|
|
|
|
|
August 31st, 2005, 04:46 AM
|
#436 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium)
Posts: 735
|
Bill, we have a very friendly termite who died twenty years ago at the age of 80, so don't think to much of your town.
Say, I'm back in The Netherlands and suddenly we have a brand new IKEA in my own little city. Must be a direct order from Rumsfeld to put a new base here. I'm going to rearrange my lenses today and see if I can get a better image from my adapter. |
|
|
|
August 31st, 2005, 07:11 AM
|
#438 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 749
|
Matthew, I think they look pretty good. The grain isn't terrible, but maybe Oscar has a tip on how to get it to a more acceptable level for you.
|
|
|
|
|
August 31st, 2005, 07:47 AM
|
#439 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 285
|
Thanks for the encouragement. I think they look pretty good, too, only once I stop down to f2.8, the grain becomes way too apparent. The first half are a bit blurry due to camera movement, by the way.
I think my main issue is that I'm using beeswax, since microwax is probably a lot better. Only, the microwax I'm using now gives me more grain than beeswax. I'm not really sure why and I don't want to buy another 10 pounds of another kind when it may very well have similar issues. Regarding methodology, I'm still using capillary action and still having my best luck with it. To be honest, I think the main advantage to Oscar's approach is that by allowing the wax to solidify while submerged in more wax, slow and even cooling is guaranteed. If a reliable cooling method were found for capillary action, it would be much faster and more efficient in terms of wax use. I still think Oscar's approach is probably the most consistant, although I just use capillary action, then submerge the glass after it's filled with wax since it's faster for me. Then again, I have no patience, which may be why I'm having issues with the quality of my wax screen. If anyone knows what brand of microwax they're using that works well for them, I would greatly appreciate the info. |
|
|
|
|
August 31st, 2005, 07:54 AM
|
#440 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium)
Posts: 735
|
Matthew, your pictures prove to me again that wax gives the most beautiful image, like the G35, you get nice colors.
I think it's not pure microwax, because it should react the same way as beeswax, but only give a finer grain. I hope you now understand my reluctance (mildly put)on selling wax without allot of testing. Bill....I just found out IKEA is from Sweden, looks like you only have coca cola, you know the Statue of Liberty is French? EDIT: I have a local Belgium brand 'De Banier' so that's of no use. It's soft microwax. |
|
|
|
|
August 31st, 2005, 08:46 AM
|
#441 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 285
|
What I bought was definitely pure microwax, and microwax with very typical properties according to the spec sheet I read. It's a shame it was grainy since it was very easy to work with and provided much more consistant results than beeswax. I can quote the exact brand name (which I forget but could look up) but it's a company that makes a lot of varieties of microwax so I expected better. I agree that I should have done more research before selling, though, and I'm not offering it anymore since it appears to have more grain than is generally considered acceptable (although for a moving adapter it would be pretty good since it produces very nice colors and is sufficiently contrasty).
Bill, you seem to have microwax that's good and availible in the US. Where did you find it and what variety is it? My adapter is so close to being done, and this is the one thing holding up its progress. Oh well, I'm returning to school in a week and that will basically put my entire life on hold. As for wax being the best focusing screen, I'd agree. To my eye, the mini35 always appeared to produce washed out shadows, and the G35 seemed to be much nicer than the Micro35. However, the M2 (or whatever the updated micro35 is) seems to produce very nice images and uses what is being described as a grain-free, light-loss-free screen. It's probably not microwax, but I bet it has similar properties, which result in drastically improved images. In fact, for $500, I may just go ahead and buy one.... |
|
|
|
|
August 31st, 2005, 09:05 AM
|
#442 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ventura, California, USA
Posts: 751
|
Oscar,
French?? That one is a bit much to swallow. Next you'll be trying to tell me American fare like hamburgers and frankfurters come from Germany. I think you may be mistaken about IKEA. In fact I am sure of it: Every one I have been in, all the signs and labels are in English. |
|
|
|
|
August 31st, 2005, 04:28 PM
|
#443 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium)
Posts: 735
|
OK, but Coca Cola sounds a bit Japanese doesn't it, anyway, Heineken is a terrible Dutch beer, don't make no mistake about that. By the way Bill, what are you working on, a wax adapter?
Matthew, I never used microwax (only beeswax and Paraffin) in a vertical setup, but it could be the reason for the grain. I stopped using a variant of capillary action because it seemed the wax was de-mixing or something by the gravity or the long heating. To me it's essential to use the horizontal setup, an idea I got from Dan Diaconu by the way (he mentioned flipping the glass somewhere). Too fast cooling can also create grain and maybe there is a difference in soft and hard microwax. |
|
|
|
|
September 3rd, 2005, 05:24 PM
|
#444 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burlington, NJ
Posts: 59
|
Oscar, your technique works -- for some reason I had to use a sardine can -- but it worked the best of any combination I've tried. However, my biggest hurdle now is getting control of dust, dirt, 1 or 2 small bubbles. So, I took a gamble and have spent the last three weeks slowly building an enclosed system out of a big plastic (clear) storage container -- rubber gloves fitted into the side, lexan window on top, ventilation off one side. I thought that would take care of the dust. But it introduced a few other problems -- clumsiness, making sure the wax is clean to start with, clumsiness, glass pieces sliding apart, clumsiness LOL. . . but I'm still pushing forward.
I am in love with how the wax handles light, and won't quit until I either succeed (no grain, little light loss), or fail (unacceptable grain, too much light loss). I'd seen one of your posts about controlling dust by working in the bathroom, and the shower hot enough to drown the dust, but my bathroom wouldn't work, so I went with the small "nuclear-reactor" type enclosed device ;) It was worth the chance that it might give me more control. Thanks for your help and inspiration, G |
|
|
|
|
September 4th, 2005, 05:26 AM
|
#445 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium)
Posts: 735
|
Somehow I didn't have dust, but I don't know why. I was just working in the kitchen. But there are ways to get the dust out. The best way is to spray allot of water in the air (with a cheap spray for plants or something) until the dust drops down with the water. Also spray a bit on your clothes and hands.
Another thing that might help is to blow off the dust on the glass with those things you use in a photography darkroom. Besides the clumsiness, that enclosed box is a not a bad idea. What makes it clumsy? Something else that I forgot one time was to clean the knife with which I cut the wax. |
|
|
|
|
September 4th, 2005, 04:18 PM
|
#446 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burlington, NJ
Posts: 59
|
Maybe you work faster than I do - no time for the dust to be an issue. One thing that has probably effected my own efficiency is that I don't glue my aluminum foil strips down, so I end up having to keep them aligned and properly placed while trying to get the glass disks lined up. I guess I'm paranoid about glue affecting the wax later on -- creating bubbles or discoloration, etc. I now have a little contraption that holds the foil in place, while manipulating the glass layers, but I'm doing everything with gloves on -- inside a plastic box. So that's why I'm finding it a little clumsy right now -- frying pan, wax, glass layers, aluminum strips. But if I can get this to work, I should be able to get perfect results everytime, since I should be getting rid of a lot of uncontrolled parameters. At least, that's my hope ;) I'll keep you updated.
G |
|
|
|
|
September 4th, 2005, 05:59 PM
|
#447 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium)
Posts: 735
|
Yes, it sounds like no one should ring the door when you are busy, but it still sounds like a good idea.
Your right about the glue, if you don't leave it alone for a day, it will give some irregularities and bubbles, but in my case they stay outside the area of the projected image. But glue makes it much easier. Anyway, don't forget to leave the wax on the edge of the glass, otherwise you'll get cracking wax later on. All glasses I made that way can be dropped on the floor and things like that and stay perfect. |
|
|
|
|
September 4th, 2005, 11:41 PM
|
#448 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burlington, NJ
Posts: 59
|
That's something I haven't done, making one piece smaller than the other. Is that really necessary? I've been cutting identical pieces, and just let the wax come out around the edges. Some of my older wax pieces have so many bubbles and stuff in them that I wonder how long any of this will last!Do you seal the wax with something after getting a perfect one, to keep it pure inside?
|
|
|
|
|
September 5th, 2005, 01:01 PM
|
#449 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium)
Posts: 735
|
Making the glass in different sizes is the easiest way I came up with to leave enough wax at the edges. This way the wax seals itself. It really is crucial to leave the wax there to protect it from air coming in, but it's also very handy when you have to reheat the glass.
|
|
|
|
|
September 10th, 2005, 10:49 PM
|
#450 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burlington, NJ
Posts: 59
|
OK, I finally got a wax piece that was clear enough to continue with building an adaptor. Here's the link to a short clip (QT7). http://www.dropdeadgorges.com/QTTest/Adaptor2.mov
Still see plenty of grain, not to mention an air bubble (lower left corner) and dust. Used two PlanoConvex lenses, sandwiching the ground glass as (|GG|) and a couple of diopters on my DVX100. Still lots of vignetting. I cut out a 35mm (slide) sized mask and glued it to the GG so when I zoom in, I can set it to an actual 35mm profile. You can see the scissors marks on the mask on the top of the picture. This wax is tough, but I'm definitely making progress (thanks, again, Oscar for all your encouragement). Lens is a Nikon 50mm at f/1.2, btw. Now I gotta go back to making more wax GGs until I solve the grain problem. But the vignette on this looks pretty bad. Is everyone else trying for a 35mm picture area, or are some zooming in until it just looks clear? Sure'd be nice to have some standards here, while we compare results. Still a heck of a lot of fun . . . G |
|
|
|
 |
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
