Oscar,

Is the softness from the focus or the GG in the new pictures?

Leo, some of those pics were a bit soft (not the res chart or the boot), I think because of focusing on a tiny LCD, but they also look kind of gray because it was a rainy day.

Today I shot some better focused footage, ie. 'work on someone's hair' Dan said:
http://doublecam.250free.com/wax/wax.html
At the last shots the sun was going down so those have a bit of back light and grain.

Very nice Oscar, third pic shows sharp only on a central section, the rest going soft. Very nice. So.... are you happy now? What lens did you use?

Wow, you really have managed to get rid of the hotspot entirely! Great job on that especially with such a thin wax GG. I think the footage looks great Oscar!

Thanks. Dan, the third pic has such a small DOF because I used a macro ring to get closer. Of course I'm not happy Dan....no, seriously, I'm happy that I can work with this GG and I need to find the balance between the apertures on the adapter and the camcorder.

But to answer that question differently, I just bought some new wax...I think it's microcrystalline.
The lens I use is an old, but pretty good Minolta 58mm F 1.4.

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

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!

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...

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.

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.

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...

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

You are my man... Like your access to it. You are curious as me... How far can we push it and where are the limits :)

like I told ya; der aint no limits or.... better put: WE are the only limits.

This stuff is great!
 

I made a really, really rough wax projection screen for an adapter I built in about an hour. Here's my test footage (sorry to link to another forum):

http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread...485#post230485

I used beeswax.

Looks pretty good (or pretty ánd good)Matthew. Beeswax is about as fine as Paraffine. So did you use my method? I made this step by step guide today http://doublecam.250free.com/wax/wax2.htm Feel free to post the link on that tread.

I definitely dig your shots -- no apologies or qualifications needed.

I've got some time to myself in the coming week and I'll definitely be hitting the wax and make a go of Oscar's method. I'm planning on using a 46mm UV filter as the "internal" glass, with a 49mm filter kept in its ring.

Incidentally, you might find Oscar that, since you're melting such a large area of wax, you could lay the pieces of glass in the wax side-by-side, thereby using the wax to bring both pieces of glass to the same temp (rather than heating the glass separately). I've found in my experiments that so long as both pieces of glass got submerged in the wax for a bit of time, no stratification of the wax occured.

I also found it helpful, and I intend to try this again, to place the wax in the fridge to cool. At thinner progressions of the wax, this was indespensable.

I used a method very much like the one you described for my tests, then modified it to be almost exactly what you did once I saw your link.

I've also found putting wax in the refridgerator helps, but if you can keep it in one place while it melts and let it take its time, that can provide even better results.

If someone has trouble of dust in the wax layer, try spraying a large space around your work area with water (with a spray for plants or something) before you begin. I learned this when I painted parts of my car. You can even spay a bit of water on your clothes to fix the dust.

as an alternative (for those obsessed with quality) try the bathroom. Colse the door, turn on the shower hot, then cold, a few times till the room is full of steam. Wait for it to settle and the dust is gone! oh yeah, and do not open the door. (from... a working procedure about making a plastic window in the hrad drive's case www.overclockers.com)

It's going to be tough getting my oven in there :D

hmmm...tough indeed, but not impossible! a hose and shower in the kitchen?

I thought about parking my car in the shower when I wanted to paint it 'dust free', but I didn't even get it through the front door.
My microcrystalline is cooling down right now, it just a first test with my new wax, but who knows.

Oscar: where'd you get your circular glass cutter? Was it off eBay?

I don't have one. I wish I did. Keith Kline has one.
Until now I used clear lens filters.

Ah, ok -- the shots with square plates of glass in your latest tutorial were confusing.

Microwax is definitely many times finer than Paraffine. The glass I made today with the microwax is almost perfect. I just need to wait if some small bubbles on the sides that came from the epoxy (I learned you better wait 12 hours) don't expand the coming days. They are outside the frame area, so I hope it stays that way.
It was dark when I had a chance to test it, but I really can't see any grain so far.
I did a side by side test just to see the light loss. It's two stops for this one:
http://s01.picshome.com/4b4/dv-wax.jpg (Left> only the camcorder. Right> with wax)

One other shot (just before it was getting too dark outside)
http://s01.picshome.com/4b4/1.jpg

Anyway, I'll test this further tomorrow.

Also, don't forget about glass picture frames. I bought up a bunch of 50 cent circular frames which were around 50mm in size from a nearby Hobby Lobby store. My first couple of tries were with circular UV filters, but that can get expensive fast.

Oh my lord Oscar, that side by side is incredible!!! they look almost the same - you have reached the pinnacle I think. No light loss, it looks like - when can we see a night shot?

Where did you get the microwax? I have to get my hands on some....

Yep, I am going to get some myself!

I found it at a hobby store that sell lost of suppliers for candle making. In my country it's called micro-wax. I got micro-wax 'soft', but that's no problem, the melting point is high. I'll post some new shot's if I have a chance today.