Microcrystalline Wax Techniques?

Frank Ladner · September 16th, 2005, 08:48 AM

L O L !

Ha ha ha!!

Oscar Spierenburg · September 16th, 2005, 10:49 AM

I suggest a saucepan again...for the sardines I mean. Just a little bit of microwax will do on a small flame, unless they are really cheap sardines.

Oscar Spierenburg · September 27th, 2005, 04:44 PM

Last week, I was making myself some Plasticine for sculpting purposes. One of the ingredients was Vaseline which I was melting in a big pan. It struck me that although the Vaseline is very soft, it actually melts at a high temperature. So I was just thinking, did anyone ever try to use that in stead of microwax? (The microwax is very good, but I'm just curious)

Wayne Kinney · September 27th, 2005, 04:46 PM

Now you methion it oscar,
I tried it. Didnt post as i was too embarrised to say:D

Sadly, it does not diffuse the light at all. I even tried, get this, cooking lard.

I dont know, things we do in the name of experiementation, eh?:D

Wayne.

Oscar Spierenburg · September 27th, 2005, 04:58 PM

That's what I was afraid of, although it works when you just rub it on a piece of glass, like they do for photography sometimes.
Anyway, glad you already tried it Wayne, so I can spare my good reputation...

Matthew Wauhkonen · September 30th, 2005, 10:24 PM

I tried vaseline, too! I felt so dumb I didn't post results but I'm glad I'm not alone.

Tonight I tried some better microwax (ordered through some place online that claimed 4 dollars a pound but after random fees it was about 20 bucks). It's amazing how much better my results are. The grain at f1.4 with beeswax (which was borderline unacceptable to be honest) now looks like the grain at f5.6 or f8. The light transmission is worse since I did a sloppy job but I'm still really happy with my results and I know I could do better if I didn't have insane time restraints from school.

Anyhow, Oscar was right about light grain. Microwax rules and it's easy to work with.

I think I smell another DIY guide brewing since my old one has some pretty inaccurate information. Once I get some free time....that could be Christmas, though, unfortunately.

Matthew Wauhkonen · October 3rd, 2005, 01:43 PM

Wow, microwax is awesome. The last shot is OOF, and the soft edges are soft and vignetted because of my cheap achromat and sloppy construction. You can stop down surprisingly far without grain--this stuff is great. Also, this was shot mid-day so issues with "ghosting" or light leakage are pretty much none.

And this is with a very, very rough, sloppily made wax screen, too.

http://home.comcast.net/~kittyluv/35mm1.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~kittyluv/35mm2.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~kittyluv/35mm3.jpg

Wayne Kinney · October 3rd, 2005, 02:05 PM

Matthew,
Is this still using capilary action?

Wayne.

Matthew Wauhkonen · October 3rd, 2005, 02:29 PM

Yes, but I've changed two things:

Instead of using white microwax, I'm now using amber wax. For some reason, the grain is much finer. It's still much lighter than the beeswax I was using before and the grain is better than both beeswax and white microwax.

I'm using a thicker layer of wax. Light transmission is worse, but the contrast is more pleasing and grain is reduced as well. I can stop down quite far...I'm not sure how much of this is attributed to the new amber microwax and how much is due to it being a thicker layer.

I'd do more experiments, but I'm at school and don't get to go home very often: maybe once every three weeks or a month, and only for the weekend. This was my first time back in a month and I built the new focusing screen and some dolly track. To be honest, this isn't even that great a focusing screen since I made it sloppily and very quickly. The thickness isn't perfectly even, there is one strange cooling artifact at the very edge but it's only noticeable in some shots.

This is more of a test than anything, but already it's looking quite good. My next goal is to improve light transmission and pick up a better achromat.

And, yes, I still believe in capillary action. This microwax seems to melt around 200º or lower, and with glass that's heated to about 300º, I bet it would work very well. Unfortunately, that would require two toaster ovens, and I only have one...

Glen Hurd · October 3rd, 2005, 11:22 PM

In the interest of keeping this thread on the move . . .
I finally got a good ground glass together, with only a few flaws. I've posted a movie (12 mb for a minute, requiring QT7 for full display of all its little flaws.) http://homepage.mac.com/filmic36/adapter/
It begins with an f/16 shot at the sky, stopping down to f/1.2 There's a close-up portrait, for studying sharpness on hair and shallow DOF, also.
Gonna stop sweating the wax for now, and work on getting an adapter that can at least line up the lens with the camera!
The PCX is a $4 lens I bought at surplushed, so lots of chromatic aberration, and such. I'm just not there yet.
Comments welcome, of course.
Glen

Jim Lafferty · October 7th, 2005, 06:03 PM

Good to see someone's keeping the embers burning. I'm eyeball deep in work and haven't had time to give my wax experiments their proper due. When some time opens up you can be sure I'll check in and report -- I have fresh supplies just waiting for such an occasion :)

Matthew Wauhkonen · October 7th, 2005, 06:14 PM

http://home.comcast.net/~kittyluv/random.mov

Glen Hurd · October 7th, 2005, 08:35 PM

Good to see you're still kicking, Jim.
Matthew, the color and contrast look great. I'm surprised there's not more excitement about the wax adaptors. Maybe it's the light-loss issues? When you say you're losing a couple stops with your adapter, is that just with the ground glass alone, or does that include the whole setup with lens?
Any color-correction on this? Shadows look great.
Glen

Oscar Spierenburg · October 8th, 2005, 04:41 PM

Glen, the light-loss is not an issue at all. 1 or 2 F-stops. With good condensers to spread the light (and capture the highlights that go through the wax), you can make the wax layer as thin as one strip of aluminum foil.

Matthew Wauhkonen · October 8th, 2005, 06:56 PM

I don't know about "one or two stops." I mean, you have to zoom in pretty far and that coupled with the condenser means you lose at least a stop even before the glass comes into play.

I lose maybe 2.5-3 but the wax is quite thick. With thinner wax, I could see 2 stops of light loss, which is VERY reasonable.

October 7th, 2005, 06:03 PM	#506
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Good to see someone's keeping the embers burning. I'm eyeball deep in work and haven't had time to give my wax experiments their proper due. When some time opens up you can be sure I'll check in and report -- I have fresh supplies just waiting for such an occasion :) __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

September 16th, 2005, 08:48 AM	#496
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	L O L ! Ha ha ha!!

September 16th, 2005, 10:49 AM	#497
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	I suggest a saucepan again...for the sardines I mean. Just a little bit of microwax will do on a small flame, unless they are really cheap sardines.

September 27th, 2005, 04:44 PM	#498
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	Last week, I was making myself some Plasticine for sculpting purposes. One of the ingredients was Vaseline which I was melting in a big pan. It struck me that although the Vaseline is very soft, it actually melts at a high temperature. So I was just thinking, did anyone ever try to use that in stead of microwax? (The microwax is very good, but I'm just curious)

September 27th, 2005, 04:46 PM	#499
Wayne Kinney Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 938	Now you methion it oscar, I tried it. Didnt post as i was too embarrised to say:D Sadly, it does not diffuse the light at all. I even tried, get this, cooking lard. I dont know, things we do in the name of experiementation, eh?:D Wayne.

September 27th, 2005, 04:58 PM	#500
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	That's what I was afraid of, although it works when you just rub it on a piece of glass, like they do for photography sometimes. Anyway, glad you already tried it Wayne, so I can spare my good reputation...

September 30th, 2005, 10:24 PM	#501
Matthew Wauhkonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 285	I tried vaseline, too! I felt so dumb I didn't post results but I'm glad I'm not alone. Tonight I tried some better microwax (ordered through some place online that claimed 4 dollars a pound but after random fees it was about 20 bucks). It's amazing how much better my results are. The grain at f1.4 with beeswax (which was borderline unacceptable to be honest) now looks like the grain at f5.6 or f8. The light transmission is worse since I did a sloppy job but I'm still really happy with my results and I know I could do better if I didn't have insane time restraints from school. Anyhow, Oscar was right about light grain. Microwax rules and it's easy to work with. I think I smell another DIY guide brewing since my old one has some pretty inaccurate information. Once I get some free time....that could be Christmas, though, unfortunately.

October 3rd, 2005, 01:43 PM	#502
Matthew Wauhkonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 285	Wow, microwax is awesome. The last shot is OOF, and the soft edges are soft and vignetted because of my cheap achromat and sloppy construction. You can stop down surprisingly far without grain--this stuff is great. Also, this was shot mid-day so issues with "ghosting" or light leakage are pretty much none. And this is with a very, very rough, sloppily made wax screen, too. http://home.comcast.net/~kittyluv/35mm1.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~kittyluv/35mm2.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~kittyluv/35mm3.jpg

October 3rd, 2005, 02:05 PM	#503
Wayne Kinney Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 938	Matthew, Is this still using capilary action? Wayne.

October 3rd, 2005, 02:29 PM	#504
Matthew Wauhkonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 285	Yes, but I've changed two things: Instead of using white microwax, I'm now using amber wax. For some reason, the grain is much finer. It's still much lighter than the beeswax I was using before and the grain is better than both beeswax and white microwax. I'm using a thicker layer of wax. Light transmission is worse, but the contrast is more pleasing and grain is reduced as well. I can stop down quite far...I'm not sure how much of this is attributed to the new amber microwax and how much is due to it being a thicker layer. I'd do more experiments, but I'm at school and don't get to go home very often: maybe once every three weeks or a month, and only for the weekend. This was my first time back in a month and I built the new focusing screen and some dolly track. To be honest, this isn't even that great a focusing screen since I made it sloppily and very quickly. The thickness isn't perfectly even, there is one strange cooling artifact at the very edge but it's only noticeable in some shots. This is more of a test than anything, but already it's looking quite good. My next goal is to improve light transmission and pick up a better achromat. And, yes, I still believe in capillary action. This microwax seems to melt around 200º or lower, and with glass that's heated to about 300º, I bet it would work very well. Unfortunately, that would require two toaster ovens, and I only have one...

October 3rd, 2005, 11:22 PM	#505
Glen Hurd Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Burlington, NJ Posts: 59	In the interest of keeping this thread on the move . . . I finally got a good ground glass together, with only a few flaws. I've posted a movie (12 mb for a minute, requiring QT7 for full display of all its little flaws.) http://homepage.mac.com/filmic36/adapter/ It begins with an f/16 shot at the sky, stopping down to f/1.2 There's a close-up portrait, for studying sharpness on hair and shallow DOF, also. Gonna stop sweating the wax for now, and work on getting an adapter that can at least line up the lens with the camera! The PCX is a $4 lens I bought at surplushed, so lots of chromatic aberration, and such. I'm just not there yet. Comments welcome, of course. Glen

October 7th, 2005, 06:14 PM	#507
Matthew Wauhkonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 285	http://home.comcast.net/~kittyluv/random.mov

October 7th, 2005, 08:35 PM	#508
Glen Hurd Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Burlington, NJ Posts: 59	Good to see you're still kicking, Jim. Matthew, the color and contrast look great. I'm surprised there's not more excitement about the wax adaptors. Maybe it's the light-loss issues? When you say you're losing a couple stops with your adapter, is that just with the ground glass alone, or does that include the whole setup with lens? Any color-correction on this? Shadows look great. Glen

October 8th, 2005, 04:41 PM	#509
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	Glen, the light-loss is not an issue at all. 1 or 2 F-stops. With good condensers to spread the light (and capture the highlights that go through the wax), you can make the wax layer as thin as one strip of aluminum foil.

October 8th, 2005, 06:56 PM	#510
Matthew Wauhkonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 285	I don't know about "one or two stops." I mean, you have to zoom in pretty far and that coupled with the condenser means you lose at least a stop even before the glass comes into play. I lose maybe 2.5-3 but the wax is quite thick. With thinner wax, I could see 2 stops of light loss, which is VERY reasonable.