Microcrystalline Wax Techniques?

Jim Lafferty · December 9th, 2004, 08:21 AM

Bob -- thanks for the ideas.

Frank -- how many layers of tape/foil are you using to separate your filters?

- jim

Frank Ladner · December 9th, 2004, 09:41 AM

My first attempts were all with foil (non heavy-duty) strips folded two times.

My last attempt was with masking tape (I think I've been calling it 'scotch' tape the whole time.) as a spacer, which worked well so long as the thing stayed submerged long enough for the tiny air bubbles within the tape to .

Steev Dinkins · December 9th, 2004, 10:01 AM

Frank, and/or any other Wax Pioneers,

Is there any documentation anyone has done on their process of making a wax focus element for static adapter use?

That's something I've wished for more of on the forums here - documentation. I'd love to improve on my current static adapter design which is documented here:

http://www.holyzoo.com/zoo_updates.php

Otherwise, what are the current thoughts on whether wax is better than ground glass at this point? How would it compare to a high end Focus Screen like one from this company?

http://www.intenscreen.com/

Bob Hart · December 9th, 2004, 10:08 AM

Frank.

You can try using PVC wood glue to hold the foil with one piece between the glasses and wrapped around the edge to the outer face. Only give it a good long time to set.

Once you have got the wax in, you can trim the foil off the outside and dissolve the PVC off with water. The piece of foil between the two sheets is there for keeps of course.

Otherwise, try Loctite 358 UV curing adhesive in very small pinhead drops on the foil both sides, press it together and set the glue off with a UV lamp. That version will be going no place so it had better be right. The upside should be an ability to rework the wax without the glass disks coming apart.

Frank Ladner · December 9th, 2004, 10:32 AM

Steev: Hi! I don't really have any documentation, other than what I mentioned here. I don't have the time currently to put one together, but a step-by-step tutorial with pictures would be nice.

First I've heard of the UV-curing glue, Bob! That is definately something to try. Thanks!

Jim Lafferty · December 9th, 2004, 11:12 AM

Frank,

Two layers of tape then?

Steev,

As soon as my attempts yield great results, I'll put up a tutorial complete with stills and text taking you through the steps necessary.

- jim

Frank Ladner · December 9th, 2004, 11:17 AM

Yep. That did the trick for me. Let me know how it turns out.

A tutorial would be excellent!

Steev Dinkins · December 9th, 2004, 01:08 PM

Jim, awesome. I realize it's still brewing now. I appreciate the sharing of the fruits.

Thanks!

steev

Frank Ladner · December 21st, 2004, 02:00 PM

I put a new video clip up on the server. This one isn't really impressive. It's just showing how grain-free the footage is in a microwax adapter even when the lens is nearly closed. (In ground glass adapters, this is where the grain really starts to show.)

My next step is to try and make a larger microwax glass sandwich to be used with medium format lenses, so that I don't have to zoom in so much (because the projected image will be larger), thus lessening the grain pick-up a lot more. I have a feeling that when I get my condensers in, I can use them to get even more of the projected 35mm image (spreading the image brightness out so that I don't have to zoom in on the 'hot' area)

By the way, I'm using a 50mm Pentacon 1:1.8 lens.

http://209.214.235.122/mwtest

The file is called "microwax_outside_test_30p.avi"

It's pretty big at 109 MB, but I don't have any bandwidth limits so you guys can download as much as you please.

Jim Lafferty · December 26th, 2004, 12:03 PM

I just ran some tests with my latest wax system and they don't hold up well against the same images from a WAO5 ground glass -- the wax adapter proves easier to focus on, better at retaining detail, but there's a steep trade-off where exposure is concerned.

I have to use a gain of 9 to get the same exposure as no gain on the WAO glass. This is with a wax density of two layers of masking tape -- cooking up a test of one layer thickness as I type this :/

Check out this comparison between my two glasses -- the wax is on the left, the WAO5 on the right.

- jim

Frank Ladner · December 26th, 2004, 12:41 PM

Thanks for posting, Jim!

Yeah, light loss is one downside to the wax adapters. However, you should find that the hotspot problem is reduced significantly with it. The number one benefit, in my opinion, is the practically-no-grain aspect. (none that a SD camera can see, anyhow)

I'm just planning on using a lot of light for any shooting I do with it, but for something like documentary shooting, I don't think it would work as well as a ground glass adapter.

Bob Hart · December 27th, 2004, 01:06 AM

Jim.

I think you could afford to reduce the thickness of the wax layer. This should also sharpen up the image due to less diffusion into the surrounding wax being visible because you don't then have to crank up the video gain so much.

The wax thickness I preferred was no more than one layer of cooking foil. It may well have come out even thinner than that in places because of the irregularity of my two glass disks which caused the wax layer thickness to vary and created the flicker problems. There was a see-through problem with this thickness subjectively somewhere between a fresh AO5 dressing and an overwork/partial backpolish of the A05.

Jim Lafferty · December 27th, 2004, 12:40 PM

Bob,

I think you're correct.

I experimented with the wax adapter with the glass separated by one thickness of masking tape today and it's *just* too thick that its diffuse properties are prohibitive -- but a great improvement over two layes of tape. Two layers requires a gain of 9, one layer, a gain of 3 under "typical" lighting conditions -- a single, 60w overhead light in a windowless room.

Tomorrow I'm going down to one layer of foil and this should be optimal. It's great to see results this good so far -- the grain is noticably less obtrusive than the WAO5 and focusing is much better.

Once I get tomorrow's completed, I'll post some footage.

- jim

Frank Ladner · December 27th, 2004, 02:13 PM

I am also going to try and get a smaller layer of wax using just a single strip of tape or foil.

My 2 condensers came in and hopefully those, combined with a thin layer will give me a bright & even screen.

Jim Lafferty · December 30th, 2004, 11:54 AM

Frank,

How's things?

At one layer of foil, these things are hard to crank out with relatively minor/unnoticable flaws. However, I've gotten one together today that looks good "enough" and am currently rendering out footage using what I hope is a good approximation of Chris Rubin's trick using Vegas's internal "Mask Generator" set to "Luminance," with the "invert" box checked. I've applied some desaturation, gaussian blur and brightness/contrast to the grain image before hand -- we'll see how it works out, I guess. Dunno if the blur was a mistake, or if I should've gone the other way with an sharpen filter.

Otherwie, watching raw footage on my NTSC monitor and I'm picking up things that I bet only a trained eye would notice -- the grain is so small as to give me a grin for all my hard work :D

Thanks for your tips all along, BTW.

Footage coming in about a half hour...

- jim

December 9th, 2004, 10:01 AM	#78
Steev Dinkins Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 613	Micro Wax Tutorial Frank, and/or any other Wax Pioneers, Is there any documentation anyone has done on their process of making a wax focus element for static adapter use? That's something I've wished for more of on the forums here - documentation. I'd love to improve on my current static adapter design which is documented here: http://www.holyzoo.com/zoo_updates.php Otherwise, what are the current thoughts on whether wax is better than ground glass at this point? How would it compare to a high end Focus Screen like one from this company? http://www.intenscreen.com/

December 21st, 2004, 02:00 PM	#84
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	new footage I put a new video clip up on the server. This one isn't really impressive. It's just showing how grain-free the footage is in a microwax adapter even when the lens is nearly closed. (In ground glass adapters, this is where the grain really starts to show.) My next step is to try and make a larger microwax glass sandwich to be used with medium format lenses, so that I don't have to zoom in so much (because the projected image will be larger), thus lessening the grain pick-up a lot more. I have a feeling that when I get my condensers in, I can use them to get even more of the projected 35mm image (spreading the image brightness out so that I don't have to zoom in on the 'hot' area) By the way, I'm using a 50mm Pentacon 1:1.8 lens. http://209.214.235.122/mwtest The file is called "microwax_outside_test_30p.avi" It's pretty big at 109 MB, but I don't have any bandwidth limits so you guys can download as much as you please.

December 27th, 2004, 12:40 PM	#88
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Bob, I think you're correct. I experimented with the wax adapter with the glass separated by one thickness of masking tape today and it's just too thick that its diffuse properties are prohibitive -- but a great improvement over two layes of tape. Two layers requires a gain of 9, one layer, a gain of 3 under "typical" lighting conditions -- a single, 60w overhead light in a windowless room. Tomorrow I'm going down to one layer of foil and this should be optimal. It's great to see results this good so far -- the grain is noticably less obtrusive than the WAO5 and focusing is much better. Once I get tomorrow's completed, I'll post some footage. - jim __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

December 30th, 2004, 11:54 AM	#90
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Frank, How's things? At one layer of foil, these things are hard to crank out with relatively minor/unnoticable flaws. However, I've gotten one together today that looks good "enough" and am currently rendering out footage using what I hope is a good approximation of Chris Rubin's trick using Vegas's internal "Mask Generator" set to "Luminance," with the "invert" box checked. I've applied some desaturation, gaussian blur and brightness/contrast to the grain image before hand -- we'll see how it works out, I guess. Dunno if the blur was a mistake, or if I should've gone the other way with an sharpen filter. Otherwie, watching raw footage on my NTSC monitor and I'm picking up things that I bet only a trained eye would notice -- the grain is so small as to give me a grin for all my hard work :D Thanks for your tips all along, BTW. Footage coming in about a half hour... - jim __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

December 9th, 2004, 08:21 AM	#76
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Bob -- thanks for the ideas. Frank -- how many layers of tape/foil are you using to separate your filters? - jim

December 9th, 2004, 09:41 AM	#77
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	My first attempts were all with foil (non heavy-duty) strips folded two times. My last attempt was with masking tape (I think I've been calling it 'scotch' tape the whole time.) as a spacer, which worked well so long as the thing stayed submerged long enough for the tiny air bubbles within the tape to .

December 9th, 2004, 10:08 AM	#79
Bob Hart Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA. Posts: 4,477	Frank. You can try using PVC wood glue to hold the foil with one piece between the glasses and wrapped around the edge to the outer face. Only give it a good long time to set. Once you have got the wax in, you can trim the foil off the outside and dissolve the PVC off with water. The piece of foil between the two sheets is there for keeps of course. Otherwise, try Loctite 358 UV curing adhesive in very small pinhead drops on the foil both sides, press it together and set the glue off with a UV lamp. That version will be going no place so it had better be right. The upside should be an ability to rework the wax without the glass disks coming apart.

December 9th, 2004, 10:32 AM	#80
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	Steev: Hi! I don't really have any documentation, other than what I mentioned here. I don't have the time currently to put one together, but a step-by-step tutorial with pictures would be nice. First I've heard of the UV-curing glue, Bob! That is definately something to try. Thanks!

December 9th, 2004, 11:12 AM	#81
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Frank, Two layers of tape then? Steev, As soon as my attempts yield great results, I'll put up a tutorial complete with stills and text taking you through the steps necessary. - jim

December 9th, 2004, 11:17 AM	#82
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	Yep. That did the trick for me. Let me know how it turns out. A tutorial would be excellent!

December 9th, 2004, 01:08 PM	#83
Steev Dinkins Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 613	Jim, awesome. I realize it's still brewing now. I appreciate the sharing of the fruits. Thanks! steev

December 26th, 2004, 12:03 PM	#85
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	I just ran some tests with my latest wax system and they don't hold up well against the same images from a WAO5 ground glass -- the wax adapter proves easier to focus on, better at retaining detail, but there's a steep trade-off where exposure is concerned. I have to use a gain of 9 to get the same exposure as no gain on the WAO glass. This is with a wax density of two layers of masking tape -- cooking up a test of one layer thickness as I type this :/ Check out this comparison between my two glasses -- the wax is on the left, the WAO5 on the right. - jim

December 26th, 2004, 12:41 PM	#86
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	Thanks for posting, Jim! Yeah, light loss is one downside to the wax adapters. However, you should find that the hotspot problem is reduced significantly with it. The number one benefit, in my opinion, is the practically-no-grain aspect. (none that a SD camera can see, anyhow) I'm just planning on using a lot of light for any shooting I do with it, but for something like documentary shooting, I don't think it would work as well as a ground glass adapter.

December 27th, 2004, 01:06 AM	#87
Bob Hart Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA. Posts: 4,477	Jim. I think you could afford to reduce the thickness of the wax layer. This should also sharpen up the image due to less diffusion into the surrounding wax being visible because you don't then have to crank up the video gain so much. The wax thickness I preferred was no more than one layer of cooking foil. It may well have come out even thinner than that in places because of the irregularity of my two glass disks which caused the wax layer thickness to vary and created the flicker problems. There was a see-through problem with this thickness subjectively somewhere between a fresh AO5 dressing and an overwork/partial backpolish of the A05.

December 27th, 2004, 02:13 PM	#89
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	I am also going to try and get a smaller layer of wax using just a single strip of tape or foil. My 2 condensers came in and hopefully those, combined with a thin layer will give me a bright & even screen.