POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.binaries.images : Gem settings: opinions wanted Server Time: 27 Jul 2017 22:48:48 GMT
  Gem settings: opinions wanted (Message 1 to 10 of 10)  
From: Cousin Ricky
Subject: Gem settings: opinions wanted
Date: 17 Jun 2017 02:29:20
Message: <59449400@news.povray.org>
Round brilliant models are a dime a dozen, but I've never seen settings 
modeled, so I figured I would do it.  I'm satisfied with the prongs, but 
I don't know how these things attach to the ring.  (Web image searches 
haven't helped, because in most of the images, the gem blocked the base 
of the setting, and when this wasn't the case, the setting was way too 
fancy for my goal.)

I have four models for the base of the setting.  Which do you think is 
the best, and do you have any better ideas?


Post a reply to this message


Attachments:
Download 'setting_survey-a.jpg' (45 KB)
Download 'setting_survey-b.jpg' (44 KB)
Download 'setting_survey-c.jpg' (45 KB)
Download 'setting_survey-d.jpg' (44 KB)

Preview of image 'setting_survey-a.jpg'
setting_survey-a.jpg

Preview of image 'setting_survey-b.jpg'
setting_survey-b.jpg

Preview of image 'setting_survey-c.jpg'
setting_survey-c.jpg

Preview of image 'setting_survey-d.jpg'
setting_survey-d.jpg


 

From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Gem settings: opinions wanted
Date: 17 Jun 2017 06:55:16
Message: <5944d254$1@news.povray.org>
On 17-6-2017 4:29, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> I have four models for the base of the setting.  Which do you think is
> the best, and do you have any better ideas?

The much regretted Steve Paget would have known right away! My most 
humble personal opinion would favour Plan B or C.

-- 
Thomas


Post a reply to this message

From: omniverse
Subject: Re: Gem settings: opinions wanted
Date: 17 Jun 2017 10:35:00
Message: <web.5945055c8e3982189c5d6c810@news.povray.org>
Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Round brilliant models are a dime a dozen, but I've never seen settings
> modeled, so I figured I would do it.  I'm satisfied with the prongs, but
> I don't know how these things attach to the ring.  (Web image searches
> haven't helped, because in most of the images, the gem blocked the base
> of the setting, and when this wasn't the case, the setting was way too
> fancy for my goal.)
>
> I have four models for the base of the setting.  Which do you think is
> the best, and do you have any better ideas?

I'll make it more difficult to decide by saying A or D instead of Thomas's B or
C.

I don't know anything about jewelry, especially rings, but I just always thought
diamonds or clear gems were placed onto a setting with a reflective underside.
Looking at pictures of ring settings just now it would seem to prove me mostly
wrong.

Many apparently have open space below the prongs, a hole in the ring itself, at
least for this type of setting. I guess that's to allow more light around it.
Maybe because light doesn't refract down and back up very easily??

Bob


Post a reply to this message

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Gem settings: opinions wanted
Date: 17 Jun 2017 11:11:59
Message: <59450e7f@news.povray.org>
On 6/17/2017 3:29 AM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Round brilliant models are a dime a dozen, but I've never seen settings
> modeled, so I figured I would do it.  I'm satisfied with the prongs, but
> I don't know how these things attach to the ring.  (Web image searches
> haven't helped, because in most of the images, the gem blocked the base
> of the setting, and when this wasn't the case, the setting was way too
> fancy for my goal.)
>
> I have four models for the base of the setting.  Which do you think is
> the best, and do you have any better ideas?

I prefer the ones with the silver base as I fancy it might reflect light 
back into the gem. So for a round cut stone I prefer A and C for a 
square cut stone.
Then I remembered my wife has a ring with a similar setting.

So I took a couple of photographs with my old camera.

I'll post them in OT so they will disappear in a fortnight.





-- 

Regards
     Stephen


Post a reply to this message

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Gem settings: opinions wanted
Date: 17 Jun 2017 11:39:30
Message: <594514f2$1@news.povray.org>
On 6/17/2017 11:33 AM, omniverse wrote:
>
> I'll make it more difficult to decide by saying A or D instead of Thomas's B or
> C.
>
> I don't know anything about jewelry, especially rings, but I just always thought
> diamonds or clear gems were placed onto a setting with a reflective underside.
> Looking at pictures of ring settings just now it would seem to prove me mostly
> wrong.
>
> Many apparently have open space below the prongs, a hole in the ring itself, at
> least for this type of setting. I guess that's to allow more light around it.
> Maybe because light doesn't refract down and back up very easily??
>

I thought that too but I found this answer that makes sense, to me:

Without a Hole on the underside of the Shank, chances are good, the 
Sharp Point of your Stone would Break off during setting.

The Tapered Part of a Diamond is called the Pavilion. The Pavilion comes 
to a Sharp Point at the end. That Point is Fragile and can Chip Easily. 
Sometimes the Sharp Point has a Flat Facet on the end of it, called the 
Culet!

The Culet is only there to keep that Point from Chipping! If you exert 
any pressure on that Point during Setting, it can Break it right off and 
Crush it. Setting your Diamond into those Round Open Circles keeps your 
Diamond or Gemstone Aligned, and keeps the Stones from getting Broken.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen


Post a reply to this message

From: Cousin Ricky
Subject: Re: Gem settings: opinions wanted
Date: 19 Jun 2017 17:08:12
Message: <594804fc@news.povray.org>
On 2017-06-17 07:11 AM, Stephen wrote:
> I prefer the ones with the silver base as I fancy it might reflect light
> back into the gem. So for a round cut stone I prefer A and C for a
> square cut stone.
> Then I remembered my wife has a ring with a similar setting.
>
> So I took a couple of photographs with my old camera.
>
> I'll post them in OT so they will disappear in a fortnight.

You've given me a lot to think about; thanks.  I suppose I should thank 
Steve Paget as well.

Here are a couple more ideas.  They are both plan E because the same 
macro is used for both renders, but with different arguments.


Post a reply to this message


Attachments:
Download 'setting_survey-e1.jpg' (46 KB)
Download 'setting_survey-e2.jpg' (46 KB)

Preview of image 'setting_survey-e1.jpg'
setting_survey-e1.jpg

Preview of image 'setting_survey-e2.jpg'
setting_survey-e2.jpg


 

From: Bald Eagle
Subject: Re: Gem settings: opinions wanted
Date: 19 Jun 2017 17:40:05
Message: <web.59480c1b8e398218c437ac910@news.povray.org>
https://www.google.com/search?q=stone+setting+pdf&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS633US634&oq=stone+setting+pdf&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2.3
269j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The gems are cut with angles that reflect the light entering mainly from the
table and reflected by the facets of the pavilion.

The prongs hold the gem into the setting by tension.
All else is mostly aesthetics and an attempt to reduce rubbing, chipping, and
loosening of the gem in the setting.

Good work so far - glad you got your laptop problems sorted out!   :)


Post a reply to this message

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Gem settings: opinions wanted
Date: 20 Jun 2017 13:35:58
Message: <594924be$1@news.povray.org>
On 6/19/2017 6:08 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> On 2017-06-17 07:11 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> I prefer the ones with the silver base as I fancy it might reflect light
>> back into the gem. So for a round cut stone I prefer A and C for a
>> square cut stone.
>> Then I remembered my wife has a ring with a similar setting.
>>
>> So I took a couple of photographs with my old camera.
>>
>> I'll post them in OT so they will disappear in a fortnight.
>
> You've given me a lot to think about; thanks.  I suppose I should thank
> Steve Paget as well.
>

Ah well it keeps his memory alive.

> Here are a couple more ideas.  They are both plan E because the same
> macro is used for both renders, but with different arguments.
>

I like those but I think I would need to see the gems in the settings to 
make a comparison.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen


Post a reply to this message

From: Cousin Ricky
Subject: Re: Gem settings: opinions wanted
Date: 25 Jun 2017 16:16:23
Message: <594fe1d7@news.povray.org>
On 2017-06-20 09:35 AM (-4), Stephen wrote:
> I like those but I think I would need to see the gems in the settings to
> make a comparison.

A setting, fully loaded (radiosity, photons, camera DOF), renders in 
minutes.  A round brilliant stone, fully loaded (above + dispersion), 
renders in minutes.  The setting and stone combined in one scene?  Many 
hours!

I sacrificed dispersion, lowered max_trace_level, and used 2-pass 
radiosity for these renders.  This cut render times to under 15 minutes 
each.

I also made a tweak to plan E where the prongs join the base.


Post a reply to this message


Attachments:
Download 'setting_survey-set-a.jpg' (48 KB)
Download 'setting_survey-set-b.jpg' (48 KB)
Download 'setting_survey-set-c.jpg' (48 KB)
Download 'setting_survey-set-d.jpg' (48 KB)
Download 'setting_survey-set-e1.jpg' (49 KB)
Download 'setting_survey-set-e2.jpg' (49 KB)

Preview of image 'setting_survey-set-a.jpg'
setting_survey-set-a.jpg

Preview of image 'setting_survey-set-b.jpg'
setting_survey-set-b.jpg

Preview of image 'setting_survey-set-c.jpg'
setting_survey-set-c.jpg

Preview of image 'setting_survey-set-d.jpg'
setting_survey-set-d.jpg

Preview of image 'setting_survey-set-e1.jpg'
setting_survey-set-e1.jpg

Preview of image 'setting_survey-set-e2.jpg'
setting_survey-set-e2.jpg


 

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Gem settings: opinions wanted
Date: 25 Jun 2017 18:04:15
Message: <594ffb1f@news.povray.org>
On 6/25/2017 5:16 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> On 2017-06-20 09:35 AM (-4), Stephen wrote:
>> I like those but I think I would need to see the gems in the settings to
>> make a comparison.
>
> A setting, fully loaded (radiosity, photons, camera DOF), renders in
> minutes.  A round brilliant stone, fully loaded (above + dispersion),
> renders in minutes.  The setting and stone combined in one scene?  Many
> hours!
>
> I sacrificed dispersion, lowered max_trace_level, and used 2-pass
> radiosity for these renders.  This cut render times to under 15 minutes
> each.
>
> I also made a tweak to plan E where the prongs join the base.
>

I like "A" and "D" best.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2008 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.