Hey guys!

I just got off the phone with John Gomes, Vice President of Strahl & Pitsch (www.spwax.com), providers of fine natural wax since 1904.

He is a very helpful, very friendly guy. He is sending me a 1 Lb. block of microcrystalline to try out. I will be doing some research on how to work with this stuff, (like preventing bubbles, etc.), and I will let you guys know what I find out.

Any of you that have worked with wax, I would appreciate any pointers you could give me.

Thanks!

,Frank

I don't think that this will be a great idea. You may just use white paint and will get better results easier. Realize how it works. The same way.

-- but if the white paint is thin enough?

Frank. I mentioned this somewhere else here on a wax discussion - (homemade boss screen). To avoid the bubbles and ensure an even thickness of the wax layer, it might be best to liquefy wax in a container larger enough that you can submerge your groundglasses and bring them together uner the surface. To avoid cracking them it might be best to put them in when the wax is barely melted after the glasses themselves have been pre-warmed. Once they have been brought together and no bubbles wan be seen between them, allow the whole wax block with glasses inside to cool and harden then remove the wax block off the outside of the glass.

I would recommend a welders apron and gloves to avoid burns.

The container might best be a metal food can which can be cut away and discarded.

I have a sculpture degree working in wax (really!) your best bet is to heat the piece of glass, hold it with tweezers (not too hot) and dip in (one side only) in wax, tilt it quick and if the glass is hot the majority of the wax should run off leaving the glass almost uncoated. I spoke with folks at Rust-Oleum yesterday about their frosted glass spray. Will post any interesting info.

G'luck let us know.

I must say I am a little intimidated with the idea of working with hot wax, but I will take your advice and do further research on the subject and let you know what happens.

Mike: I have tried things like petroleum, various papers and different types of tape, but I have not thought of just using paint. After I found out that the MovieTube was using microcrystalline, I just sortof assumed that they'd done all the research and knew what was best, so that was the direction I needed to go. However, your idea is interesting, and would be easier to implement, I think. What sort of white paint would you recommend?

Thank you guys for the input!

,Frank

with the wax you should just use an old pot on the stove. Heat up very small amount. (have never microwaved... hmmm. You can use the microwave to clarify butter btw.) and use tweezers. just get one side and if the glass is warm enough less wax will stick.
Josh

Sounds easy enough, Josh. Thank you!

Hopefully the amount left on the surface will be sufficient enough for a bright glass.

Thanks again, guys!

,Frank

Ok, the microcrystalline wax arrived today and I did some experimenting, based on you guys' suggestions. (Thanks!)

I put a small chunk of it in an old pot and heated it up. After it became clear and liquidy, I took a UV filter, pre-heated it (with a hairdryer), and dipped one side in the wax. I covered one side of the filter with tape and fashioned a sort of tape handle sticking up, so that I could hold on to it. I just sat the glass side down on top of the wax and wiggled it around a little, to help eliminate any bubbles, etc. I then pulled the glass out and turned it sideways, allowing excess wax to run off the glass, and attempting to even out the remaining wax.

The first try went pretty well. After allowing the wax layer to cool, I put my 35mm lens in front of it to see how the projected image looked. Half of the screen was thicker than the other half, but this was good because I got an idea of where I wanted the thickness to be. The thicker side looked better - no appearance of grain at all. Of course the thicker the wax, the more light it will require.

I took the contraption (holding everything on by hand) outside and shot some test footage. The image was far better than any ground glass I'd ever tested. I was evan able to stop down the iris on the 35mm lens and get no noticeable grain on the thicker side of the glass.

The next thing I tried was to take two glass filters and submerge them in the wax, trying to create a layer of wax between them. *This would be the ideal solution, since the wax would be protected, and you'd only have to wipe the glass sides. (Wax coating would be hard to keep clean.) *
I allowed the whole thing to cool, I cut the filter sandwich out from the wax, and scraped the wax off the outsides of the filters.
I didn't get a thick enough layer, creating a brighter hot spot. (The image still looked good, though.)

I did some more experiments with just a single filter on one side. I found that if you leave the glass in for a few extra seconds, heating it up, that the wax runs off better, as Josh mentioned.
However, I am not able to get it as even as I'd like.

So now I'm looking for advice on how to get a better, even surface.


Thanks!

OK here you go... (you gotta make me one of these... (I'll trade you for a bronze piece (small one)) take two pieces of glass and submerge them squeeze them together (wax shouldn't be that hot but get those dark blue shiny gloves from the dishwasher section of the grocery if you want) You should get a fairly consistent span of wax between the two pieces of glass. After it cools take a razor and simply scrape off the front and back sides of the glass... if it looks right get some rubber cement (or better epoxy) and seal the edges...
after a solid two weeks on a project in Flash I'm dying to use my hands for something other than typing/mouse.

Keep me posted!
Josh

Other thing is to let a slightly thicker layer build up and then rig a cheese slicer or something similar to scrape the layer down evenly.

Frank, good work, but here is a way you can make a high top quality GG (It is a inside information from my manufacturer. I make some working low cost prof. 35mm solution with and without vibration GG and this time i only examine the patent problems):

For the best result the wax must have a special composition of paraffin an white bees wax (in german "Paraffin" and "Bienenwachs" i hope the translate software are right). The mixture is approx.. 10% white bees wax.

First test it with 2 thin glasses (like cheap glasses for microscope). The wax layer must be thinner than 0,2mm, best results is about 0,09mm. Use narrow strips from aluminum paper, stick it together as spacer on the left and on the right side between the glasses, so it is a very smal space between the glasses. In a pot heat the Wax up. Keep perpendicular the glasses, alu left and right, spaces up and down. Dip the glasses only at the upper edge into the liquid Wax. You will see, the wax rise slowly and without bubbles up in in the gap. You must also heat the glasses, otherwise the wax cools down. Now leave it slowly cooling. 5 minutes, not faster. Maybe use a hair dryer to heat the sides. It is ideal, if the middle cools first

Because the wax layer is very thin, the loose of light is smal, but it brings a big hot-spot. To eliminate this, put 2 convex lenses (+4dip) with flat sides immediately in front and after the GG. Or...

... Thats the best way of all: Don´t use the 2 glasses, use the lenses and fill the wax immediately between them. In this way, it is particularly difficult to cooled the wax first in the middle. It work with cool air (blow with Straw on the thickest point of the lenses left and right), or soft heat only on the sides. But remind: colling 5 minutes, not faster

Hey and dont forget to use parafin with a HIGH melting point otherwise what do you think is going to happen on a hot day inside you black adapter. Also look for something a little more consistant then paper to create a gap. Perhaps a large washer. Dont forget to cut a section out of it to let the wax get in. Good luck guys.

Brett,
Exactly, why otherwise comes movietube ( http://www.movietube.com ) with a "INTERMEDIATE IMAGE" ? And why is the housing arround this intermediate GG so thickly, like a big ring? Movietube based on the way i posed before. Therefore it is heatly sensitive, the big ring is a heat protection and the GG should be changed from time to time.

Thanks for all the responses!

Josh, I hear you - I program all day, so I am glad to get away from the computer and get my hands on a project.

So wax between 2 pieces of glass w/ a seal or washer around the outside is the way to go.

That is a good idea about creating the space beforehand and then filling it with wax.

Josh: Do you see any problems with creating the right amt of space and sealing the pieces first, THEN dipping it into the wax? Using a washer or seal with a notch to let the wax in would work well, since you wouldn't have to worry about it running out the sides.

Brett: I have thought about the melting problem. If the wax is sealed, with no way to escape, and it melts...well, I guess that would still be a problem since it would turn clear. I was going to say that I didn't think it would matter since the wax didn't have anywhere to go.

Rai: Do you mean condenser lenses, or have you used convex lenses for this? Thanks!

,Frank

>Do you mean condenser lenses, or have you used convex lenses for this?
A misunderstanding. Your right. A condenser lens is a pair of matched Convex lenses, placed "back to back" in such a way that the curved surfaces face each other in the middle, and the flats are on the outside. I mean it differently around: A pair of convex lenses, placed "back to back", but the flats face each other in the middle, and curved outside.

Rai: I see what you're saying. Thanks!

I was thinking that in pressing them together while submerged you'd get a pretty impossibly thin layer in there. Creating a gap and having the hot wax fill it would be tough as it would have to be really hot and fill it evenly. Also even on a hothothot day such a thin layer between glass would never come out. make sure you don't get any crapola in there with the wax... (though it may be too thin) I need to get to the studio and move my pieces to the new place (3 weeks ago... mind you)and I'll have a look. I do have a very creamy parrafin mix that might serve video well. I would immediately thhink that pure white would be the best but the way that video handles bright white.... hmmm... white balance nightmare maybe.

No, pure white can not work, because it will reflected the light only. Pure white is the best for a projection on a wall, but the purposea of a GG is that as much as possible light must pass through it.
The manufacturer, who I know, had many years experimented with all possible Wax prescriptions. But the best comes with 90% transparent parafin with only 10% pure white wax from bees in it. I work together with this manufacturer, and i tested many diffent modells. It came with the same quality like the P + S models. I tested the original too, of course. Check the way to fill the wax in, with hot wax, it works. Capillary attraction pushes the wax up.

what Rai said... sounds like he knows his wax.

I agree - Rai does sound like he knows his wax.

I was thinking that microcrystalline was the best bet due to not having any noticeable grain. So parafin wax has no particles or whatever in it that would show up in the footage? (This microcrystalline stuff is the first wax I've ever worked with.)

Is parafin wax wax something you can pick up at a craft store, or is it more of a specialty thing that has to be ordered?

Thanks!

how about some white dinner candles? they just may work.

WAX.

I did a bit of a web look last night.

White paraffin wax is fairly easily found in larger hardware stores.

White (bleached) beeswax is apparently a wood crafting thing and is used to make up special wood finishes. Larger hardware stores may have it. Specialty wood hobbyist centres might, or have leads as to where to find it.

It is also sold as a cosmetic ingredient in a shredded form, probably more expensive this way.

(One could always try to bleach ear wax I guess but there is a problem with volume production of that commodity so I don't think I will go there.)

IMAGE ERECTORS.

Does anyone know how a slide copier works? Would this be an option for image erection for the ALDU35? My vague understanding of these is that they work in a 1:1 magnification but I dont know if the slide goes in upside-down or correct way up.

They may have a specific camera mount and replace the lens or may be an add-on for the front of a lens - maybe both. Whilst the mounts may be in the wrong order, the internals might lens themselves to the image erection sought if the appliance does invert the image of the slide.

Bob: Earwax - Ha ha ha!

Josh: I may try some regular dinner candles since they are readily available.

Here are my first test images with microcrystalline coated glass:

http://www.frankladner.com/testpics3.htm

guys this is VERY cool, do you think it would work with HD? I am building an HD camera and would LOVE to have 35mm lenses on the front with a static GG but the grain is going to show in HD way more then dv

Here is an idea that I have had for awhile. Do the same thing that you guys are doing where you project an intermediate image and then film it with a dv camera. The only difference is to film the image with two cameras side by side, each camera filming one half the image. So what you would get would be video of the left side and right side of the intermediate seperatly, which could then be combined in post to get something very close to a high resolution 2.35 aspect ratio. It would require a small up-res but would be alot closer than native DV. Anyway that was an idea of mine that I probably dont have time to pursue so do with it whatver you like.

Rob L

Obin: This wax is supposed to have microscopic grain, so I would think it might work.

This will sound sortof wacky, but I thought once about placing my 35mm adapter in front of a SLR and taking a picture. This way, I'd get a high-res view of what my DV camera is seeing, helping me determine how big the grain really is, etc. If the grain doesn't show up in this microcrystalline glass on film, then it would work with HD, I imagine.

I believe that through careful handling of the wax, someone could create a high-quality, grainless solution. I would really like to see some HD tests!

,Frank

Rob: I have heard of just shooting with two cameras side by side, which creates difficulty in combining the footage due to view distortion and the footage not matching side-by-side correctly

...BUT...

Your idea sounds more doable, since the image is right there in front of the two cameras and there wouldn't be a lot of calibration and stuff involved.

I wonder how the cameras would have to be turned (ie. pointing inwards?) in order to pick up the two sides of the image...

Pretty good idea, though! I'm all for anything to get more resolution out of SD cameras.

,Frank

Yeah i originally tried two cameras side by side but the lenses had to be soooooo long before you could match the two images up because of the physics of wide angle. I have tried filming a photograph with two cameras and the image matches up perfectly. The biggest annoyance of the whole thing is that you loose so much light to begin with, plus you have to zoom in even closer on the projected image that after you get a 35mm lense and GG solution that will actually give you a noticably clearer image at that level of zoom its just not worth it for an HD frame in 4:1:1 color space. Personally I am just going to wait for guys like Obin or Silicon Imaging to use a native HD sensor.

anyone care to make me a wax GG and I will do some tests and post what it looks like in HD from my uncompressed HD camera? I will even pay for all the stuff to make it with..I just don't know that much about wax but some of you on the board do....anyone?

Obin, I'm making a micro orbiting type of mount. It is motor powered. I plan on making a parts kit available for the setup, where the user provides the substrate that needs to be set in motion.
-Les

<<<-- Originally posted by Obin Olson : anyone care to make me a wax GG and I will do some tests and post what it looks like in HD from my uncompressed HD camera? I will even pay for all the stuff to make it with..I just don't know that much about wax but some of you on the board do....anyone? -->>>

when can I get it? and will it work for HD?

I'm finishing the first one now, I should have something in about a week.
With the detail of HD I think it's the only way.
-Les
<<<-- Originally posted by Obin Olson : when can I get it? and will it work for HD? -->>>

Les: I am also interested in this. Please keep us posted. Also, if I understand correctly, you are saying that the end user provides the intermediate image surface (ground glass). What types (shapes, thickness, weight, etc.) of surfaces will it accept?


Obin: As described, my procedure for making a wax glass is very low-tech. Given the quality of HD, I don't think I could make a satisfactory wax glass for you.

Frank,
It will accept any flat piece, with a thickness up to 3/16 inch.
I'll get the exact max opening size soon.
I want it to fit into a black PVC pipe coupler, something nice and standard that anyone can get.

-Les

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Ladner : Les: I am also interested in this. Please keep us posted. Also, if I understand correctly, you are saying that the end user provides the intermediate image surface (ground glass). What types (shapes, thickness, weight, etc.) of surfaces will it accept?


Obin: As described, my procedure for making a wax glass is very low-tech. Given the quality of HD, I don't think I could make a satisfactory wax glass for you. -->>>

Les maybe you could email me at:

oolsen1@ec.rr.com

thanks

Another option that I have considered but havent tried to to mount a fresnel lense between the camera and the GG. That is the way they maximize light in projection tvs, it kills the viewing angle becuase it takes all the light and directs it straight out. That is why the viewing angle on projection tvs sucks, but in this case you dont need a good viewing angle. It could proably save you a an F-stop, but the ridges in the fresnel might be visible ( i dont know because I never tried it)

I am still experimenting with the microcrystalline and wanted to update everyone.

The last glass-wax solution I made was the best so far. I formed a long cup type shape out of thick aluminum foil. I filled the cup with melted wax from the pot and then set the cup w/ wax in the pot of wax. Next I dropped my glass in. This was two pieces of glass from .84 cent picture frames purchased at Wal-Mart. The glass had two thin strips of aluminum foil, folded in half, inbetween the long edges of the glass. The glass was taped at the top and bottom to keep the sandwich together.

This was set down in the cup of melted wax, longways. I made sure the cup was quite taller than the glass, so that it would cover the glass and the pressure would be enough to force any air bubbles out from between the glass sandwich.

I turned the heat off and allowed the whole thing to cool. After it cooled (I didn't wait till it was completely hard - just thick.), I peeled the aluminum from around the wax, scraped the wax off the outside of the glass, and then allowed the glass w/ wax inside to cool further by itself.

I am happy with the thickness of the wax layer inbetween the glass, as the hotspot is eliminated, and there is absolutely no grain that I can see.

After I cleaned the glass completely on the outside, I sanded the edges and applied JB Weld around it to seal the wax inside.

This is the best solution that I have managed to get, and I don't think that a moving ground glass would be any better.

Frank,

Can we see a shot using your new focus screen?

Justin: Definately! When I get home from work I hope to complile some shots and upload actual motion footage this time, along with some more full-size frame grabs.

Sorry I haven't posted anything yet. The latest footage I have shot is all indoor stuff. We have had a lot of rainy weather down here, so I am waiting for a nice day to get some outside stuff before I put some footage together.

man Frank I don't care about what you shot I WANT TO SEE IT NOW!!!! LOL please? I really want to try this with our HD camera! do you think it's grainless enough for HD?

No, really can you tell me what type of wax you used I want to try it

Obin: LOL! Ok, ok!

I uploaded three full size frames and one 352x240 video (DivX compressed AVI, about 1.12 MB).

The movie was shot handheld. I'm waving the camera around while holding the glass and lens to the front of the camera. So you may see some flare in there where I allowed light to come in.

The reason I chose this shot to show you guys was because I stopped down the 35mm lens and got no grain. It's harder to tell from the small resolution movie, so check out some of the framegrabs.



http://www.frankladner.com/m_001.jpg
http://www.frankladner.com/m_002.jpg
http://www.frankladner.com/m_003.jpg

http://www.frankladner.com/micro_test_01.avi

(Note: m_002.jpg is motion blurred a bit, not diffused/softened by the glass.)

Again, this is using a layer of microcrystalline wax between two pieces of glass (small, cheap picture frames). I stick two aluminum foil strips (folded a couple of times) inbetween the glass on the sides. I then tape the sandwich around the top and bottom and set it vertically in the melted wax. (Read previous posts for more details.)

To you guys that may try this, it's pretty simple to do, but the biggest problem is getting all those little air bubbles out, even when the glass sandwich is vertical.

I had good results with taping the sides and bottom, so that no wax could leak out, and spooning melted wax over the top, filling the glass up. Then I'd let it sit for a while so most of the air bubbles would get out. This gave me one usable side of the glass.
(btw, the picture frames are rectangular. I'm looking for some small, cheap square ones. Maybe I'd have less trouble w/ air bubbles if I was using smaller pieces of glass.)

I am still trying for the (almost) perfect glass. Once I get that, I'll build some sort of housing and try to make it look good (and more importantly, keep the light out).

Any more suggestions would be really appreciated.

,Frank

wow lookin good!! can you please upload some stills that are Not stopped down so i can see some details? give me a still from the first sec of the video that is wide open..what camera are you using?

Frank can you make me one for testing with my HD camera and see if i can see grain with HD?

Frank, it makes me happy to see the good results in so short time. As i said before, we worked since years with 35mm solutions and the wax way is still the best. Our GG was developed together with a manufacturer for fine optical parts. We tested hundreds ways with hundreds different mixtures. The way i told before in this thread (its nearly the way you make it) brings the best. But it is not grainless. The grain is surely very smal, but a HD Cam with more than 720 vertical lines (and exact focos!!!) can see it. That is the reason why we bring the GG also in very smal and loudless, circle vibrations. This requires a very exactly fine-mechanical work. We found pvc was not well enoug, so our System is make in aluminum. Also we tested everyone on a optical bank. This time we work on a little different way for a cinema solution with a HD Cam with more than 2000 vertical lines. Because The patent examinations is going on, i can not yet say more details. Please wait another few days.

Rai, will 1280x720 see the grain?

Rai: Thanks! A high-def. with the ability to use 35mm lenses is the ultimate camera solution, I think. Especially if you can use variable framerates.

Obin: Thanks! I will try to post some 720x480 framegrabs from the first part of the movie when I get home. Oh, and I am using a Canon GL2.

Obin, 720 verical lines is the border between visible and invisibly if you use a sill picture lens. I think your camera supply 1024 lines, but you would like to use only 720 so with the width of 1280Pixels you have a 16:9 format. If this is so, the picture on the GG is round 37,6 x 21,2mmm. This means, with 720lines, you have 33,9lines/mm. If you use a 4:3 format, your picture can be up to 34,5 x 25,8 and with 720lines, you have only 27,9lines/mm. But if you wont to use a original movie frame size, with only 16mm high, you have 45lines/mm.
So, if you use the 16:9 format with 21,2mm hight, the grid will be visible. Maybe we test next time also the SI-1300RGB, and maybe we create a 35mm solution (with our new GG) particularly for this cam together with a nice classical rounded "moviecam-like-housing" for the whole unit.

Yes I will be designing a "movie-cam-like-housing" very soon ;)
so at 16x9 1280x720 you think that I will see the gg grain from wax?

Obin, the "normal" wax technologie is what bosscreen use. You know the problems with bossscreen or intenscreen or so on. Microcrystalline wax has a fine grid, but the main different here is the very small space. But it is only the half way. Try it out. 1280x720 on a 37,6 x 21,2mmm frame size and you will see the gg grain.
Obin, lets work together, my company make not toys. And we not only have a HD 35mm solution, we have for example a low cost Follow Focus System for every still photo lens, with or without servo motors (And you need that with a 35mm DOF).
We also like to create a low cost HD CAM with 35mm DOF and other movie features. Today, we have contacted siliconimaging. Lets see...

Rai -

In your previous post you said to use 90% paraffin wax and 10% bee's wax. Is this better than using 100% microcrystalline wax? What's the difference between paraffin and microcrystalline wax?

This thread is exciting. Can't wait to see more pics, Frank.