Just a quick one for you guys:
1.open WORD, draw 10 circles, fill in with gray (5, 10, 15, 20, 25 etc) and print on transparent film. Cut to fit the size of your filter, or leave as square and mount on UV (or other...) Enjoy your CENTER GRAD ND (and say "buy-buy" to "hot spot")
2. Photograph the above in B/W on a medium camera and use the neg.
3. Buy it and move on. (your call)

Looks good Oscar - remember in low light for some reason there seems to be more grain visible. Dan has found a way around it and the G35 guys have too. Keep searching!

Cool... day to day its better and sharper... Love your hard work.

Thanks Daves and thanks Dan for the filter trick, I'll try it. It's like an inversed diaphragm. Maybe I can put it somewhere inside the tube, to make it in independent from the lenses you put on the adapter.
The better I can get rid of the hotspot, the thinner the wax can be. The thinner the wax, the sharper and brighter the image. That's what I've been doing these day's. I now use a wax layer as thin as the thinnest tape I can find.

That looks very nice Oscar!

I want to see footage :D

Oscar: Good job!

Bear in mind that using a ND grad filter is still just a trick. I suggest trying to keep as much light as possible and get an even distribution using the right thickness of wax combined with condensers.

If you do decide to make your own homemade ND grad filter and you want to be more precise, take a framegrab from your camera pointed at an out-of-focus white wall. Bring that in Word or Photoshop and place the various grey circles accordingly.

Footage Jim? Rain on leaves: http://s01.picshome.com/a48/rain.jpg

Frank, you're right, the condenser I'm using now is very very good. (very thin too, so not much extra space and weight) So I'm happy with that for testing right now.
I've been trying a new technique yesterday, but didn't work just yet. I used wax used by goldsmiths, which are wax plates at about 0,6mm thickness. I put it between the glass and melt it with a weight on top. I didn't get bubbles or dust, but the structure wasn't right. It would be the easiest method if it worked, so I'll try it again.
Frank, Jim, are either one of you still waxing anything besides your hair? Did you get similar results, I can't seem to find much footage of your tests.

Waxing my hair... that's good.

I don't have footage up because I never got to a place where the wax surpassed what I'm getting with 3 micron aluminum ox. Frank has posted some stills that made me a believer, but I've yet to see actual moving footage from a wax adapter (under a variety of conditions, not just indoors under optimal lighting) that was really convincing. And the process of obtaining a hair free, abnormality free wax layer thin enough to produce excellent results proved so elusive that I gave up.

I've been shooting with my aluminum ox setup for a few months now. Give me some time and I'll post full res DV footage from that as a point of comparison.

- jim

<<I've yet to see actual moving footage from a wax adapter >>

Didn't you see the Guerilla35 footage? (I'm joking because we don't know if it is wax and the footage is compressed.)

I'm making an improvised rail to put the tube on with the test wax GG moving steadily and see what happens. I'm sure there will be a bit of a vage structure visible, but I know I can get it better. It has a lot to do with cooling techniques.

Well, cooling technique, cleanliness of the surfaces, lack of dust/hair, in short, too much for me to handle at once each go around. The thinner the wax layer, the more evident the surface anamolies (anomalies? can't ever get that right without m-w.com).

I was never able to get a sufficiently perfect surface that was simultaneously thin enough to surpass the optical qualities of 3 micron aluminum ox -- i.e. finer grain and comparable/beter light transmittance.

Seriously, I'm not posting this to be a naysayer -- my hat is way off to anyone who can get it done well and I would also buy one if the results prove to be repeatable.

Meanwhile, I do have footage of my "near perfect" microwax results. I'll be posting them and the 3 micron footage sometime in the next week.

- jim

So Oscar, where (and what brands etc.) and what kid of equipment did you
get here in Holland? I may give this a go myself...

Rob, 'De Kat' is the most common brand for artist (chemical) supplies in Holland. They only have Paraffine and Bees wax, so that's what I used so far, sometimes mixed with the top layer of candles.
You can get it at most artist supplies shops, but certainly at dekwast.nl.

I'll post today if I get some succes in cooling techniques. I think it's just like steel, a knife isn't of any quality if it isn't cooled don't properly.

Jim, I'm very interested in you results. Just a frame-grab would be nice to compare the two techniques. (I can see the difference of video noise and static grain anyhow.)

Frames:

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/waxgrabs/0.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/waxgrabs/1.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/waxgrabs/2.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/waxgrabs/3.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/waxgrabs/4.jpg

Jim, those look pretty good, a little gray, is it true you only have 'disturbing' grain on the edges? I mean, the very soft grain can be removed with the lowest setting of a de-grain filter without losing detail. (Looking forward to your aluminum ox GG)

I improvised a rail in front of my camera so I could shoot my cat again. (He's still alive.)
http://s01.picshome.com/a48/fifa3b.jpg

Tests showed that putting the melted wax in the fridge wasn't any good. The best method so far to me is to melt the wax in a aluminium cigar case, put the glass on the bottom with one piece upright (taped together on one side). Vibrate the air out and then flip the other side (with spacers) on top. vibrate some more (just put the electric razor against the side of the aluminium box) and let it cool down. This way it cools evenly.

Oscar:

You mention using regular wax in your experiments. Have you considered trying Microcrystalline? It is supposed to have a finer structure. I know it worked well for me. I got a couple of 1 LB samples from http://www.spwax.com.

Frank, I'll definitely try Microcrystalline when I get my hands on it. Should it be available at candle making suppliers shops?
Until now, I am mostly busy figuring out a way to get the wax (any kind) evenly and without any dust or bubbles as easy as possible.
Tonight I had the best effort so far. Very easy and clean to do, but I'll post details tomorrow when I know if it holds without cracking.

Oscar, I love the cat shot - that looked really good! What spacers are you using now?

Oh, I have missed this one... Looks great...

Did you try to heat the glass too ? Maybe the way to not remelting the wax... I mean put the glass to hot water before puting the wax in. Do not know if possible, but think about it ;-) About waxing your hair... I think the hair is good spacer ;-)

Thanks Oscar! How are you heating that stuff?

I think with the spacers, you need something that will keep the entire piece of glass level - I don't know if hair will do it, but what the hell, you have been doing awesome as it is - go for it!

Daves, thanks, I did heat the glass on a hot-plate.

Rob, this is the easiest method I tested so far:
Use an electric hot-plate (warmhoudplaatje), maybe even those for coffee work.
Put the wax in a little metal box (like a aluminium cigar box) heat it and when the wax is melted put a clear lens filter on the bottom. Leave the metal ring on the filter and put the highest side up so you have a round bucket full of wax. If needed, vibrate the air out.
Now you need a smaler piece of glass (round if you have it) with some spacers. I used normal clear tape, but that produces some bubbles (like Frank said earlier in the thread), so I'll try some other things today. Heat that piece of glass and flip it on top of the filter (flip it from one side so you push out the air) Push it down until the spacers touch the filter glass.
Put the cigar case on a flat surface and let it cool down.
Now what is crucial is to leave the wax on the sides of the glass when you clean it, like this:
http://s01.picshome.com/a48/filterwax.jpg (you can also see how thin the wax is)


Now that this method works, I'll try to find Microcrystalline wax.

I'm Back
 

Okay I'm finally back. The wax is looking really good Oscar. I had been checking out your progress ever so often but have been really busy with family stuff. You got me motivated again though and I cut about 6 or 8 pairs of glass circles to try to melt some wax again. So far I've only done 1 an it was too think, but the layer itself was pretty even and wasn't too messed up. There was only like 1 bubble and it was way out of the frame area. I'll try to post some new pics tonight and I'm gonna try and run some more.

Oscar let me know if you don't have any luck finding the micro wax. It took me forever to find some when I was looking. The best places I found were candle suppliers.

Strahl and Pitsch wax suppliers will ship you a 1lb sample. They're very understanding and willing to help if you explain that you're attempting to make a device that you hope to replicate at a later time once it's perfected.

- jim

A few more sample images:

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/waxgrabs/bestwax.jpg

This one is a framegrab showing the wax inconsistencies that began to ruin my best wax attempts. As the wax layer began to get thinner and thinner, and I began to perfect the removal of bubbles, and used the refrigerator for a rapid cooling, these inconsistencies would lessen but never fully disappear. Having the wax finally bubble and hair free, and at the same time thin enough, these "smudges" were ultimately the problem I simply couldn't solve.

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/3micron0.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/3micron1.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/3micron2.jpg

Three shots using the 3 micron GG. You can see the grain, but it is an overall more consistent surface than the waxed glass, which I find a better trade-off. These images are frame-grabs from the timeline de-interlaced in PShop using "interpolate". They're less "grey" than the pervious images due to better lighting -- I generally try to shoot with poor-to-average lighting (natural light only or one 60w bulb in the room) to expose the weaknesses in whatever GG I'm testing. Under "ideal" conditions, many of these adapters look to produce great imagery -- and I find that deceiving.

I have some outdoor, really sunny stuff that I'll post later.

- jim

True, true! (especialy clips on the net), but that's till you get to see it first hand........ your images look good though. (too bad sometimes we still have to pan/tilt and dam' life just don't stay still...lol.... is just crazy...(;-)<

OK, here are some outdoor sunny shots:

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micr...n-outside0.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micr...n-outside1.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micr...n-outside2.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micr...n-outside3.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micr...n-outside4.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micr...n-outside5.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micr...n-outside6.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micr...n-outside7.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micr...n-outside8.jpg

All flipped and de-interlaced only -- no CC work done to them.

Though, on that note, I've noticed that a mild Color Curves, bringing the blacks closer to absolute black, gets a lot of the graininess of footage gone. You really don't notice it much in the highs.

- jim

Very nice pics (all)!!!. Some texture on some (in the soft areas), but....hey! If we look back at images posted 6mo-1year or so ago....... we've come a loooong way. You definitely can use this one.

Welcome back Keith. I got you started on the anamorphics and you got me started on the wax.

Jim, those images are surprisingly good for a static, non-wax GG. In post you can also try a slight gray diffusion so reduce the contrast of the grain.

So, the round wax glass I posted today (http://s01.picshome.com/a48/filterwax.jpg) wasn't perfect, but after remelting it was as good as Paraffine can get I think. A totally even layer of wax without any bubbles or dust. And the easiest method so far.
I tried to contact candle making shops today for microcrystalline, but without luck (biggest one was closed on Friday)
Here are some results with the new GG:

http://doublecam.250free.com/wax/wax.html (takes time to load)

The boot and the Rollei are shot with very low light. You can see the grain of the wax varies very much with lighting conditions. You can call it deceiving(which it is in a way), but if there are simple settings to be learned, than that's just something to deal with, like lighting techniques for film.
Look at the shot of the sky, almost no grain, that makes me wonder.

For those interested, I looked up the company that makes the magifying visors that I got my condenser lenses from. Here's a link:

http://www.doneganoptical.com/catalog/opti/

I saw the achromats, but did not see the condensers - it is somewhere else?

So, two days later, the wax GG still holds...no cracks, dust or bubbles! My theory to keep the wax on the sides of the GG (like this: http://s01.picshome.com/a48/filterwax.jpg) turns out to be true.
This GG took me about ten minutes to make.

I use a macro tube as lens mount and two thin condensers. I post a pic of the setup on my wax site: http://doublecam.250free.com/wax/wax.html
Tomorrow I'll start looking for microcrystalline wax again (in stead of Paraffine).

yeah, ten minutes to make....on top of MONTHS of work in perfecting the technique...The images are beautifull. Bravo Oscar! Now..., work on "someone's hair"...(hehehe)so we can see the resolution!(and leave the cat out of it)....rotf

Oscar,

Sorry if I've missed this, but what cam are you shooting with?

- jim

For the tests I used a consumer Sony camcorder, not a bad one, but one CCD.
But I've developed (and discussed in a thread) a system with two identical camera's (the same Sony) filming two halfs of the 35mm frame on the GG.
In short: The camera's are placed on their sides. One camera films the left side of the GG, the other one is placed in 90 deg and shoots the right side of the GG through a mirror. Everything is syched by a remote.
Finally I put the footage together on the PC and end up with a 720 X 1040 image.

So...when I get this set again for the wax adapter, I'll post these higher res. footage.

I took note about this some time ago, very interesting idea, and I do not exactly know how you did the shutter speed, iris etc ... so both half look same... Watching also your prism... You are full of interesting ideas :) When I started with my movie, I was thinking about two things... Make it stereo or use 35mm adapter. Finally I decide to use 35mm, due the synchro problems between two cameras...
You are hardworking devil... I like it :)

Daves, you're quite a DOF devil yourself! Hard work, but what fun when it works, in the end...

I didn't shoot "someone's hair" just yet, but I put a frame-grab of the focusing pattern I use (letter size) on my site. And I shot my brother, he was asking for it... See the first three images below the setup image:
http://doublecam.250free.com/wax/wax.html

Good God! You sound like "Billy-the-kid" :cat's gone, brother's gone.. you'll be pretty soon alone! (;-)<
But the rez chart looks VERY GOOD!!!(I do not know if two innocent lives were worth it though...)

I'll shoot a girl tomorrow, for the hair I mean...I'll blame you Dan, you asked to work on "someone's hair". Better stop these jokes, before the FBI misread them.

EDIT: I forgot, I bought some new wax today, I'll start experimenting with that in the next few days.

No, no no... you got it backwards. Invite her to dinner first and you'll get all the hair you want (for the real shooting) I can bet she'll be delighted to play target!