Why cut asschers with small corners and windmills?

[strmrdr]

finding combos that work with various pavilion facet heights and ratios is the hard part.
How wide a range do I need too target? ie with what accuracy can they be realistically placed on a consistent basis?

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/24/2008 9:58:58 PM
Author: strmrdr

preliminary ranges for the pavilion:

p1 49.5 to 52.5 target 52
p2 42 to 47.3 (watch out for for 47.6 it gets bad) target 43
p3 28.75 too 32.5 Target 29.8 there is the most leeway either way there with other combos.


stacking all 3 too the lower # end is a very bad idea.
stacking them all too the upper # range is passable but 79.5% depth, 52.5/47.3/32.5

target 52-43-29.8

Storm..., I think the difference is to wide between the angles of C2 and C3..., thats why you have the strong contrast by the culet!
It might look fine virtually..., but might have a negative affect on live....

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/25/2008 3:14:32 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 2/24/2008 9:58:58 PM
Author: strmrdr


preliminary ranges for the pavilion:

p1 49.5 to 52.5 target 52
p2 42 to 47.3 (watch out for for 47.6 it gets bad) target 43
p3 28.75 too 32.5 Target 29.8 there is the most leeway either way there with other combos.



stacking all 3 too the lower # end is a very bad idea.
stacking them all too the upper # range is passable but 79.5% depth, 52.5/47.3/32.5

target 52-43-29.8

Storm..., I think the difference is to wide between the angles of C2 and C3..., thats why you have the strong contrast by the culet!
It might look fine virtually..., but might have a negative affect on live....

hmmm I like the strong contrast around the culet gives the stone depth like a drop style asscher, I designed it in.
I will go back and work up a target you will like better this week sometime.

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/25/2008 3:26:31 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 2/25/2008 3:14:32 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 2/24/2008 9:58:58 PM
Author: strmrdr



preliminary ranges for the pavilion:

p1 49.5 to 52.5 target 52
p2 42 to 47.3 (watch out for for 47.6 it gets bad) target 43
p3 28.75 too 32.5 Target 29.8 there is the most leeway either way there with other combos.




stacking all 3 too the lower # end is a very bad idea.
stacking them all too the upper # range is passable but 79.5% depth, 52.5/47.3/32.5

target 52-43-29.8

Storm..., I think the difference is to wide between the angles of C2 and C3..., thats why you have the strong contrast by the culet!
It might look fine virtually..., but might have a negative affect on live....

hmmm I like the strong contrast around the culet gives the stone depth like a drop style asscher, I designed it in.
I will go back and work up a target you will like better this week sometime.

I think the balance will be more affective..., as you would like to show the depth by intriguing the observer eye''s to be drawn in to the Diamond!
Sort of like a bottomless hall of mirrors!
If the depth has a dark bottom (or contrast)..., it will seem it has limits.

 

[strmrdr]

here is a real world kicken asscher
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/3598/

 

[strmrdr]

here is DC model of the target monster in a light model targeting that envirement.

 

[strmrdr]

cant show you what I was going too because that stone has a defective gem file.
the sarin scanner missed badly on it.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/25/2008 3:38:07 AM
Author: DiaGem

I think the balance will be more affective..., as you would like to show the depth by intriguing the observer eye''s to be drawn in to the Diamond!
Sort of like a bottomless hall of mirrors!
If the depth has a dark bottom (or contrast)..., it will seem it has limits.

but a black hole.. no defined center return lacks life in real stones.
my asscher philosophy is a 10 mile deep hole with a bottom.

 

[strmrdr]

this pic shows it in the stone you cut the contrast then the center light return anchor the 10 mile deep look. My goal is too increase that anchor in size slightly while keeping the contrast.

 

[Serg]

re:this pic shows it in the stone you cut the contrast then the center light return anchor the 10 mile deep look. My goal is too increase that anchor in size slightly while keeping the contrast.


My Advice, to do not try receive static contrast just for table view position . Do not use rejection tools( Like ASET, IS) to optimize cut appearance .
Rejection tools could do simple rejection work only. It is important but not enough to create good cut
Dynamic contrast is much more important. Very often what static contrast is very bad for dynamic contrast

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/25/2008 4:29:36 AM
Author: Serg

re:this pic shows it in the stone you cut the contrast then the center light return anchor the 10 mile deep look. My goal is too increase that anchor in size slightly while keeping the contrast.


My Advice, to do not try receive static contrast just for table view position . Do not use rejection tools( Like ASET, IS) to optimize cut appearance .
Rejection tools could do simple rejection work only. It is important but not enough to create good cut

Dynamic contrast is much more important. Very often what static contrast is very bad for dynamic contrast

right I agree, but the center return moving as the diamond is tilted gives the center life.
I use DC jewelery store lighting with black background and wire frame with and without double reflection to design both face up and 5 10 15 20 and 25 degrees then check it in ASET too see what AGS might think of it as a last step.
If I can improve the aset while improving the others I will but often it will make it worse so I always do a save as the final version before I even look at the ASET.

 

[strmrdr]

the next couple days I have a project im working on for a client so wont have a lot of time too play with this.
I will get back too it later this week with some more examples and designs.

DiaGem on thing I want too work on is a nice contrasty design for .25 and .33 asschers.
What parameters such as depth, ch and table should I target that will best fit the common rough for these?

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/24/2008 4:56:54 PM
Author: strmrdr
I dont want too be a pest but would love more pictures in different kinds of lighting as you get time if you want too :}

 

[strmrdr]

I just thought of another question, does the table need too be made a little larger to make this easier too cut? (35% or even back too the original 40% with different angles?)
You mentioned having some problems with it a bunch of posts back.

 

[diagem]

Daylight:

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/25/2008 5:46:43 AM
Author: DiaGem
Daylight:

yummy!!! thank you!!

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/25/2008 5:00:58 AM
Author: strmrdr
the next couple days I have a project im working on for a client so wont have a lot of time too play with this.
I will get back too it later this week with some more examples and designs.

DiaGem on thing I want too work on is a nice contrasty design for .25 and .33 asschers.
What parameters such as depth, ch and table should I target that will best fit the common rough for these?

Depth will be greater naturally due to the ratio of the girdle plane width vs. overall total depth.
CH should in my opinion be kept the same.
Table could be made larger (as it opens the appearance of the stone''s face-up effect...) or kept smaller as the most fire/life is produced via the large crown covering most of the face!

 

[diagem]

Full sun exposure!

 

[diagem]

Cool Dark Image....

 

[diagem]

Fiery...

 

[diagem]

Dark colored halogen!

 

[diagem]

Dark colored halogen side...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

DG somewhere on your camera is an option to select different types of light globes. It will take away some of the cast in the pics

Very interesting thread guys

 

[strmrdr]

Introducing tiny monster., alpha1
This one came togother a lot quicker that I thought it would.
Went with 20 on the corners per the other thread about that being prefered too help line up the stones.
Works with 22 and 24 too.

 

[strmrdr]

yep its a 3/2

44% table
19.4 CH
75.2 TD
c: (needs a little work yet)
42
38
25

p:
51.5
39.8

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/25/2008 2:22:43 PM
Author: strmrdr
Introducing tiny monster., alpha1
This one came togother a lot quicker that I thought it would.
Went with 20 on the corners per the other thread about that being prefered too help line up the stones.
Works with 22 and 24 too.

Storm..., can you make a line of virtual "tiny''s"? I am afraid you might need larger corner breaks to really enjoy the look!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/25/2008 2:54:30 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 2/25/2008 2:22:43 PM
Author: strmrdr
Introducing tiny monster., alpha1
This one came togother a lot quicker that I thought it would.
Went with 20 on the corners per the other thread about that being prefered too help line up the stones.
Works with 22 and 24 too.

Storm..., can you make a line of virtual ''tiny''s''? I am afraid you might need larger corner breaks to really enjoy the look!

thats kewl with me I like the 24 better but in the other thread you said 20 too help line them up.
Alpha2 will come as I have time.

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/25/2008 3:05:26 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 2/25/2008 2:54:30 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 2/25/2008 2:22:43 PM
Author: strmrdr
Introducing tiny monster., alpha1
This one came togother a lot quicker that I thought it would.
Went with 20 on the corners per the other thread about that being prefered too help line up the stones.
Works with 22 and 24 too.

Storm..., can you make a line of virtual ''tiny''s''? I am afraid you might need larger corner breaks to really enjoy the look!

thats kewl with me I like the 24 better but in the other thread you said 20 too help line them up.
Alpha2 will come as I have time.

I was talikng about standard mass production..., and of larger sizes (one carats)...
Based on my experience..., the smaller you go..., the more distinguished you want the stones to look when they are set in a line!

But all these factors must be falling into economic sense! Dont forget..., the smaller the fancy shape..., the more significant the labor cost is as a part of the whole Diamond cost! (do you understand me?)

 

[strmrdr]

line of tiny monsters

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/25/2008 3:14:05 PM
Author: DiaGem
I was talikng about standard mass production..., and of larger sizes (one carats)...
Based on my experience..., the smaller you go..., the more distinguished you want the stones to look when they are set in a line!

But all these factors must be falling into economic sense! Dont forget..., the smaller the fancy shape..., the more significant the labor cost is as a part of the whole Diamond cost! (do you understand me?)

gotcha :}
labor is why I went with a 3/2, I could make it slightly better by going 3/3.
Im going too try a 2/2 also :}