Frank,

Two layers of tape then?

Steev,

As soon as my attempts yield great results, I'll put up a tutorial complete with stills and text taking you through the steps necessary.

- jim

Yep. That did the trick for me. Let me know how it turns out.

A tutorial would be excellent!

Jim, awesome. I realize it's still brewing now. I appreciate the sharing of the fruits.

Thanks!

steev

new footage
 

I put a new video clip up on the server. This one isn't really impressive. It's just showing how grain-free the footage is in a microwax adapter even when the lens is nearly closed. (In ground glass adapters, this is where the grain really starts to show.)

My next step is to try and make a larger microwax glass sandwich to be used with medium format lenses, so that I don't have to zoom in so much (because the projected image will be larger), thus lessening the grain pick-up a lot more. I have a feeling that when I get my condensers in, I can use them to get even more of the projected 35mm image (spreading the image brightness out so that I don't have to zoom in on the 'hot' area)

By the way, I'm using a 50mm Pentacon 1:1.8 lens.

http://209.214.235.122/mwtest

The file is called "microwax_outside_test_30p.avi"

It's pretty big at 109 MB, but I don't have any bandwidth limits so you guys can download as much as you please.

I just ran some tests with my latest wax system and they don't hold up well against the same images from a WAO5 ground glass -- the wax adapter proves easier to focus on, better at retaining detail, but there's a steep trade-off where exposure is concerned.

I have to use a gain of 9 to get the same exposure as no gain on the WAO glass. This is with a wax density of two layers of masking tape -- cooking up a test of one layer thickness as I type this :/

Check out this comparison between my two glasses -- the wax is on the left, the WAO5 on the right.

- jim

Thanks for posting, Jim!

Yeah, light loss is one downside to the wax adapters. However, you should find that the hotspot problem is reduced significantly with it. The number one benefit, in my opinion, is the practically-no-grain aspect. (none that a SD camera can see, anyhow)

I'm just planning on using a lot of light for any shooting I do with it, but for something like documentary shooting, I don't think it would work as well as a ground glass adapter.

Jim.

I think you could afford to reduce the thickness of the wax layer. This should also sharpen up the image due to less diffusion into the surrounding wax being visible because you don't then have to crank up the video gain so much.

The wax thickness I preferred was no more than one layer of cooking foil. It may well have come out even thinner than that in places because of the irregularity of my two glass disks which caused the wax layer thickness to vary and created the flicker problems. There was a see-through problem with this thickness subjectively somewhere between a fresh AO5 dressing and an overwork/partial backpolish of the A05.

Bob,

I think you're correct.

I experimented with the wax adapter with the glass separated by one thickness of masking tape today and it's *just* too thick that its diffuse properties are prohibitive -- but a great improvement over two layes of tape. Two layers requires a gain of 9, one layer, a gain of 3 under "typical" lighting conditions -- a single, 60w overhead light in a windowless room.

Tomorrow I'm going down to one layer of foil and this should be optimal. It's great to see results this good so far -- the grain is noticably less obtrusive than the WAO5 and focusing is much better.

Once I get tomorrow's completed, I'll post some footage.

- jim

I am also going to try and get a smaller layer of wax using just a single strip of tape or foil.

My 2 condensers came in and hopefully those, combined with a thin layer will give me a bright & even screen.

Frank,

How's things?

At one layer of foil, these things are hard to crank out with relatively minor/unnoticable flaws. However, I've gotten one together today that looks good "enough" and am currently rendering out footage using what I hope is a good approximation of Chris Rubin's trick using Vegas's internal "Mask Generator" set to "Luminance," with the "invert" box checked. I've applied some desaturation, gaussian blur and brightness/contrast to the grain image before hand -- we'll see how it works out, I guess. Dunno if the blur was a mistake, or if I should've gone the other way with an sharpen filter.

Otherwie, watching raw footage on my NTSC monitor and I'm picking up things that I bet only a trained eye would notice -- the grain is so small as to give me a grin for all my hard work :D

Thanks for your tips all along, BTW.

Footage coming in about a half hour...

- jim

I went out and bought a whole assortment of cheap picture frames of various sizes and started experimenting with getting a thinner layer of wax.

I was afraid of using just one strip of unfolded aluminum because it looked like such a thin space inbetween the glass that I didin't know if the wax could seep through. Anyway, I went ahead and tried it and was very pleased. I now have a wax surface suitable for low(er)-light inside shooting.
(However, it still wasn't completely bubble-free. In fact, I believe that it is harder to get a bubble-free THIN layer of wax than it is for thicker layers.)

We must've been typing at the same time. LOL!

Thanks for the update! Looking forward to some footage! :-)

When I was playing with AO5 ground glass adapters, I would do the following trick with the footage to reduce grain:

(In After Effects)

- Scale the footage (assuming 720x480) to 1620x1080
- Apply the Median filter set to around 3
- Render back out with the resize option set to 720x480

This trick works better with closeup footage where you have a large surface area of the same tone or color.

This is exactly right. I've done some crazy things in attempts to get the bubbles out -- even went so far as to separate a single strand of wire from a bundle of wire attached to a 9v batery adapter (stripping the insulation and pulling the bundle apart), then using that to slide it in between both filters :D Yesterday, I used a straight razor to lightly pry the two pieces of glass apart while tapping their surfaces with a coffee stirrer...

It looks like it might've payed off, too.


- jim

Frank,

Here's an idea that maybe the two of us can work on and come up with a solution -- would you think it possible to assemble the wax sandwich in a pool of already melted wax?

Using tweezers, tongs, foil and whatnot, I could get the glass lined up ontop of one another, but I'm then confused about how to keep them together. Perhaps the solution would be to lay them ontop of one another in a very shallow pool of wax -- then get them lined up and let the wax cool completely, and then cut the glass out.

This way, bubbles should pose too great a problem -- if you find one, just separate the glasses or move them around until it's gone.

My worries are what might come of the glass given that there's nothing providing pressure sufficient to keep them together, and together in a way that is even across their surfaces.

But...it's a thought.

- jim

Well after all that trouble I hope it pays off for you.

If only there was some sort of "Do It Yourself Bubble-Free Wax Adapter Kit" you could buy at the hobby store. LOL!

Wonder if you could take a thin strand of wire like you describe, form a squared "U" shape with it (well, that depends on your glass shape - circle or square), slip it inbetween the two pieces of glass, THEN submerge it. After the wax fills into the glass, you could pull the wire up, dragging any bubbles with it.

I'd thought of that exact thing but haven't had the chance to try it -- the wire I have here is a bit too short.

Another piece of advice/experience -- I find that dipping the glass into the wax verrry slowwwwly curtails a lot of bubble troubles. Doesn't eliminate them completely, but helps.

- jim

My previous post applies to the post before your last post. LOL! (Unless you post a post before I post this post.) :-)

Using that method would definately help eliminate the bubble problem but, as you mentioned, the difficulty would be keeping the glass together. I think it could be done in a shallow dish. One of the glasses would need the foil spacers "stuck" to it in some way. With distances this small, even glue would throw the spacing off. The best thing might be to have a large piece of aluminum - enough to form a "jacket" around the glass, leaving two sides folded over onto the top of the glass, providing the two spacer strips. The aluminum could be attached to the back of the glass some kind of way, leaving the two side strips just as they are.

Then you could just set that in the wax, aluminum side down, and set the top piece of glass over it. You would need to dip the top piece in such a way that it doesn't trap bubbles underneath. Then you would just set it over the top of the other glass so that it is alighed properly.

What would be nice in this type of setup is a pre-shaped holder (one that could be submerged in hot wax) that would keep the glass pieces in alignment.

Jim: I bet that's where I'm messing up. I'm just dropping the glass in there and hoping that the bubbles escape before the wax cools. THANKS! Easing the glass in slowly makes perfect sense.

You've got some good ideas there.

I was thinking that I could get the aluminum into the wax no problem -- I'd cut it in large enough pieces that I'd just have to move it to the edge of the bottom glass, and I'd then use the top glass to clamp down on the foil and flatten it out.

Then, it'd be a matter of using something weighted, with the approximate diameter of the glass pieces and with a soft surface so as to not scratch the glass -- place this ontop of the glass and let the wax harden.

I'm thinking I'd like to do all this in a tempered glass baking dish -- like the ones they advertise on TV that show food being cooked through a transparent surface. A small dish would be prefect.

With the pieces of glass separate of one another, I'd put them in the wax and then move them around, inspecting for bubbles before sandwiching it all together.

Hmmm... I need some more money to try all this out and the holidays have tapped me out until middle of next week.

- jim

Here's the initial, raw footage -- with minor color curves and correction, flipped (this is uploading now and I have to leave for work -- will be finished in about 1/2 hour):

http://ideaspora.net/grainless/wax_reference.avi

Here is my initial grain pattern image:

http://ideaspora.net/grainless/grain_pattern.png

I have a theory as to how Chris's technique can be replicated in Vegas, but haven't had the time to test it fully:

Three tracks.

On the top most, Copy 1 of a clip. In the middle, the grain pattern, inverted with heavy contrast to isolate the brighter parts and make the darker parts opaque. On the bottom, another copy of the same clip on the top track.

Use the mask generator so the top most track "punches through" the grain pattern where it is lightest to the footage below. Adjust the brightness 'til it looks right.

Render out.

Done.

- jim

Jim: From what I've seen so far, it looks very good!

Jim,

I can't seem to access the grain reference image. Help? :)

Jim and Frank.

When I was talking about using PVC wood glue (the white stuff water washable) to hold the foil, I might have confused you. I only glued the foil to one piece of glass and only with tack spots. I didn't use a continuous rim of foil. I only used small squares. To keep them immobile until the glue set, I rolled them over the edge of the glass and trimmmed them off later.

By this method you can place your pieces of glass in the wax separately and get the bubbles off before bring them together. If there are air inclusions, just lift one glass away and repeat bringing them together. After you have got a good inclusion, sit your composite disk on top of a metal thimble or something just under the surface of your wax pot so you can gouge it out of the mix after it gels but before it goes really hard. Take care because the disks will separate if you go at it too soon.

Sorry I did not tell you sooner but I thought you were both already doing thin layers and had gone to thicker layers to solve some sort of problem.

to jim
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Aaron Shaw : Jim,

I can't seem to access the grain reference image. Help? :) -->>>

me too!

but i normally downloaded the movie, which is (the movie) btw very exiting.

jim - OT - i can see that you have a lot of marvelous films on your shelve :)

filip

Sorry about that, the correct url for the grain pattern image is: http://ideaspora.net/grainless/grain_pattern.png

- jim

I've contacted S&P for another 1lb block of wax -- mine has gone through so many reheats and has been left in less than optimally clean areas, so I'm looking to get another block next week.

In the meantime, I've gone through not one but two thick-walled glass jars that were originally used for pickling -- after a series of reheats at 350+ degrees, they eventually cracked at the bottom, leaking wax into their surrounding dishes. So, I've done a little research and for anyone following along, I will be ordering a borosilicate beaker.

Here are links to where they can be ordered -- American Science Surplus has them for the least amount:

http://www.sciplus.com/category.cfm?subsection=4

http://www.scientificsonline.com/product.asp?cs=p&pn=3082326

http://www.hometrainingtools.com/catalog/chemistry/glassware-plasticware/cat_beakers-flasks.html

600ml should be large enough, is my guess...

The screw compressor clamp found here might be a good alternative to tape? :

http://www.sciplus.com/category.cfm?subsection=4&category=44

Keep on keepin' on -- happy new year, everyone!

- jim

Compression might be a problem for you as the glass yields then remembers that which it once was when you release the pressure. The wax layer may separate or if there is a depression some distance in which binds the glass distortion, you may get a localised area of greater transparency.

If you have time to experiment, try making a gg which has the full thickness of spacer on one edge and face to face contact on the other. The best thickess for wax should be apparent as a straight area across the gg. I did this fairly roughly for my wax composite disks with microscope slides but I didn't refine it any furthur than arriving at one thickness of cooking foil being best for me.

If you can mike the thickness of your spacer material, then measure across the gg to the best area and calculate that value as a fraction of the thickness of the widest part of the layer which you know.

That fraction is found by measuring from the directly contacting edge total (= 0) directly across to the point on the gg where the layer performs best.

Then you should be able to calculate the ideal wax layer thickness. It may be possible to find some shim metal from a precision machine shop which is that thickness for your permanent spacer.

I failed maths from year 5 onwards but it should go something like this as an example, assuming you have a 52mm diameter gg.

Measured across gg :-

Left Edge Layer Thickness - full contact = 0mm.
Right Edge Layer Thickness - spacer = 0.25mm.

Left Edge to best gg = 13.5mm.
Left Edge to right edge (width) = 52mm.

Divide 52mm by 13.5mm. Should = 1/4.
Divide 0.25mm by 1/4. Should = ideal layer.

Just got note of B&H having more F-to-C mount adapters in stock -- with this and a bunch of new tools, I'm gearing up to do the microwax adapter right. I'll have some stuff up end of next week, if all goes well.

- jim

F-to-C mount
 

Hi Jim, Thanks for all your work on the wax method. I've been tweeking my process little by little and feel I'm getting there but am still getting the tiny bubbles in the wax appearing. How have you gotten around this?

Also do you have a link to that F-C Mount part on the B&H site? I'm guessing it adapts from the threading of a 52/58mm filter ring to a typical camera lens mount? That would be superb if it were true as its the one part of the equation that I haven't figured out.

Thanks

Jon

Jonny,

I have found the best method for making a wax-free glass is not to let the wax fill in between the glass, but to put the two separate pieces together under the melted wax, with a spacer inbetween. This is my new way of working, thanks to recommendations by others, and I find it is very effective in getting a clean glass.

The problem would be with keeping the spacer inbetween the glass and keeping the two pieces of glass in alignment.

I happened to have a round metal piece (came off the front of a Pentax lens) that my glass pieces would fit in perfectly.

I put the stuff in the wax, inserting it sideways to prevent bubbles, in the following order:


- Round 'holding' piece
- First glass
- Spacer
- Second glass
- Weight


The spacer can be aluminum strips, although they would be hard to work with under liquid. In my case, I had a round, thin metal strip from a Mamiya camera (taken from between the screw-mount and the camera body).
You could, however, wrap a bigger piece of aluminum around the glass, folding a couple of strips over the side
for spacers.

The weight needs to be as close as possible to the diameter of the glass, so that the pressure is equally distributed.

I still don't feel like I have the best workflow, but when/if I develop it into a smooth process, I would be willing to take pictures and make a tutorial.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/sitem/sk...&is=REG&bi=E15

Not quite sure how it would be fitted for a screw-on type mount -- I glued my last two in place :D

- jim

Crystalites
 

I worked with a company that employed a polymer scientist. He was working on molding high performance plastics. He developed a process of molding at the melt temp, and then spraying the outside of the mold with liquid nitrogen (very cold). His goal was to get the plastic to crystalize as quickly as possible because he said it would create the smallest possible crystalites.

My though was, as an experiment, you could take a glass/wax/glass GG that's finished, heat it back up till the wax goes clear, and then cool it rapidly, maybe place it between two metal plates that you chilled in the freezer. If small crystalites = fine grain, might be interesting.

Could be an interesting experiment! I have access to some LN2 so I may give this or something similar a try!

Donnie,

I could be wrong, but I think that the two are different -- plastic is a chemical that when submitted to shocking temperature changes, might form "crystalites" -- microcrystalline wax has actual bits of crystal suspended in the emulsion.

I doubt such tactics would do good things to glass :/

- jim

Jim,
 

"I doubt such tactics would do good things to glass :/"

I dont think that a quick temperature change would do anything to glass. I think it may give you finer crystals as the wax crystalizes. Just a thought for an easy experiment.

Oh, OK
 

Jim,
I see what you are saying. I'm not sure about the "microcrystalline" part... They may be adding some type of silica crystals that would not melt at the low temperatures that wax melts, so you'd be right, those crystals are of definite size and shape and couldn't be changed without exceeding their melt point. But the wax itself forms crystals, as it goes from liquid to solid, regardless of what may be suspended in the solution. So maybe keeping those wax cyrstals as small as possible via a rapid cool down would help?

Bosscreens and Wax
 

hi. I haven't posted on this thread before, but I'm currently working on a 35mm lens adapter for my Canon Xl1s. I have been following the posts about microcystalline wax and I just had a few questions. I'm assuming by the thread that people are making these wax GG pieces in attepts to come up with something similar to the bosscreen product. Is that correct? I was just wondering if anyone has actually tried an actual gg from from bosscreen? I was checking out their site and the glass doesn't seem cheap, but I was wondering if someone had tried that and that's what started the idea about the microcrystaline wax or was it the movietube, since it seems like it uses so combination of wax and glass as GG?

I just contacted a place local to me that is supposed to do custom blends of wax to find out what they have that might work. Also I'm going to look next time I'm near there, but there is something call Micro Wax which is an additive for candle making. (my girlfriend used to make candles before moving on to soaps). From what I understand the Micro Wax is microcrytalline wax. I wonder if anyone has tried this? It can be found at most craft stores. In the US places like Jo-Ann Fabrics and Michael's. I don't know how the costs compare to the places online, but I just thought it might be another option.

I'm looking forward to trying to make my own wax GG sometime soon and I was wondering if anyone else has been making any progress on them.

Hi Keith!

I haven't heard of a Micro Wax additive, but next time I'm at Michael's I'll see if I can find it. Would be nice if they carried it - I'd like to have a local supplier since I'm running low on the free sample and I don't like to keep asking for more. (And a minimum purchase order is like 50 LBS or so.)

What got me started with microcrystalline wax was the MovieTube description on MovieTube.com that mentioned a "special developed microcrystalline grain screen".

I'm not sure if they use microcrystalline wax specifically, but I can tell you that it is an excellent material for static adapters. I don't think ground glass, no matter what grit used, could be as grain-free as microcrystalline.

The difficulty is getting a bubble-free, debris-free layer between two pieces of glass, and getting a layer of the right thickness so that you don't lose a lot of light. A lot of us do-it-yourselfers are limited in tools, so there is really no automated process.

I'm not certain, but I would bet any micro wax that you're going to find at a hobby shop is actually a blended wax that has a very low melting point -- it basically comes out of a canister looking/feeling like an opaque-white vaseline. It's used to blend with oil paints to make the paint last longer without cracks, or for rubbing into the surfaces of wood as a preserving varnish.

I purchased a bit a while back and it doesn't work.

However, I could be guessing completely wrong -- I know that Pearl art stores do in fact carry blocks of solid micro wax -- only it's not bleached, and is a very deep brown.

I've been meaning to get back to my adapter progress but with friends and family visiting and my current job situation being shifted around, I haven't had the time for a good night's sleep let alone to work properly on the micro wax screen :(

After next week things will have settled down significantly for me, so sometime around then I hope to make some strides, then post a tutorial, provided things turn out well.

- jim

Thanks for all the info guys. If I remember correctly Michael\'s had the stuff I\'m talking about. Like I said it\'s been awhile since my girlfriend has used the stuff, but if i remember correctly it\'s a additive for parafine wax. It\'s used for candles that will be poured into a container to make the wax stick to the sides of the container. If i remember it looks like white beads of wax and it comes in a little bag. I just did a quick search and came up with this page...

http://candles.genwax.com/candles/___0___Z40M96W.htm

That might give you some more info. I\'m gonna try to pick some up to try later today maybe if i get over that way. I\'ll let you guys know what i find out. I\'m still waiting to hear back from the wax supplier I emailed that is local to me to see what they have.

I also have an idea about removing the air bubbles, but I\'m not sure if it\'ll work. I have to contact my friend who does special FX to see if it might work.

I\'ll fill you guys in if i have any luck. Thanks again for the info.