Microcrystalline Wax Techniques?

Jim Lafferty · June 9th, 2005, 04:20 PM

Some final contributions:

A few pics --

One

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

Seven

Eight

And here is a 30mb high quality QT clip showing the footage where the above pics were captured.

- jim

Dan Diaconu · June 9th, 2005, 06:38 PM

Dam, dam, dam , dam ,dam GOOD!!!!!!!!! Just when I was about to say "I have seen it all", here comes Jim to "help" me change my mind. Dam! I have to do it (4fun but I will). Would you care to comment on:
1.the light loss? (about? and my "wild guess" is... no more than 1 stop, yes?)
2. frame size (18/24?)
3. lens used (1.8/50?)
oh, yeah! and please do not "embarrass" the rest of us with resolution charts! We have seen enough (hair)! A bit (just a bit) of vigneting is still there, but by all means BRAVO!

Oscar Spierenburg · June 10th, 2005, 04:49 AM

But...what are we looking at here? It's not a wax glass is it?
So do you see static grain on certain areas when you pan or tilt?
The images are very good, but it's a bit difficult for me to compare this to a wax glass when there is lots of contrast and detail. It's them d'mn vage area's that give the trouble...

Jim Lafferty · June 10th, 2005, 07:57 AM

Sort of mixing and matching responses...

It's ground glass, 3 micron aluminum oxide used. I've gone much lower than 3 microns but can't get them to grind at all (I have .3 and .05 micron a-ox here). Perhaps 2 or 1 microns would work, and be even better, if they can be found?

Yes, there is noticable grain, but only if you're looking for it, and only in bright, flat areas, if the cam is moving. There's not much to do but: a) resign yourself to this but take comfort in the fact that very few "regular joes" will ever notice, and b) shoot "around" the adapter's limitations. The G35 people seem to have no problems selling these things "as is," so the grain must be OK :D

Incidentally, the same static grain problem, albeit supressed further, plagues micro-wax adapters, with added problems as well -- hair, dust, and small inconsistencies in the wax's surface which show up in footage. For instance, I worked a lot on microwax sandwiches that employed spacers thinner than one piece of foil -- which is approaching the thinness needed for proper light transmission -- and at that very slight "smudges" of residue on the glass' surface showed up as inconsistencies in the wax. I tried a lot of things -- basically taking the glass right from a sealed package and into the wax, or cleaning the wax thoroughly with strong detergents, but it never worked out perfectly. I've yet to see microwax footage from anyone else's adapters so there's no telling whether they've gotten around these obstacles...Oscar?

I lose I'd guess 1 to 1.5 stops with this, which is an annoyance given the GL1's poor low-light performance to begin with. I shoot everything for the moment with an f/1.4 50mm Nikon lense.

Vignetting -- you see it in the outdoor, downtown shots but not in the cafe shots. This is because the GL1 has no presets -- so every time I turn the cam off, or have it shut down after some time of idling, I have to reset the focus. Sometimes I get it wrong and a little vignetting shows up. Also, there may be an issue with the placement of the GG relative to the macro I'm using -- the footage posted is from two versions of the same adapter, and slight inconsistencies in the glass placement may account for the vignetting.

Frank Ladner · June 10th, 2005, 08:10 AM

Quote:

I've yet to see microwax footage from anyone else's adapters so there's no telling whether they've gotten around these obstacles

Here's one of the original clips I posted. (uncompressed 720x480 AVI...around 168 MB)
http://209.214.235.122/mwtest/Microw...4p_720x480.avi

I was pretty happy with it, but I kept working with the wax, making it thinner, in an effort to get more light in.

It's a tradeoff between wax and glass. I think moving ground glass is the best solution because you wouldn't have as much light loss, and the grain wouldn't be an issue...but the device is more complicated. Static is simple, but then you have to suppress the grain problem.

As far as static adapters, I've gotten the best results with microwax (ie. minimal grain, less hotspot, etc...) ...but as we know, wax is difficult to work with.

Daves Spi · June 10th, 2005, 08:20 AM

Power of moving GG is in moving dust. If you have a dust on GG, its hard to get it out. Harder if its FFS. When you move it, you move all the dust with it, so its not so you do not have to worry about cleaning, if you do not want :) ... But with static you can simply close it into some tube with clear filters far enough from GG to see the dust on it... so...

Oscar Spierenburg · June 10th, 2005, 09:15 AM

Yes Daves, that's what I'll do. I know your right about moving GG in adapters, I built two. I am just doing all of this to see how far I can get it.

Jim, I've gotten around the obstacles you mention, for now take my word for it, no dust and a perfectly even layer. The only thing is the grain. I can't even say it's grain, more a vage pattern or structure. It's grain though when there is a lot of light. Same thing; if you don't look for it, you don't see it.

Frank or Jim, it's difficult to find microcrystalline in my country, but does one of you know if either Stearine or Vybar is the same thing?

Frank Ladner · June 10th, 2005, 09:21 AM

First I've heard of Vybar or Stearine.

Here's a page that mentions Microcrystalline and Vybar:
http://www.candlemakers.co.uk/cmproduct/cmsframe.html

Looks like it might be an additive, but Microcrystalline is often mentioned as an additive as well. If it's inexpensive, you might pick some up and give it a try.

Jim Lafferty · June 10th, 2005, 12:11 PM

Frank,

That's clearly the best footage yet. Let me put that another way: DAMN.

Was it pure microwax or some combo of microwax and another? What was the light-loss like, and how thick were the spacers?

Oh, and lastly, what cam were you using? Sorry if you've answered all these before...

Frank Ladner · June 10th, 2005, 02:32 PM

Thanks for checking it out, Jim!

This was done using pure microcrystalline from spwax.com.

I had quite a bit of light loss. Not sure about how many stops, but it was definately more than 1 or 2. The spacers in this case were double-folded tape strips, so that made for a thicker layer of wax. HOWEVER, with all that thickness, the image was still acceptable (in my opinion) in terms of sharpness. I believe that the thicker it is, the less the wax pattern/grain (which is practically invisible anyway...or at least very negligible) will show up...BUT, obviously, the more light you lose. I say if all you're doing is shooting outside daylight stuff, then go with a thicker layer of wax because you won't have nearly the hotspot problems you would with a thin layer. It might even be worth it to have two wax adapters (maybe that you can slide in & out of the housing) with varying thickness for day & night shooting.

I'm using a Canon GL2 (NTSC). The footage was captured in Frame Mode and converted via. After Effects->Twixtor to 23.976p.

Jim Lafferty · June 10th, 2005, 04:13 PM

Huh. Thanks for the info!

Hrm... might have to try out Oscar's method with some new filters. I've got some of the wax still left.

Oscar Spierenburg · June 10th, 2005, 05:47 PM

Frank I'm trying to see your footage, but my slow connection seems to choke on it...What you say is very true, unfortunately I need to shoot allot interiors.
But putting a thin waxed glass between two lenses (I think they aren't even real condensers) get rid of most of the hotspot and light problems. I get some of those 'nice' G35 artifacts like over-lit highlights (they must be using a very thing GG).

Jim, if you stick your nose into wax again, be sure you don't use my first method, but the last one I described. Maybe I'll post some step by step pics.
The next thing I'll try is one layer of aluminium foil glued on one piece of glass with epoxy glue. I'll wax that tomorrow and see what happens.

Keith Kline · June 10th, 2005, 11:08 PM

I made some progress this week and I'll try and post some pics sometime this weekend. I think I had either the flange distance off or the back focus was off so the images were soft, but over all 100 percent better than my last version.

Jim Lafferty · June 10th, 2005, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oscar Spier

Jim, if you stick your nose into wax again, be sure you don't use my first method, but the last one I described. Maybe I'll post some step by step pics.

This would be awesome and much appreciated. If you need help hosting the pics, tutorial and footage, drop me a line -- jim@ideaspora.net

Oscar Spierenburg · June 11th, 2005, 10:24 AM

OK, here you go: http://doublecam.250free.com/wax/wax2.htm

I didn't have a lens filter for this one, but you get the idea. I used some fine sculpting wax for this one, but it turned out to be some mix of waxes, because it had strange patterns in the layer.
The aluminium foil with epoxy glue works very well and leaves no bubbles like tape does.

BUT! I finally found microcrystalline wax. Right now I'm in Belgium and found it in a candle making suppliers store. I'll start testing tomorrow.

June 9th, 2005, 04:20 PM	#286
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Some final contributions: A few pics -- One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight And here is a 30mb high quality QT clip showing the footage where the above pics were captured. - jim __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G Last edited by Jim Lafferty; June 9th, 2005 at 07:25 PM.

June 10th, 2005, 04:49 AM	#288
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	But...what are we looking at here? It's not a wax glass is it? So do you see static grain on certain areas when you pan or tilt? The images are very good, but it's a bit difficult for me to compare this to a wax glass when there is lots of contrast and detail. It's them d'mn vage area's that give the trouble... Last edited by Oscar Spierenburg; June 10th, 2005 at 06:35 AM.

June 10th, 2005, 07:57 AM	#289
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Sort of mixing and matching responses... It's ground glass, 3 micron aluminum oxide used. I've gone much lower than 3 microns but can't get them to grind at all (I have .3 and .05 micron a-ox here). Perhaps 2 or 1 microns would work, and be even better, if they can be found? Yes, there is noticable grain, but only if you're looking for it, and only in bright, flat areas, if the cam is moving. There's not much to do but: a) resign yourself to this but take comfort in the fact that very few "regular joes" will ever notice, and b) shoot "around" the adapter's limitations. The G35 people seem to have no problems selling these things "as is," so the grain must be OK :D Incidentally, the same static grain problem, albeit supressed further, plagues micro-wax adapters, with added problems as well -- hair, dust, and small inconsistencies in the wax's surface which show up in footage. For instance, I worked a lot on microwax sandwiches that employed spacers thinner than one piece of foil -- which is approaching the thinness needed for proper light transmission -- and at that very slight "smudges" of residue on the glass' surface showed up as inconsistencies in the wax. I tried a lot of things -- basically taking the glass right from a sealed package and into the wax, or cleaning the wax thoroughly with strong detergents, but it never worked out perfectly. I've yet to see microwax footage from anyone else's adapters so there's no telling whether they've gotten around these obstacles...Oscar? I lose I'd guess 1 to 1.5 stops with this, which is an annoyance given the GL1's poor low-light performance to begin with. I shoot everything for the moment with an f/1.4 50mm Nikon lense. Vignetting -- you see it in the outdoor, downtown shots but not in the cafe shots. This is because the GL1 has no presets -- so every time I turn the cam off, or have it shut down after some time of idling, I have to reset the focus. Sometimes I get it wrong and a little vignetting shows up. Also, there may be an issue with the placement of the GG relative to the macro I'm using -- the footage posted is from two versions of the same adapter, and slight inconsistencies in the glass placement may account for the vignetting. __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

June 10th, 2005, 08:20 AM	#291
Daves Spi Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Czech republic, Prague Posts: 159	Power of moving GG is in moving dust. If you have a dust on GG, its hard to get it out. Harder if its FFS. When you move it, you move all the dust with it, so its not so you do not have to worry about cleaning, if you do not want :) ... But with static you can simply close it into some tube with clear filters far enough from GG to see the dust on it... so... __________________ Daves At the beginning there was an idea, then the ambition came and the idea became to be a dream... The Satisfied Dream => http://film.datriware.com

June 10th, 2005, 12:11 PM	#294
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Frank, That's clearly the best footage yet. Let me put that another way: DAMN. Was it pure microwax or some combo of microwax and another? What was the light-loss like, and how thick were the spacers? Oh, and lastly, what cam were you using? Sorry if you've answered all these before... __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G Last edited by Jim Lafferty; June 10th, 2005 at 02:10 PM.

June 9th, 2005, 06:38 PM	#287
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	Dam, dam, dam , dam ,dam GOOD!!!!!!!!! Just when I was about to say "I have seen it all", here comes Jim to "help" me change my mind. Dam! I have to do it (4fun but I will). Would you care to comment on: 1.the light loss? (about? and my "wild guess" is... no more than 1 stop, yes?) 2. frame size (18/24?) 3. lens used (1.8/50?) oh, yeah! and please do not "embarrass" the rest of us with resolution charts! We have seen enough (hair)! A bit (just a bit) of vigneting is still there, but by all means BRAVO!

June 10th, 2005, 09:15 AM	#292
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	Yes Daves, that's what I'll do. I know your right about moving GG in adapters, I built two. I am just doing all of this to see how far I can get it. Jim, I've gotten around the obstacles you mention, for now take my word for it, no dust and a perfectly even layer. The only thing is the grain. I can't even say it's grain, more a vage pattern or structure. It's grain though when there is a lot of light. Same thing; if you don't look for it, you don't see it. Frank or Jim, it's difficult to find microcrystalline in my country, but does one of you know if either Stearine or Vybar is the same thing?

June 10th, 2005, 09:21 AM	#293
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	First I've heard of Vybar or Stearine. Here's a page that mentions Microcrystalline and Vybar: http://www.candlemakers.co.uk/cmproduct/cmsframe.html Looks like it might be an additive, but Microcrystalline is often mentioned as an additive as well. If it's inexpensive, you might pick some up and give it a try.

June 10th, 2005, 02:32 PM	#295
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	Thanks for checking it out, Jim! This was done using pure microcrystalline from spwax.com. I had quite a bit of light loss. Not sure about how many stops, but it was definately more than 1 or 2. The spacers in this case were double-folded tape strips, so that made for a thicker layer of wax. HOWEVER, with all that thickness, the image was still acceptable (in my opinion) in terms of sharpness. I believe that the thicker it is, the less the wax pattern/grain (which is practically invisible anyway...or at least very negligible) will show up...BUT, obviously, the more light you lose. I say if all you're doing is shooting outside daylight stuff, then go with a thicker layer of wax because you won't have nearly the hotspot problems you would with a thin layer. It might even be worth it to have two wax adapters (maybe that you can slide in & out of the housing) with varying thickness for day & night shooting. I'm using a Canon GL2 (NTSC). The footage was captured in Frame Mode and converted via. After Effects->Twixtor to 23.976p.

June 10th, 2005, 04:13 PM	#296
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Huh. Thanks for the info! Hrm... might have to try out Oscar's method with some new filters. I've got some of the wax still left. __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

June 10th, 2005, 05:47 PM	#297
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	Frank I'm trying to see your footage, but my slow connection seems to choke on it...What you say is very true, unfortunately I need to shoot allot interiors. But putting a thin waxed glass between two lenses (I think they aren't even real condensers) get rid of most of the hotspot and light problems. I get some of those 'nice' G35 artifacts like over-lit highlights (they must be using a very thing GG). Jim, if you stick your nose into wax again, be sure you don't use my first method, but the last one I described. Maybe I'll post some step by step pics. The next thing I'll try is one layer of aluminium foil glued on one piece of glass with epoxy glue. I'll wax that tomorrow and see what happens.

June 10th, 2005, 11:08 PM	#298
Keith Kline Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Akron, Ohio Posts: 153	I made some progress this week and I'll try and post some pics sometime this weekend. I think I had either the flange distance off or the back focus was off so the images were soft, but over all 100 percent better than my last version.

June 11th, 2005, 10:24 AM	#300
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	OK, here you go: http://doublecam.250free.com/wax/wax2.htm I didn't have a lens filter for this one, but you get the idea. I used some fine sculpting wax for this one, but it turned out to be some mix of waxes, because it had strange patterns in the layer. The aluminium foil with epoxy glue works very well and leaves no bubbles like tape does. BUT! I finally found microcrystalline wax. Right now I'm in Belgium and found it in a candle making suppliers store. I'll start testing tomorrow.