Use earwax for a nice sepia effect. :)

Bill, I'm sitting on an IKEA chair right now. And we have those hotdogs too at the exit.

Wax crystals
 

I just rescently purchased a bag of "translucent crystals" from the hobby store. They are made to raise the melting point of wax and embed things in wax candles.

They are little pellets that melt at 210F.

Is this the same as "micro-wax"?

thank you

Scott, it's probably not the same, but an additive like stearine or Vybar, but who knows, maybe it's even better. I think no one here has tested it before. If you do a quick test, look at it with a magnifying glass. I you see the grain without it, than it's not as good as micro wax.

Was the chair imported from the US?

No, but maybe the hotdogs were.

I looked into that before and was going to try some of that stuff that my girlfriend had left over from her candle making days. I had a small bag there somewhere but before I had a chance to try it I found my microwax.

I'm going to try to make some new lenses soon. Oscar your method seems great I was trying it the other day, but I got to ambitious and was trying to do 2 sets in the same pan of wax and while i'd get one positioned it would throw the other one off so I'm going to try again and try to just get one set good set in a pan.

Well I haven't gotten wax on my hands in a few months now, but I think I'm gonna give it another shot using the horizontal (non-capillary) method. This method would require way less wax since I don't have to heat up a half-pound block to submerge the glass vertically... so that is a real plus.

I'm curious to see how well microwax adapters work with HD cameras. Any of you guys w/ wax adapters have access to do a test like this?

Frank, it's not real HD, but I'll put a wax glass in my 'double cam' (two camera's split the image in two and create 1080 x 720 image). I start on that this month if I have some time.

Keith, good to hear from you again. If something does not work, let me know.

Thanks, Oscar!

That doublecam is something else, by the way. :-)

Gotta keep this thread alive . . .
 

OK. This is one of those projects that crawls like, well, warm wax. But out of desperation, I finally managed a contraption that would at least let me get a rough sense of what we're all here to accomplish. I'd ordered some PCX lenses from Surplus Shed (before I really knew how important diameter and focal length can be.) I've also been using rather large pieces of glass since I needed to improve the odds of getting some wax that actually would work for me. The CD containers are all over my office, so that wasn't a problem. The lens mount -- I'd got a c-mount for Nikkon lenses off ebay, and removed the c-mount portion of it. I used wax to "glue" everything together (doing all I could to keep this from looking like a highly refined competitor to anything else that has been produced thus far.)
So I combined all these elements with the engineering expertise of a 3-year old, and went outside to conquer the world. Or my backyard, in this case. The movie (10 mb, for Quicktime 7) is at http://mysite.verizon.net/divfotog2/ if you're interested.
Yes there's grain, the size of small ball-bearings. The vignetting moves with the adaptor (I had to hold the adaptor against the camera, and found it hard to keep everything straight). But it works! I love the highlights in Ally's hair.
So what if half the picture is tape and wax, it's the content that counts, right?

Good job! Glad to see one more person having some fun with their adapter.

Weird...
 

I did some capillary action tests between microwax and beeswax. The microwax cooled evenly, while the beeswax cooled in an ugly, very uneven pattern that would not be useable.

But the grain pattern was MUCH finer for the beesax. Odd. It transmits considerably more light, too, although I'm not sure if the thickness is the same.

I stopped down to f22 and didn't see any "grain" per se, even when shooting at the evenly white sky, although there was tons of dust and the wax had waves and junk in it. I also cooled it rapidly which probably resulted in both the waves and small grain pattern.

Anyhow, I'll do more tests in a week or so when I get back from my vacation.

Matthew (reply to your first post), that's why I don't use capillary action. The wax has to 'suck' through a very small space and it looks like it widens(spread) the grain structure. One of the reasons I put the glass horizontal and flip the second glass on top is because it compresses the wax structure in a way. And you can make it as thin as you like.