Microcrystalline Wax Techniques?

Filip Kovcin · March 9th, 2005, 01:41 AM

good luck!

filip

Bob Hart · March 9th, 2005, 06:22 AM

Simple solutions are sometimes arrived at via a much complicated path. Maybe this has been one of them.

Jim Lafferty · March 10th, 2005, 11:31 PM

Well, the good news: no bubbles, quicker setup and cool down times, less wax used.

The bad news: inconsistencies mar the wax layer -- it looks as if there's smudges and swirls within the layer itself and, as I worked using latex gloves the whole time, I'm at a loss for guessing as to their source. I tried multiple goes, with and without pressure placed ontop of the sandwich, all on level surfaces.

I give up on the wax. Good luck to the rest of you -- perhaps the idea will be saved by a resourceful chemist or engineer, but I think working with microwax with home materials presents too many damning variables.

Would love to be proven wrong, though...

- jim

Bob Hart · March 11th, 2005, 10:57 AM

Powder off the latex gloves? Wax consisting of more than one type as a blend separating out under pressure within a thin space. This happens with seemingly stable emulsions I experimented with. they start off great then after about five minutes there's allthese little water droplets coalescing out of the emulsion. The local pharmacist defined this process as "cracking".

This may be why the movietube process uses the beeswax blend. I did not see this behaviour with the recommended beeswax/paraffin wax blend in which I drowned my discs and pressed them together which effectively is similar to your process as the disks were also preheated for several minutes above the liquid wax before their immersion.

Jim Lafferty · March 11th, 2005, 11:42 AM

I went through three instances of the process yesterday -- the first marred by all sorts of problems that I attempted to overcome in the two that followed:

Powder off the gloves -- I ran my gloved hands under water and then rubbed them off dry before breaking the tape on the filter boxes. Perhaps I wasn't as thorough as I think I was, though... looking now I see I'vegot a pair of unused filters yet, so if I give it another go, I'll use cloth gloves.

Mixed wax separating -- this has all been 100% microwax.

Esoteric notes -- this all must be done on a level surface, which my oven is far from being :D I checked to see that my kitchen countertop is relatively level, both with a "level" and also just pouring water over the surface of old filters to see if it ran off. When it came to doing the final experiment, I place a bit of aluminum foil directly on the surface of the counter, taping it down, and placed my filters directly on this to pour the wax.

Borosillicate beakers quicken the whole process tremendously. I pre-heated my filters at 200 degrees for 15 minutes in the oven, while melting the wax on one of the burners takes about five minutes.

- jim

Frank Ladner · March 11th, 2005, 01:40 PM

Thanks for the update, Jim!

Well, I think I've lost my steam on the whole 35mm adapter thing in general. (Have played with static GG, rotating GG, wax, etc...)

I'm now leaning more back toward the old "shoot-with-open-aperture-at-telephoto-with-ND-filters" technique. LOL!

Bob Hart · March 12th, 2005, 10:40 AM

Jim

I was wondering if microcrystalline wax is alone in itself comprised of susbstances which have slightly different melting points which might account for the patterns you described. You see that effect sometimes with well-used cooking fat (dripping) as it sets.

Jim Lafferty · March 12th, 2005, 12:45 PM

Hmmm...who knows and how would you figure that answer out? :D

The thing is -- none of these problems occured at greater thicknesses, but of course thicker diffuses too much light.

I'm going to make another go of it, I guess I was just frustrated and out of gas the other day, too. I've been posing questios about the problems on chemical engineering forums, and one person responded with something that's given me some hope:

Maybe you should try to clean the glass surfaces first with a detergent (that contains very strong surfactants).

Two years ago, I was trying to measure the scattering of extremely thin layer (10 microns or 100 microns) of latex aqueous suspensions. The layer was obtained by sandwitching two glass plates with a very small cavity, and it was very difficult to insert homogeneously the suspension. This method worked great.

I've written this guy in an effort to get him to elaborate a bit, as I've got some serious cleaners here -- I'm thinking (hoping) that my problem was in overlooking a residue on the glass and another go with recently scrubbed filters might yield the results we're after.

- jim

Bob Hart · March 13th, 2005, 12:22 AM

Jim.

Here's another one to complicate the story.

Those filters are going to be coated glass??, four layers of coating overall, two layers in contact with the wax. Is there any possiblity of contamination there?

Maybe you could try using replacement glass rounds for oxy-welding goggles. They may be under 50mm OD but should be an adequate size for the gg.

Jim Lafferty · March 13th, 2005, 09:15 AM

That's a thought I hadn't really put under close scrutiny. I'm working with the glass I have now for another go after yesterday's tries which proved to be much better.

One thing I do know -- placing pressure ontop of the glass while the wax is cooling is a mistake -- it leads to stratification of the wax due to inconsistencies in pressure.

I got a very good looking piece of glass yesterday with some minor things scattered in the wax's surface unfortunately. I'm hoping this was only because at one point in the process the glass slipped and fell onto one of the clean faces, or perhaps because I (duh) hadn't thought to clean the beaker I'm using before the latest goes. Perhaps a more thorough attempt today will yield cleaner results.

Also -- I had the misfortune of trapping some bubbles in the glass, which I discovered after the wax solidified. It's no problem to just reheat the sandwich and push the bubbles to the edge, leaving the wax to settle and harden afterward.

- jim

Jim Lafferty · March 13th, 2005, 12:50 PM

Just went oldschool and ground out a WAO5 reference glass and the irony is that I think it might provide better focus than the microwax screen =O

edit: How's this for irony -- as I was packing up shop, a breakthrough occured to me. Looking over my latest glass, I noticed something that's been true from the beginning with the microwax experiments -- the wax looks near perfect close to the edges of the glass. I've always thought "Why can't it just look that good at the center and we'd all be happy..."

And then an idea occured to me -- it cools at the edges faster than at the center! This is why the wax has noticable "swirls" toward the center -- the rate of cooling must be uneven, giving the wax chance to settle in a variety of odd ways. Thinking a bit, something from the MovieTube patent came back to me -- there's mention of a special process of blowing cool air over the glass' surface -- this must be why.

So the answer is reheat the sandwich, then place it in the fridge. The glass I have now is damn near perfect! So, the next question is -- can I go thinner than one piece of Scotch brand tape? :D :D :D

I'll post footage with it soon. Maybe anomalies will show up on camera that I can't make out just by inspecting the glass by hand...

- jim

Rob Lohman · March 19th, 2005, 04:03 AM

Interesting Jim! Please do keep us updated.

Jim Lafferty · March 19th, 2005, 12:54 PM

I shot some tests the other day and notice a few things that make me want to make another go at the wax glass.

One, the focus isn't resolving as well as the WAO5 glass, and I'm certain this is because the wax diffuses the image relative to its thickness -- the thinner the wax, the better the focus on the image. So, I'm going to find something thinner than Scotch brand tape as my new spacer.

Secondly, there's still apparent anomalies on the wax's surface, which I attribute to a combination of poorly cleaned glass and/or mishandling of the wax over time (it went through a series of reheats and chills...) People at a chemistry forum suggest I use detergents high in sulfactants to clean the glass before applying the wax.

Since the new process uses very little wax, I'm finding it possible to re-use the same two pieces of glass repeatedly which ultimately keeps cost and production times down. I'm going to keep working on refining the technique and then when it's perfected I'll post footage and info.

- jim

Matt Kelly · March 27th, 2005, 09:25 AM

Wow, I discovered the concept of 35mm lens adapters last week and since i been glued to forums all over the net. This has been the most addicting read so far, and i'm determined to join the club...lol.

Anyway, I hate to ask questions that've already been asked, but i'm having a hard time understanding what to look for in a condenser filter. I REALLY like the image that Frank is getting with his setup. It's got that "projected film" asthetic, which is really neat.

Frank, you say you got the condenser from fly tying glasses? That sounded interesting so i just looked it up.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...sPageName=WDVW Was it something like this? Yours looks pretty slick. Did you cut the glass into a rectangular shape like that? Does that serve a purpose?

Also has there been any success with other diffusion materials? like POC's diffusion glass? http://www.poc.com/lsd/default.asp?p...sub=lsdglassuv I can't help thinking with all the technology out there that there must be a simpler alternative than sandwiched wax.

Also just a random thought... Anyone ever played with an old bellows-style medium format camera? You can get some WEIRD and cool focus styles with it, if you play with the angle of the lens and the GG within the bellows. I'm thinking it might be intersting to devlop a 35mm adapter with a bellows like that.

Look forward to more questions from me.. hahaha!

Frank Ladner · March 28th, 2005, 04:22 PM

Matt: Welcome to the addiction! LOL!

Thanks for the compliments. Really, my adapter is very low-tech. The newer one looks better but that's because it is held together with electrical tape instead of masking tape. LOL!

On the fly-tying glass lenses - I didn't cut the squares, I just popped them right out of the hard plastic frame they were in. I knew they were the perfect shape/size right away so I quickly talked my dad out of them. He originally ordered them from a Cabella's catalog.

If you go with medium format, you'll be in better shape I think due to the fact that the projected image will be bigger so grain will be smaller. However, medium format lenses are harder to come by as cheap as 35mm lenses are.

March 9th, 2005, 01:41 AM	#181
Filip Kovcin Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: warsaw, poland Posts: 440	good luck! filip __________________ in kino (sic!) veritas

March 12th, 2005, 12:45 PM	#188
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Hmmm...who knows and how would you figure that answer out? :D The thing is -- none of these problems occured at greater thicknesses, but of course thicker diffuses too much light. I'm going to make another go of it, I guess I was just frustrated and out of gas the other day, too. I've been posing questios about the problems on chemical engineering forums, and one person responded with something that's given me some hope: Maybe you should try to clean the glass surfaces first with a detergent (that contains very strong surfactants). Two years ago, I was trying to measure the scattering of extremely thin layer (10 microns or 100 microns) of latex aqueous suspensions. The layer was obtained by sandwitching two glass plates with a very small cavity, and it was very difficult to insert homogeneously the suspension. This method worked great. I've written this guy in an effort to get him to elaborate a bit, as I've got some serious cleaners here -- I'm thinking (hoping) that my problem was in overlooking a residue on the glass and another go with recently scrubbed filters might yield the results we're after. - jim __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

March 13th, 2005, 12:50 PM	#191
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Just went oldschool and ground out a WAO5 reference glass and the irony is that I think it might provide better focus than the microwax screen =O edit: How's this for irony -- as I was packing up shop, a breakthrough occured to me. Looking over my latest glass, I noticed something that's been true from the beginning with the microwax experiments -- the wax looks near perfect close to the edges of the glass. I've always thought "Why can't it just look that good at the center and we'd all be happy..." And then an idea occured to me -- it cools at the edges faster than at the center! This is why the wax has noticable "swirls" toward the center -- the rate of cooling must be uneven, giving the wax chance to settle in a variety of odd ways. Thinking a bit, something from the MovieTube patent came back to me -- there's mention of a special process of blowing cool air over the glass' surface -- this must be why. So the answer is reheat the sandwich, then place it in the fridge. The glass I have now is damn near perfect! So, the next question is -- can I go thinner than one piece of Scotch brand tape? :D :D :D I'll post footage with it soon. Maybe anomalies will show up on camera that I can't make out just by inspecting the glass by hand... - jim __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

March 19th, 2005, 04:03 AM	#192
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Interesting Jim! Please do keep us updated. __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

March 19th, 2005, 12:54 PM	#193
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	I shot some tests the other day and notice a few things that make me want to make another go at the wax glass. One, the focus isn't resolving as well as the WAO5 glass, and I'm certain this is because the wax diffuses the image relative to its thickness -- the thinner the wax, the better the focus on the image. So, I'm going to find something thinner than Scotch brand tape as my new spacer. Secondly, there's still apparent anomalies on the wax's surface, which I attribute to a combination of poorly cleaned glass and/or mishandling of the wax over time (it went through a series of reheats and chills...) People at a chemistry forum suggest I use detergents high in sulfactants to clean the glass before applying the wax. Since the new process uses very little wax, I'm finding it possible to re-use the same two pieces of glass repeatedly which ultimately keeps cost and production times down. I'm going to keep working on refining the technique and then when it's perfected I'll post footage and info. - jim __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

March 9th, 2005, 06:22 AM	#182
Bob Hart Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA. Posts: 4,476	Simple solutions are sometimes arrived at via a much complicated path. Maybe this has been one of them.

March 10th, 2005, 11:31 PM	#183
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Well, the good news: no bubbles, quicker setup and cool down times, less wax used. The bad news: inconsistencies mar the wax layer -- it looks as if there's smudges and swirls within the layer itself and, as I worked using latex gloves the whole time, I'm at a loss for guessing as to their source. I tried multiple goes, with and without pressure placed ontop of the sandwich, all on level surfaces. I give up on the wax. Good luck to the rest of you -- perhaps the idea will be saved by a resourceful chemist or engineer, but I think working with microwax with home materials presents too many damning variables. Would love to be proven wrong, though... - jim

March 11th, 2005, 10:57 AM	#184
Bob Hart Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA. Posts: 4,476	Powder off the latex gloves? Wax consisting of more than one type as a blend separating out under pressure within a thin space. This happens with seemingly stable emulsions I experimented with. they start off great then after about five minutes there's allthese little water droplets coalescing out of the emulsion. The local pharmacist defined this process as "cracking". This may be why the movietube process uses the beeswax blend. I did not see this behaviour with the recommended beeswax/paraffin wax blend in which I drowned my discs and pressed them together which effectively is similar to your process as the disks were also preheated for several minutes above the liquid wax before their immersion.

March 11th, 2005, 11:42 AM	#185
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	I went through three instances of the process yesterday -- the first marred by all sorts of problems that I attempted to overcome in the two that followed: Powder off the gloves -- I ran my gloved hands under water and then rubbed them off dry before breaking the tape on the filter boxes. Perhaps I wasn't as thorough as I think I was, though... looking now I see I'vegot a pair of unused filters yet, so if I give it another go, I'll use cloth gloves. Mixed wax separating -- this has all been 100% microwax. Esoteric notes -- this all must be done on a level surface, which my oven is far from being :D I checked to see that my kitchen countertop is relatively level, both with a "level" and also just pouring water over the surface of old filters to see if it ran off. When it came to doing the final experiment, I place a bit of aluminum foil directly on the surface of the counter, taping it down, and placed my filters directly on this to pour the wax. Borosillicate beakers quicken the whole process tremendously. I pre-heated my filters at 200 degrees for 15 minutes in the oven, while melting the wax on one of the burners takes about five minutes. - jim

March 11th, 2005, 01:40 PM	#186
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	Thanks for the update, Jim! Well, I think I've lost my steam on the whole 35mm adapter thing in general. (Have played with static GG, rotating GG, wax, etc...) I'm now leaning more back toward the old "shoot-with-open-aperture-at-telephoto-with-ND-filters" technique. LOL!

March 12th, 2005, 10:40 AM	#187
Bob Hart Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA. Posts: 4,476	Jim I was wondering if microcrystalline wax is alone in itself comprised of susbstances which have slightly different melting points which might account for the patterns you described. You see that effect sometimes with well-used cooking fat (dripping) as it sets.

March 13th, 2005, 12:22 AM	#189
Bob Hart Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA. Posts: 4,476	Jim. Here's another one to complicate the story. Those filters are going to be coated glass??, four layers of coating overall, two layers in contact with the wax. Is there any possiblity of contamination there? Maybe you could try using replacement glass rounds for oxy-welding goggles. They may be under 50mm OD but should be an adequate size for the gg.

March 13th, 2005, 09:15 AM	#190
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	That's a thought I hadn't really put under close scrutiny. I'm working with the glass I have now for another go after yesterday's tries which proved to be much better. One thing I do know -- placing pressure ontop of the glass while the wax is cooling is a mistake -- it leads to stratification of the wax due to inconsistencies in pressure. I got a very good looking piece of glass yesterday with some minor things scattered in the wax's surface unfortunately. I'm hoping this was only because at one point in the process the glass slipped and fell onto one of the clean faces, or perhaps because I (duh) hadn't thought to clean the beaker I'm using before the latest goes. Perhaps a more thorough attempt today will yield cleaner results. Also -- I had the misfortune of trapping some bubbles in the glass, which I discovered after the wax solidified. It's no problem to just reheat the sandwich and push the bubbles to the edge, leaving the wax to settle and harden afterward. - jim

March 27th, 2005, 09:25 AM	#194
Matt Kelly New Boot Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Richmond, VA Posts: 9	Wow, I discovered the concept of 35mm lens adapters last week and since i been glued to forums all over the net. This has been the most addicting read so far, and i'm determined to join the club...lol. Anyway, I hate to ask questions that've already been asked, but i'm having a hard time understanding what to look for in a condenser filter. I REALLY like the image that Frank is getting with his setup. It's got that "projected film" asthetic, which is really neat. Frank, you say you got the condenser from fly tying glasses? That sounded interesting so i just looked it up. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...sPageName=WDVW Was it something like this? Yours looks pretty slick. Did you cut the glass into a rectangular shape like that? Does that serve a purpose? Also has there been any success with other diffusion materials? like POC's diffusion glass? http://www.poc.com/lsd/default.asp?p...sub=lsdglassuv I can't help thinking with all the technology out there that there must be a simpler alternative than sandwiched wax. Also just a random thought... Anyone ever played with an old bellows-style medium format camera? You can get some WEIRD and cool focus styles with it, if you play with the angle of the lens and the GG within the bellows. I'm thinking it might be intersting to devlop a 35mm adapter with a bellows like that. Look forward to more questions from me.. hahaha!

March 28th, 2005, 04:22 PM	#195
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	Matt: Welcome to the addiction! LOL! Thanks for the compliments. Really, my adapter is very low-tech. The newer one looks better but that's because it is held together with electrical tape instead of masking tape. LOL! On the fly-tying glass lenses - I didn't cut the squares, I just popped them right out of the hard plastic frame they were in. I knew they were the perfect shape/size right away so I quickly talked my dad out of them. He originally ordered them from a Cabella's catalog. If you go with medium format, you'll be in better shape I think due to the fact that the projected image will be bigger so grain will be smaller. However, medium format lenses are harder to come by as cheap as 35mm lenses are.