We do not want some more shots... We saw enough already ! (rotf)

Speak for yourself.

The previous post was clearly a joke, Jim (as a paraphrase to an earlier similar comment I guess)
The image is awesome by all means (vigneting I think is still a bit visible though, but you guys are there...) Show us till it hurts no mo... ;'-(<

So this is my own "guerrilla35 war". (their 'static gg' footage really triggered me) Dan, your right about the vignetting, I went to a photo equipment shop, but couldn't find the center grad filter. Try some other shops this week.

I shot allot of today with only the sunlight coming from the windows. Until now, also with a smaller aperture on the camcorder I don't see any grain from the microwax. In movements maybe you could notice some vage still structure, but it could just as well be something on the monitor glass.

Sorry Daves, here are some frames from the footage:
http://doublecam.250free.com/wax/microwax/
I'm happy with the fruit shots, because they were shot with just a little light from a window 4 meters away.

Looks good Oscar. Are you finding that closure the iris is combating the grain problem, but in contrast, causing the problem of alot of light loss?

Yes. You are definitely like me. When I was building my adapter, I take it also as my little personal war against everything what I saw before... Simply, I just wanted to have best image OR at least have one of the best... lol... And I am happy to left most of expensive adapters behind me... So understand you very well, wish you luck (even if you do not need it), and hope you got my previous joke...

I got your joke Daves and like to repeat Jim: Speak for yourself. I was about to cry Haalleeluujaah, but than again, I didn't oscillate anything.
Leo, <<<Are you finding that closure the iris is combating the grain problem, but in contrast, causing the problem of allot of light loss?>>>
No, I meant that even the closure the iris doesn't give any noticeable grain(which would normally be the case). I have about 1 or 2 stops light loss, which is no problem.

You either need to buy a smaller car or use a faster speed.

No, I'll just wax my car with micro-wax so I don't need to paint it, Bill.

After some outdoor shots I am happy with the results. No grain (seriously), only some vage still structure because the small aperture due to allot of sunlight. I'm thinking maybe with sunlight a gray filter would give a better result because the camcorders aperture would be bigger. Maybe on the adapter or on the camcorder. Any thoughts?

Oscar,
First: Leave the car and the cat out of this.... (for now)
Second: In an "ideal" (subject to defining ideal) world, the light would be just right for every scene and no one would even notice some "structure" due to less than "required" light + certain camcorder's behaviour at less than required light.
Untill that happens, I have noticed quite a few times a patern using the camcorder alone (no IMAGE CONVERTER) It happened in less than ideal light. Noise? AGC? Ugly for sure! So.... I think what you have is as good as it could be for the real world. Seeking perfection is a life and health ruining road. It never ends for nothing is perfect and "only perfect can create perfect" (how could an imperfect creature do a perfect "thing" or job?)......
Third: If you add an ND filter (purchase or home made)on the SLR lens you will only cut down the light reaching the screen. Camcorder's iris will open to compensate. But this way, the 'WHATEVER' structure might become more visible. I would keep the SLR lens wide open (no filters) and
1) use an ND filter on the camcorder's lens (to keep the iris open)(althought I did not understand why?) or
2) increase the shutter speed (for the same puropse) or
3) while keeping the iris open on camcorder (using ND or shutter speed) manual focus A TOUCH soft on the screen. See what happens. I loved the
FX. Not consistent though and subject to each scene readjusting focus..... but nice.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Your site seems to be 404.

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

Oscar,

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

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)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Condenser
 

Hey guys. I've been working on some other gear and still trying to get my garage/workshop clean out. I'm planning on ordering a few things from surplusshed.com I was thinking about trying to add a condensor lens or two to use with a micro wax gg. Does anyone have any clue what I should be looking for. Would I want a DCX lens or DCV or ?? I have no clue about that stuff. If anyone might know what focal length and what type of lens would work that would help a lot.

Hey Keith,
I use two thin condensers which are flat on one side so you can put them right on the GG. Frank told me to do something like that, but you can also see the Movie Tube patent page showing the exact same setup (with wax too)
The thing is, the condensers captures the whole image (not only spread the light) only without the DOF. But this enables you to make the wax layer very very thin, so you get a sharp bright image.
Did you notice my step by step wax page? http://members.chello.nl/a.schultzev...g/wax/wax2.htm

Okay i see what you mean do you know what those type of condensors are called? I know like DCV and DCX lenses are curved on both sides. Not sure what the type are that are flat on one face.

I've been following your updates on the wax. Glad to see you found some micro wax. I'm gonna give your steps a try this weekend. I got some glass left over from before, plus I have about 5-10 sets of circular glass lenses I cut a few weeks back and Might give those a try. I'm trying to figure out a way to adapt your technique to use with the circular glass.

Flat on one side is called plano convex or PCX. I've tried a couple from Optosigma. I found if I put an 80mm focal length PCX between the lens and GG I got blurring of the image towards the edges. At the moment I've got GG PCX PCX camcorder like |)( It still has a little barrel distortion and chromatic aberration so I'm going to try 120mm focal length next (50mm diameter).

What diameter are your condensers Oscar? How thick are they? The 80mm focal length I have is about 13mm thick, longer focal length = thinner and less distortion, but possibly less hotspot correction.

What do you use for the second piece of glass when using a filter? Do you take that glass from another filter?

The lenses I use are not 'real' condensers I think, but maybe that's why they work so well. I took one from a super8 camera and the other one from a broken telephoto lens. They are both about 40mm in diameter and not more than 5mm thick.
Matthew, I used the glass of a smaller filter.

Interesting discovery....

...a thin layer of vaseline makes a sharp focusing screen with no appreciable light loss. But wow...the hot spot sucks and so does the static image.

Any pictures Matthew of what the vaseline looks like?

OK, but I would not use something that is too soft already. Also I wouldn't try to solve the light-loss issue with a different wax type, because the micro-wax at thinnest layer (in relation to the hotspot) gives just 1 stop light-loss.

One important thing I found out this week. I couldn't do anything because it's so terribly hot here this week (The Netherlands) that it's officially a heatwave.
Doing nothing didn't give me no results, in stead it proved that the wax (all of the test glasses too) holds perfectly in hot summer conditions. No melting, other deformations or whatever.

That's good news - I know that I wondered if it would melt under the hot sun - no melting at all? No running or dripping?

No, the wax doesn't even get softer, so there is no issue on that part.

It will get softer and melt if you leave it exposed to extreme conditions at length. The melting point of S&P's wax is 96 degrees -- under most conditions it will be OK, but put it inside a black box or metal tube, then sit that in your trunk on an outting on a hot day and you'll get into trouble.

My microwax framegrabs and test footage are now located here:

http://70.147.193.182/mwtest

Download times on the larger files may be a bit slower, as we have switched from a T1 to DSL and the upstream is reduced.

Quoting myself from another thread:

Well, on the positive side, there are no bubbles or dust on this thing. The downside is the appearance of small anamolies, which plague this project for me :(

I\'m thinking perhaps I need to place some weight ontop of the glass while it solidifies in order to even them out, but until then my results aren\'t worthwhile.

- jim

just a thought, may have been mentioned, but have you tried just letting the wax vapour condense on a glass plate?

hold a glass filter about 2inch above a tin of hot wax and let the condensed wax form a few molecules thick?

- move it about before its sets for even coverage.