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.

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!

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

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

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..

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

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?

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

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.)

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)

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.

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

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 . . .

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.)
:-)

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!


:)

L O L !

Ha ha ha!!

I suggest a saucepan again...for the sardines I mean. Just a little bit of microwax will do on a small flame, unless they are really cheap sardines.

Last week, I was making myself some Plasticine for sculpting purposes. One of the ingredients was Vaseline which I was melting in a big pan. It struck me that although the Vaseline is very soft, it actually melts at a high temperature. So I was just thinking, did anyone ever try to use that in stead of microwax? (The microwax is very good, but I'm just curious)

Now you methion it oscar,
I tried it. Didnt post as i was too embarrised to say:D

Sadly, it does not diffuse the light at all. I even tried, get this, cooking lard.

I dont know, things we do in the name of experiementation, eh?:D

Wayne.

That's what I was afraid of, although it works when you just rub it on a piece of glass, like they do for photography sometimes.
Anyway, glad you already tried it Wayne, so I can spare my good reputation...

I tried vaseline, too! I felt so dumb I didn't post results but I'm glad I'm not alone.

Tonight I tried some better microwax (ordered through some place online that claimed 4 dollars a pound but after random fees it was about 20 bucks). It's amazing how much better my results are. The grain at f1.4 with beeswax (which was borderline unacceptable to be honest) now looks like the grain at f5.6 or f8. The light transmission is worse since I did a sloppy job but I'm still really happy with my results and I know I could do better if I didn't have insane time restraints from school.

Anyhow, Oscar was right about light grain. Microwax rules and it's easy to work with.

I think I smell another DIY guide brewing since my old one has some pretty inaccurate information. Once I get some free time....that could be Christmas, though, unfortunately.

Wow, microwax is awesome. The last shot is OOF, and the soft edges are soft and vignetted because of my cheap achromat and sloppy construction. You can stop down surprisingly far without grain--this stuff is great. Also, this was shot mid-day so issues with "ghosting" or light leakage are pretty much none.

And this is with a very, very rough, sloppily made wax screen, too.

http://home.comcast.net/~kittyluv/35mm1.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~kittyluv/35mm2.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~kittyluv/35mm3.jpg

Matthew,
Is this still using capilary action?

Wayne.

Yes, but I've changed two things:

Instead of using white microwax, I'm now using amber wax. For some reason, the grain is much finer. It's still much lighter than the beeswax I was using before and the grain is better than both beeswax and white microwax.

I'm using a thicker layer of wax. Light transmission is worse, but the contrast is more pleasing and grain is reduced as well. I can stop down quite far...I'm not sure how much of this is attributed to the new amber microwax and how much is due to it being a thicker layer.

I'd do more experiments, but I'm at school and don't get to go home very often: maybe once every three weeks or a month, and only for the weekend. This was my first time back in a month and I built the new focusing screen and some dolly track. To be honest, this isn't even that great a focusing screen since I made it sloppily and very quickly. The thickness isn't perfectly even, there is one strange cooling artifact at the very edge but it's only noticeable in some shots.

This is more of a test than anything, but already it's looking quite good. My next goal is to improve light transmission and pick up a better achromat.

And, yes, I still believe in capillary action. This microwax seems to melt around 200º or lower, and with glass that's heated to about 300º, I bet it would work very well. Unfortunately, that would require two toaster ovens, and I only have one...

In the interest of keeping this thread on the move . . .
I finally got a good ground glass together, with only a few flaws. I've posted a movie (12 mb for a minute, requiring QT7 for full display of all its little flaws.) http://homepage.mac.com/filmic36/adapter/
It begins with an f/16 shot at the sky, stopping down to f/1.2 There's a close-up portrait, for studying sharpness on hair and shallow DOF, also.
Gonna stop sweating the wax for now, and work on getting an adapter that can at least line up the lens with the camera!
The PCX is a $4 lens I bought at surplushed, so lots of chromatic aberration, and such. I'm just not there yet.
Comments welcome, of course.
Glen

Good to see someone's keeping the embers burning. I'm eyeball deep in work and haven't had time to give my wax experiments their proper due. When some time opens up you can be sure I'll check in and report -- I have fresh supplies just waiting for such an occasion :)

Good to see you're still kicking, Jim.
Matthew, the color and contrast look great. I'm surprised there's not more excitement about the wax adaptors. Maybe it's the light-loss issues? When you say you're losing a couple stops with your adapter, is that just with the ground glass alone, or does that include the whole setup with lens?
Any color-correction on this? Shadows look great.
Glen

Glen, the light-loss is not an issue at all. 1 or 2 F-stops. With good condensers to spread the light (and capture the highlights that go through the wax), you can make the wax layer as thin as one strip of aluminum foil.

I don't know about "one or two stops." I mean, you have to zoom in pretty far and that coupled with the condenser means you lose at least a stop even before the glass comes into play.

I lose maybe 2.5-3 but the wax is quite thick. With thinner wax, I could see 2 stops of light loss, which is VERY reasonable.

I'd love to learn more from you guys who are using PCX lenses. I have two 100FL PCX lenses here that I picked up from surplussshed or somewhere on the cheap, and I need to know what (approx) distance from the GG they should be placed, and in what direction. I'm looking at my 3" long aluminum tubing here and I'm worried I haven't enough distance between the rear of the 35mm lense and the GG to properly make use of the PCX lens(es).

Matt, you have a point in terms of overall light loss but others are talking about the light loss through the adapter itself, not through the adapter plus subsequent loss induced by the camcorder's iris due to zooming.

Jim, for me the dual PCX GG sandwich is dead. It created lots of vignetting, and I didn't like that the PCX on the SLR side was making my SLR lens a wider lens than what I 'd put on -- not to mention it would be expanding my DOF, since it would actually be playing with the FOV (for a constant area). I mean, before these adaptors came along, people were attaching 35mm lenses to video cameras, adding glass to get the full image small enough to fit in a video frame, only to discover that they'd converted the 35mm lens into a standard video lens with video DOF.
So it's the single PCX on the video side for me. And there are two things I look for.
First, there is a sweet spot where the PCX distance from the GG has neither pin-cushioning or barrel distortion at the edge of the frame. This distance is no-where near the maximum magnification point, either, unfortunately. Because the second point is finding a PCX that will magnify the GG image sufficiently that you don't have to do a lot of zooming on the video camera in order to fill frame (and I hate the thought of having to buy another quality piece of glass so my video can macro through excessive zoom settings).
With my adapter, I'm looking at a little less than 100 mm FL, for now. I don't know if the shorter FL PCXs are more prone to distortion, or not. I guess I'll see. Hope this helps give one perspective, anyway.

Matt, do you have an incident meter? If so, can you put a small cylinder around the white dome, take a reading, and then cover the cylinder with your GG and take a second reading? That seems like a fair way to evaluate how much light is lost due to the diffusive nature of the wax. Your 2 to 3 stop loss sounds extreme for wax, unless you are layering it so thick as to avoid some grain issues. Your footage does have a nice contrast to it.

Glen

I guess my interest is in getting as close to or matching the G35 experience -- and they comment that they use "faster" lenses than stock Century Optics glass (like the +7 macro I'm using). Without having access to a "faster" macro, my interest is in using a PCX mounted in front of the GG to bring in extra light. My half hour or so of fooling around with my 100FL PCX in front of the GG proved not to make much of a noticable difference, though (no vignetting or pincushioning, either.)

So, I'm just trying to get some guidance here instead of making it pure guesswork -- which, while that can work for some parts of this project, I suspect will be more trouble than good when aligning glass.

what does "fast" mean?

i believe the word 'fast' is related to the light transmission of the lens or glass.

Wayne.

What experience is that? Not having to use PCX lenses? Getting the fastest adapter possible?
Right now, the fastest adapters would be the vibrating/rotating glass GG setups. If a wax gg loses a stop and a glass one loses about a third, no special macro glass in the world is going to make up for that difference.
As for talking about using faster glass, I just did some experiments with a spot meter on sticks, and found that my fastest glass was the $3 PCX I bought at surplushed. It also sucks for chromatic problems. It was losing less than 1/10th stop.
Next was an achromat I'd bought at the same place, losing about 1/10th. With this achromat, I don't need to use a macro.
Next was my +10 macro (ebay special DKE) at 1/4 of a stop loss. With 4 macros stuck together, I lost almost 1/2 a stop.
So, with 4 cheap macros stacked like pancakes, on a moving glass adapter, I could expect the same light loss as just using a wax GG alone.
Considering that most of us are going to lose 3 stops just by putting an f/2.8 lens on the front, their talk of "fast" glass seems much less important than issues such as resolution and chromatic aberration. 1/10th of a stop isn't going to change much of anything. Maybe they list it for distraction -- a fluff-filled red herring, so to speak ;)

Just my thoughts.
Glen

Jim, I can just tell you what I got. To begin with, I don't even have an 'official' condenser, but that's probably why they are so good. I took two very thin lenses (just big enough for a -35mm frame) from old camera's. One from the inside of a super8 camera, and one from a telephoto lens. I sandwich them together with the GG in between on the flat sides of the glass. It's a bit hard to find such big lenses though.
Glen says: <<expanding my DOF, since it would actually be playing with the FOV >>

But in my opinion, that exactly the effect that we see on the G35 and I like it. Glen, I would reconsider it, because it gives such a bright image. On my site you can see I don't lose any DOF effect, only on the highlights that pass the wax layer.

What experience is that? Not having to use PCX lenses? Getting the fastest adapter possible?

They repeatedly show some amazing looking footage. Despite their insistance that it's grainless, you can see it clearly in the highlights of some of the shots -- but at that it's far supressed compared to what I've been able to produce. They also seem to have very little light loss, no color aberrations. So, yes, I would guess it's the fastest *static* adapter out there, with the least amount of grain showing (aside from Frank's footage).

On their forums there's talk of what others are doing here as merely "the work of hobbyists," i.e. nothing of quality build. I wouldn't mind making them eat those words :D But getting it done is another story altogether.

- jim

Out of respect for G35 guys' work it's not true to say they insist their footage is totally grainless. If you look in Jonathan's last posts you'll see where he says there is some grain in some shots in one of their earlier-released vids.