Microcrystalline Wax Techniques?

Jim Lafferty · September 15th, 2005, 01:19 PM

Curious: how have you been getting H.264 encodes done? I've worked with X264 in VirtualDub, because it doesn't work in Vegas yet (nor does QT 7). It's OK but the render times are a pain.

Frank Ladner · September 15th, 2005, 01:20 PM

Glen: I've gotten some acceptable results with microwax (I still think it is the best static solution available), but given the difficulties (not being able to duplicate good results) and uncertainties (Will the wax pull from the glass later? Will it melt? ... ) I have moved back to regular ground glass, but I'm putting a new spin on it. << Pun intended. >>

Jim: Thanks for the compliments there! Also, thanks for linking my images/clips from your site! I've gotten quite a few hits from there!

Jim Lafferty · September 15th, 2005, 01:22 PM

Cool -- glad it hasn't created problems for you :D

Glen Hurd · September 15th, 2005, 05:56 PM

Jim wrote:"Frankly, the 1.4 micron alumina GG I have was such a comparitvely easy job to produce (and reproduce consistently), that I've been half tempted to get 1 micron slurry and see if I can call it a day."

How well does it diffuse light? Does it diffuse completely? Does anyone else see a difference between the glass diffusers and the wax ones -- especially in shadow detail? Which brings up an earlier post you made. Have you had any success with scanning or shooting your various ground glasses? I'm sure it's a lot of work, but I think everyone would find it quite educational, if you can find the time.

As for H.264 encoder, I'm just using what comes native in Quicktime 7. Maybe on the PC you have to get a software update? The render times are slow, but I can get full resolution video at 600kbs and not be distracted by the compression artifacting typical of the other codecs. In fact, I'm finding with CG stuff the final image is indistinguishable at that data rate. If you download my last clip, and play it full-frame, you'll see more flaws in the wax than codec noise, and some of that is simply from originating as DV.

Frank, your concerns about wax are true enough. I've spent more time preparing and planning than actually doing, but am still hoping that I can come up with a cookie-cutter technique. Oscar seems to have an easy time with it -- if only I could find what brand of Tobacco can (or whatever that is) that he's using :)

Is anyone here associated with the G35? Their footage looks incredible (please excuse me if that's a really dumb question).

Like Jim, I'm inspired by everyone else's success.

G

Oscar Spierenburg · September 15th, 2005, 06:31 PM

Jonathan Houser, I think, is the main person behind the G35 and he is on these boards occasionally, but he won't tell you anything about the device.

And about what Frank wrote,.. I wouldn't be very concerned about how the wax will hold (Will the wax pull from the glass later? Will it melt? ... ) because I've put my wax glasses through such terrible circumstances (heat, transportation and I dropped them on the floor quite a few times) and nothing happened, so..

Glen Hurd · September 15th, 2005, 06:51 PM

Yeah, Frank! How many do you need to make, anyway? ;) LOL

Frank Ladner · September 16th, 2005, 06:22 AM

Ha ha!

Well, if I had a tobacco can like Oscar's maybe it would boost my morale. ;-)

But seriously, I did try a thoroughly-cleaned tuna-fish can but the inside layer, after heat was applied, started to melt/burn away, leaving debris in the melted wax. What are you other guys using for this?

Glen Hurd · September 16th, 2005, 07:14 AM

For the debris I've used "cold-weld," dust, hair, burnt wax :)
For containers, my most recent is small aluminum pie plates. I simply shred the plate away from the wax, so I can then break, cut, peel it away from the glass.

G

Frank Ladner · September 16th, 2005, 07:18 AM

Glen: I've done something similar by forming aluminum cups. (When using the original vertical / capillary method.)

But you are right - you can just peel the foil away and it is much easier.

One really neat thing about the 'flat' method (cigar case) is that you use WAY less wax. (So you don't have to worry about using a 1/2 LB batch of it just to submerge the glass - and then get the wax dirty.)

Oscar Spierenburg · September 16th, 2005, 07:33 AM

I can't follow that...you mean the whole can melted?
I put the tobacco can (which smokes better than fish anyway) on a thick saucepan on a low flame (on the stove)

Frank Ladner · September 16th, 2005, 07:37 AM

Oscar: The inside wall started to peel from the heat.

Maybe I need an interface (ie. saucepan) between the can and electric hot-plate to help with heat distribution.

Oscar Spierenburg · September 16th, 2005, 08:00 AM

Yes. Also better to even out the warmth on those hot plates. I would suggest a saucepan.

Glen Hurd · September 16th, 2005, 08:24 AM

I suspect the inside of the tuna can had a thin plastic layer to protect the fish from getting a metalic taste over time, and it was that plastic layer that melted. If you go with cheap sardines, however, you don't get the plastic finish on the inside, because people who eat cheap sardines aren't as picky about taste -- the metal tastes fine!

So go sardines, Frank. The cheaper the better. Preferrably packed in some distant far-off country. You don't need to be so upscale when melting wax LOL.

However, getting the glass out seems to be a challenge. I use a grapefruit cutting knife -- designed to cut and scoop grapefruit slices. Still a pain . . .

Frank Ladner · September 16th, 2005, 08:29 AM

Quote:

You don't need to be so upscale when melting wax LOL.

HA HA HA!

Thanks, Glen! That makes sense about the can having an inner coating.
The next try will be with a sardine can, then. (A thoroughly-cleaned one.)
:-)

Glen Hurd · September 16th, 2005, 08:46 AM

Waddya mean the cameraman smells? . . . like sardines? No! Really?!!
<sniff>
Um, Frank? Uh, Fra-a-a-ank?
What's that smell?
. . . Your lens! . . .oh, your lens-adaptor! Sure.
OK, Frank. Thank you very much. And . . . and don't call us -- we'll call you!

:)

September 15th, 2005, 01:19 PM	#481
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Curious: how have you been getting H.264 encodes done? I've worked with X264 in VirtualDub, because it doesn't work in Vegas yet (nor does QT 7). It's OK but the render times are a pain. __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

September 15th, 2005, 01:22 PM	#483
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Cool -- glad it hasn't created problems for you :D __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

September 15th, 2005, 01:20 PM	#482
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	Glen: I've gotten some acceptable results with microwax (I still think it is the best static solution available), but given the difficulties (not being able to duplicate good results) and uncertainties (Will the wax pull from the glass later? Will it melt? ... ) I have moved back to regular ground glass, but I'm putting a new spin on it. << Pun intended. >> Jim: Thanks for the compliments there! Also, thanks for linking my images/clips from your site! I've gotten quite a few hits from there!

September 15th, 2005, 05:56 PM	#484
Glen Hurd Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Burlington, NJ Posts: 59	Jim wrote:"Frankly, the 1.4 micron alumina GG I have was such a comparitvely easy job to produce (and reproduce consistently), that I've been half tempted to get 1 micron slurry and see if I can call it a day." How well does it diffuse light? Does it diffuse completely? Does anyone else see a difference between the glass diffusers and the wax ones -- especially in shadow detail? Which brings up an earlier post you made. Have you had any success with scanning or shooting your various ground glasses? I'm sure it's a lot of work, but I think everyone would find it quite educational, if you can find the time. As for H.264 encoder, I'm just using what comes native in Quicktime 7. Maybe on the PC you have to get a software update? The render times are slow, but I can get full resolution video at 600kbs and not be distracted by the compression artifacting typical of the other codecs. In fact, I'm finding with CG stuff the final image is indistinguishable at that data rate. If you download my last clip, and play it full-frame, you'll see more flaws in the wax than codec noise, and some of that is simply from originating as DV. Frank, your concerns about wax are true enough. I've spent more time preparing and planning than actually doing, but am still hoping that I can come up with a cookie-cutter technique. Oscar seems to have an easy time with it -- if only I could find what brand of Tobacco can (or whatever that is) that he's using :) Is anyone here associated with the G35? Their footage looks incredible (please excuse me if that's a really dumb question). Like Jim, I'm inspired by everyone else's success. G

September 15th, 2005, 06:31 PM	#485
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	Jonathan Houser, I think, is the main person behind the G35 and he is on these boards occasionally, but he won't tell you anything about the device. And about what Frank wrote,.. I wouldn't be very concerned about how the wax will hold (Will the wax pull from the glass later? Will it melt? ... ) because I've put my wax glasses through such terrible circumstances (heat, transportation and I dropped them on the floor quite a few times) and nothing happened, so..

September 15th, 2005, 06:51 PM	#486
Glen Hurd Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Burlington, NJ Posts: 59	Yeah, Frank! How many do you need to make, anyway? ;) LOL

September 16th, 2005, 06:22 AM	#487
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	Ha ha! Well, if I had a tobacco can like Oscar's maybe it would boost my morale. ;-) But seriously, I did try a thoroughly-cleaned tuna-fish can but the inside layer, after heat was applied, started to melt/burn away, leaving debris in the melted wax. What are you other guys using for this?

September 16th, 2005, 07:14 AM	#488
Glen Hurd Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Burlington, NJ Posts: 59	For the debris I've used "cold-weld," dust, hair, burnt wax :) For containers, my most recent is small aluminum pie plates. I simply shred the plate away from the wax, so I can then break, cut, peel it away from the glass. G

September 16th, 2005, 07:18 AM	#489
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	Glen: I've done something similar by forming aluminum cups. (When using the original vertical / capillary method.) But you are right - you can just peel the foil away and it is much easier. One really neat thing about the 'flat' method (cigar case) is that you use WAY less wax. (So you don't have to worry about using a 1/2 LB batch of it just to submerge the glass - and then get the wax dirty.)

September 16th, 2005, 07:33 AM	#490
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	I can't follow that...you mean the whole can melted? I put the tobacco can (which smokes better than fish anyway) on a thick saucepan on a low flame (on the stove)

September 16th, 2005, 07:37 AM	#491
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	Oscar: The inside wall started to peel from the heat. Maybe I need an interface (ie. saucepan) between the can and electric hot-plate to help with heat distribution.

September 16th, 2005, 08:00 AM	#492
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	Yes. Also better to even out the warmth on those hot plates. I would suggest a saucepan.

September 16th, 2005, 08:24 AM	#493
Glen Hurd Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Burlington, NJ Posts: 59	I suspect the inside of the tuna can had a thin plastic layer to protect the fish from getting a metalic taste over time, and it was that plastic layer that melted. If you go with cheap sardines, however, you don't get the plastic finish on the inside, because people who eat cheap sardines aren't as picky about taste -- the metal tastes fine! So go sardines, Frank. The cheaper the better. Preferrably packed in some distant far-off country. You don't need to be so upscale when melting wax LOL. However, getting the glass out seems to be a challenge. I use a grapefruit cutting knife -- designed to cut and scoop grapefruit slices. Still a pain . . .

September 16th, 2005, 08:46 AM	#495
Glen Hurd Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Burlington, NJ Posts: 59	Waddya mean the cameraman smells? . . . like sardines? No! Really?!! <sniff> Um, Frank? Uh, Fra-a-a-ank? What's that smell? . . . Your lens! . . .oh, your lens-adaptor! Sure. OK, Frank. Thank you very much. And . . . and don't call us -- we'll call you! :)