Video Comparison - which vendors beside GOG?

[Bungee]

Hi all,

I''m looking to purchase a cushion diamond online soon. I''ve come across Good Old Gold''s video comparisons and they''re great for people who actually want to see what they''re buying!! So I was just wondering which vendors also do video comparisons....Does Mark from ERD do them because I''ve read SO many posts that he''s the "Cushion guy"....Please help!! Thanks in advance!!!

 

[NeverEndingUpgrade]

I don''t think anyone else does them. I think you get the most info possible with GOG. Besides, their videos are just good, clean, fun & free entertainment!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

With the greatest of respect to GOG and Jonathon''s enthusiasm, it is a blessing that more people do not do video''s.
Until there is an objective and reproducable lighting and camera settings, it is better to rely on other tools.

I strongly prefer movie videos thru the ASET for non round cuts. The lighting is known and reproducable to a better (but not perfect) degree.
for example
http://www.ideal-scope.com/using_reference_chart_ASET.asp

 

[Rhino]

Date: 11/21/2008 6:01:59 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
With the greatest of respect to GOG and Jonathon's enthusiasm, it is a blessing that more people do not do video's.
Until there is an objective and reproducable lighting and camera settings, it is better to rely on other tools.

I strongly prefer movie videos thru the ASET for non round cuts. The lighting is known and reproducable to a better (but not perfect) degree.
for example
http://www.ideal-scope.com/using_reference_chart_ASET.asp

And with all due respect Garry, I disagree.

I agree with you in the sense that just placing a video camera in front of a diamond will not accurately capture optical nuances but you underestimate me my friend. I have taken the necessary time to ensure repeatable lighting & camera settings and modify our lighting and setup in such a way that I can capture the nuances between

a. a 40.7 and a 41.0 pavilion angle,
b. overdarkness in both rounds and fancies due to either
c. light leakage or head/body obstruction
d. lower girdle facet length
e. painting and digging
f.not only facet structures of fancies (chunky, brilliant, crushed ice, narrow step, broad step etc.) but whether these particular facet structures also suffer from too much head/body obstructions and/or leakage.
g. the visual differences between various styles/proportions of AGS Ideal Princess Cuts
etc...

I have worked hard and spent lots of capital to ensure I get this as close as possible short of seeing it live and to communicate to clients what is most commonly lacking in Internet photography including our own. You may not appreciate it but these unique services have helped consumers select the most visually stunning diamonds within shape categories, many of which have posted on these forums. For GOG this is a value added service and IMPO a step forward. ASET and RedReflectors, while good are definitely not end all be all solutions. I think you would agree. Have a great day Garry (or night in Aussie).

Regards,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/21/2008 11:56:54 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 11/21/2008 6:01:59 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
With the greatest of respect to GOG and Jonathon''s enthusiasm, it is a blessing that more people do not do video''s.
Until there is an objective and reproducable lighting and camera settings, it is better to rely on other tools.

I strongly prefer movie videos thru the ASET for non round cuts. The lighting is known and reproducable to a better (but not perfect) degree.
for example
http://www.ideal-scope.com/using_reference_chart_ASET.asp

And with all due respect Garry, I disagree.

I agree with you in the sense that just placing a video camera in front of a diamond will not accurately capture optical nuances but you underestimate me my friend. I have taken the necessary time to ensure repeatable lighting & camera settings and modify our lighting and setup in such a way that I can capture the nuances between

a. a 40.7 and a 41.0 pavilion angle,
b. overdarkness in both rounds and fancies due to either
c. light leakage or head/body obstruction
d. lower girdle facet length
e. painting and digging
f.not only facet structures of fancies (chunky, brilliant, crushed ice, narrow step, broad step etc.) but whether these particular facet structures also suffer from too much head/body obstructions and/or leakage.
g. the visual differences between various styles/proportions of AGS Ideal Princess Cuts
etc...

I have worked hard and spent lots of capital to ensure I get this as close as possible short of seeing it live and to communicate to clients what is most commonly lacking in Internet photography including our own. You may not appreciate it but these unique services have helped consumers select the most visually stunning diamonds within shape categories, many of which have posted on these forums. For GOG this is a value added service and IMPO a step forward. ASET and RedReflectors, while good are definitely not end all be all solutions. I think you would agree. Have a great day Garry (or night in Aussie).

Regards,

You did not read the OP''s question and my reply Jonathon.
While you believe you have a good methodology (I disagree - but it is not the point on this thread, and I deliberatley did not mention it) the question is why not have others do what you do.

If there was agreement about a lighting type that was reproducable, camera to lighting angles. exposure, lens and camera type and all the myriad of other variables, then it might be possible to make a video system that would be fair to consumers looking at various video''s. There is not. there is not even any similarity between normal lighting and formats in normal still shots of diamonds between web vendors - at least with ideal-scope and ASET formats there is a much better chance of reproducability or usable comparison.

http://idcc2.octonus.com/abstracts.phtml I am working on a reproducable grading lighting that will work for all diamond cuts and for all users. It is not an easy task. any input is welcomed.

 

[strmrdr]

my 2c.. videos with fancies are a very nice part of the puzzle.
Comparing stones in the same video is very much better than comparing them in 2 different videos even from one source.
For example comparing stones using only videos from GOG and another vendor is useless but comparing 2 stones from GOG in the same video is useful.

Videos with well cut RB''s are far less useful as it doesn''t show the more subtle differences in them well.
They will never be the final answer but properly used are nice.

So my opinion falls almost right in the middle of Garry''s and Jon''s and we all agree and disagree on some things.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/21/2008 3:23:48 PM
Author: strmrdr
my 2c.. videos with fancies are a very nice part of the puzzle.
Comparing stones in the same video is very much better than comparing them in 2 different videos even from one source.
For example comparing stones using only videos from GOG and another vendor is useless but comparing 2 stones from GOG in the same video is useful.

Videos with well cut RB''s are far less useful as it doesn''t show the more subtle differences in them well.
They will never be the final answer but properly used are nice.

So my opinion falls almost right in the middle of Garry''s and Jon''s and we all agree and disagree on some things.

Storm that is my point.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/21/2008 3:50:41 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 11/21/2008 3:23:48 PM

Author: strmrdr

my 2c.. videos with fancies are a very nice part of the puzzle.

Comparing stones in the same video is very much better than comparing them in 2 different videos even from one source.

For example comparing stones using only videos from GOG and another vendor is useless but comparing 2 stones from GOG in the same video is useful.


Videos with well cut RB''s are far less useful as it doesn''t show the more subtle differences in them well.

They will never be the final answer but properly used are nice.


So my opinion falls almost right in the middle of Garry''s and Jon''s and we all agree and disagree on some things.

Storm that is my point.

Garry, I reread what you said and still don''t get that from it but ok

btw block all external light from getting into your light box except what you are putting in.

 

[Rhino]

I didn't get that either Garry but thanks for clarifying. On the points you mention in the last post we are in agreement concerning those things as well as strms. I am open to inspecting and/or commenting on any particular lighting arrangement you've put together too if there is somehow/way you'd like to forward that to me.

Kind regards,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/21/2008 4:15:47 PM
Author: strmrdr

Garry, I reread what you said and still don''t get that from it but ok

Storm and Rhino - I dont get what you didnt get?
"With the greatest of respect to GOG and Jonathon''s enthusiasm, it is a blessing that more people do not do video''s.
Until there is an objective and reproducable lighting and camera settings, it is better to rely on other tools."

The only word I could have used differently would be Vendors instead of People

Jonathon if you wish to collaorate then the first thing you could do would be define what you do when filming - right down to the very very smallest detail. That would mean every detail - exposure of camera, light meter readings etc.

Also I would strongly recomend that you include a standard stone with every video so that there is a reference - The MSS reference for that example will be a Tolkowsky with 57% table and around 81.5% (80%) lower girdles with H&A''s symmetry.

And finally the stones should always be mounted so that each faces the camera - that means if the camera is 16 inches away then the holder / tray whatever should be on a curved surface with the same radius. And stone positions should be changed from center to sides etc.

Storm the background light and light tpypes and positions is important - asimple thing like where you stand to film can block or not block another light source - light from windows can be very bright or dul depending on time of day and weather etc. But having a very dark room is equally bad

 

[diamondseeker2006]

All I can say is that I have found the videos amazingly valuable in choosing fancy shape stones. I remember clearly looking at the ovals Jon filmed for Kaleigh. It was easy to narrow down the selection. It would have been quite expensive for all the stones to have been sent to her, so I think it was a perfect way to eliminate the stones that were not as pleasing as others. Naturally, there is still the 30 day return period for the stone that is selected so the buyer can see the stone in person. But I cannot imagine buying any shape but a round without seeing photos and video is just a bonusl.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 11/21/2008 8:02:14 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
All I can say is that I have found the videos amazingly valuable in choosing fancy shape stones. I remember clearly looking at the ovals Jon filmed for Kaleigh. It was easy to narrow down the selection. It would have been quite expensive for all the stones to have been sent to her, so I think it was a perfect way to eliminate the stones that were not as pleasing as others. Naturally, there is still the 30 day return period for the stone that is selected so the buyer can see the stone in person. But I cannot imagine buying any shape but a round without seeing photos and video is just a bonusl.

Ditto 100%. Whether the experts think so or not, they have been a great resource for so many consumers.
Especially for those like myself, it would be completely impractical and hugely expensive to have diamonds shipped back and forth from US to Aust until we "got it right".
I''m not saying the videos solve this, but they certainly go a long way to helping.

 

[Deelight]

Date: 11/22/2008 2:05:37 AM
Author: arjunajane

Date: 11/21/2008 8:02:14 PM

Author: diamondseeker2006

All I can say is that I have found the videos amazingly valuable in choosing fancy shape stones. I remember clearly looking at the ovals Jon filmed for Kaleigh. It was easy to narrow down the selection. It would have been quite expensive for all the stones to have been sent to her, so I think it was a perfect way to eliminate the stones that were not as pleasing as others. Naturally, there is still the 30 day return period for the stone that is selected so the buyer can see the stone in person. But I cannot imagine buying any shape but a round without seeing photos and video is just a bonusl.

Ditto 100%. Whether the experts think so or not, they have been a great resource for so many consumers.

Especially for those like myself, it would be completely impractical and hugely expensive to have diamonds shipped back and forth from US to Aust until we ''got it right''.

I''m not saying the videos solve this, but they certainly go a long way to helping.

Double Ditto , The video Sarah and Jon shot for me and FI was awesome, the only difference for us was the diamond looks better IRL then the video.

 

[Moh 10]

Each vendor uses their own set up and lighting for photography.
Whiteflash's and GOG's pics look totally different.

I believe these companies consider their photography set up to be highly proprietary.
I have dabbled in photographing gems and it is quite a challenge.

Whiteflash's technique results in beautiful looking diamonds.
There are some SI1's and even some SI2s which seem to look flawless in their 40x pics.
The pics have sharp focus while the lighting feels soft and shadowless, resulting in almost no rainbow colors.

On the contrary, GOG (besides presenting pics that make the diamonds look beautiful) includes pics employing lighting that makes the inclusions easy to see.
(I appreciate this and feel it offers more disclosure than lighting that makes inclusions less noticeable.)
They also have pics lit in such a way that we see lots more rainbow colors than the pics in Whiteflash's main 40X shots.

If consumers compared and didn't understand how much lighting changes how diamonds look they might think GOG's diamonds have more rainbow colors, and inclusions that are much more noticeable. (Which is of course not true)
They might think WF's SI1s are more eye-clean than GOG's. (Which again is not true)
Photography is a powerful tool that can be used to emphasize different qualities.

I understand both approaches.
BTW, have you seen the pics on Diamonds by Lauren?
It looks like light is bursting from inside the diamonds.

The same diamond photographed by these three vendors will look very different.
Why should video techniques be standardized if current photography techniques are all over the map?

Anyway Garry, like it or not consumers are not scientists, they are raised on video and most will love them.
I think most diamond shoppers are more right-brained than left.
For better or worse I expect more vendors to jump on the video bandwagon.
I do agree that standardizing things would benefit the consumers but getting all vendors to do this would be harder than herding cats.

I do agree that getting all diamonds in the same video to face up on axis to the camera lens is important.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 11/22/2008 2:31:09 AM
Author: Deelight



Double Ditto , The video Sarah and Jon shot for me and FI was awesome, the only difference for us was the diamond looks better IRL then the video.

Mine too !

And bungee, my apologies - to your question, at the moment not to my knowledge. I *could have* read somewhere the Mark did a vid for someine, but I may also be imagin' things

Either way, you are in safe hands with both these vendors and can trust them to be your eyes - just gotta be as specific as you can on what you're after.
Good luck, keep up updated!

ETA: great points about the photography Moh 10. I had also thought about this, but you said it better

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/22/2008 2:37:12 AM
Author: Moh 10
I do agree that standardizing things would benefit the consumers but getting all vendors to do this would be harder than herding cats.

there is more than 1 way to skin a cat Moh

You would agree that there is a better degree of uniformity in structured lighting - IS and ASET etc - even though Rhino and various othes call firescope or Ideal-scope images by different names.
The work i am doing with the Cut Group will lead to such a solution - but it might not directly involve camera''s in the current format.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Hey Garry,

I understand what you are saying and agree with your goal.

But may I be devil''s advocate for a second?

When you are saying that ideal-scope and ASET-scope offer uniformity in structured lighting, you are absolutely right, but then, it depends on the usage by the vendor. For instance, we see vendors using the idealscope-view to claim H&A. Probably, the more parameters one has for a structured environment, the higher the risk of abuse.

I am surprised to see that you consider the usage of a standard stone. It implies that all stones with the same average proportions look the same. My position is that a standard stone does not exist. This position might be exaggerated, I know, but I find it dangerous to accept the concept of a standard stone.

All in all, I admire your passion in this project, but I fear that it will not result in high usage. The way pictures are taken by individual vendors, the way videos will be produced is exactly the same as the lighting in various stores. There will be slight differences in lighting, and the reason is quite simple: the lighting, the pictures and the videos all have the goal to make the merchandise look at its best. I see the scientific or comparative importance of your project, but if that makes part of the merchandise look less spectacular, it will have little success. Just like the creation of standardized lighting in a jewelry store would not be welcomed.

I foresee that very soon, a lot of vendors will be producing videos, and that every vendor will use a system and method that he personally likes. It may indeed not be the best solution and definitely not offer the best information for the consumer, but I wonder if it is possible to stop this process, that seems natural to me.

Live long,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/22/2008 1:21:53 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Hey Garry,

I understand what you are saying and agree with your goal.

But may I be devil''s advocate for a second?

When you are saying that ideal-scope and ASET-scope offer uniformity in structured lighting, you are absolutely right, but then, it depends on the usage by the vendor. For instance, we see vendors using the idealscope-view to claim H&A. Probably, the more parameters one has for a structured environment, the higher the risk of abuse.

I am surprised to see that you consider the usage of a standard stone. It implies that all stones with the same average proportions look the same. My position is that a standard stone does not exist. This position might be exaggerated, I know, but I find it dangerous to accept the concept of a standard stone.

All in all, I admire your passion in this project, but I fear that it will not result in high usage. The way pictures are taken by individual vendors, the way videos will be produced is exactly the same as the lighting in various stores. There will be slight differences in lighting, and the reason is quite simple: the lighting, the pictures and the videos all have the goal to make the merchandise look at its best. I see the scientific or comparative importance of your project, but if that makes part of the merchandise look less spectacular, it will have little success. Just like the creation of standardized lighting in a jewelry store would not be welcomed.

I foresee that very soon, a lot of vendors will be producing videos, and that every vendor will use a system and method that he personally likes. It may indeed not be the best solution and definitely not offer the best information for the consumer, but I wonder if it is possible to stop this process, that seems natural to me.

Live long,

Thanks Paul, I agree with every part of your fears.
The Cut Group will be the vendor of or the authorising body for checking any other source of Master Stones just as GIA and HRD provide a colour master service.
The lighting project I linked to will be made available as an independant and consistant source for anyone who wants to play fair.
It is not an easy task, but that does not frighten me

 

[Rhino]

Date: 11/22/2008 4:57:01 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 11/22/2008 1:21:53 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Hey Garry,

I understand what you are saying and agree with your goal.

But may I be devil's advocate for a second?

When you are saying that ideal-scope and ASET-scope offer uniformity in structured lighting, you are absolutely right, but then, it depends on the usage by the vendor. For instance, we see vendors using the idealscope-view to claim H&A. Probably, the more parameters one has for a structured environment, the higher the risk of abuse.

I am surprised to see that you consider the usage of a standard stone. It implies that all stones with the same average proportions look the same. My position is that a standard stone does not exist. This position might be exaggerated, I know, but I find it dangerous to accept the concept of a standard stone.

All in all, I admire your passion in this project, but I fear that it will not result in high usage. The way pictures are taken by individual vendors, the way videos will be produced is exactly the same as the lighting in various stores. There will be slight differences in lighting, and the reason is quite simple: the lighting, the pictures and the videos all have the goal to make the merchandise look at its best. I see the scientific or comparative importance of your project, but if that makes part of the merchandise look less spectacular, it will have little success. Just like the creation of standardized lighting in a jewelry store would not be welcomed.

I foresee that very soon, a lot of vendors will be producing videos, and that every vendor will use a system and method that he personally likes. It may indeed not be the best solution and definitely not offer the best information for the consumer, but I wonder if it is possible to stop this process, that seems natural to me.

Live long,

Thanks Paul, I agree with every part of your fears.
The Cut Group will be the vendor of or the authorising body for checking any other source of Master Stones just as GIA and HRD provide a colour master service.
The lighting project I linked to will be made available as an independant and consistant source for anyone who wants to play fair.
It is not an easy task, but that does not frighten me

Didn't get a chance to respond to this the other day.

Garry ... I think you are missing Paul's concern here (which I also share). Before you begin to worry about policing diamond videos (and believe me I share your concern with regards to accurate representation and I have personally taken steps to ensure this) how about this "authorizing body of the Cut Group" addressing Paul's basic concerns with regards to basic internet photography?

And even before you begin to address photography ... Diamonds are permitted to be listed here in a Hearts & Arrows search with no evidence and or hard evidence suggesting otherwise. Can I list a few thousands diamonds with no H&A information as H&A's? Paul's concern (and he'll correct me if I'm wrong) is the integrity of this website is compromised by allowing loose standards in the H&A search when no evidence is provided to demonstrate such. Just like PS vendors can publish diamonds on their site as being "Ideal Cut's" which don't even come close.

Ie. before you begin to address multimedia standards perhaps the powers that be here should think about the integrity of the basic information that is being presented that can be more easily be controlled.

Regards,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/25/2008 1:25:22 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 11/22/2008 4:57:01 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 11/22/2008 1:21:53 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Hey Garry,

I understand what you are saying and agree with your goal.

But may I be devil''s advocate for a second?

When you are saying that ideal-scope and ASET-scope offer uniformity in structured lighting, you are absolutely right, but then, it depends on the usage by the vendor. For instance, we see vendors using the idealscope-view to claim H&A. Probably, the more parameters one has for a structured environment, the higher the risk of abuse.

I am surprised to see that you consider the usage of a standard stone. It implies that all stones with the same average proportions look the same. My position is that a standard stone does not exist. This position might be exaggerated, I know, but I find it dangerous to accept the concept of a standard stone.

All in all, I admire your passion in this project, but I fear that it will not result in high usage. The way pictures are taken by individual vendors, the way videos will be produced is exactly the same as the lighting in various stores. There will be slight differences in lighting, and the reason is quite simple: the lighting, the pictures and the videos all have the goal to make the merchandise look at its best. I see the scientific or comparative importance of your project, but if that makes part of the merchandise look less spectacular, it will have little success. Just like the creation of standardized lighting in a jewelry store would not be welcomed.

I foresee that very soon, a lot of vendors will be producing videos, and that every vendor will use a system and method that he personally likes. It may indeed not be the best solution and definitely not offer the best information for the consumer, but I wonder if it is possible to stop this process, that seems natural to me.

Live long,

Thanks Paul, I agree with every part of your fears.
The Cut Group will be the vendor of or the authorising body for checking any other source of Master Stones just as GIA and HRD provide a colour master service.
The lighting project I linked to will be made available as an independant and consistant source for anyone who wants to play fair.
It is not an easy task, but that does not frighten me

Didn''t get a chance to respond to this the other day.

Garry ... I think you are missing Paul''s concern here (which I also share). Before you begin to worry about policing diamond videos (and believe me I share your concern with regards to accurate representation and I have personally taken steps to ensure this) how about this ''authorizing body of the Cut Group'' addressing Paul''s basic concerns with regards to basic internet photography?

And even before you begin to address photography ... Diamonds are permitted to be listed here in a Hearts & Arrows search with no evidence and or hard evidence suggesting otherwise. Can I list a few thousands diamonds with no H&A information as H&A''s? Paul''s concern (and he''ll correct me if I''m wrong) is the integrity of this website is compromised by allowing loose standards in the H&A search when no evidence is provided to demonstrate such. Just like PS vendors can publish diamonds on their site as being ''Ideal Cut''s'' which don''t even come close.

Ie. before you begin to address multimedia standards perhaps the powers that be here should think about the integrity of the basic information that is being presented that can be more easily be controlled.

Regards,

That was a neat switch Rhino.
I suggest that you write a journal atricle explaining your take on H&A''s, the various patterns and their attributes.
Anyone and everyone else who wants to can also submit an article or their grading standard.
Paul it would be great if you guys could get someone to cover the HRD standard - maybe even somoene from HRD?

 

[late-start]

Just watch a few videos at GoG and as a beginner I found them very helpful. I''m looking for an asscher cut and believe side-by-side videos are quiet valuable in decided which stone to buy.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/25/2008 5:10:59 PM
Author: late-start
Just watch a few videos at GoG and as a beginner I found them very helpful. I''m looking for an asscher cut and believe side-by-side videos are quiet valuable in decided which stone to buy.

Hi LS, we are discussing comparisons from one vendor to another, not side by side at the same vendor. Imagine how effective that could be