I saw an unmarked jar filled with what appeared to be Mobilwax 2305 sitting next to an XL-2 once. MYSTERY SOLVED!!

Next up, is Loch Ness Monster a plesiosaur or a floating log??

Regardless of if it's microwax or not, it's got producing good images and that's what counts.

By the way, I think microwax produces far nicer images than GG in most cases (the highlights are handled in a nicer way, contrast is changed for the better) so I would be thrilled if the screen were microwax, despite the fact that this would mean the key element of a $1000 adapter costs under a dollar in costs and labor, potentially. If it works, it works.

You seem to forget the thousands of $ spent and sleepless nights of many months leading to $1 screen THAT WORKS !!!!!!!!!!!

Not a fact.

To mass produce wax screens means a huge investment in engineering and producing a machine to build them. Or, to do them by hand, means higher per-part cost. Either way, there is a lot more expensive infrastructure around making them. This means a hell of a lot more than $1 per screen.

Having a background in process engineering, when I have spoken with manufacturers of wax screens I have come away feeling their prices were quite economical. Nobody selling a $100 screen is getting rich, overcharging the consumer, or even making any money really.

Most retail consumers look at a simple part and make the same mistake of seeing PER PART cost and not the amortized cost of everything it took to get there. To offer anything as a business you need at least one person there full time. Add their salary into the mix. These are hard costs. I have seen this same mistake many times before. This gross misunderstanding is why so many businesses fail: people go into business assuming a per-part cost of $1 is $1. Really a per-part cost of $1, is unit cost X units sold per year / all expenses (payroll + rent + materials + equipment + advertising + inboound freight + marketing (if any) + electrictity + phones + taxes + insurance + every other thing that eats away at the bottom line). Try it, you'll see why most niche artisans like Dave Maxwell and his screens, are charging $200+ for a screen and still living a pretty meager life.

[preach]Of course your right Bill, but the whole discussion is not really of any use. It would be unappropriated for Jim to produce and sell wax screen on a big scale because Frank did a lot of work and research before him. It would be unappropriated for me to do it because Frank and Jim were doing it before me, It would be unappropriated for Matthew or anyone else here to sell wax screens because the point of these forums are to share your ideas. If suddenly people think: hey, that's a good idea, I can make money out of that!, then this whole forum is going the wrong way IMO.

I suggest to go back to the wax discussion, I'll be making a new one soon, so I'll sell...hmm..share my results next week or so.
[/preach]

Can I buy one for a dollar?

I'll sell you one for a dollar.

Also, you totally missed the point of my post. I merely meant that it's funny how the least expensive solution can sometimes be the best, even in something with otherwise expensive parts. I don't consider $100 for a wax screen to be a rip off at all.

Who's to say someone is required to make their own wax screen if they want one? If someone's willing to pay enough money for a premade wax screen, I don't see why someone with experience in that area already can't say "Oh here, I'll make one for you and charge you reasonably for parts and labor because extravagant prices would scare you off anyway."

Ben, I was talking about people selling on a 'bigger' scale. Anyway let me put it this way, I posted a guide on the web on how to make a waxscreen. No one but me and Frank have succeeded (without dust and all), that's why I post the guide, so people can do it themselves and maybe improve the method, like Matthew or someone else. But not to have people making screens and sell them. Is that so strange? It used to be the spirit on this forum.

But that's not the discussion, I only said (some post up) if people are selling everything so easily, some day it will turn into a lot of trouble with the companies that own the patents.

Oh. Gotcha.

By the way, I've been experimenting with different options instead of wax that are a bit unconventional (sugar water, hot glue, scotch tape) but haven't come up with anything fantastic. I'm betting there's something out there that can beat wax or at least match it...

That reminds me, I tried hot glue too some months ago. One other thing I had in mind was resin, which in some conditions turns diffusive, but probably not between glass.

Hi, posting here for the first time.

Month ago I made my first test glasses with microwax. (which was unbelievebly hard to find, had to order it from UK) I wasn't able to find epoxy which wouldn't produce bubbles and I had a tons of school work so I stopped working with this thing for a while. Now im ready to start again. This is what I have this far:

http://hasu.kapsi.fi/Mikko/Microwax/Wax1.jpg
http://hasu.kapsi.fi/Mikko/Microwax/Wax2.jpg
http://hasu.kapsi.fi/Mikko/Microwax/Wax3.jpg
http://hasu.kapsi.fi/Mikko/Microwax/Wax4.jpg
http://hasu.kapsi.fi/Mikko/Microwax/Wax5.jpg
http://hasu.kapsi.fi/Mikko/Microwax/Wax6.jpg
http://hasu.kapsi.fi/Mikko/Microwax/Wax7.jpg
http://hasu.kapsi.fi/Mikko/Microwax/Wax8.jpg

Shot with f.1.4 50 mm Ricoh lens and a crappy Sony handycam. The glass is not correctly aligned and the condesors (two of them) need to be tweaked a little to reduce the barrel dissortion.

It has couple of those nasty bubbles in it but I find the grain (or the lack of it) great. It can bee seen if looked carefully but I can live with that.

Ill go look for better epoxy tomorrow so I can finally finish this project. It's funny how I (and all of us) have these three problems: grain, dust and bubles. I never have all of them, just one. This glass in the pictures had only grain after first melting. When I remelt it, the bubbles appeared. Cruel I say.

Nice to see someone new picking it up again! The images look very good. One thing I notice is a little reduced contrast, but I seem have the same thing with microwax. I think that's one difference (besides grain) with Paraffin which has more contrast (maybe because of the grain).

Epoxy shouldn't be hard to find, but maybe they call it something like: two component glue.
Also, to avoid those bubbles when remelting, but the whole thing in a small container of already melted wax, so there is no chance of air coming in.

I use an epoxy called Araldite. Where did you get the wax from?

Make sure you check the right stores, microwax is used for candle making (try hobby suppliers) and Batik paint techniques (try art suppliers stores) I also think they put it in chewing gum, but that's of no use I guess, unless you can blow a bubble onto a piece of glass...oh, never mind.

I ordered mine from here: http://www.candlemakers.co.uk/textile/textframe.html

Yes, I had two component glue but there are differences in them also. Have to look for Araldite then.

Just because I want to make a new adapter for higher resolution, I thought I'd need to finish the first wax adapter, so that I can shoot work and test scenes with my one chip consumer camera (which is not a bad camera for that purpose).
The wax screen is without error, bubbles or dust, and I think as little grain as possible, unnoticeable under most circumstances. Here it is:
http://s01.picshome.com/a82/wax_adapter.jpg

Now I'll get on with a bigger wax screen for my double camera (which I talked about some time ago, and will explain when I get some results)

Besides that, I made a LCD projector from a 15" LCD and a OHP and the footage from the wax adapter projected on a big screen shows very much resemblance to 16mm film. I think the grain of DV resolution is about the same size.

Bravo, Oscar. It looks great, as usual!

I second that. Bravo Oscar. Nice and clean, like a pin!

Good job! Keep it up, Oscar! I like seeing your experiments.

Off-topic I have another question. Do you guys really eat french fries - sorry, Freedom fries - with mayonnaise?

Of course we do. I only use ketchup if there is no other choice. Mayonnaise and -krhm- FRENCH fries are like red wine and good steak, they are just meant to be together. Eating them with ketchup is like eating the steak raw and drinking turpentine with it.

And once again back to the topic. Oscars adapter looks nice. It has this great guerilla (not 35) look to it. I also got my araldite and will be making a new screen as soon as the epoxy has dried. Instructions say it should take something beetween 18-24 hours.

-new guide-
 

I got a few emails over a period of time from different people who can't really figure out how to implement my guide using round UV filters. (In stead of straight pieces of glass)
So tonight I made some new pictures (just for the guide, there isn't even wax in the cigar case..hehe) and wrote a slightly better guide:
http://members.chello.nl/a.schultzev...nburg/wax3.htm


Oh and Bill, I can only get French fries in YOUR Mc Donald's. How about that!

Probably asked one thousand times:

Has someone worked with aspheric condenser lenses? Like these:
http://www.edmundoptics.com/onlineca...productID=2454

Every image I see with wax adapters has this strange bokeh. Very round. I don't exactly know how to describe it. But I'm shure you know what I'm talking about and can also give me a good explanation.

bokeh? Good or bad?
I like it, although you are right about it being a bit circular (or round as you say), as if the condenser distortion only works on the unsharp areas.
I don't know about the lens you posted, it might be too thick.

Anyone know more about this? Aaron Shaw...?

I am not sure if you are talking about bokeh or something else, Kurt. Round bokeh is almost universally considered preferable, as far as I have ever read or heard. The fewer the blades in your lens' aperture, the more of a polygon the bokeh appears to be. Uuugly.

Ooh intersting question. I'm not entirely certain what effect an aspheric element would have on bokeh if any. Hmm, I'll have to ponder that. As far as I know there shouldn't be any effect in the out of focus areas that you don't see in the sharp areas. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head which might cause a difference is the angle at which the light from the 35mm lens hits the aspheric element (as it isn't colliminated when emerging from the 35mm lens). 35mm lenses use these often enough though that I doubt it would make any overly noticable difference. The fact that everyone shoots wide open all the time might have something to do with it since anything out of focus becomes much more obvious.

As for the lens you posted... "condenser" lenses are designed to be very fast so the thickness isn't a problem in that case. The problem is that with speed comes aberration. Unless you stay at the precise focal length of that element I suspect your image quality will go to crap (heck it might even do so anyway). The hard part is balancing speed with quality (in any system really). To get really fast optics that are clean you really have to go with custom designed and ground elements. Of course, the amount of aberration people see as acceptable differs from person to person.

Geeze it' been a while since I posted here! Always good to come back now and then. =D

Thanks Aaron.
Maybe you know why the condenser lenses I use work so good. I took two lenses from from old optics. One front piece of a 135mm telephoto lens. One front (or second) piece of glass from a super8 zoomlens. They are both just big enough to use in front and behind the wax GG (like a sandwich). They are relatively thin.
I seems they strongly reduce each others aberrations.

About the circular blurred parts, Wayne pointed me to an interesting website where some explanation can be found:

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/bokeh.html

Read: 'Shape of the blur patch'

Thanks, Wayne

Actually, we need to credit Dan Diaconu for providing that useful link.

'Bokeh' only refers to out-of-focus areas. And typically, sharp areas don't show the same effects as in the out of focus areas, unless there is something really wrong with the optics of that make/model lens.

Theoretically, I think a lens' bokeh traits probably are present in the sharp areas, but let's think about the reason they're not visible: What is bokeh? It's a pinprick of light, a highlight, "blown up" to much larger size. In sharp areas, the pinpricks are still almost infinitessimally small.

Yes, but Kurt seems to be right about the bokeh looking differently on these wax adapters. One of the reasons that I think the G35 has something waxy going on.
Unless it has something to do with the fact that wax can be made very thin, so you have the highlights reflecting on the condensers as well (just my theory though) . It could be that the G35 isn't a wax adapter, but uses a different diffusing material with the same thickness of the wax layer. I don't know.

That's right, and they go by the name of... circle of confusion (cough, cough) make that diffusion!

Ahhh, I misread or missed something in Kurt's post, perhaps. I didn't see the bit about bokeh looking different due to just the wax adapter. Interesting point. Oscar, if you or anyone has both a wax and a non-wax screen (such as ground glass), somebody ought to compare with the same lens!

Dan,

Now that was a bad one. LOL

GuerillaMc35
 

Hey.. I just had a look at the new website of the Cinemek/guerilla35, but the first footage I played, montereyweb.mov, clearly shows a small amount of static grain on the shots were there is a lot of sunlight. All static adapters have the same thing when you close the iris, but we were told that the G35 was grainless. (I'm not talking about the large amount of compression artifacts)
So, whether it is a wax adapter or not, I can surely see (now) that it has the same characteristics. Anyway, it's not better than microwax....meaning that wax is the end of the static quest?

(there is some very good footage their site by the way, they should post some frame grabs)

I love that clip. According to SavvyPro's site it was a demo G35 unit from half a year ago. I know a lot has changed since then. Maybe Jonathan will chip in about how much different it is from current production units.

But, I don't know who from Cinemek said the G35 was grainless... ? I did see a post some months back where Jonathan said it wasn't totally grainless. But it sure is the nicest of any of the adapters I've seen.

I guess it is a subjective term too, because even film has grain, though not due to any adapter of course. The only thing without grain is... pure video?

Moving grain is inherent to the random nature of light. Even your eyes have it. Everything does.

Static grain, of course, is due to the size of the pores in the diffusion screen.

I'm still clueless about how the Cinemek adapter could possibly be grainless in all situations if it's static. Someone mentioned using Sapphire around here as a focusing screen...

Anyways, all the details will apparently be released within the next few weeks, but from what I understand that phrase is wayyy overused over there.

<<But, I don't know who from Cinemek said the G35 was grainless... ?>>

Call it 'virtually grainless' or something, but this clip shows virtually grainy shots and some vignetting.

My point was, it's very good, but it seems to be the same quality as microwax. In the best possible conditions (cloudy sky?) the microwax is virtually grainless. Too much light would make you close down the iris and some grain will appear.

The common understanding to avoiding grain is that you leave the SLR iris open fully and use an ND filter or close the iris in the camera itself if there's too much light.

Jonathan quoted no grain at f2.8, usable at f4 and at some cases f5.6, beyond that there are grain issues a while back...

Then HD got big, and grain become much more of a concern so apparently there are improvements.

It will be interesting to see....