Microcrystalline Wax Techniques?

Jim Lafferty · July 22nd, 2005, 12:58 PM

Things with this new wax look damn good but not perfect yet. Grrrr. So close...

Still seeing very minor "smudges" in the wax -- it looks like a subtle smudge on the lens if I didn't know better. They're only really perceptible if I'm panning across a white, or brightly lit/colored surface, but they're there. I have no idea if a pair of condensors will "iron" these out. I do know they're a result of needing greater, even pressure displaced across the glass' surface while the wax is still liquid, though. I'm going to work on a setup, possibly with a c-clamp, sometime over the weekend.

On a related note, Oscar -- what are you using for spacers again? Foil and epoxy or something else?

I've taken some test footage and I'll see if I have the time to post frame-grabs tonight or by Sunday. Good news is that I gain a stop with the wax versus the 3 micron a-ox -- scenery that looks good in f/3.4 at 1/60th with the wax needs f/2.6 with the ground glass.

- jim

Oscar Spierenburg · July 22nd, 2005, 02:12 PM

Good to hear it's going the right way. Yes, aluminium foil glued on the top glass with epoxy, really pushed on the glass. Terrible to do, because you can't spoil the epoxy, or clean it immediately with aceton. But it's the only thing I could find that doesn't give those bubbles in the wax. You have to wait some hours at leased though.
A condenser is very important in my opinion. I learned about the two condensers from Frank and later found it back in the design of the MovieTube. You can also clearly see the effect (like glowing highlights)of the condenser in the Guerrilla35 footage.

Jim Lafferty · July 22nd, 2005, 04:00 PM

Frank,

Was wondering about your footage (shot labelled "MicrowaxAdapter_shot_02_24p_720x480.avi") -- are you using condensors in this shot? What kind of cam is it again?

I'm asking because I'm looking over my latest footage now and there's still considerably more grain than in your shot, despite the fact that my sandwich is separated by one layer of Scotch tape :/

- jim

Oscar Spierenburg · July 24th, 2005, 05:35 AM

Jim, were did you find that footage anyhow, Franks homepage is empty. Is it possible to post a frame-grab or two, I remember that I could never play those files of Frank because of my slow connection or something. I'm very curious to his results.
I wonder if this thread is going to be crowded now that Matthew is selling microwax to everyone in another thread.

Jim Lafferty · July 24th, 2005, 07:25 AM

http://70.147.193.182/mwtest

It was switched up recently. He's got frame grabs there, as well, though they come across slowly even on my connection (cable, broadband). It's officially the high-water mark in my mind :)

Oscar Spierenburg · July 24th, 2005, 10:21 AM

Ah...I've seen those some time ago, when I didn't know what I was looking at. I see the 'grain' is the same as mine, the difference is the camera. I used a consumer camcorder on my tests.
I'll put a new wax glass in my double camcorder system in the coming weeks, in which two (consumer) camcorders film the image in two halves and create a 720x1080 image.

Bill Porter · July 24th, 2005, 10:42 AM

Oscar,

How do you get rid of the line down your double-camera image, anyway? I saw a basic reference to how you did it, in another thread.

Matthew Wauhkonen · July 24th, 2005, 10:49 AM

You mentioned in another thread the use of vacuum pumps. That seems like a pretty good idea, actually, to ensure that no air bubbles (even very small ones) get in.

Next week I'm going to buy some microscope slides (cheap, made of decent glass, very thin, guaranteed to have a very even surface since they're viewed under extreme magnification) and cut them down from 1''X3" to 1''X2'' (23mmX46mm) using a glass cutter. Then, I'll use Oscar's method except that I'll put them in a vacuum pump and allow them to solidify while in a vacuum. Then, I'll cut the edeges out with a heated x-acto knife and clean the wax off the top and bottom. Hopefully this will be pretty reliable and (since slides are cheap) very inxpensive as well.

Oscar Spierenburg · July 24th, 2005, 10:53 AM

One camcorder shoots through a mirror. That mirror is put at some distance from the GG so it will create an overlap area between the left and the right part of the frame.
Than I put a 'feathered' mask on the overlap area in post.
This makes it more clear.
Maybe I'll dig up my old thread on this when I start to work on it again.

Matthew Wauhkonen · July 24th, 2005, 04:59 PM

If anyone wants to delete my thread on this, they can. I should have posted here instead.

I got capillary action working and it seems to be pretty simple and give incredibly even results, although I was surprised to see grain from the wax when I was hoping for none (or at least less). The results appear to be almost identical to Oscar's method (although less refined--this is a first attempt) with a few minor flaws that resulted from me removing the the screen instead of letting it cool in the wax. The wax is also thicker than I'd like, but I'm going to use thinner spacers for my next attempt. Also, about 1/4'' of the glass gets a layer of wax on it and the rest stays clean, which is pretty nice. One could conceivably make a large batch all at once, too, which is an advantage and it's really fast to make and pretty easy. The one problem is that you basically need to use rectangular glass, so circular glass is not an option.

Does anyone know where to buy thin sheets of glass? I wanted to buy microscope slides, but their dimensions are 22mmX66mm when I'd prefer something along the lines of 75mmX40mm.

I'll post pics later. (Of the diffuser, not footage, since I used random shards of glass which woudln't fit into an adapter. Trust me, I tried.)

Oscar Spierenburg · July 24th, 2005, 05:41 PM

With respect (really), you are starting all over again. I developed my method because Jim and Frank were using capillary action at first(see the beginning of this thread), which didn't work out well enough. I tried a variation myself and then moved on to a horizontal setup. Have you actually tried what I described on my site? It's not difficult nor messy. If it does not work for you every time, you are doing something different. There are numerous little things that are crucial for a good result.

Matthew Wauhkonen · July 24th, 2005, 06:17 PM

Capillary aciton works well for me, but I'll try your method as well and compare. I'm curious (re-reading the thread) what the problem with it was. The only thing I can think of is that if it cools ouside the wax, cracks could theoretically form, but slow cooling would prevent this.

Oscar Spierenburg · July 25th, 2005, 10:30 AM

It's not that one technique works and another doesn't work. It's just that you probably won't be able to solve those little problems using Capillary action. Trust me, I've been working on this for months, I don't see the point in trying the same things again.
And don't forget that if your wax layer is too thick, not only the light loss is too much, but the image wouldn't be as sharp as can be.

Frank Ladner · July 25th, 2005, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Lafferty

Frank,

Was wondering about your footage (shot labelled "MicrowaxAdapter_shot_02_24p_720x480.avi") -- are you using condensors in this shot? What kind of cam is it again?

I'm asking because I'm looking over my latest footage now and there's still considerably more grain than in your shot, despite the fact that my sandwich is separated by one layer of Scotch tape :/

- jim

Jim: In the "02_24p_720x480" shot, I didn't use any condensers. I think the only clip in the bunch that was shot with condensers is the one called MicrowaxAdapter_Test_Condenser.mpg, which I shot to test out a new condenser setup.

They were all shot with a Canon GL2 in frame mode. The 24p ones were converted with Twixtor in After Effects.

The main reason for lack of grain in some of my footage is likely due to thickness. (I tended to use thicker spacers.)

There is a balance somewhere in there...

If it's too thin, you have hotspot and more visible grain. Too thick and you have a diffused / soft image that isn't bright enough.

Somehow if you can get it thick enough to distribute the light more evenly and be more grain-free, but also of acceptable brightness...that's what you want.

Donnie Wagner · July 25th, 2005, 01:51 PM

In polymer chemistry and metallurgy, faster cooling leads to smaller crystalline structures (or smaller "grains") and vis-versa. I assume the rules apply to wax. Has someone tried a rapid cool down step with an ice bath or nitrogen?

July 22nd, 2005, 12:58 PM	#376
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Things with this new wax look damn good but not perfect yet. Grrrr. So close... Still seeing very minor "smudges" in the wax -- it looks like a subtle smudge on the lens if I didn't know better. They're only really perceptible if I'm panning across a white, or brightly lit/colored surface, but they're there. I have no idea if a pair of condensors will "iron" these out. I do know they're a result of needing greater, even pressure displaced across the glass' surface while the wax is still liquid, though. I'm going to work on a setup, possibly with a c-clamp, sometime over the weekend. On a related note, Oscar -- what are you using for spacers again? Foil and epoxy or something else? I've taken some test footage and I'll see if I have the time to post frame-grabs tonight or by Sunday. Good news is that I gain a stop with the wax versus the 3 micron a-ox -- scenery that looks good in f/3.4 at 1/60th with the wax needs f/2.6 with the ground glass. - jim __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

July 22nd, 2005, 04:00 PM	#378
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Frank, Was wondering about your footage (shot labelled "MicrowaxAdapter_shot_02_24p_720x480.avi") -- are you using condensors in this shot? What kind of cam is it again? I'm asking because I'm looking over my latest footage now and there's still considerably more grain than in your shot, despite the fact that my sandwich is separated by one layer of Scotch tape :/ - jim __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

July 24th, 2005, 07:25 AM	#380
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	http://70.147.193.182/mwtest It was switched up recently. He's got frame grabs there, as well, though they come across slowly even on my connection (cable, broadband). It's officially the high-water mark in my mind :) __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

July 24th, 2005, 04:59 PM	#385
Matthew Wauhkonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 285	Capillary action! If anyone wants to delete my thread on this, they can. I should have posted here instead. I got capillary action working and it seems to be pretty simple and give incredibly even results, although I was surprised to see grain from the wax when I was hoping for none (or at least less). The results appear to be almost identical to Oscar's method (although less refined--this is a first attempt) with a few minor flaws that resulted from me removing the the screen instead of letting it cool in the wax. The wax is also thicker than I'd like, but I'm going to use thinner spacers for my next attempt. Also, about 1/4'' of the glass gets a layer of wax on it and the rest stays clean, which is pretty nice. One could conceivably make a large batch all at once, too, which is an advantage and it's really fast to make and pretty easy. The one problem is that you basically need to use rectangular glass, so circular glass is not an option. Does anyone know where to buy thin sheets of glass? I wanted to buy microscope slides, but their dimensions are 22mmX66mm when I'd prefer something along the lines of 75mmX40mm. I'll post pics later. (Of the diffuser, not footage, since I used random shards of glass which woudln't fit into an adapter. Trust me, I tried.)

July 22nd, 2005, 02:12 PM	#377
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	Good to hear it's going the right way. Yes, aluminium foil glued on the top glass with epoxy, really pushed on the glass. Terrible to do, because you can't spoil the epoxy, or clean it immediately with aceton. But it's the only thing I could find that doesn't give those bubbles in the wax. You have to wait some hours at leased though. A condenser is very important in my opinion. I learned about the two condensers from Frank and later found it back in the design of the MovieTube. You can also clearly see the effect (like glowing highlights)of the condenser in the Guerrilla35 footage.

July 24th, 2005, 05:35 AM	#379
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	Jim, were did you find that footage anyhow, Franks homepage is empty. Is it possible to post a frame-grab or two, I remember that I could never play those files of Frank because of my slow connection or something. I'm very curious to his results. I wonder if this thread is going to be crowded now that Matthew is selling microwax to everyone in another thread.

July 24th, 2005, 10:21 AM	#381
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	Ah...I've seen those some time ago, when I didn't know what I was looking at. I see the 'grain' is the same as mine, the difference is the camera. I used a consumer camcorder on my tests. I'll put a new wax glass in my double camcorder system in the coming weeks, in which two (consumer) camcorders film the image in two halves and create a 720x1080 image.

July 24th, 2005, 10:42 AM	#382
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	Oscar, How do you get rid of the line down your double-camera image, anyway? I saw a basic reference to how you did it, in another thread.

July 24th, 2005, 10:49 AM	#383
Matthew Wauhkonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 285	You mentioned in another thread the use of vacuum pumps. That seems like a pretty good idea, actually, to ensure that no air bubbles (even very small ones) get in. Next week I'm going to buy some microscope slides (cheap, made of decent glass, very thin, guaranteed to have a very even surface since they're viewed under extreme magnification) and cut them down from 1''X3" to 1''X2'' (23mmX46mm) using a glass cutter. Then, I'll use Oscar's method except that I'll put them in a vacuum pump and allow them to solidify while in a vacuum. Then, I'll cut the edeges out with a heated x-acto knife and clean the wax off the top and bottom. Hopefully this will be pretty reliable and (since slides are cheap) very inxpensive as well.

July 24th, 2005, 10:53 AM	#384
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	One camcorder shoots through a mirror. That mirror is put at some distance from the GG so it will create an overlap area between the left and the right part of the frame. Than I put a 'feathered' mask on the overlap area in post. This makes it more clear. Maybe I'll dig up my old thread on this when I start to work on it again.

July 24th, 2005, 05:41 PM	#386
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	With respect (really), you are starting all over again. I developed my method because Jim and Frank were using capillary action at first(see the beginning of this thread), which didn't work out well enough. I tried a variation myself and then moved on to a horizontal setup. Have you actually tried what I described on my site? It's not difficult nor messy. If it does not work for you every time, you are doing something different. There are numerous little things that are crucial for a good result.

July 24th, 2005, 06:17 PM	#387
Matthew Wauhkonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 285	Capillary aciton works well for me, but I'll try your method as well and compare. I'm curious (re-reading the thread) what the problem with it was. The only thing I can think of is that if it cools ouside the wax, cracks could theoretically form, but slow cooling would prevent this.

July 25th, 2005, 10:30 AM	#388
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	It's not that one technique works and another doesn't work. It's just that you probably won't be able to solve those little problems using Capillary action. Trust me, I've been working on this for months, I don't see the point in trying the same things again. And don't forget that if your wax layer is too thick, not only the light loss is too much, but the image wouldn't be as sharp as can be.

July 25th, 2005, 01:51 PM	#390
Donnie Wagner Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 135	In polymer chemistry and metallurgy, faster cooling leads to smaller crystalline structures (or smaller "grains") and vis-versa. I assume the rules apply to wax. Has someone tried a rapid cool down step with an ice bath or nitrogen?