Microcrystalline Wax Techniques?

Filip Kovcin · September 11th, 2005, 02:07 AM

what codec you are using in your mov file? cannot play it...

filip

Wayne Kinney · September 11th, 2005, 05:26 AM

I also cannot view the movie. I have the most up to date quicktime.

Wayne.

Kurt August · September 11th, 2005, 05:53 AM

It's a H.264 movie.

Plays well over here. Nice kid. Drinking milk.

Glen Hurd · September 11th, 2005, 08:35 AM

Quicktime 7. http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/win.html (if you're on a pc.)
I'm on a mac, and don't have access to a divx encoder. The H264 codec blows it away, imho.
Wayne, are you sure you're running QT7? I just uploaded a Sorenson version (noisier, btw).
http://www.dropdeadgorges.com/QTTest/AdaptorSor.mov
Working on my next gg . . .

Wayne Kinney · September 11th, 2005, 08:46 AM

Glen,
Run the quicktime updateer, and it now plays.

Results look good, lots of vignetting as you say. Its hard to comment on grain on a small video file.

Any more info in the condesnors your using?

Wayne.

Jim Lafferty · September 11th, 2005, 09:31 AM

I'm having grain issues, too. I'm wondering if -- at a certain point -- too thin a layer of wax becomes prohibitive. The grain evident in the microwax sandwich I've created recently looks almost identical to the grain from the 1.4 micron alumina GG I've made recently. I'm using pieces of clear plastic from the "window" of an envelope, glued to the glass with a Crazy Glue Pen.

Here's a full res side-by-side (exposure difference is only due to differences in lighting):

http://ideaspora.net/1.4micron_vs_microwax.jpg

Wax glass is on the right.

I'll post some full res video of the microwax later -- it's shot full of dust and other issues, probably because I've been re-using older pieces of glass and recycling the wax lately. I need to make another B&H trip to get some new materials.

p.s. Just watched my microwax footage out to an NTSC PVM and it looks absolutely grainless, and moreover pretty well exposed :D

Glen Hurd · September 11th, 2005, 10:11 AM

The pcx lenses I used were from surplus shed. One was a 100mm FL, and the second was 110mm (the second one was also larger in size -- so as to fully encompass everything on the first one. I'm going to try taking them out, and see what the effect really is.
As to the wax layer, this one is so thin, I'm only losing 1/3 of a stop of light (according to my digital minolta light meter). So, if I double up the thickness, I may see a dramatic improvement there. I'm going to try a thin-layer version again, though, first.
Jim, you haven't come up with a method for reheating and cleaning wax, have you? I wouldn't think heating it up to its melting point repeatedly would hurt it any. Would you?

Wayne Kinney · September 11th, 2005, 10:29 AM

Glen,
You out of interest, if you hold that wax glass up to your eye, can you see through it and see details? You maybe only loosing 1/3 stop of light, but maybe letting in too much aerial image and loosing the 'shallow DOF' effect.

Maybe doubling the thinkness as you say will solve both issues, grain also.

Wayne.

Jim Lafferty · September 11th, 2005, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glen Hurd

Jim, you haven't come up with a method for reheating and cleaning wax, have you? I wouldn't think heating it up to its melting point repeatedly would hurt it any. Would you?

No, I don't see that as being a problem. I reheat mine all the time, to try and get bubbles or other anomalies out. Of course, if you re-use the wax, the likelihood of dust getting into it goes up, too :(

As for cleaning the wax, I will say that I just recently "reclaimed" a series of earlier microwax failures by heating them up, letting the wax drain, and then using a combo of a razor followed by cleaning paper I've gotten them completely clean. I finished it off by whiping them with some professional lens cleaning fluid. I do, however, think that ultimately it's best to make all microwax screens with completely fresh glass.

Here is some microwax footage, full res, 66mb .zip file:

http://ideaspora.net/mwax_test.zip

You're going to see plenty of problems (i.e. dust, lines in the wax) with this footage on a computer monitor, but far fewer on an NTSC source.

Here is the compressed version of the footage that the above clip is taken from:

http://ideaspora.net/mwax.mov

- jim

Glen Hurd · September 11th, 2005, 12:02 PM

No. If I lay it on a penny, I can read the text -- looks like a soft gaussian filter was applied to it. But raise the glass 1 penny's height up, and the text is completely unreadable.
Here's a link to a simple test I did. http://www.dropdeadgorges.com/QTTest...fusionTest.jpg
Printed out the words "This is 8 pt." in 8 point type, followed by "This is 9 pt." for 9 point, etc. I then placed a stack of 4 pennies on each side of the print-out, and rested the ground glass on top -- snapping the picture.
I also glued a mask with printed numbers onto the groundglass so you can evaluate my focus ;)
I'm sorry I didn't have any horse hair laying around -- I was thinking about my orange tabby, but the hair from his tail is only measuring .0011 in. No wonder he sheds . . .

G

Glen Hurd · September 11th, 2005, 12:07 PM

Yeah, dust is a huge problem for me. But my wax-sandwich-incubator has helped. I just tried cleaning wax with dish detergent (I'm sorry -- I know that doesn't make sense, but I get a little compulsive now and again). So now I have little snowflakes of wax floating in soap bubbles. I figure I could make some really clean candles with it!

G

Wayne Kinney · September 11th, 2005, 12:16 PM

Glen,
Looked at your diffusion test. Try holding it up to your eye and looking at a light, maybe a bright led on your pc speakers or something. Can you focus your eye on the led? or is it completely diffused?

Wayne.

Glen Hurd · September 11th, 2005, 01:53 PM

If I hold the GG up to my eye, I see nothing. No details. No image. It might as well be self-illuminated white paper. It might as well be plastic from a milk jug. The led on my computer speaker doesn't even show existence until it's within a foot of the ground glass (with my eye against the glass). Then, all I notice is a slight tint of green in the middle of the "white" I'm looking at. I can't get a sharp image of the LED even when I press the GG against it.
I'm a little confused as to why you're questioning its ability to diffuse, unless you're just getting back at me for questioning your diffusion, when you did that split screen test :)! LOL

Here are some more links.
Looking at the LED (less than 30mm distance)
http://www.dropdeadgorges.com/QTTest...okingAtLED.jpg
A side view, with die for reference.
http://www.dropdeadgorges.com/QTTest...erspective.jpg
Holding diffuser in front of Sony Cybershot (2048x1536) while looking directly into the sun.
http://www.dropdeadgorges.com/QTTest...okingAtSun.jpg
Looking at the darker portion of the sky.
http://www.dropdeadgorges.com/QTTest...tSkyBright.jpg
Looking at sky, stopped camera down to see different grain pattern.
http://www.dropdeadgorges.com/QTTest...gAtSkyDark.jpg
Looking at my backyard, still stopped down somewhat.
http://www.dropdeadgorges.com/QTTest...ckYardDark.jpg

One thing's for sure. Photographing a groundglass with plenty of light behind it, but stopped down to avoid blown-out highlights, is a great way to "undress" it. Every flaw and pattern shows up --with no image to distract from it.

Wayne:
I'd love to see similar images from your collection of ground-glasses. Any chance of that?

Thanks,

G

Glen Hurd · September 11th, 2005, 01:54 PM

I meant "Jim" when asked about the pictures of the ground-glass collection. Of course, that would include you, too, Wayne if you were working on static adaptors.
Sorry.

G

Wayne Kinney · September 11th, 2005, 02:17 PM

Glen,
No only reason i asked about the diffusion is from my own experience with microwax. When I get the layer really thin, you could start to see through it. I only asked because your only lossing 1/3 of light, so wondered if this was happening without you being aware.

You images clearly show this is not the case. Looks like your really making progress here.

Im working on my glass spinning at the mo, I promise some nice images up very soon!!! Im very excited about the quality my adapter will acheive. Problem is, I only have a 1 chip cheap camcorder to test it out on.

I do have some test images up from my optosigma glass:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wayne.kinney/cat01.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wayne.kinney/cat02.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wayne.kinney/clock.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wayne.kinney/fan01.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wayne.kinney/fan02.jpg

Some video clips

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wayne.kinney/candle.mov

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wayne.k...rack_focus.mov

And a test of my new GG thats going to be in my spinner. Its to test light loss, there is grain and dust, but it will spin.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wayne.kinney/GG.mov

Thanks,
Wayne.

September 11th, 2005, 02:07 AM	#451
Filip Kovcin Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: warsaw, poland Posts: 440	what codec you are using in your mov file? cannot play it... filip __________________ in kino (sic!) veritas

September 11th, 2005, 05:53 AM	#453
Kurt August Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Belgium Posts: 94	Codec It's a H.264 movie. Plays well over here. Nice kid. Drinking milk.

September 11th, 2005, 09:31 AM	#456
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	I'm having grain issues, too. I'm wondering if -- at a certain point -- too thin a layer of wax becomes prohibitive. The grain evident in the microwax sandwich I've created recently looks almost identical to the grain from the 1.4 micron alumina GG I've made recently. I'm using pieces of clear plastic from the "window" of an envelope, glued to the glass with a Crazy Glue Pen. Here's a full res side-by-side (exposure difference is only due to differences in lighting): http://ideaspora.net/1.4micron_vs_microwax.jpg Wax glass is on the right. I'll post some full res video of the microwax later -- it's shot full of dust and other issues, probably because I've been re-using older pieces of glass and recycling the wax lately. I need to make another B&H trip to get some new materials. p.s. Just watched my microwax footage out to an NTSC PVM and it looks absolutely grainless, and moreover pretty well exposed :D __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

September 11th, 2005, 05:26 AM	#452
Wayne Kinney Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 938	I also cannot view the movie. I have the most up to date quicktime. Wayne.

September 11th, 2005, 08:35 AM	#454
Glen Hurd Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Burlington, NJ Posts: 59	Quicktime 7. http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/win.html (if you're on a pc.) I'm on a mac, and don't have access to a divx encoder. The H264 codec blows it away, imho. Wayne, are you sure you're running QT7? I just uploaded a Sorenson version (noisier, btw). http://www.dropdeadgorges.com/QTTest/AdaptorSor.mov Working on my next gg . . .

September 11th, 2005, 08:46 AM	#455
Wayne Kinney Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 938	Glen, Run the quicktime updateer, and it now plays. Results look good, lots of vignetting as you say. Its hard to comment on grain on a small video file. Any more info in the condesnors your using? Wayne.

September 11th, 2005, 10:11 AM	#457
Glen Hurd Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Burlington, NJ Posts: 59	The pcx lenses I used were from surplus shed. One was a 100mm FL, and the second was 110mm (the second one was also larger in size -- so as to fully encompass everything on the first one. I'm going to try taking them out, and see what the effect really is. As to the wax layer, this one is so thin, I'm only losing 1/3 of a stop of light (according to my digital minolta light meter). So, if I double up the thickness, I may see a dramatic improvement there. I'm going to try a thin-layer version again, though, first. Jim, you haven't come up with a method for reheating and cleaning wax, have you? I wouldn't think heating it up to its melting point repeatedly would hurt it any. Would you?

September 11th, 2005, 10:29 AM	#458
Wayne Kinney Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 938	Glen, You out of interest, if you hold that wax glass up to your eye, can you see through it and see details? You maybe only loosing 1/3 stop of light, but maybe letting in too much aerial image and loosing the 'shallow DOF' effect. Maybe doubling the thinkness as you say will solve both issues, grain also. Wayne.

September 11th, 2005, 12:02 PM	#460
Glen Hurd Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Burlington, NJ Posts: 59	No. If I lay it on a penny, I can read the text -- looks like a soft gaussian filter was applied to it. But raise the glass 1 penny's height up, and the text is completely unreadable. Here's a link to a simple test I did. http://www.dropdeadgorges.com/QTTest...fusionTest.jpg Printed out the words "This is 8 pt." in 8 point type, followed by "This is 9 pt." for 9 point, etc. I then placed a stack of 4 pennies on each side of the print-out, and rested the ground glass on top -- snapping the picture. I also glued a mask with printed numbers onto the groundglass so you can evaluate my focus ;) I'm sorry I didn't have any horse hair laying around -- I was thinking about my orange tabby, but the hair from his tail is only measuring .0011 in. No wonder he sheds . . . G

September 11th, 2005, 12:07 PM	#461
Glen Hurd Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Burlington, NJ Posts: 59	Yeah, dust is a huge problem for me. But my wax-sandwich-incubator has helped. I just tried cleaning wax with dish detergent (I'm sorry -- I know that doesn't make sense, but I get a little compulsive now and again). So now I have little snowflakes of wax floating in soap bubbles. I figure I could make some really clean candles with it! G

September 11th, 2005, 12:16 PM	#462
Wayne Kinney Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 938	Glen, Looked at your diffusion test. Try holding it up to your eye and looking at a light, maybe a bright led on your pc speakers or something. Can you focus your eye on the led? or is it completely diffused? Wayne.

September 11th, 2005, 01:53 PM	#463
Glen Hurd Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Burlington, NJ Posts: 59	If I hold the GG up to my eye, I see nothing. No details. No image. It might as well be self-illuminated white paper. It might as well be plastic from a milk jug. The led on my computer speaker doesn't even show existence until it's within a foot of the ground glass (with my eye against the glass). Then, all I notice is a slight tint of green in the middle of the "white" I'm looking at. I can't get a sharp image of the LED even when I press the GG against it. I'm a little confused as to why you're questioning its ability to diffuse, unless you're just getting back at me for questioning your diffusion, when you did that split screen test :)! LOL Here are some more links. Looking at the LED (less than 30mm distance) http://www.dropdeadgorges.com/QTTest...okingAtLED.jpg A side view, with die for reference. http://www.dropdeadgorges.com/QTTest...erspective.jpg Holding diffuser in front of Sony Cybershot (2048x1536) while looking directly into the sun. http://www.dropdeadgorges.com/QTTest...okingAtSun.jpg Looking at the darker portion of the sky. http://www.dropdeadgorges.com/QTTest...tSkyBright.jpg Looking at sky, stopped camera down to see different grain pattern. http://www.dropdeadgorges.com/QTTest...gAtSkyDark.jpg Looking at my backyard, still stopped down somewhat. http://www.dropdeadgorges.com/QTTest...ckYardDark.jpg One thing's for sure. Photographing a groundglass with plenty of light behind it, but stopped down to avoid blown-out highlights, is a great way to "undress" it. Every flaw and pattern shows up --with no image to distract from it. Wayne: I'd love to see similar images from your collection of ground-glasses. Any chance of that? Thanks, G

September 11th, 2005, 01:54 PM	#464
Glen Hurd Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Burlington, NJ Posts: 59	I meant "Jim" when asked about the pictures of the ground-glass collection. Of course, that would include you, too, Wayne if you were working on static adaptors. Sorry. G

September 11th, 2005, 02:17 PM	#465
Wayne Kinney Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 938	Glen, No only reason i asked about the diffusion is from my own experience with microwax. When I get the layer really thin, you could start to see through it. I only asked because your only lossing 1/3 of light, so wondered if this was happening without you being aware. You images clearly show this is not the case. Looks like your really making progress here. Im working on my glass spinning at the mo, I promise some nice images up very soon!!! Im very excited about the quality my adapter will acheive. Problem is, I only have a 1 chip cheap camcorder to test it out on. I do have some test images up from my optosigma glass: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wayne.kinney/cat01.jpg http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wayne.kinney/cat02.jpg http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wayne.kinney/clock.jpg http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wayne.kinney/fan01.jpg http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wayne.kinney/fan02.jpg Some video clips http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wayne.kinney/candle.mov http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wayne.k...rack_focus.mov And a test of my new GG thats going to be in my spinner. Its to test light loss, there is grain and dust, but it will spin. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wayne.kinney/GG.mov Thanks, Wayne.