Microcrystalline Wax

Frank Ladner · June 18th, 2004, 08:54 AM

Rai: I see what you're saying. Thanks!

Josh Brusin · June 19th, 2004, 11:07 AM

I was thinking that in pressing them together while submerged you'd get a pretty impossibly thin layer in there. Creating a gap and having the hot wax fill it would be tough as it would have to be really hot and fill it evenly. Also even on a hothothot day such a thin layer between glass would never come out. make sure you don't get any crapola in there with the wax... (though it may be too thin) I need to get to the studio and move my pieces to the new place (3 weeks ago... mind you)and I'll have a look. I do have a very creamy parrafin mix that might serve video well. I would immediately thhink that pure white would be the best but the way that video handles bright white.... hmmm... white balance nightmare maybe.

Rai Orz · June 19th, 2004, 12:00 PM

No, pure white can not work, because it will reflected the light only. Pure white is the best for a projection on a wall, but the purposea of a GG is that as much as possible light must pass through it.
The manufacturer, who I know, had many years experimented with all possible Wax prescriptions. But the best comes with 90% transparent parafin with only 10% pure white wax from bees in it. I work together with this manufacturer, and i tested many diffent modells. It came with the same quality like the P + S models. I tested the original too, of course. Check the way to fill the wax in, with hot wax, it works. Capillary attraction pushes the wax up.

Josh Brusin · June 19th, 2004, 12:58 PM

what Rai said... sounds like he knows his wax.

Frank Ladner · June 19th, 2004, 09:58 PM

I agree - Rai does sound like he knows his wax.

I was thinking that microcrystalline was the best bet due to not having any noticeable grain. So parafin wax has no particles or whatever in it that would show up in the footage? (This microcrystalline stuff is the first wax I've ever worked with.)

Is parafin wax wax something you can pick up at a craft store, or is it more of a specialty thing that has to be ordered?

Thanks!

Josh Brusin · June 19th, 2004, 10:35 PM

how about some white dinner candles? they just may work.

Bob Hart · June 19th, 2004, 11:38 PM

WAX.

I did a bit of a web look last night.

White paraffin wax is fairly easily found in larger hardware stores.

White (bleached) beeswax is apparently a wood crafting thing and is used to make up special wood finishes. Larger hardware stores may have it. Specialty wood hobbyist centres might, or have leads as to where to find it.

It is also sold as a cosmetic ingredient in a shredded form, probably more expensive this way.

(One could always try to bleach ear wax I guess but there is a problem with volume production of that commodity so I don't think I will go there.)

IMAGE ERECTORS.

Does anyone know how a slide copier works? Would this be an option for image erection for the ALDU35? My vague understanding of these is that they work in a 1:1 magnification but I dont know if the slide goes in upside-down or correct way up.

They may have a specific camera mount and replace the lens or may be an add-on for the front of a lens - maybe both. Whilst the mounts may be in the wrong order, the internals might lens themselves to the image erection sought if the appliance does invert the image of the slide.

Frank Ladner · June 20th, 2004, 08:10 PM

Bob: Earwax - Ha ha ha!

Josh: I may try some regular dinner candles since they are readily available.

Here are my first test images with microcrystalline coated glass:

http://www.frankladner.com/testpics3.htm

Obin Olson · June 20th, 2004, 08:44 PM

guys this is VERY cool, do you think it would work with HD? I am building an HD camera and would LOVE to have 35mm lenses on the front with a static GG but the grain is going to show in HD way more then dv

Rob LaPoint · June 20th, 2004, 09:34 PM

Here is an idea that I have had for awhile. Do the same thing that you guys are doing where you project an intermediate image and then film it with a dv camera. The only difference is to film the image with two cameras side by side, each camera filming one half the image. So what you would get would be video of the left side and right side of the intermediate seperatly, which could then be combined in post to get something very close to a high resolution 2.35 aspect ratio. It would require a small up-res but would be alot closer than native DV. Anyway that was an idea of mine that I probably dont have time to pursue so do with it whatver you like.

Rob L

Frank Ladner · June 20th, 2004, 09:40 PM

Obin: This wax is supposed to have microscopic grain, so I would think it might work.

This will sound sortof wacky, but I thought once about placing my 35mm adapter in front of a SLR and taking a picture. This way, I'd get a high-res view of what my DV camera is seeing, helping me determine how big the grain really is, etc. If the grain doesn't show up in this microcrystalline glass on film, then it would work with HD, I imagine.

I believe that through careful handling of the wax, someone could create a high-quality, grainless solution. I would really like to see some HD tests!

,Frank

Frank Ladner · June 20th, 2004, 09:45 PM

Rob: I have heard of just shooting with two cameras side by side, which creates difficulty in combining the footage due to view distortion and the footage not matching side-by-side correctly

...BUT...

Your idea sounds more doable, since the image is right there in front of the two cameras and there wouldn't be a lot of calibration and stuff involved.

I wonder how the cameras would have to be turned (ie. pointing inwards?) in order to pick up the two sides of the image...

Pretty good idea, though! I'm all for anything to get more resolution out of SD cameras.

,Frank

Rob LaPoint · June 21st, 2004, 02:59 PM

Yeah i originally tried two cameras side by side but the lenses had to be soooooo long before you could match the two images up because of the physics of wide angle. I have tried filming a photograph with two cameras and the image matches up perfectly. The biggest annoyance of the whole thing is that you loose so much light to begin with, plus you have to zoom in even closer on the projected image that after you get a 35mm lense and GG solution that will actually give you a noticably clearer image at that level of zoom its just not worth it for an HD frame in 4:1:1 color space. Personally I am just going to wait for guys like Obin or Silicon Imaging to use a native HD sensor.

Obin Olson · June 22nd, 2004, 11:24 AM

anyone care to make me a wax GG and I will do some tests and post what it looks like in HD from my uncompressed HD camera? I will even pay for all the stuff to make it with..I just don't know that much about wax but some of you on the board do....anyone?

Les Dit · June 22nd, 2004, 11:40 AM

Obin, I'm making a micro orbiting type of mount. It is motor powered. I plan on making a parts kit available for the setup, where the user provides the substrate that needs to be set in motion.
-Les

<<<-- Originally posted by Obin Olson : anyone care to make me a wax GG and I will do some tests and post what it looks like in HD from my uncompressed HD camera? I will even pay for all the stuff to make it with..I just don't know that much about wax but some of you on the board do....anyone? -->>>

June 20th, 2004, 09:34 PM	#25
Rob LaPoint Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Pavilion, USA Posts: 64	Here is an idea that I have had for awhile. Do the same thing that you guys are doing where you project an intermediate image and then film it with a dv camera. The only difference is to film the image with two cameras side by side, each camera filming one half the image. So what you would get would be video of the left side and right side of the intermediate seperatly, which could then be combined in post to get something very close to a high resolution 2.35 aspect ratio. It would require a small up-res but would be alot closer than native DV. Anyway that was an idea of mine that I probably dont have time to pursue so do with it whatver you like. Rob L __________________ Whatever works

June 21st, 2004, 02:59 PM	#28
Rob LaPoint Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Pavilion, USA Posts: 64	Yeah i originally tried two cameras side by side but the lenses had to be soooooo long before you could match the two images up because of the physics of wide angle. I have tried filming a photograph with two cameras and the image matches up perfectly. The biggest annoyance of the whole thing is that you loose so much light to begin with, plus you have to zoom in even closer on the projected image that after you get a 35mm lense and GG solution that will actually give you a noticably clearer image at that level of zoom its just not worth it for an HD frame in 4:1:1 color space. Personally I am just going to wait for guys like Obin or Silicon Imaging to use a native HD sensor. __________________ Whatever works

June 18th, 2004, 08:54 AM	#16
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	Rai: I see what you're saying. Thanks!

June 19th, 2004, 11:07 AM	#17
Josh Brusin Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 439	I was thinking that in pressing them together while submerged you'd get a pretty impossibly thin layer in there. Creating a gap and having the hot wax fill it would be tough as it would have to be really hot and fill it evenly. Also even on a hothothot day such a thin layer between glass would never come out. make sure you don't get any crapola in there with the wax... (though it may be too thin) I need to get to the studio and move my pieces to the new place (3 weeks ago... mind you)and I'll have a look. I do have a very creamy parrafin mix that might serve video well. I would immediately thhink that pure white would be the best but the way that video handles bright white.... hmmm... white balance nightmare maybe.

June 19th, 2004, 12:00 PM	#18
Rai Orz Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Germany Posts: 136	No, pure white can not work, because it will reflected the light only. Pure white is the best for a projection on a wall, but the purposea of a GG is that as much as possible light must pass through it. The manufacturer, who I know, had many years experimented with all possible Wax prescriptions. But the best comes with 90% transparent parafin with only 10% pure white wax from bees in it. I work together with this manufacturer, and i tested many diffent modells. It came with the same quality like the P + S models. I tested the original too, of course. Check the way to fill the wax in, with hot wax, it works. Capillary attraction pushes the wax up.

June 19th, 2004, 12:58 PM	#19
Josh Brusin Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 439	what Rai said... sounds like he knows his wax.

June 19th, 2004, 09:58 PM	#20
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	I agree - Rai does sound like he knows his wax. I was thinking that microcrystalline was the best bet due to not having any noticeable grain. So parafin wax has no particles or whatever in it that would show up in the footage? (This microcrystalline stuff is the first wax I've ever worked with.) Is parafin wax wax something you can pick up at a craft store, or is it more of a specialty thing that has to be ordered? Thanks!

June 19th, 2004, 10:35 PM	#21
Josh Brusin Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 439	how about some white dinner candles? they just may work.

June 19th, 2004, 11:38 PM	#22
Bob Hart Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA. Posts: 4,476	WAX. I did a bit of a web look last night. White paraffin wax is fairly easily found in larger hardware stores. White (bleached) beeswax is apparently a wood crafting thing and is used to make up special wood finishes. Larger hardware stores may have it. Specialty wood hobbyist centres might, or have leads as to where to find it. It is also sold as a cosmetic ingredient in a shredded form, probably more expensive this way. (One could always try to bleach ear wax I guess but there is a problem with volume production of that commodity so I don't think I will go there.) IMAGE ERECTORS. Does anyone know how a slide copier works? Would this be an option for image erection for the ALDU35? My vague understanding of these is that they work in a 1:1 magnification but I dont know if the slide goes in upside-down or correct way up. They may have a specific camera mount and replace the lens or may be an add-on for the front of a lens - maybe both. Whilst the mounts may be in the wrong order, the internals might lens themselves to the image erection sought if the appliance does invert the image of the slide.

June 20th, 2004, 08:10 PM	#23
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	Bob: Earwax - Ha ha ha! Josh: I may try some regular dinner candles since they are readily available. Here are my first test images with microcrystalline coated glass: http://www.frankladner.com/testpics3.htm

June 20th, 2004, 08:44 PM	#24
Obin Olson Trustee Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Wilmington NC Posts: 1,414	guys this is VERY cool, do you think it would work with HD? I am building an HD camera and would LOVE to have 35mm lenses on the front with a static GG but the grain is going to show in HD way more then dv

June 20th, 2004, 09:40 PM	#26
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	Obin: This wax is supposed to have microscopic grain, so I would think it might work. This will sound sortof wacky, but I thought once about placing my 35mm adapter in front of a SLR and taking a picture. This way, I'd get a high-res view of what my DV camera is seeing, helping me determine how big the grain really is, etc. If the grain doesn't show up in this microcrystalline glass on film, then it would work with HD, I imagine. I believe that through careful handling of the wax, someone could create a high-quality, grainless solution. I would really like to see some HD tests! ,Frank

June 20th, 2004, 09:45 PM	#27
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	Rob: I have heard of just shooting with two cameras side by side, which creates difficulty in combining the footage due to view distortion and the footage not matching side-by-side correctly ...BUT... Your idea sounds more doable, since the image is right there in front of the two cameras and there wouldn't be a lot of calibration and stuff involved. I wonder how the cameras would have to be turned (ie. pointing inwards?) in order to pick up the two sides of the image... Pretty good idea, though! I'm all for anything to get more resolution out of SD cameras. ,Frank

June 22nd, 2004, 11:24 AM	#29
Obin Olson Trustee Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Wilmington NC Posts: 1,414	anyone care to make me a wax GG and I will do some tests and post what it looks like in HD from my uncompressed HD camera? I will even pay for all the stuff to make it with..I just don't know that much about wax but some of you on the board do....anyone?

June 22nd, 2004, 11:40 AM	#30
Les Dit Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Southern Cal-ee-for-Ni-ya Posts: 608	Obin, I'm making a micro orbiting type of mount. It is motor powered. I plan on making a parts kit available for the setup, where the user provides the substrate that needs to be set in motion. -Les <<<-- Originally posted by Obin Olson : anyone care to make me a wax GG and I will do some tests and post what it looks like in HD from my uncompressed HD camera? I will even pay for all the stuff to make it with..I just don't know that much about wax but some of you on the board do....anyone? -->>>