Microcrystalline Wax Techniques?

Oscar Spierenburg · June 18th, 2005, 06:05 PM

Dan, that's right. Funny thing is, we are perfecting the 'imperfection' /depth of field.
Accidentally, by hitting the camcorders lens or something, I've done like you say <manual focus A TOUCH soft on the screen> Maybe just a bit too much, but it certainly got rid of every pattern.
http://s01.picshome.com/4ae/4.jpg It gives a 70's look.

Dan Diaconu · June 18th, 2005, 06:26 PM

yeah..a bit too much, but better than "video look"

Mark Easton · June 19th, 2005, 06:01 PM

If anyone is looking for microwax sources I found out that it is used for Batik fabric dyeing so craft shops that sell supplies for that should stock it.
Batik is an Indonesian craft so this might be most applicable to people in SE Asia/ Australasia.
NZ stockist is Boise: http://www.boise.co.nz/office_suppli...M_-2817861.htm

Matthew Wauhkonen · June 19th, 2005, 08:20 PM

What I wonder about is how the Movie Tube, and similar products, have such allegedly perfect focusing screens. Apparently the Movie Tube actually uses beeswax. I suppose a possibility is to melt wax and use an airbrush to apply a thin and even layer of it, then bake it, but that seems kinda tricky.

There are things like this: http://www.llumar.com/PDF/English/de...ec%20sheet.pdf that look interesting, but I doubt they work well. Hmm...oh well.

Oscar Spierenburg · June 20th, 2005, 04:49 PM

Some of the foils you post are usable, but only on a moving GG.
Beeswax isn't good enough and so isn't Paraffine. I can spare you weeks of testing, I used both of them. Matthew, when I started this I read this thread several times to see what progress people made and were it got them so far. In short it's like this:
Frank Ladner tested different wax types and came to the conclusion that Microcrystalline was far best. Jim Lafferty started this thread and did lots of tests and came a long way with the microwax.
Keith Kline begun with the same technique as Frank and Jim and stranded with some problems I initially thought to solve with a technique which didn't work well enough on thin layers.
After about a month I came up with the technique that works 100% every time and I made a 'tutorial' http://members.chello.nl/a.schultzev...g/wax/wax2.htm
I also came to the conclusion that Microcrystalline was far out best. 'No' grain and such a thin layer combined with two small condensers give just 1 to 2 stops of light loss.

I read the Movie Tube site closely, it says: Intermediate image> a special developed microcrystalline grain screen.
Sounds nice, but I regard microcrystalline grain as microcrystalline wax.

Kyle Edwards · June 20th, 2005, 07:09 PM

Your site seems to be 404.

Oscar Spierenburg · June 21st, 2005, 05:43 AM

Thanks Kyle, it's the bandwidth limit. I put everything up here:
http://members.chello.nl/a.schultzev...g/wax/wax2.htm

Bill Porter · June 21st, 2005, 11:57 AM

Oscar,

Are you just wiping the wax off the outside or must it be scraped off?

Oscar Spierenburg · June 21st, 2005, 01:08 PM

Bill, you know you got me interested in this static thing in the first place, with your post on the G35....remember Jonath...hmm..Bill. Now I don't know if they use wax, but they certainly proved to have high quality without a moving GG. Thanks.
-
OK,
I scrap the wax off with a knife and a flat screwdriver and really pay attention that I don't scratch the glass. I leave the edge with wax. Than I clean it with refined petrol (not white spirit) and then with methylated spirit (if this is the right term - the blue alcoholic stuff)

Jim Lafferty · June 21st, 2005, 11:00 PM

I'd suggest a razor over a screwdriver -- it's what they use to remove decals from windshields without scratching the glass. An isopropyl alcohol paired with some disposable optical wipes will get the residual bits off.

Andy Gordon · June 22nd, 2005, 12:59 AM

Why not just tape up the glass and leave a tab sticking out of the wax, then peel it off after it cools?

Jim Lafferty · June 22nd, 2005, 06:43 AM

Same thing -- you've got to clean off the tape residue, instead of wax. Might be a little easier to clean, but could present other problems during the wax procedure.

Oscar Spierenburg · June 22nd, 2005, 07:48 AM

It sounds like it's a hell of a job to clean the glass, but it's not. A razor is fine unless it's too big to leave the wax on the side of the glass. I wouldn't use tape, because of what Jim says, it will produce bubbles in the wax and possibly make it useless if you want to use the wax again.

I'm about to make a higher resolution(1080 x 720) system (again) using two camcorders (filming the left and right part of the GG separately). I tested it by zooming in 2x on the wax glass: No Grain.

Leo Mandy · June 22nd, 2005, 03:35 PM

Let us see as soon as you can Oscar - it will be interesting to see the sideXside of the old GG and the new GG on the awesome double cam.

Bill Porter · June 22nd, 2005, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oscar Spier

Bill, you know you got me interested in this static thing in the first place, with your post on the G35....remember Jonath...hmm..Bill. Now I don't know if they use wax, but they certainly proved to have high quality without a moving GG. Thanks.

LOL
I assure you I am not him! But it is cool I got you interested in static adapters. And you're welcome; seeing your DIY page is really neat so thank you in turn. But I do think you should pay attention to the sticker on the cigar tin.

One problem though: we don't have petrol in the United States.

June 20th, 2005, 04:49 PM	#335
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	Some of the foils you post are usable, but only on a moving GG. Beeswax isn't good enough and so isn't Paraffine. I can spare you weeks of testing, I used both of them. Matthew, when I started this I read this thread several times to see what progress people made and were it got them so far. In short it's like this: Frank Ladner tested different wax types and came to the conclusion that Microcrystalline was far best. Jim Lafferty started this thread and did lots of tests and came a long way with the microwax. Keith Kline begun with the same technique as Frank and Jim and stranded with some problems I initially thought to solve with a technique which didn't work well enough on thin layers. After about a month I came up with the technique that works 100% every time and I made a 'tutorial' http://members.chello.nl/a.schultzev...g/wax/wax2.htm I also came to the conclusion that Microcrystalline was far out best. 'No' grain and such a thin layer combined with two small condensers give just 1 to 2 stops of light loss. I read the Movie Tube site closely, it says: Intermediate image> a special developed microcrystalline grain screen. Sounds nice, but I regard microcrystalline grain as microcrystalline wax. Last edited by Oscar Spierenburg; June 21st, 2005 at 05:41 AM.

June 21st, 2005, 11:00 PM	#340
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	I'd suggest a razor over a screwdriver -- it's what they use to remove decals from windshields without scratching the glass. An isopropyl alcohol paired with some disposable optical wipes will get the residual bits off. __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

June 22nd, 2005, 06:43 AM	#342
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Same thing -- you've got to clean off the tape residue, instead of wax. Might be a little easier to clean, but could present other problems during the wax procedure. __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

June 18th, 2005, 06:05 PM	#331
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	Dan, that's right. Funny thing is, we are perfecting the 'imperfection' /depth of field. Accidentally, by hitting the camcorders lens or something, I've done like you say <manual focus A TOUCH soft on the screen> Maybe just a bit too much, but it certainly got rid of every pattern. http://s01.picshome.com/4ae/4.jpg It gives a 70's look.

June 18th, 2005, 06:26 PM	#332
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	yeah..a bit too much, but better than "video look"

June 19th, 2005, 06:01 PM	#333
Mark Easton New Boot Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Palmerston North, New Zealand Posts: 22	If anyone is looking for microwax sources I found out that it is used for Batik fabric dyeing so craft shops that sell supplies for that should stock it. Batik is an Indonesian craft so this might be most applicable to people in SE Asia/ Australasia. NZ stockist is Boise: http://www.boise.co.nz/office_suppli...M_-2817861.htm

June 19th, 2005, 08:20 PM	#334
Matthew Wauhkonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 285	What I wonder about is how the Movie Tube, and similar products, have such allegedly perfect focusing screens. Apparently the Movie Tube actually uses beeswax. I suppose a possibility is to melt wax and use an airbrush to apply a thin and even layer of it, then bake it, but that seems kinda tricky. There are things like this: http://www.llumar.com/PDF/English/de...ec%20sheet.pdf that look interesting, but I doubt they work well. Hmm...oh well.

June 20th, 2005, 07:09 PM	#336
Kyle Edwards Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: LI, NY Posts: 274	Your site seems to be 404.

June 21st, 2005, 05:43 AM	#337
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	Thanks Kyle, it's the bandwidth limit. I put everything up here: http://members.chello.nl/a.schultzev...g/wax/wax2.htm

June 21st, 2005, 11:57 AM	#338
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	Oscar, Are you just wiping the wax off the outside or must it be scraped off?

June 21st, 2005, 01:08 PM	#339
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	Bill, you know you got me interested in this static thing in the first place, with your post on the G35....remember Jonath...hmm..Bill. Now I don't know if they use wax, but they certainly proved to have high quality without a moving GG. Thanks. - OK, I scrap the wax off with a knife and a flat screwdriver and really pay attention that I don't scratch the glass. I leave the edge with wax. Than I clean it with refined petrol (not white spirit) and then with methylated spirit (if this is the right term - the blue alcoholic stuff)

June 22nd, 2005, 12:59 AM	#341
Andy Gordon Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Perth WA Posts: 103	Why not just tape up the glass and leave a tab sticking out of the wax, then peel it off after it cools?

June 22nd, 2005, 07:48 AM	#343
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	It sounds like it's a hell of a job to clean the glass, but it's not. A razor is fine unless it's too big to leave the wax on the side of the glass. I wouldn't use tape, because of what Jim says, it will produce bubbles in the wax and possibly make it useless if you want to use the wax again. I'm about to make a higher resolution(1080 x 720) system (again) using two camcorders (filming the left and right part of the GG separately). I tested it by zooming in 2x on the wax glass: No Grain.

June 22nd, 2005, 03:35 PM	#344
Leo Mandy Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 749	Let us see as soon as you can Oscar - it will be interesting to see the sideXside of the old GG and the new GG on the awesome double cam.