are many bright but very small flashes. Sergey there are still leakage zones that will show as dull patches (or if the stone is back lit or held in tweezers on a light background - the stone will look better than it would in a real setting on a human - as you mention below).
• Crushed-ice Diamonds look bright in most light conditions ( more bright than background, because cut collects a lot of primary light sources and average its) surely many of the sparkles are too small for our eyes to resolve / see?
• Crushed-ice diamond has not bright flashes as you can see in cuts with big virtual facets
• Crushed-ice diamond has not easy visible attractive colorful( due dispersion ) flashes as you can see in cuts with big virtual facets
• Bright background significantly increases optical appearance for crushed-ice diamonds.
• “gemological and diamond trade light environments” give a lot of benefits for crushed-ice diamonds

Crushed-ice cuts are defiantly good for fancy color diamonds. For colorless diamonds crushed-ice phenomena have many pros and cons.
For colorless diamonds crushed-ice technology could be nice if crushed-ice zones alternate by virtual big facet zones. do you think it is possible Sergey?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

oops

 

[AGBF]

How about some more photos of classic "crushed ice" stones? I enjoy the erudite debate that you guys have among yourselves (truly...I am not being facetious). However, I am at the stage where I would like to learn to identify the phenomenon when I see it!

PS-I always loved Michelle''s ring!

AGBF

 

[Gleam]

I have an acquaintance with a 3+ carat cushion, so poorly cut that it does indeed look like crushed ice trapped under glass. I think the stone both suffers from heavy, visible inclusions and also a poor cut.

In fact, I''ve always thought of the "crushed ice" look being almost interchangeable with the "salt and pepper" look of heavily included stones... diamonds that have no sparkle. When you look inside the stone, all you see is chaos instead of neatly defined facets.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/7/2010 9:53:30 PM
Author: Gleam

I've always thought of the 'crushed ice' look being almost interchangeable with the 'salt and pepper' look of heavily included stones... diamonds that have no sparkle. When you look inside the stone, all you see is chaos instead of neatly defined facets.

That is what I am hearing is not the case, Gleam. Apparently the "crushed ice" look is not synonymous with the "broken headlight" look! It is a specific look. That is why I asked for photos!

AGBF

 

[Serg]

rePlease do a bigger sized video full screen with a 5 minute cycle of slow tilting if you want people to really make an infomed choice on those cushions.

CCL,

I did what I think necessary and important to give best opportunity to make informed choice from these Virtual cushions. We are doing other movies also but 5 minute full screen slow tilting movie :
1) Is not realistic due internet channel limitations. such movies size could be real problem to download. BTW. what is full screen resolution? ( 300*300, 1024*768,..,1440*900,1600*1200,1920*1080,2560*1140??) how many will agree with your choice of full screen resolution?
2) very big scale will defiantly shift appearance .( for right comparison diamond size on monitor Could be and Should be bigger than real diamond size. But if difference in 5-10 times is helpful for correct comparison, the 100 times difference is misleading
3) slow tilting is questionable too. it has advantages and disadvantages . Two options ( fast and slow tilting) is better than just one fast tilting , but fast tilting is more important than slow tilting for correct comparison

If we have different opinions what is best movie conditions for correct cut comparison , it does not mean what I have not goal to create conditions for really informed choice.

For example we have IS/ASET images for these cushions. many PS''s asked publish it to help do their choice. but we will publish such information only after the end of poll because we want voting for Beauty( or at least for Optical performance ) instead LR grade.

for professional trader IS/ASET is helpful to safe time, for him is reasonable to do first rejections by IS then do final choice by naked eye.
for consumer I advice reverse procedure: firstly select your favorite diamonds by naked eye only then do verification by IS/ASET

 

[Serg]

re: do you think it is possible Sergey?
Sure, it is possible. For example number 4 has narrow crashed-ice zones between big facets. it is visible in some HDR lighting. we will prepare such movies later.
unfortunately we can not control such phenomena during cut developing it( du lack of knowledge and experience ). It is difficult catch now even during virtual comparison . to receive better control on crashed-ice phenomena we need significantly increase DC speed( in 10-100 times) and model blur of virtual facet du finite depth of sharpness ( what eat a lot of computer power )

 

[asforhim]

IMO crushed ice refers to two non-scientific observations as many already mentioned:

1. Ugly crushed-ice: watery, light leakage with a splintered appearance under the table. I think someone likened it to looking through a window and seeing a bag of crushed ice.




2. Attractive crushed-ice: many facets (in various types of cuts) that gernerate small flashes of light and tend to be very bright.

 

[asforhim]

I tried to upload an UGLY crushed-ice stone but didn''t work.

Here is what I consider an ATTRACTIVE crushed-ice stone (radiant cut):

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 1/8/2010 1:15:35 AM
Author: Serg
rePlease do a bigger sized video full screen with a 5 minute cycle of slow tilting if you want people to really make an infomed choice on those cushions.

CCL,

I did what I think necessary and important to give best opportunity to make informed choice from these Virtual cushions. We are doing other movies also but 5 minute full screen slow tilting movie :
1) Is not realistic due internet channel limitations. such movies size could be real problem to download. BTW. what is full screen resolution? ( 300*300, 1024*768,..,1440*900,1600*1200,1920*1080,2560*1140??) how many will agree with your choice of full screen resolution?
2) very big scale will defiantly shift appearance .( for right comparison diamond size on monitor Could be and Should be bigger than real diamond size. But if difference in 5-10 times is helpful for correct comparison, the 100 times difference is misleading
3) slow tilting is questionable too. it has advantages and disadvantages . Two options ( fast and slow tilting) is better than just one fast tilting , but fast tilting is more important than slow tilting for correct comparison

If we have different opinions what is best movie conditions for correct cut comparison , it does not mean what I have not goal to create conditions for really informed choice.

For example we have IS/ASET images for these cushions. many PS's asked publish it to help do their choice. but we will publish such information only after the end of poll because we want voting for Beauty( or at least for Optical performance ) instead LR grade.

for professional trader IS/ASET is helpful to safe time, for him is reasonable to do first rejections by IS then do final choice by naked eye.
for consumer I advice reverse procedure: firstly select your favorite diamonds by naked eye only then do verification by IS/ASET

Serg,

The simulated diamonds were so small in that video I would not want to make any serious decisions based on responses. We cannot see the pavillion mains clearly or how they change with tilt and that is the most important for me. I was squinting as much as I can and found it impossible. A 640X480 (or 500 X 500) video would be fine and a manageable download size.

This size is fine per diamond here http://www.octonus.com/oct/projects/foxymovies/round_cushion2_office_fr.phtml even 50% smaller than this per diamond would be fine.
You still need to slow down the tilting a bit to give time to see all 9 stones in comparison at the same time 50% slower would be fine and the video could be 1 - 2 minutes in length.

I really think these are small efforts to be made if you want more accurate opinions. I really wouldn't want to draw conclusions based on that tiny video where one can barely make out what is going on under the table.
It comes as no surprise that PSers prefer larger virtual facets, however from that poll you will not get accurate information between large and medium facets or between various symmetry patterns which one is preferred.

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/8/2010 2:21:31 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 1/8/2010 1:15:35 AM

Author: Serg

rePlease do a bigger sized video full screen with a 5 minute cycle of slow tilting if you want people to really make an infomed choice on those cushions.


CCL,


I did what I think necessary and important to give best opportunity to make informed choice from these Virtual cushions. We are doing other movies also but 5 minute full screen slow tilting movie :

1) Is not realistic due internet channel limitations. such movies size could be real problem to download. BTW. what is full screen resolution? ( 300*300, 1024*768,..,1440*900,1600*1200,1920*1080,2560*1140??) how many will agree with your choice of full screen resolution?

2) very big scale will defiantly shift appearance .( for right comparison diamond size on monitor Could be and Should be bigger than real diamond size. But if difference in 5-10 times is helpful for correct comparison, the 100 times difference is misleading

3) slow tilting is questionable too. it has advantages and disadvantages . Two options ( fast and slow tilting) is better than just one fast tilting , but fast tilting is more important than slow tilting for correct comparison


If we have different opinions what is best movie conditions for correct cut comparison , it does not mean what I have not goal to create conditions for really informed choice.


For example we have IS/ASET images for these cushions. many PS's asked publish it to help do their choice. but we will publish such information only after the end of poll because we want voting for Beauty( or at least for Optical performance ) instead LR grade.


for professional trader IS/ASET is helpful to safe time, for him is reasonable to do first rejections by IS then do final choice by naked eye.

for consumer I advice reverse procedure: firstly select your favorite diamonds by naked eye only then do verification by IS/ASET

Serg,


The simulated diamonds were so small in that video I would not want to make any serious decisions based on responses. We cannot see the pavillion mains clearly or how they change with tilt and that is the most important for me. I was squinting as much as I can and found it impossible. A 640X480 (or 500 X 500) video would be fine and a manageable download size.


This size is fine per diamond here http://www.octonus.com/oct/projects/foxymovies/round_cushion2_office_fr.phtml even 50% smaller than this per diamond would be fine.

You still need to slow down the tilting a bit to give time to see all 9 stones in comparison at the same time 50% slower would be fine and the video could be 1 - 2 minutes in length.


I really think these are small efforts to be made if you want more accurate opinions. I really wouldn't want to draw conclusions based on that tiny video where one can barely make out what is going on under the table.

It comes as no surprise that PSers prefer larger virtual facets, however from that poll you will not get accurate information between large and medium facets or between various symmetry patterns which one is preferred.

CCL,

re:A 640X480 (or 500 X 500) video

for 3*3 comparison movies we use two formats: 384x384 and 768x768. we prepared both formats for few light conditions before Garry had published 384X384 here.
difference between 500 and 384 is 30% or 22%

re:even 50% smaller than this per diamond would be fine.

Again difference between sizes just 30%. You can easy check it.

if your move size Fine, why our 30% less move size is bad?

also if we will use 500x500 format, we can not use double size (1000x1000) which is to big for a lot of modern notebooks
768x768 is maximum what we can use( for some reasons we need two sizes)

re: We cannot see the pavillion mains clearly or how they change with tilt and that is the most important for me.

Could you see it in real diamond?

re:I really think these are small efforts to be made if you want more accurate opinions

it is not issue about size of our efforts. I think we spend much more efforts to receive accurate opinions than you think about our work
before I selected 384X384 and 768X768 formats I checked around 10 other combinations.

after this poll we want start poll in 768x768 format in different illumination for same models. Our goal to check how size and illumination could change poll results.


below you can check movie in 768x768 format what we rejected for poll :
http://www.octonus.com/oct/projects/dcmovies/9cushions_hdr_panorama.phtml

!!! it could be interesting for you to compare this movie with half size movie
http://www.octonus.com/oct/projects/dcmovies/9cushions_hdr_panorama_small.phtml

 

[forumid123]

Thanks For Sharing

 

[wsu12]

I chose a radiant diamond because I prefer this look. While some consider it inferior, I consider low color diamonds inferior. I think this thread is largely opinion based.

 

[wsu12]

Date: 1/7/2010 11:24:52 AM
Author: Hest88
Simply, the ''crushed ice'' look is the classic radiant look. I agree it tends to be used disparaginly here when people talk about why they prefer chunkier facets (me included), but it truly is personal preference.


I liken it to people talking about blindingly white skin displayed during swimsuit season, which I, as someone who prizes pale skin, always thought was silly. Yet, if you were to listen to conventional conversation you would assume that only tanned bodies were pleasing.

Well said.

 

[whatmeworry]

Date: 1/9/2010 4:02:31 PM
Author: fsu1227
I chose a radiant diamond because I prefer this look. While some consider it inferior, I consider low color diamonds inferior. I think this thread is largely opinion based.

I''m not sure but I think it was an old avatar of yours that had a gorgeous crushed ice radiant.

 

[LD]

I don''t believe there''s a right or wrong answer here. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and quite clearly the crushed ice description means different things to different people!

For me, Catmom''s gorgeous yellow radiant is a true crushed ice diamond and is stunningly beautiful. However, if it were perhaps a weaker colour etc etc, I may feel differently. Personally, I do like this look in coloured diamonds but not in white diamonds - that''s purely a preference.