Microcrystalline Wax Techniques?

Matthew Wauhkonen · October 30th, 2005, 07:19 PM

$7700 is "around" 10 grand.

Bill Porter · October 30th, 2005, 07:22 PM

No, it's 3/4 of the way there. Let me guess, you are packing "around" 10 inches, right?

Glen Hurd · November 1st, 2005, 07:20 AM

For you wax die-hards, I've made a few more changes to my adapter, which is now a bayonet-mounted system, less than 4" in length. I have pictures here http://homepage.mac.com/filmic36/adapter/index.html.
I'm losing around .7 stops of light through the adapter itself, and my DVX fills frame at Z64 (although my trip to the beach movie was shot at Z60).
So, I'm losing around 1/2 stop in the video camera, because of the needed zoom. Still got some vignetting going on . . . have to experiment more with that :(
Grain is still apparent on some shots, but I feel good about the progress. I've got some serious yellow glowing on my son's shirt at the beach. Am I correct in blaming the achromatic lens for this? It'll probably be the last thing I fix . . . I want to build a rail to support the 500 mm lens first :)

Glen

Alexandre Lucena · November 1st, 2005, 10:46 AM

Glen

I believe the glowing in the yellow shirt is caused by the limited "latitude" that
is the capacity a camera has to deal with light and dark areas of a frame.
I also noticed a white glow in the white walls of some houses in the back ground. Your family video has encouraged me to give MCW a try.

Matthew Wauhkonen · November 2nd, 2005, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Porter

No, it's 3/4 of the way there. Let me guess, you are packing "around" 10 inches, right?

More like 10 inches around.

(Kidding, but that was seriously uncalled for anyhow.)

Any way you look at it, $7,700 is a lot of money, and a whole lot more than the cheaper alternatives. (Although it's probably a better product, to be fair, and competitive with the mini35, which I feel is worth the price.)

Bill Porter · November 2nd, 2005, 02:03 PM

It is a lot of money, but it's important to be accurate. There's already a lot of dogma presented as fact, for example, "We know that G35 uses microwax."

Don't feel bad, mine is only two and a half inches,

thick.

Alexandre Lucena · November 2nd, 2005, 03:36 PM

Do you guys agree that top noch off the shelf achromat and condenser
a well home built MCW and a CNC machined black anodized tube and rods
would cost around 1 grand ?

Matthew Wauhkonen · November 2nd, 2005, 04:12 PM

One grand.

In diameter!

Apparently the G35 has "$200" worth of optics (from the horse's mouth.) How much could the anodized tube cost? Maybe 100...the mount? another 20? The profit margin is insane, but I'll give the guys credit: they put a lot of effort into designing the thing. Although someone could probably make something similar and sell it for $300, there market isn't big enough to support a low margin venture like that. So while $1000 is way too expensive, if it works (which the M2 doesn't--ghosting) then I'll encourage their efforts all the way.

Oscar Spierenburg · November 2nd, 2005, 06:52 PM

Double post

Oscar Spierenburg · November 2nd, 2005, 06:56 PM

Hold on to your keyboard and/or mouse....here's what I spent so far: (mid. quality optics, wax, tube etc.)

€ 8,50

I know it's a bit of a joke, but if you are just making one or two adapters, you can find real quality parts for free or really cheap. And I didn't plan on doing this as cheap as possible, I just have everything lying around.

If you buy everything new that I put in my adapter, it'll be a couple of hundred dollars, like Matthew wrote.

Bill Porter · November 2nd, 2005, 08:01 PM

I don't think the profit is that great and I don't think $1,000 is too expensive. Their "ground glass" (well, whatever it is), as I recall, costs around $500. I don't think it's just some microwax sandwiched between two pieces of glass.

Also you haven't factored in their research costs, development costs, or patent and patent attorney costs - and ignoring paying themselves for their work. Let's say for example they have spent a paltry $25,000 to date, the units cost them around $750 just for the hardware (not counting assembly labor or paying anyone to handle all the sales and aftersale phone/web work), and they sell 500 adapters over the course of two years at $1000 per.

That means once they earn back their $25,000 outlay, Jon and Douglas each make a whopping $25,000 a year at a job where you work 12 hours a day, plus weekends keeping up on the forums and emails, and don't have any job security, benefits, or package. But to top it off, they have to make decently-sized production runs of the machined parts, and do quantity buys of the optics and ground glass, to get acceptable pricing. Let's say they make 25 units at a time. That's another $18,750 they have to front.

That's if everything goes as planned. If a supplier is out of something, or the supplier's equipment breaks, etc, and there are delays, these boys don't get paid, period. Can't sell that you don't have.

So, no, thanks. I prefer a higher paying job with all the fringes and I get to go home after a day's work and not be responsible for everything.

P.S. I can now make an okay static adapter for a pretty low price. But is my uncompressed footage as good as G35 footage? Nope. And I spent a lot of money trying different bits and pieces on the way to this point - and a lot of time. My time is worth something. Sometimes I don't want to get involved, I just want to pay someone who has already spent their own time becoming an expert. This is why many people use mechanics for their cars for doctors for their ailments - they attended school and we pay them for that, rather than us trying to learn it ourselves.

I know for a fact that a lot of people in video production do NOT want to visit dvinfo (as great as it is for those of us here) or screw around learning how to make an adapter and get it tuned just right. They will peel off a thousand or thirteen hundred bucks and not think twice about it. Companies like P+S and Guerilla35 and Movietube are not marketing to most people who even read the forums. They are going to sell to the people who want to buy their product, not the people who are going to try to steal their engineering by reading the patent and trying to DIY.

Oscar Spierenburg · November 3rd, 2005, 06:52 AM

OK OK Bill, maybe it was €12.-
Like I said, <if you are just making one or two adapters, you can find real quality parts for free or really cheap.>
If I (or Jim or Frank) would want to make a product out of this thing, it will cost allot more to find the same parts. Of course we all know why these pro adapters and things are so expensive, that's why we have this forum. It's accent has changed the last year because more and more people are producing these things and sell them here, which is fine too, but something tells me if it's growing too big, if patents are violated too easily, it will become lots of trouble. What do you think Bill?

Rafael Lopes · November 3rd, 2005, 07:53 AM

I think it's great that there's so many people "breaking patents" and doing their own stuff. And I really hope that somebody can come out with cheaper and cheaper ways to overcome all the technical flaws of conventional DV. Not everybody can afford 1000$ adapters and 6000$ cameras. I know some extremely creative people who would be able to do wonders if they just had the chance to use the right equipment. As for my self, I know that I had to work hard to buy all my stuff. Of course I would rather have an AG-HV200 than a Gl2! Of course I would rather have a G35 than a Letus35! But hey, tough luck. That's life and I'm very very glad that AT LEAST we have these cheaper alternatives. If I had the money I'd be using the best there is (even though this is kind of relative) but right now I'm very thankful to all of those who were willing to "break the patents" and make the "poor mens' " life a bit easier. THANK YOU! ;)

Jonathan Houser · November 3rd, 2005, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rafael Lopes

right now I'm very thankful to all of those who were willing to "break the patents" and make the "poor mens' " life a bit easier. THANK YOU! ;)

I think someone needs to chime in here. There is a HUGE misconception in the DIY crowd in regards to patents. In many cases this Alternative-imaging forum goes over the line (as grey as it may be). Patents are put into place to protect inventors and their ideas. Patents are good. Regardless of how much an inventor charges for their device, they have a right to protect it. When developers step over the line by not researching current patents and their claims, and release a product in order to make a quick buck, that is when things turn ugly for everyone. The "Poor mens" don't benefit when larger companies start throwing lawsuits around.

Cheers,

Jonathan-

Bill Porter · November 3rd, 2005, 12:56 PM

Not to sound like a G35 cheerleader but I have wholeheartedly agreed for a long time. Without patents to protect the inventors, few would invent because their money and work would then be ripped off by companies with the money to hamstring them. This is why medical patents are so much more protective than other patents - we may WANT product innovation so we can have our G35's and motorized seat belts and all other patented devices, but we NEED medical innovation. The best way to create that is to reward the inventors by protecting them.

I used to own a manufacturing business (including in-house R&D) in a completely different industry than cameras/video/etc. For years we were the leaders and pushed the field forward technologically by giant steps with our products. Then the big companies started cloning my stuff. Some even had the audacity (read: lack of morals) to claim they invented it! I tired of this and stopped developing. As a result, the industry screeched to a halt and there was literally no change in the product lines on the market for about five years(!). People would call and beg to get "just one" of the unreleased products which we had stopped development on. But why should I? I was sick of using my own money to be "my competition's R&D department."

So I hope G35 guys and P+S and Hoodman and everybody else who spent money and time and attorney fees to get patents, make enough money to create more innovative products for me to consume.

Oscar, hehe- I was talking about the math in the post before yours, not your post. It probably WAS € 8,50. But at one point or another you did pay for all the stuff you had laying around. However, you probably bought it at IKEA so it was probably a good buy.

November 1st, 2005, 07:20 AM	#543
Glen Hurd Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Burlington, NJ Posts: 59	Back to wax ;) For you wax die-hards, I've made a few more changes to my adapter, which is now a bayonet-mounted system, less than 4" in length. I have pictures here http://homepage.mac.com/filmic36/adapter/index.html. I'm losing around .7 stops of light through the adapter itself, and my DVX fills frame at Z64 (although my trip to the beach movie was shot at Z60). So, I'm losing around 1/2 stop in the video camera, because of the needed zoom. Still got some vignetting going on . . . have to experiment more with that :( Grain is still apparent on some shots, but I feel good about the progress. I've got some serious yellow glowing on my son's shirt at the beach. Am I correct in blaming the achromatic lens for this? It'll probably be the last thing I fix . . . I want to build a rail to support the 500 mm lens first :) Glen Last edited by Glen Hurd; November 1st, 2005 at 09:10 AM.

November 1st, 2005, 10:46 AM	#544
Alexandre Lucena Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 56	Yellow glowing Glen I believe the glowing in the yellow shirt is caused by the limited "latitude" that is the capacity a camera has to deal with light and dark areas of a frame. I also noticed a white glow in the white walls of some houses in the back ground. Your family video has encouraged me to give MCW a try.

November 2nd, 2005, 03:36 PM	#547
Alexandre Lucena Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 56	less than 1 grand Do you guys agree that top noch off the shelf achromat and condenser a well home built MCW and a CNC machined black anodized tube and rods would cost around 1 grand ?

October 30th, 2005, 07:19 PM	#541
Matthew Wauhkonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 285	$7700 is "around" 10 grand.

October 30th, 2005, 07:22 PM	#542
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	No, it's 3/4 of the way there. Let me guess, you are packing "around" 10 inches, right?

November 2nd, 2005, 02:03 PM	#546
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	It is a lot of money, but it's important to be accurate. There's already a lot of dogma presented as fact, for example, "We know that G35 uses microwax." Don't feel bad, mine is only two and a half inches, thick.

November 2nd, 2005, 04:12 PM	#548
Matthew Wauhkonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 285	One grand. In diameter! Apparently the G35 has "$200" worth of optics (from the horse's mouth.) How much could the anodized tube cost? Maybe 100...the mount? another 20? The profit margin is insane, but I'll give the guys credit: they put a lot of effort into designing the thing. Although someone could probably make something similar and sell it for $300, there market isn't big enough to support a low margin venture like that. So while $1000 is way too expensive, if it works (which the M2 doesn't--ghosting) then I'll encourage their efforts all the way.

November 2nd, 2005, 06:52 PM	#549
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	Double post

November 2nd, 2005, 06:56 PM	#550
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	Hold on to your keyboard and/or mouse....here's what I spent so far: (mid. quality optics, wax, tube etc.) € 8,50 I know it's a bit of a joke, but if you are just making one or two adapters, you can find real quality parts for free or really cheap. And I didn't plan on doing this as cheap as possible, I just have everything lying around. If you buy everything new that I put in my adapter, it'll be a couple of hundred dollars, like Matthew wrote.

November 2nd, 2005, 08:01 PM	#551
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	I don't think the profit is that great and I don't think $1,000 is too expensive. Their "ground glass" (well, whatever it is), as I recall, costs around $500. I don't think it's just some microwax sandwiched between two pieces of glass. Also you haven't factored in their research costs, development costs, or patent and patent attorney costs - and ignoring paying themselves for their work. Let's say for example they have spent a paltry $25,000 to date, the units cost them around $750 just for the hardware (not counting assembly labor or paying anyone to handle all the sales and aftersale phone/web work), and they sell 500 adapters over the course of two years at $1000 per. That means once they earn back their $25,000 outlay, Jon and Douglas each make a whopping $25,000 a year at a job where you work 12 hours a day, plus weekends keeping up on the forums and emails, and don't have any job security, benefits, or package. But to top it off, they have to make decently-sized production runs of the machined parts, and do quantity buys of the optics and ground glass, to get acceptable pricing. Let's say they make 25 units at a time. That's another $18,750 they have to front. That's if everything goes as planned. If a supplier is out of something, or the supplier's equipment breaks, etc, and there are delays, these boys don't get paid, period. Can't sell that you don't have. So, no, thanks. I prefer a higher paying job with all the fringes and I get to go home after a day's work and not be responsible for everything. P.S. I can now make an okay static adapter for a pretty low price. But is my uncompressed footage as good as G35 footage? Nope. And I spent a lot of money trying different bits and pieces on the way to this point - and a lot of time. My time is worth something. Sometimes I don't want to get involved, I just want to pay someone who has already spent their own time becoming an expert. This is why many people use mechanics for their cars for doctors for their ailments - they attended school and we pay them for that, rather than us trying to learn it ourselves. I know for a fact that a lot of people in video production do NOT want to visit dvinfo (as great as it is for those of us here) or screw around learning how to make an adapter and get it tuned just right. They will peel off a thousand or thirteen hundred bucks and not think twice about it. Companies like P+S and Guerilla35 and Movietube are not marketing to most people who even read the forums. They are going to sell to the people who want to buy their product, not the people who are going to try to steal their engineering by reading the patent and trying to DIY.

November 3rd, 2005, 06:52 AM	#552
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	OK OK Bill, maybe it was €12.- Like I said, <if you are just making one or two adapters, you can find real quality parts for free or really cheap.> If I (or Jim or Frank) would want to make a product out of this thing, it will cost allot more to find the same parts. Of course we all know why these pro adapters and things are so expensive, that's why we have this forum. It's accent has changed the last year because more and more people are producing these things and sell them here, which is fine too, but something tells me if it's growing too big, if patents are violated too easily, it will become lots of trouble. What do you think Bill?

November 3rd, 2005, 07:53 AM	#553
Rafael Lopes Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Rio de Janeiro Posts: 1,240	I think it's great that there's so many people "breaking patents" and doing their own stuff. And I really hope that somebody can come out with cheaper and cheaper ways to overcome all the technical flaws of conventional DV. Not everybody can afford 1000$ adapters and 6000$ cameras. I know some extremely creative people who would be able to do wonders if they just had the chance to use the right equipment. As for my self, I know that I had to work hard to buy all my stuff. Of course I would rather have an AG-HV200 than a Gl2! Of course I would rather have a G35 than a Letus35! But hey, tough luck. That's life and I'm very very glad that AT LEAST we have these cheaper alternatives. If I had the money I'd be using the best there is (even though this is kind of relative) but right now I'm very thankful to all of those who were willing to "break the patents" and make the "poor mens' " life a bit easier. THANK YOU! ;)

November 3rd, 2005, 12:56 PM	#555
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	Not to sound like a G35 cheerleader but I have wholeheartedly agreed for a long time. Without patents to protect the inventors, few would invent because their money and work would then be ripped off by companies with the money to hamstring them. This is why medical patents are so much more protective than other patents - we may WANT product innovation so we can have our G35's and motorized seat belts and all other patented devices, but we NEED medical innovation. The best way to create that is to reward the inventors by protecting them. I used to own a manufacturing business (including in-house R&D) in a completely different industry than cameras/video/etc. For years we were the leaders and pushed the field forward technologically by giant steps with our products. Then the big companies started cloning my stuff. Some even had the audacity (read: lack of morals) to claim they invented it! I tired of this and stopped developing. As a result, the industry screeched to a halt and there was literally no change in the product lines on the market for about five years(!). People would call and beg to get "just one" of the unreleased products which we had stopped development on. But why should I? I was sick of using my own money to be "my competition's R&D department." So I hope G35 guys and P+S and Hoodman and everybody else who spent money and time and attorney fees to get patents, make enough money to create more innovative products for me to consume. Oscar, hehe- I was talking about the math in the post before yours, not your post. It probably WAS € 8,50. But at one point or another you did pay for all the stuff you had laying around. However, you probably bought it at IKEA so it was probably a good buy.