Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity
  • Pricescope Upgrade/Maintenance Is Complete.

    We still have a few things to iron out. If you see any bugs, issues or have any concerns, let us know here in this discussion.

Tom and Miriam Tashey, Nancy Stacy, Thom Underwood, et al - videos

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
What I find interesting besides the personality of the varies people being interviewed is the demonstration effect of the environment and lighting.

Next thing ya know someone is going to buy a shallow stone and then have to buy their clothes to match.

Personally 99% of the time I wear black shirts which could be part of the reason I dislike 8* and shallow rounds that I have seen in person.
On the other hand it would likely improve the contrast in asschers and make them look even more kicken to me.

On the other hand It is silly to let your diamond dictate your wardrobe.

It comes down to once again:
lighting
lighting
lighting
environment
eyesight
cut

Something else that is clear to me as good as these interviews are there could be a couple improvements.
1: mount the stone - no one looks at their diamond unmounted on their fingers long term.
2: a double blind study would have been much more scientific.
 

Regular Guy

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 6, 2004
Messages
5,951
Very enjoyable. Many thanks to Leonid, Garry, and of course the gracious participants.

My favorite part is where Leonid tells John & Jon...yeah yeah...just tell me which stone you like.

Also interesting...


Date: 12/17/2006 1:06:41 PM
Author: strmrdr
What I find interesting besides the personality of the varies people being interviewed is the demonstration effect of the environment and lighting.

2: a double blind study would have been much more scientific.
Re your point #2...you may or may not be right, Storm. I do note Garry frequently, after the fact, went to look at the preferred diamond to see which one it was...but maybe it was just to be sure, as in some videos, the description of the larger vs smaller seemed to substitute effectively.

In the field of psychology, there IS the study, sometimes of Clever Hans, a horse who could count. And. to 43. So apparently the trainer would have the horse click hooves, and when he would look up to see if the horse was done counting after 43, the horse would stop counting...or so the story goes. Seeing these demonstrations, you don''t get much of any sense of cuing. And, certainly different people had different preferences. Then again, many wore different clothes, too.

New diamond choices...

Khaki shallow
Navy Tolkowski.

I''ll bet some appraisers were more vs. less cooperative in this study, too. Glad to see Nancy and Tom step up the plate. (And, by the way, a fellow like Tom was certainly willing to overtly be aware of whatever cues he could get, improving the score Clever Hans would get...but without much apparent success in accessing those cues).
 

Skippy123

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 24, 2006
Messages
24,299
thanks. Interesting.
 

pricescope

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 31, 1999
Messages
8,266
Date: 12/17/2006 2:33:42 PM
Author: Regular Guy

In the field of psychology, there IS the study, sometimes of Clever Hans, a horse who could count. And. to 43. So apparently the trainer would have the horse click hooves, and when he would look up to see if the horse was done counting after 43, the horse would stop counting...or so the story goes. Seeing these demonstrations, you don't get much of any sense of cuing. And, certainly different people had different preferences. Then again, many wore different clothes, too.
We had an anecdote about "scientific experiment" back in our other life too Ira, it has some political flavor involved i would not even try to explain, but it's good enough being just about "methods and conclusions".

Two self-appointed scientists are conducting an experiment with a cockroach. Warning...animal cruelty involved.

First teared out one leg off of cockroach and said "Move, you insect!", cockroach naturally tried to escape and ran as fast as it can.
First scientist dictated to the second one "Please write down what we see."

One by one all the legs came out with the same result - Command "Move cockroach!" and putting down "It runs" into the Journal.
Until the last leg was left and a cockroach couldn't move.

"Cockroach, run!"...nothing, "Cockroach, run!" nothing...

First - Please write down "A COCKROACH BECOME DEAF"
 

canuk-gal

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
19,580
HI:

Thank you! Naturally I was mesmerized by Nan Stacy''s ring......welll....hey, I''m a PS''er!!


cheers--Sharon
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
14,581
Date: 12/17/2006 5:54:52 PM
Author: Pricescope

Date: 12/17/2006 2:33:42 PM
Author: Regular Guy

In the field of psychology, there IS the study, sometimes of Clever Hans, a horse who could count. And. to 43. So apparently the trainer would have the horse click hooves, and when he would look up to see if the horse was done counting after 43, the horse would stop counting...or so the story goes. Seeing these demonstrations, you don''t get much of any sense of cuing. And, certainly different people had different preferences. Then again, many wore different clothes, too.
We had an anecdote about ''scientific experiment'' back in our other life too Ira, it has some political flavor involved i would not even try to explain, but it''s good enough being just about ''methods and conclusions''.

Two self-appointed scientists are conducting an experiment with a cockroach. Warning...animal cruelty involved.

First teared out one leg off of cockroach and said ''Move, you insect!'', cockroach naturally tried to escape and ran as fast as it can.
First scientist dictated to the second one ''Please write down what we see.''

One by one all the legs came out with the same result - Command ''Move cockroach!'' and putting down ''It runs'' into the Journal.
Until the last leg was left and a cockroach couldn''t move.

''Cockroach, run!''...nothing, ''Cockroach, run!'' nothing...

First - Please write down ''A COCKROACH BECOME DEAF''
DEar Administrator - please give us a ROFL icon
 

Kaleigh

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
29,570
Interesting as always. Loved how Leonid said to John, yeah yeah which one do you prefer... And then with Thom Underwood loved his reaction when Garry said he couldn't loupe the stones. Boy was he taken aback. But after that I really enjoyed how the converstation flowed, and Pyramid even got a shout out. I liked this interview the best as it was more related to PS. How PS has had a marked impact on the industry as a whole. How independent appraisers are getting clients that are more Knowledgeable, the transparency of the internet etc... That was good stuff IMHO.
Keep them coming,
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
14,581
Date: 12/17/2006 8:59:34 PM
Author: DBM
Gary can you post the specs of the two stones-- the VS2 and the SI1 ??
Daniel these stones have been discussed a lot over the last year.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gia-diamond-dock-simple-summary.42538/ has discussions and links to many other discussions and their Gem Adviser files too.


This is the JOURNAL ARTICLE that these 2 stones were used for.
Unfortunately i did not buy the steep deep GIA excellent.
http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/37/2/GIA-Excellent-Cut-Grade-Case-Study.aspx
Alos note in the girdle profiles that the 1.16ct shallow stone is painted (making it effectively even more shallow - and under GIA''s system rules if they were smart enough they probably should have downgraded it to a Good rather than a VG.
 

pricescope

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 31, 1999
Messages
8,266
A few personal notes.

1. It was not meant to be a scientific study - just a curious exercises aiming to show PS folks live experts who we know by names and do some interviews, and also to satisfy my own curiosity whether there is any merit in all these discussions about cut. No cues were employed - why should we fool ourselves?


2. Real scientific work is going on by Sergey, Yuri, Garry, et. al. Right now they are in the process of manufacturing specific set of diamonds under very strict rules and specific sets of proportions.

3. If these interviews would meant to be more scientific, we should get different set of diamonds with different combination of proportions and compare not only shallow vs Tolkowsky but e.g. shallow VG vs steep deep EX, etc. and in different conditions, participants, and so forth.

4. Also people you see are experts who saw thousands of diamonds and have certain notion of what to look for in diamonds. Their opinion on what constitute a beautiful diamond can be predetermined. Yet we saw their opinion may vary. Real scientific study should also consider unprepared consumers.

5. Personally, I saw some difference between these diamonds but I wouldn''t venture to say which one was more beautiful. Both were bright and sparkly. Therefore, if I would have to buy one of them I''d probably would go with bigger and cheaper one. But that''s my personal opinion which I''m not going to push on anybody.

6. What I enjoyed is the people we met and were able to had a good chat with (see also previously published interviews, e.g. Maarte DeWitte, Dave Atlas, and others). Meeting interesting, intelligent, and tactful people gives me some hope


7. What I particularly liked about talking to Maarten, Peter, Nancy, David, Tom and the others, is that being top notch experts with years of experience and knowledge, they don''t talk down to you, don''t push their opinion as the only one possible, recommend you to do your own research and make your own decision. This differentiate intelligent and tactful person from an arrogant sales-person who''s opinion is the only right one and all his competitors are crooks and if you think otherwise you are a jerk and crooked as well.


Sorry for digressing.
I''ll see in the
we made if there is something else worth publishing.
 

pricescope

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 31, 1999
Messages
8,266
Re: cutting John off..
I'm sorry it looked that way. We had a friendly/casual chat while filming and I didn't mean any disrespect.

I fact, John helped quite a bit with other interviews, especially with M.Rapaport. So my belated acknowledgements and apology is in order.
 

JohnQuixote

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
5,212
Date: 12/18/2006 12:11:29 PM
Author: Pricescope
Re: cutting John off..
I'm sorry it looked that way. We had a friendly/casual chat while filming and I didn't mean any disrespect.

I fact, John helped quite a bit with other interviews, especially with M.Rapaport. So my belated acknowledgements and apology is in order.
It was my pleasure Leonid and no worries.Garry did well selecting the diamonds for the comparison.They had different qualities in different lighting but each had consistent appeal.There was a lot to be said for both and if Leonid hadn’t moved it along we might still be there.


I don't think any of the participants thought it was a scientific study; everyone knew it was simply a fun exercise.For PS it may be useful as an example of how obsessing on a tenth here or there can make little difference in real life and different lighting, especially at-a-glance.
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Date: 12/19/2006 12:59:52 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

For PS it may be useful as an example of how obsessing on a tenth here or there can make little difference in real life and different lighting, especially at-a-glance.

Hey Sir John hope the Christmas season is a good one for you and yours.

At a glance maybe but I spent well over a 100 hours looking at my wifey2b''s 2 engagement diamonds and id be willing to bet that the average Lady spends at least 1000 hours over her lifetime looking at her ring.
For the long time PS''ers they may hit that number in a couple years.
 

adamasgem

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
May 23, 2003
Messages
1,338
Date: 12/19/2006 12:59:52 AM
Author: JohnQuixote



It was my pleasure Leonid and no worries.Garry did well selecting the diamonds for the comparison.They had different qualities in different lighting but each had consistent appeal.There was a lot to be said for both and if Leonid hadn’t moved it along we might still be there.


I don''t think any of the participants thought it was a scientific study; everyone knew it was simply a fun exercise.For PS it may be useful as an example of how obsessing on a tenth here or there can make little difference in real life and different lighting, especially at-a-glance.
Amen on the highlighted parts
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
14,581
Date: 12/19/2006 2:27:41 AM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 12/19/2006 12:59:52 AM
Author: JohnQuixote



I don''t think any of the participants thought it was a scientific study; everyone knew it was simply a fun exercise.For PS it may be useful as an example of how obsessing on a tenth here or there can make little difference in real life and different lighting, especially at-a-glance.
Amen on the highlighted part

You in particular would be pleased to know Marty that one of the reasons to take these stones was to further test Diamond Dock.

Here is an excerpt from an upcoming article:

After the close of the GIA Symposium in San Diego Sergey, Yuri, Janak and moi were able to experiment with (but not photograph in) the GIA Diamond Dock® as we all attended a GIA Cut Grading Course.

We noted different instructors assessed ''brightness'' using differing lighting/observer angles with the light box (and other light sources, such as the small fluorescent lights on microscopes). When asked about the correct lighting/observer angle, the instructors could offer no consistent or quantifyable recommendation.


In the original Diamond Dock® Users Manual, a recommendation is made that the observer views diamonds at an angle of 45° to the vertical plane, which we believe was the same angle observers used for the survey testing of 70,000+ observations that formed the basis of GIA''s new Cut Grading System. Anecdotal information from volunteers who participated in GIA''s observation testing seems to confirm that observational tests were performed in a seated position that would have subtended an angle of 40° to 45° between the stones and the centre of the lights (depending on observer height).


When the incident light from the fluorescent tubes comes from this angle, slightly shallower diamonds have less brightness in Diamond Dock®, whereas Tolkowsky proportioned and deeper diamonds appear brighter.

We were able to demonstrate how important this viewing position is to two GIA instructors, who by their own choice, viewed diamonds from a much higher view point than 45°—one where the incident light would have been subtending an angle of approximately 20° to 30° relative to the vertical and the light source. We had with us two diamonds of similar colour, clarity and diameter.

One diamond of 1.19ct, with proportions very near that of Tolkowsky''s, had been graded Excellent by GIA Gem Trade Lab.

The other shallow 1.16ct stone graded Very Good (a border line Good when using Facetware™). From the higher viewing angle, both instructors preferred the shallow stone for brightness (and were split one each for ‘fire’ using the instrument’s LED lighting only.

This of course makes a mockery of the GIA Cut Grading System
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
14,581
Date: 12/19/2006 1:56:00 AM
Author: flopkins
In the videos the smaller stone is the shallow?
The smaller stone is the 1.19ct heavier Tolkowsky.

The 'bigger stone' is the heavier 1.19ct Tolkowsky

The lighter (smaller) stone is the 1.16ct bigger shallow stone.

People use smaller for weight - and a few people use smaller for dimensions.

The shallow stone has stronger light return at the edges so it looks bigger for that reason too
 

Regular Guy

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 6, 2004
Messages
5,951
Date: 12/18/2006 12:11:29 PM
Author: Pricescope
Re: cutting John off..
I''m sorry it looked that way. We had a friendly/casual chat while filming and I didn''t mean any disrespect.

I fact, John helped quite a bit with other interviews, especially with M.Rapaport. So my belated acknowledgements and apology is in order.
Please...

You actually gave me just a taste.

What I''d really like to see is Pricescope on Ice, with you, Leonid, and Irina, Garry, Jon, Jonathan, and a host of others checking each other in some good clean hockey.

Well...I can dream...
 

flopkins

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
2,025
Date: 12/19/2006 5:30:11 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Date: 12/19/2006 1:56:00 AM

Author: flopkins

In the videos the smaller stone is the shallow?
The smaller stone is the 1.19ct heavier Tolkowsky.


The ''bigger stone'' is the heavier 1.19ct Tolkowsky


The lighter (smaller) stone is the 1.16ct bigger shallow stone.


People use smaller for weight - and a few people use smaller for dimensions.


The shallow stone has stronger light return at the edges so it looks bigger for that reason too
Ha! I meant smaller in weight. But now that confuses me even more, in the videos are the folks referring to the smaller as the smaller in weight or smaller in spread?!
I guess I''m having a hard time figuring out which stone they are referring to in the videos... darn those diamonds for being so small!!!
 

:)

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
1,864
Date: 12/19/2006 6:38:30 PM
Author: flopkins

Date: 12/19/2006 5:30:11 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 12/19/2006 1:56:00 AM

Author: flopkins

In the videos the smaller stone is the shallow?
The smaller stone is the 1.19ct heavier Tolkowsky.


The ''bigger stone'' is the heavier 1.19ct Tolkowsky


The lighter (smaller) stone is the 1.16ct bigger shallow stone.


People use smaller for weight - and a few people use smaller for dimensions.


The shallow stone has stronger light return at the edges so it looks bigger for that reason too
Ha! I meant smaller in weight. But now that confuses me even more, in the videos are the folks referring to the smaller as the smaller in weight or smaller in spread?!
I guess I''m having a hard time figuring out which stone they are referring to in the videos... darn those diamonds for being so small!!!
I had a problem figuring that one out too - I ended up very confused about what every one preferred (although I got a kick out of Leonid, John and Jonathan''s 3 stooges act!


I have also decided to wear only white clothing from now on!


was it that the less carat weight stone was larger in diameter because it was shallowly cut, therefore when people were talking about the smaller stone they were referring to the higher carat stone because it was smaller in diameter?
in other words..
larger spread = shallow cut = the less carat weight stone (meaning the one referred to as the bigger one in the videos)
smaller spread = TC = higher weight stone (meaning the one referred to as the smaller stone in the videos)

? correct?
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
14,581
I was being a bit cheeky Flopkins - tongue in cheek


The people were not told the weights etc - so they were calling the heavier Tolkowsky stone the smaller stone.

I have them on my desk, so just snapped this on my mouse pad (my girls gave it to me
)

Left - 1.16ct shallow GIA VGood - referred too as the big stone
Center - 1.19ct Tolkowsky gIA Ex called the small stone
Right side - the 1.00ct stone I used in my GIA Symposium poster graded J I1 by AGS and GIA, and H SI2 by EGL israel

They have been pushed into Blu Tac (the stuff you put kids posters onto the wall with and pray the paint does not come off when you take them down)
This is to simulate dirty pavilions - a little study I am doing.
You can see the shallow stone looks heaps bigger.

Shallow Tolkowsky and Bad EGL Israel.jpg
 

adamasgem

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
May 23, 2003
Messages
1,338
Date: 12/19/2006 5:24:43 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 12/19/2006 2:27:41 AM
Author: adamasgem


Date: 12/19/2006 12:59:52 AM
Author: JohnQuixote




I don''t think any of the participants thought it was a scientific study; everyone knew it was simply a fun exercise.For PS it may be useful as an example of how obsessing on a tenth here or there can make little difference in real life and different lighting, especially at-a-glance.
Amen on the highlighted part

You in particular would be pleased to know Marty that one of the reasons to take these stones was to further test Diamond Dock. I realize that, but I was just commenting on the videos, perhaps if the topic was introduced as to the variability of "taste" confounded by "lighting conditions" (as this was the case) it would show what you were trying to show. The individual videos were useless by themselves..

(PS.. Just got back from a three week trip, I didn''t get a chance to come to Aussie land but was in New Zealand, Bangkok and Israel. BTW I met with Sarin while in Israel, and I believe they have resolved the scanning problems with painted breaks. I had taken an 8Star with me ( a really tough 0.5ct example of the cutting style with an added twist, that being a natural on a crown break, which was properly rendered in my opinion) and they appeared to have done a fairly good job with their new software using the high end commercial scanner.)


Here is an excerpt from an upcoming article:

After the close of the GIA Symposium in San Diego Sergey, Yuri, Janak and moi were able to experiment with (but not photograph in (Surprizing what they want to hide, isn''t it) the GIA Diamond Dock® as we all attended a GIA Cut Grading Course.

We noted different instructors assessed ''brightness'' using differing lighting/observer angles with the light box (and other light sources, such as the small fluorescent lights on microscopes). When asked about the correct lighting/observer angle, the instructors could offer no consistent or quantifyable recommendation.



In the original Diamond Dock® Users Manual, a recommendation is made that the observer views diamonds at an angle of 45° to the vertical plane, which we believe was the same angle observers used for the survey testing of 70,000+ observations that formed the basis of GIA''s new Cut Grading System. Anecdotal information from volunteers who participated in GIA''s observation testing seems to confirm that observational tests were performed in a seated position that would have subtended an angle of 40° to 45° between the stones and the centre of the lights (depending on observer height). That is the position I was in when we did multiple comparisons in Tuscon with the portable lighting booth Al Gilberson had set up. Of course the size of the observer (I''m 6''2", while RockDoc at 5'' or so would see something entirely different), their head height above the base of the light box varied which changed the relative observation angle to the light source (non KittyDock(TM) )

Perhaps if they added a chin cup like in an opthomologists office to position the head, they would have gotten better or more consistent "results". Opps, I blew it, there will be a patent on that idea from GIA, as the upgraded version of KittyDock(TM), but you heard it first here.


When the incident light from the fluorescent tubes comes from this angle, slightly shallower diamonds have less brightness in Diamond Dock®, whereas Tolkowsky proportioned and deeper diamonds appear brighter.

We were able to demonstrate how important this viewing position is to two GIA instructors, who by their own choice, viewed diamonds from a much higher view point than 45°—one where the incident light would have been subtending an angle of approximately 20° to 30° relative to the vertical and the light source. We had with us two diamonds of similar colour, clarity and diameter.

One diamond of 1.19ct, with proportions very near that of Tolkowsky''s, had been graded Excellent by GIA Gem Trade Lab.

The other shallow 1.16ct stone graded Very Good (a border line Good when using Facetware™). From the higher viewing angle, both instructors preferred the shallow stone for brightness (and were split one each for ‘fire’ using the instrument’s LED lighting only. While two observers do not make a valid scientific test, your general observation probably would be validated with multiple observers..


In the original sit down Tuscon tests, I do not believe that there was any record of observers height, although I had to wear a GIA white lab coat, which was a valid attempt at trying to standardize observations. (I don''t know if they took a picture of me in the coat, in a future attempt at blackmail


This of course makes a mockery of the GIA Cut Grading System Yup, I think you hit it on the nailhead with that comment

 

flopkins

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
2,025
Date: 12/19/2006 8:31:44 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
I was being a bit cheeky Flopkins - tongue in cheek



The people were not told the weights etc - so they were calling the heavier Tolkowsky stone the smaller stone.


ah well, I guess I was overthinking it!!! I didn''t know if they were told the carat weights, but it all makes sense now....

anyhoo, I''d like to add that my stone looks a lot like the Tolkowsky when it get really dirty (horror of horrors!)... the edges outside the table look a lot dirtier than the table, even though the pavilion is equally dirty everywhere!! just an interesting observation I had made, that goes along w/how the diamonds look in your pic! cool! the scientist in me is very interested in this study of yours.
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
14,581
thx Flopkins - welcome along for the ride

Date: 12/19/2006 11:53:08 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 12/19/2006 5:24:43 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)


Perhaps if they added a chin cup like in an opthomologists office to position the head, they would have gotten better or more consistent ''results''. Opps, I blew it, there will be a patent on that idea from GIA, as the upgraded version of KittyDock(TM), but you heard it first here.

afraid sergey got to the pass a''fore ya Marty. He described such measures in a planned joint effort with HRD some 2 or more years ago.
You are going to enjoy this little exchange coming up with GIA
 

adamasgem

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
May 23, 2003
Messages
1,338
Date: 12/20/2006 12:49:41 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
thx Flopkins - welcome along for the ride


Date: 12/19/2006 11:53:08 PM
Author: adamasgem


Date: 12/19/2006 5:24:43 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)



Perhaps if they added a chin cup like in an opthomologists office to position the head, they would have gotten better or more consistent ''results''. Opps, I blew it, there will be a patent on that idea from GIA, as the upgraded version of KittyDock(TM), but you heard it first here.

afraid sergey got to the pass a''fore ya Marty. He described such measures in a planned joint effort with HRD some 2 or more years ago.
You are going to enjoy this little exchange coming up with GIA
I wasn''t aware of Sergey''s preemptive thought, but I don''t doubt it at all..


I don''t know if it will be an "exchange" with GIA
, it has always been a one way conversation ( unless you talk privately with a few good folks there)

Be sure to let me know of the thread.


BTW, anyone measure the UV output of the KittyDock(TM) yet?
 

adamasgem

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
May 23, 2003
Messages
1,338
Date: 12/19/2006 8:31:44 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
They have been pushed into Blu Tac (the stuff you put kids posters onto the wall with and pray the paint does not come off when you take them down)
This is to simulate dirty pavilions - a little study I am doing.
You can see the shallow stone looks heaps bigger.
Try a little spray cooking oil, PAM, I believe..

I''ve had the dirty pavilion simulations in both my 2D and 3D ray trace, showing the effects, since the mid 90''s in 2D.. Although I don''t do a reverse ray trace rendering like Sergey..

Quite a simple software change..

I''ll dig out or regenerate a jpeg..
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top