who is the winner in the high tech world, I SEE 2 or brilliance scope

[Dancing Fire]

which one of these tech are more accurate?
how about lightscope vs firescope ?

 

[valeria101]

The difference between the output of firescope and idealscope is discussed on the GoodOldGold site. However, the makeup of the two instruments is not.

You can find some descriptions of the procedure used by the Bscope and the Isee2 machine on the same site plus their own.

The only type of comparative evalustion of these tools attempted here was about the correlation of their results, not accuracy. As far as I understand, the two are related... so this might help. At some point, Isee2 was suggested as the most harsh selection tool: stones with top Isee2 scores would top the Bscope, Iscope and Fscope criteria (the H&A viewer you do not mention and I don't know).

It appears that diamonds which look great via Fscope will loog good via Iscope, while the converse is not determined.

These observations (taken from PS chats, and not my own taking the stuff apart for inspection

) immply that the Isee2 and Fscope are at least as precise technically as the Bscope and Iscope - respectively.

Conclusion: Why is this important to your search for a diamond ??? There are quite a few which score tops on each and every existing test fired at them

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I can say that the best way to predict a diamonds beauty has not yet been released.
It will be from a very high resolution scan from the outside of a diamond that also accounts for the facet azimuth (direction they face - not measured accurately at present).
This data will then be processed by a yet to be completed version of DiamCalc software that will judge light return, contrast, scinitllation and fire.
This will concurrently account for the effects of symmetry deviations - many of which are not even considered at this time - like out of round triangularish round diamonds which show not a teensy bit of out of roundness on any existing system.

Now to your questions.
The two photographic based products are a great idea, but fail to account for many issues like the size of a human pupil and other complexities. I ran a good and a bad cut CZ on both machines last year and they both scored fantasially well. But both undoubtably perform a role in diamond buying for consumers who can not see the diamonds for themselves. The trouble is that the inventors (who are all genuine and good people) of both think their research is done.

As to the red reflection scopes - the principle is exactly the same in all cases. the major differences:

1. light source - the Firescope (which is actually now been replaced with a new version with black walls called s symmetryscope) has the most directionally supplied leakage light. I do not think that is the best approach. I know Jonothaons imagescope lighting setup - it is better. Barry's lightscope could have more intense backlight to give a fair comparison. Our portable ideal-light is probably a little too bright with fresh batteries.

2. The firescope blocks about 30 degrees of light from its lens - I assume the symmetry scope does the same. The ideal-scope is around 25 degrees - by deliberate design. This equates to what an observer with a normal sort of head size would experiance when viewing a diamond from about 12 inches. The Firescope will make a diamond look darker still - too dark in my book and it is one reason why some people will reject a shallower stone. Jonathon is in between or slightly closer to the Firescope, but up till now Jonathon thinks light from directly above that appears black is good and cals it 'hot spots'. Dead spots or contrast spots would be a better term.

3. Lens quality - Jonathon claims the bees knees- a camera lens. Barry???? The Firescope has a good peak lens that you can buy for about $80. We use a cheap plastic 5-7x lens in the $25 model and a good quality duplex in the $120 model which also has an excelent portable diffuser for fine back light distinction.

4. Availablitiy and portability. We win hands down

The firescope(tm) or symmetryscope(tm) is available from EightStar(tm) to jewellers only I believe for over $1,000.

Finally if we were to compare photographic results then we will be releasing our rapid photographic auto crop and 2 sized auto file storage system at the Moscow diamond cut conference. The quality of the images and ease of use will be second to none

 

[mdx]

I can say that the best way to predict a diamonds beauty has not yet been released.
It will be from a very high resolution scan from the outside of a diamond that also accounts for the facet azimuth (direction they face - not measured accurately at present).
This data will then be processed by a yet to be completed version of DiamCalc software that will judge light return, contrast, scinitllation and fire.
This will concurrently account for the effects of symmetry deviations - many of which are not even considered at this time - like out of round triangularish round diamonds which show not a teensy bit of out of roundness on any existing system.
-------------------------------------------------

Hi Gary

Is this a prediction or an actual project, sounds very interesting.
I have a feeling there is some potential in measuring heat signatures and heat shadows in a controlled environment like Argon.

Johan

.

 

[oldminer]

Besdies what Garry Holloway has told you, there will be some definitive grading of diamond cut and brilliancy coming in the near future other than from inside Russia.

More info will follow in the coming weeks. The only available hints on this can be viewed at www.imageminc.com

Nothing we presently use for this work will seem so scientific when this new technology is fully unveiled. When you have the truth available, it will be appreciated by the relatively small number of consumers who have learned how to shop well. It may take a lot longer for this information to reach Mr. & Ms. average consumer.