Microcrystalline Wax Techniques?

Jim Lafferty · July 12th, 2005, 08:30 AM

That sounds like a lot of work to keep clean, get an even coating, and one of the right thickness. Thanks for the idea, though.

Frank Ladner · July 12th, 2005, 08:32 AM

John: That's a clever idea! I wonder if the thickness would be adequate enough, though. If someone tries it, please share your results!

Oscar Spierenburg · July 12th, 2005, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Lafferty

Quoting myself from another thread:
The downside is the appearance of small anamolies, which plague this project for me :(

- jim

Jim, what do you mean by small anamolies? Can describe it?

Jim Lafferty · July 12th, 2005, 09:32 AM

Yes... small variations in the surface of the wax. We're talking very very slight shifts in thickness in randomized patterns. You can get these kinds of things from a variety of problems -- oil on the surface of the glass (from your fingers); stratification from varied levels of cooling; or very small shifts in pressure between the glass at various points. I eliminated the first two. Can't seem to get past the last one while simultaneously working at a sufficiently thin layer of wax.

What you end up seeing in footage, and you can't see it clearly in static shots, is a subtle shift in exposure randomly across the frame. It really shows up if you pan across a brightly lit object, like the pages of an open book, or a white wall.

If you hold the filter at arm's length, you'd be hard-pressed to see these small variations -- but if you bring it closer to your eye and look through the wax at a light source, they show up pretty obviously as "shadows" across the wax's surface.

If you've got this problem solved, I'd be willing to offer you a fair amount of money to just make me a wax GG and ship it to me.

- jim

Oscar Spierenburg · July 12th, 2005, 06:03 PM

Jim, you are too close to just leave it... I think these irregularities in the wax most likely come from different melting or cooling times, or it could be the wax de-mixing. The last one I avoid by shacking the melted wax or vibrate it.
To get the best heating and cooling I wait some time after putting the first glass with filter in the wax. In the same time I heat up the other glass, because the wax must not cool down on the surface of the glass when I put the top glass in the wax.

Did you ever try to remelt the wax glass again (just a short time) to even out the surface?

Dan Diaconu · July 12th, 2005, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oscar Spier

Jim, you are too close to just leave it...

I second that! Giving up is nothing but a waste. (I wished I could offer practical help though....)

Jim Lafferty · July 13th, 2005, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Diaconu

I second that! Giving up is nothing but a waste. (I wished I could offer practical help though....)

I'm with you, but I've sort of tired of the exercise for the moment and am eyeball deep in unfinished work. So, time is limited.

And speaking of, I'm on my way to Montreal in the morning. A solidified pool of microwax with the latest attempt beneath the surface sits here, and it will have to wait for me to return to dig it out :)

Who knows, maybe I'll come back recharged.

- jim

Jim Lafferty · July 20th, 2005, 12:20 PM

Back from Canada and tried again today. Like I said: would you be willing to sell me one, Oscar? :D

Re-read your posts here and found that I've been omitting two details in my attempts: I haven't been heating the glass, and I haven't been pushing down on the glass with wooden tongs/spoon while the wax is liquid to squeeze the wax.

Tried heating the glass today -- even hotter than the melted wax -- dropped it into the melted wax without issue. Results are better, my best so far, but still off the mark enough to be worthless. Same fluctuations in the wax.

Re-heated the same wax and gave it a press with a wooden spoon. Cooling it now.

Also, I have been refrigerating mine and let it cool naturally today -- I guess that's a third difference in our techniques. It didn't solve the persistent issue, obviously.

- jim

Frank Ladner · July 20th, 2005, 12:31 PM

Jim:

These fluctuations you're seeing in the wax...can it be described as a sortof wavey pattern colored a bit differently than it's supposed to be? It could be due to multiple reheatings of the wax and introducing particles into the mix each time. ...or it could be due to the cooling.

I just know that I got my best results with a fresh batch. (Also with a clean pot each time.)

I was at Hobby Lobby recently and saw the "Do-It-Yourself Microwax Glass Kit for Videographers" but it was way too expensive. j/k ;-)

Oscar Spierenburg · July 20th, 2005, 05:39 PM

Jim, Frank could be right about that. Also, try to mix the wax several times before you drop the glass in by shaking it or like I did a view times, hold a electric razor or something against the side to vibrate it. Another reason (you probably already know) of differences in the wax is uneven cooling. I put the whole box on a cool (not cold) flat surface.

Looking at my wax glasses (micro and paraffin), they have those things you describe on the sides where the spacers are, but they are outside the frame area.

Is it nice, Montreal?

Jim Lafferty · July 21st, 2005, 09:51 AM

Well, I ran another test yesterday -- all I did was reheat the wax sandwich and press on it with a wooden spoon. The good news is that it shows that the source of my headaches is some sort of shift in pressure, not temperature or other problems. In other words, things came out looking near perfect. The only issue now is redoing the sandwich and pressing on it while it's still submerged in the wax. I'm hoping to find a flat faced, round piece of wood (piece off of a dowel) to press with so that I get an even dispersion of pressure across the surface of the glass.

The sandwich I did yesterday, not being in the wax at the time, when I pressed on it, the wax seeped out the sides. The wax that remained had no issues, looks perfectly uniform and thin, but there formed a small ring of little-to-no wax around where I'd placed the pressure. My hope is that this won't be a problem if the wax is given a chance to return.

As for Montreal, I loved it, especially since it's very much the antithesis to New York. There's a high value placed on leisure there, something I wish was more common in the States, and definitely more common in NYC. Life here is very pressing and rough for someone like myself, trying to split time between an average income and work week, and trying to endeavor "art" and all sorts of other pursuits (like this adapter). What started out as a trip from hell -- multiple delays of our flight, our only piece of checked luggage being sent to Puerto Rico, an absent host and an overflowing toilet -- turned out to be wonderful because the people and atmosphere were so open and genuinely friendly. There's a big hip-hop community there and overall the town has a sort of youthful chill-out energy. It's nice to see a place that plans around the natural environment instead of through it -- recycling "trashcans" on every street, wide bike paths, a fast, quiet subway, and little cars filled with generally curteous drivers. Plants and trees all over the place, and a crime-rate so low people generally leave their doors wide open and windows lifted over night. Oddly, though cell phones are commonly advertised and offered, I literally not once saw someone speaking on one -- must be some sort of implicit rule -- the sound of background chatter and noise in NYC is deafening by comparison.

Needless to say, a place in Europe might be a better home for my girlfriend and I.

- jim

Jim Lafferty · July 21st, 2005, 05:59 PM

OK. Now it's confirmed -- the pressure seems to make all the difference. Last one came out perfect but for some dust (I've re-used this wax several times). Using a fresh batch of wax now and should have final results tomorrow.

I gotta hand it to you Oscar, your technique takes a lot of the guesswork out.

I'm working with my wax and filters in an old Altoids tin and it's great :)

- jim

Aaron Shaw · July 21st, 2005, 06:22 PM

Quote:

I literally not once saw someone speaking on one -- must be some sort of implicit rule

Damn that does it. I'm moving to Canada. Sounds like a natural haven!

Oscar Spierenburg · July 21st, 2005, 06:26 PM

OK Jim, I hope it works for you. One thing I can say about the pressure is that I push the top glass with a piece of wood and try to move the it on the filter glass to get as much as I can. Maybe you can flip it up just a mm a view times.

I never been to Canada, although two very good friends of my father live there. A 'well known' director Pierre Falardeau and the actor Julien Poulin (Elvis Graton), both from Montreal. I got the same impression your describe about Canada from their films (or more their view on the US)

Dan Diaconu · July 21st, 2005, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron Shaw

Sounds like a natural haven!

hehehe.......

July 12th, 2005, 08:30 AM	#361
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	That sounds like a lot of work to keep clean, get an even coating, and one of the right thickness. Thanks for the idea, though. __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

July 12th, 2005, 09:32 AM	#364
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Yes... small variations in the surface of the wax. We're talking very very slight shifts in thickness in randomized patterns. You can get these kinds of things from a variety of problems -- oil on the surface of the glass (from your fingers); stratification from varied levels of cooling; or very small shifts in pressure between the glass at various points. I eliminated the first two. Can't seem to get past the last one while simultaneously working at a sufficiently thin layer of wax. What you end up seeing in footage, and you can't see it clearly in static shots, is a subtle shift in exposure randomly across the frame. It really shows up if you pan across a brightly lit object, like the pages of an open book, or a white wall. If you hold the filter at arm's length, you'd be hard-pressed to see these small variations -- but if you bring it closer to your eye and look through the wax at a light source, they show up pretty obviously as "shadows" across the wax's surface. If you've got this problem solved, I'd be willing to offer you a fair amount of money to just make me a wax GG and ship it to me. - jim __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

July 20th, 2005, 12:20 PM	#368
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Back from Canada and tried again today. Like I said: would you be willing to sell me one, Oscar? :D Re-read your posts here and found that I've been omitting two details in my attempts: I haven't been heating the glass, and I haven't been pushing down on the glass with wooden tongs/spoon while the wax is liquid to squeeze the wax. Tried heating the glass today -- even hotter than the melted wax -- dropped it into the melted wax without issue. Results are better, my best so far, but still off the mark enough to be worthless. Same fluctuations in the wax. Re-heated the same wax and gave it a press with a wooden spoon. Cooling it now. Also, I have been refrigerating mine and let it cool naturally today -- I guess that's a third difference in our techniques. It didn't solve the persistent issue, obviously. - jim __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

July 21st, 2005, 09:51 AM	#371
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Well, I ran another test yesterday -- all I did was reheat the wax sandwich and press on it with a wooden spoon. The good news is that it shows that the source of my headaches is some sort of shift in pressure, not temperature or other problems. In other words, things came out looking near perfect. The only issue now is redoing the sandwich and pressing on it while it's still submerged in the wax. I'm hoping to find a flat faced, round piece of wood (piece off of a dowel) to press with so that I get an even dispersion of pressure across the surface of the glass. The sandwich I did yesterday, not being in the wax at the time, when I pressed on it, the wax seeped out the sides. The wax that remained had no issues, looks perfectly uniform and thin, but there formed a small ring of little-to-no wax around where I'd placed the pressure. My hope is that this won't be a problem if the wax is given a chance to return. As for Montreal, I loved it, especially since it's very much the antithesis to New York. There's a high value placed on leisure there, something I wish was more common in the States, and definitely more common in NYC. Life here is very pressing and rough for someone like myself, trying to split time between an average income and work week, and trying to endeavor "art" and all sorts of other pursuits (like this adapter). What started out as a trip from hell -- multiple delays of our flight, our only piece of checked luggage being sent to Puerto Rico, an absent host and an overflowing toilet -- turned out to be wonderful because the people and atmosphere were so open and genuinely friendly. There's a big hip-hop community there and overall the town has a sort of youthful chill-out energy. It's nice to see a place that plans around the natural environment instead of through it -- recycling "trashcans" on every street, wide bike paths, a fast, quiet subway, and little cars filled with generally curteous drivers. Plants and trees all over the place, and a crime-rate so low people generally leave their doors wide open and windows lifted over night. Oddly, though cell phones are commonly advertised and offered, I literally not once saw someone speaking on one -- must be some sort of implicit rule -- the sound of background chatter and noise in NYC is deafening by comparison. Needless to say, a place in Europe might be a better home for my girlfriend and I. - jim __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

July 21st, 2005, 05:59 PM	#372
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	OK. Now it's confirmed -- the pressure seems to make all the difference. Last one came out perfect but for some dust (I've re-used this wax several times). Using a fresh batch of wax now and should have final results tomorrow. I gotta hand it to you Oscar, your technique takes a lot of the guesswork out. I'm working with my wax and filters in an old Altoids tin and it's great :) - jim __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

July 12th, 2005, 08:32 AM	#362
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	John: That's a clever idea! I wonder if the thickness would be adequate enough, though. If someone tries it, please share your results!

July 12th, 2005, 06:03 PM	#365
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	Jim, you are too close to just leave it... I think these irregularities in the wax most likely come from different melting or cooling times, or it could be the wax de-mixing. The last one I avoid by shacking the melted wax or vibrate it. To get the best heating and cooling I wait some time after putting the first glass with filter in the wax. In the same time I heat up the other glass, because the wax must not cool down on the surface of the glass when I put the top glass in the wax. Did you ever try to remelt the wax glass again (just a short time) to even out the surface?

July 20th, 2005, 12:31 PM	#369
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	Jim: These fluctuations you're seeing in the wax...can it be described as a sortof wavey pattern colored a bit differently than it's supposed to be? It could be due to multiple reheatings of the wax and introducing particles into the mix each time. ...or it could be due to the cooling. I just know that I got my best results with a fresh batch. (Also with a clean pot each time.) I was at Hobby Lobby recently and saw the "Do-It-Yourself Microwax Glass Kit for Videographers" but it was way too expensive. j/k ;-)

July 20th, 2005, 05:39 PM	#370
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	Jim, Frank could be right about that. Also, try to mix the wax several times before you drop the glass in by shaking it or like I did a view times, hold a electric razor or something against the side to vibrate it. Another reason (you probably already know) of differences in the wax is uneven cooling. I put the whole box on a cool (not cold) flat surface. Looking at my wax glasses (micro and paraffin), they have those things you describe on the sides where the spacers are, but they are outside the frame area. Is it nice, Montreal?

July 21st, 2005, 06:26 PM	#374
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	OK Jim, I hope it works for you. One thing I can say about the pressure is that I push the top glass with a piece of wood and try to move the it on the filter glass to get as much as I can. Maybe you can flip it up just a mm a view times. I never been to Canada, although two very good friends of my father live there. A 'well known' director Pierre Falardeau and the actor Julien Poulin (Elvis Graton), both from Montreal. I got the same impression your describe about Canada from their films (or more their view on the US)