Microcrystalline Wax Techniques?

Frank Ladner · June 12th, 2005, 05:55 PM

Also, don't forget about glass picture frames. I bought up a bunch of 50 cent circular frames which were around 50mm in size from a nearby Hobby Lobby store. My first couple of tries were with circular UV filters, but that can get expensive fast.

Leo Mandy · June 12th, 2005, 07:07 PM

Oh my lord Oscar, that side by side is incredible!!! they look almost the same - you have reached the pinnacle I think. No light loss, it looks like - when can we see a night shot?

Matthew Wauhkonen · June 12th, 2005, 07:24 PM

Where did you get the microwax? I have to get my hands on some....

Leo Mandy · June 12th, 2005, 07:34 PM

Yep, I am going to get some myself!

Oscar Spierenburg · June 13th, 2005, 06:58 AM

I found it at a hobby store that sell lost of suppliers for candle making. In my country it's called micro-wax. I got micro-wax 'soft', but that's no problem, the melting point is high. I'll post some new shot's if I have a chance today.

Daves Spi · June 13th, 2005, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oscar Spier

I'll post some new shot's if I have a chance today.

We do not want some more shots... We saw enough already ! (rotf)

Jim Lafferty · June 13th, 2005, 11:17 AM

Speak for yourself.

Dan Diaconu · June 13th, 2005, 01:26 PM

The previous post was clearly a joke, Jim (as a paraphrase to an earlier similar comment I guess)
The image is awesome by all means (vigneting I think is still a bit visible though, but you guys are there...) Show us till it hurts no mo... ;'-(<

Oscar Spierenburg · June 13th, 2005, 06:19 PM

So this is my own "guerrilla35 war". (their 'static gg' footage really triggered me) Dan, your right about the vignetting, I went to a photo equipment shop, but couldn't find the center grad filter. Try some other shops this week.

I shot allot of today with only the sunlight coming from the windows. Until now, also with a smaller aperture on the camcorder I don't see any grain from the microwax. In movements maybe you could notice some vage still structure, but it could just as well be something on the monitor glass.

Sorry Daves, here are some frames from the footage:
http://doublecam.250free.com/wax/microwax/
I'm happy with the fruit shots, because they were shot with just a little light from a window 4 meters away.

Leo Mandy · June 13th, 2005, 07:05 PM

Looks good Oscar. Are you finding that closure the iris is combating the grain problem, but in contrast, causing the problem of alot of light loss?

Daves Spi · June 14th, 2005, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oscar Spier

So this is my own "guerrilla35 war".

Yes. You are definitely like me. When I was building my adapter, I take it also as my little personal war against everything what I saw before... Simply, I just wanted to have best image OR at least have one of the best... lol... And I am happy to left most of expensive adapters behind me... So understand you very well, wish you luck (even if you do not need it), and hope you got my previous joke...

Oscar Spierenburg · June 14th, 2005, 05:07 AM

I got your joke Daves and like to repeat Jim: Speak for yourself. I was about to cry Haalleeluujaah, but than again, I didn't oscillate anything.
Leo, <<<Are you finding that closure the iris is combating the grain problem, but in contrast, causing the problem of allot of light loss?>>>
No, I meant that even the closure the iris doesn't give any noticeable grain(which would normally be the case). I have about 1 or 2 stops light loss, which is no problem.

Bill Porter · June 18th, 2005, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oscar Spier

I thought about parking my car in the shower when I wanted to paint it 'dust free', but I didn't even get it through the front door.

You either need to buy a smaller car or use a faster speed.

Oscar Spierenburg · June 18th, 2005, 05:01 PM

No, I'll just wax my car with micro-wax so I don't need to paint it, Bill.

After some outdoor shots I am happy with the results. No grain (seriously), only some vage still structure because the small aperture due to allot of sunlight. I'm thinking maybe with sunlight a gray filter would give a better result because the camcorders aperture would be bigger. Maybe on the adapter or on the camcorder. Any thoughts?

Dan Diaconu · June 18th, 2005, 05:42 PM

Oscar,
First: Leave the car and the cat out of this.... (for now)
Second: In an "ideal" (subject to defining ideal) world, the light would be just right for every scene and no one would even notice some "structure" due to less than "required" light + certain camcorder's behaviour at less than required light.
Untill that happens, I have noticed quite a few times a patern using the camcorder alone (no IMAGE CONVERTER) It happened in less than ideal light. Noise? AGC? Ugly for sure! So.... I think what you have is as good as it could be for the real world. Seeking perfection is a life and health ruining road. It never ends for nothing is perfect and "only perfect can create perfect" (how could an imperfect creature do a perfect "thing" or job?)......
Third: If you add an ND filter (purchase or home made)on the SLR lens you will only cut down the light reaching the screen. Camcorder's iris will open to compensate. But this way, the 'WHATEVER' structure might become more visible. I would keep the SLR lens wide open (no filters) and
1) use an ND filter on the camcorder's lens (to keep the iris open)(althought I did not understand why?) or
2) increase the shutter speed (for the same puropse) or
3) while keeping the iris open on camcorder (using ND or shutter speed) manual focus A TOUCH soft on the screen. See what happens. I loved the
FX. Not consistent though and subject to each scene readjusting focus..... but nice.

June 13th, 2005, 11:17 AM	#322
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Speak for yourself. __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

June 14th, 2005, 05:07 AM	#327
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	I got your joke Daves and like to repeat Jim: Speak for yourself. I was about to cry Haalleeluujaah, but than again, I didn't oscillate anything. Leo, <<<Are you finding that closure the iris is combating the grain problem, but in contrast, causing the problem of allot of light loss?>>> No, I meant that even the closure the iris doesn't give any noticeable grain(which would normally be the case). I have about 1 or 2 stops light loss, which is no problem. Last edited by Oscar Spierenburg; June 14th, 2005 at 07:01 AM.

June 12th, 2005, 05:55 PM	#316
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	Also, don't forget about glass picture frames. I bought up a bunch of 50 cent circular frames which were around 50mm in size from a nearby Hobby Lobby store. My first couple of tries were with circular UV filters, but that can get expensive fast.

June 12th, 2005, 07:07 PM	#317
Leo Mandy Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 749	Oh my lord Oscar, that side by side is incredible!!! they look almost the same - you have reached the pinnacle I think. No light loss, it looks like - when can we see a night shot?

June 12th, 2005, 07:24 PM	#318
Matthew Wauhkonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 285	Where did you get the microwax? I have to get my hands on some....

June 12th, 2005, 07:34 PM	#319
Leo Mandy Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 749	Yep, I am going to get some myself!

June 13th, 2005, 06:58 AM	#320
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	I found it at a hobby store that sell lost of suppliers for candle making. In my country it's called micro-wax. I got micro-wax 'soft', but that's no problem, the melting point is high. I'll post some new shot's if I have a chance today.

June 13th, 2005, 01:26 PM	#323
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	The previous post was clearly a joke, Jim (as a paraphrase to an earlier similar comment I guess) The image is awesome by all means (vigneting I think is still a bit visible though, but you guys are there...) Show us till it hurts no mo... ;'-(<

June 13th, 2005, 06:19 PM	#324
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	So this is my own "guerrilla35 war". (their 'static gg' footage really triggered me) Dan, your right about the vignetting, I went to a photo equipment shop, but couldn't find the center grad filter. Try some other shops this week. I shot allot of today with only the sunlight coming from the windows. Until now, also with a smaller aperture on the camcorder I don't see any grain from the microwax. In movements maybe you could notice some vage still structure, but it could just as well be something on the monitor glass. Sorry Daves, here are some frames from the footage: http://doublecam.250free.com/wax/microwax/ I'm happy with the fruit shots, because they were shot with just a little light from a window 4 meters away.

June 13th, 2005, 07:05 PM	#325
Leo Mandy Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 749	Looks good Oscar. Are you finding that closure the iris is combating the grain problem, but in contrast, causing the problem of alot of light loss?

June 18th, 2005, 05:01 PM	#329
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	No, I'll just wax my car with micro-wax so I don't need to paint it, Bill. After some outdoor shots I am happy with the results. No grain (seriously), only some vage still structure because the small aperture due to allot of sunlight. I'm thinking maybe with sunlight a gray filter would give a better result because the camcorders aperture would be bigger. Maybe on the adapter or on the camcorder. Any thoughts?

June 18th, 2005, 05:42 PM	#330
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	Oscar, First: Leave the car and the cat out of this.... (for now) Second: In an "ideal" (subject to defining ideal) world, the light would be just right for every scene and no one would even notice some "structure" due to less than "required" light + certain camcorder's behaviour at less than required light. Untill that happens, I have noticed quite a few times a patern using the camcorder alone (no IMAGE CONVERTER) It happened in less than ideal light. Noise? AGC? Ugly for sure! So.... I think what you have is as good as it could be for the real world. Seeking perfection is a life and health ruining road. It never ends for nothing is perfect and "only perfect can create perfect" (how could an imperfect creature do a perfect "thing" or job?)...... Third: If you add an ND filter (purchase or home made)on the SLR lens you will only cut down the light reaching the screen. Camcorder's iris will open to compensate. But this way, the 'WHATEVER' structure might become more visible. I would keep the SLR lens wide open (no filters) and 1) use an ND filter on the camcorder's lens (to keep the iris open)(althought I did not understand why?) or 2) increase the shutter speed (for the same puropse) or 3) while keeping the iris open on camcorder (using ND or shutter speed) manual focus A TOUCH soft on the screen. See what happens. I loved the FX. Not consistent though and subject to each scene readjusting focus..... but nice.