Well, cooling technique, cleanliness of the surfaces, lack of dust/hair, in short, too much for me to handle at once each go around. The thinner the wax layer, the more evident the surface anamolies (anomalies? can't ever get that right without m-w.com).

I was never able to get a sufficiently perfect surface that was simultaneously thin enough to surpass the optical qualities of 3 micron aluminum ox -- i.e. finer grain and comparable/beter light transmittance.

Seriously, I'm not posting this to be a naysayer -- my hat is way off to anyone who can get it done well and I would also buy one if the results prove to be repeatable.

Meanwhile, I do have footage of my "near perfect" microwax results. I'll be posting them and the 3 micron footage sometime in the next week.

- jim

So Oscar, where (and what brands etc.) and what kid of equipment did you
get here in Holland? I may give this a go myself...

Rob, 'De Kat' is the most common brand for artist (chemical) supplies in Holland. They only have Paraffine and Bees wax, so that's what I used so far, sometimes mixed with the top layer of candles.
You can get it at most artist supplies shops, but certainly at dekwast.nl.

I'll post today if I get some succes in cooling techniques. I think it's just like steel, a knife isn't of any quality if it isn't cooled don't properly.

Jim, I'm very interested in you results. Just a frame-grab would be nice to compare the two techniques. (I can see the difference of video noise and static grain anyhow.)

Frames:

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/waxgrabs/0.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/waxgrabs/1.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/waxgrabs/2.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/waxgrabs/3.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/waxgrabs/4.jpg

Jim, those look pretty good, a little gray, is it true you only have 'disturbing' grain on the edges? I mean, the very soft grain can be removed with the lowest setting of a de-grain filter without losing detail. (Looking forward to your aluminum ox GG)

I improvised a rail in front of my camera so I could shoot my cat again. (He's still alive.)
http://s01.picshome.com/a48/fifa3b.jpg

Tests showed that putting the melted wax in the fridge wasn't any good. The best method so far to me is to melt the wax in a aluminium cigar case, put the glass on the bottom with one piece upright (taped together on one side). Vibrate the air out and then flip the other side (with spacers) on top. vibrate some more (just put the electric razor against the side of the aluminium box) and let it cool down. This way it cools evenly.

Oscar:

You mention using regular wax in your experiments. Have you considered trying Microcrystalline? It is supposed to have a finer structure. I know it worked well for me. I got a couple of 1 LB samples from http://www.spwax.com.

Frank, I'll definitely try Microcrystalline when I get my hands on it. Should it be available at candle making suppliers shops?
Until now, I am mostly busy figuring out a way to get the wax (any kind) evenly and without any dust or bubbles as easy as possible.
Tonight I had the best effort so far. Very easy and clean to do, but I'll post details tomorrow when I know if it holds without cracking.

Oscar, I love the cat shot - that looked really good! What spacers are you using now?

Oscar, I love the cat shot - that looked really good! What spacers are you using now?

Oh, I have missed this one... Looks great...

Did you try to heat the glass too ? Maybe the way to not remelting the wax... I mean put the glass to hot water before puting the wax in. Do not know if possible, but think about it ;-) About waxing your hair... I think the hair is good spacer ;-)

Thanks Oscar! How are you heating that stuff?

I think with the spacers, you need something that will keep the entire piece of glass level - I don't know if hair will do it, but what the hell, you have been doing awesome as it is - go for it!

Daves, thanks, I did heat the glass on a hot-plate.

Rob, this is the easiest method I tested so far:
Use an electric hot-plate (warmhoudplaatje), maybe even those for coffee work.
Put the wax in a little metal box (like a aluminium cigar box) heat it and when the wax is melted put a clear lens filter on the bottom. Leave the metal ring on the filter and put the highest side up so you have a round bucket full of wax. If needed, vibrate the air out.
Now you need a smaler piece of glass (round if you have it) with some spacers. I used normal clear tape, but that produces some bubbles (like Frank said earlier in the thread), so I'll try some other things today. Heat that piece of glass and flip it on top of the filter (flip it from one side so you push out the air) Push it down until the spacers touch the filter glass.
Put the cigar case on a flat surface and let it cool down.
Now what is crucial is to leave the wax on the sides of the glass when you clean it, like this:
http://s01.picshome.com/a48/filterwax.jpg (you can also see how thin the wax is)


Now that this method works, I'll try to find Microcrystalline wax.

Okay I'm finally back. The wax is looking really good Oscar. I had been checking out your progress ever so often but have been really busy with family stuff. You got me motivated again though and I cut about 6 or 8 pairs of glass circles to try to melt some wax again. So far I've only done 1 an it was too think, but the layer itself was pretty even and wasn't too messed up. There was only like 1 bubble and it was way out of the frame area. I'll try to post some new pics tonight and I'm gonna try and run some more.

Oscar let me know if you don't have any luck finding the micro wax. It took me forever to find some when I was looking. The best places I found were candle suppliers.

Strahl and Pitsch wax suppliers will ship you a 1lb sample. They're very understanding and willing to help if you explain that you're attempting to make a device that you hope to replicate at a later time once it's perfected.

- jim

A few more sample images:

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/waxgrabs/bestwax.jpg

This one is a framegrab showing the wax inconsistencies that began to ruin my best wax attempts. As the wax layer began to get thinner and thinner, and I began to perfect the removal of bubbles, and used the refrigerator for a rapid cooling, these inconsistencies would lessen but never fully disappear. Having the wax finally bubble and hair free, and at the same time thin enough, these "smudges" were ultimately the problem I simply couldn't solve.

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/3micron0.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/3micron1.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/3micron2.jpg

Three shots using the 3 micron GG. You can see the grain, but it is an overall more consistent surface than the waxed glass, which I find a better trade-off. These images are frame-grabs from the timeline de-interlaced in PShop using "interpolate". They're less "grey" than the pervious images due to better lighting -- I generally try to shoot with poor-to-average lighting (natural light only or one 60w bulb in the room) to expose the weaknesses in whatever GG I'm testing. Under "ideal" conditions, many of these adapters look to produce great imagery -- and I find that deceiving.

I have some outdoor, really sunny stuff that I'll post later.

- jim

Under "ideal" conditions, many of these adapters look to produce great imagery -- and I find that deceiving.
True, true! (especialy clips on the net), but that's till you get to see it first hand........ your images look good though. (too bad sometimes we still have to pan/tilt and dam' life just don't stay still...lol.... is just crazy...(;-)<

OK, here are some outdoor sunny shots:

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/3micron-outside0.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/3micron-outside1.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/3micron-outside2.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/3micron-outside3.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/3micron-outside4.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/3micron-outside5.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/3micron-outside6.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/3micron-outside7.jpg

http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/3micron-outside8.jpg

All flipped and de-interlaced only -- no CC work done to them.

Though, on that note, I've noticed that a mild Color Curves, bringing the blacks closer to absolute black, gets a lot of the graininess of footage gone. You really don't notice it much in the highs.

- jim

Very nice pics (all)!!!. Some texture on some (in the soft areas), but....hey! If we look back at images posted 6mo-1year or so ago....... we've come a loooong way. You definitely can use this one.

Welcome back Keith. I got you started on the anamorphics and you got me started on the wax.

Jim, those images are surprisingly good for a static, non-wax GG. In post you can also try a slight gray diffusion so reduce the contrast of the grain.

So, the round wax glass I posted today (http://s01.picshome.com/a48/filterwax.jpg) wasn't perfect, but after remelting it was as good as Paraffine can get I think. A totally even layer of wax without any bubbles or dust. And the easiest method so far.
I tried to contact candle making shops today for microcrystalline, but without luck (biggest one was closed on Friday)
Here are some results with the new GG:

http://doublecam.250free.com/wax/wax.html (takes time to load)

The boot and the Rollei are shot with very low light. You can see the grain of the wax varies very much with lighting conditions. You can call it deceiving(which it is in a way), but if there are simple settings to be learned, than that's just something to deal with, like lighting techniques for film.
Look at the shot of the sky, almost no grain, that makes me wonder.

For those interested, I looked up the company that makes the magifying visors that I got my condenser lenses from. Here's a link:

http://www.doneganoptical.com/catalog/opti/

I saw the achromats, but did not see the condensers - it is somewhere else?

So, two days later, the wax GG still holds...no cracks, dust or bubbles! My theory to keep the wax on the sides of the GG (like this: http://s01.picshome.com/a48/filterwax.jpg) turns out to be true.
This GG took me about ten minutes to make.

I use a macro tube as lens mount and two thin condensers. I post a pic of the setup on my wax site: http://doublecam.250free.com/wax/wax.html
Tomorrow I'll start looking for microcrystalline wax again (in stead of Paraffine).

yeah, ten minutes to make....on top of MONTHS of work in perfecting the technique...The images are beautifull. Bravo Oscar! Now..., work on "someone's hair"...(hehehe)so we can see the resolution!(and leave the cat out of it)....rotf

Oscar,

Sorry if I've missed this, but what cam are you shooting with?

- jim

For the tests I used a consumer Sony camcorder, not a bad one, but one CCD.
But I've developed (and discussed in a thread) a system with two identical camera's (the same Sony) filming two halfs of the 35mm frame on the GG.
In short: The camera's are placed on their sides. One camera films the left side of the GG, the other one is placed in 90 deg and shoots the right side of the GG through a mirror. Everything is syched by a remote.
Finally I put the footage together on the PC and end up with a 720 X 1040 image.

So...when I get this set again for the wax adapter, I'll post these higher res. footage.

Finally I put the footage together on the PC and end up with a 720 X 1040 image.I took note about this some time ago, very interesting idea, and I do not exactly know how you did the shutter speed, iris etc ... so both half look same... Watching also your prism... You are full of interesting ideas :) When I started with my movie, I was thinking about two things... Make it stereo or use 35mm adapter. Finally I decide to use 35mm, due the synchro problems between two cameras...
You are hardworking devil... I like it :)

Daves, you're quite a DOF devil yourself! Hard work, but what fun when it works, in the end...

I didn't shoot "someone's hair" just yet, but I put a frame-grab of the focusing pattern I use (letter size) on my site. And I shot my brother, he was asking for it... See the first three images below the setup image:
http://doublecam.250free.com/wax/wax.html

And I shot my brother, he was asking for it...
Good God! You sound like "Billy-the-kid" :cat's gone, brother's gone.. you'll be pretty soon alone! (;-)<
But the rez chart looks VERY GOOD!!!(I do not know if two innocent lives were worth it though...)

I'll shoot a girl tomorrow, for the hair I mean...I'll blame you Dan, you asked to work on "someone's hair". Better stop these jokes, before the FBI misread them.

EDIT: I forgot, I bought some new wax today, I'll start experimenting with that in the next few days.

I'll shoot a girl tomorrow, for the hair I mean.
No, no no... you got it backwards. Invite her to dinner first and you'll get all the hair you want (for the real shooting) I can bet she'll be delighted to play target!

Oscar,

Is the softness from the focus or the GG in the new pictures?

Leo, some of those pics were a bit soft (not the res chart or the boot), I think because of focusing on a tiny LCD, but they also look kind of gray because it was a rainy day.

Today I shot some better focused footage, ie. 'work on someone's hair' Dan said:
http://doublecam.250free.com/wax/wax.html
At the last shots the sun was going down so those have a bit of back light and grain.

Very nice Oscar, third pic shows sharp only on a central section, the rest going soft. Very nice. So.... are you happy now? What lens did you use?

Wow, you really have managed to get rid of the hotspot entirely! Great job on that especially with such a thin wax GG. I think the footage looks great Oscar!

Thanks. Dan, the third pic has such a small DOF because I used a macro ring to get closer. Of course I'm not happy Dan....no, seriously, I'm happy that I can work with this GG and I need to find the balance between the apertures on the adapter and the camcorder.

But to answer that question differently, I just bought some new wax...I think it's microcrystalline.
The lens I use is an old, but pretty good Minolta 58mm F 1.4.

Some final contributions:

A few pics --

One (http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/00.jpg)

Two (http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/01.jpg)

Three (http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/02.jpg)

Four (http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/03.jpg)

Five (http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/04.jpg)

Six (http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/05.jpg)

Seven (http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/06.jpg)

Eight (http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/07.jpg)

And here is a 30mb high quality QT clip (http://ideaspora.net/35mmadapt/3micron/3micron_demo.mov) showing the footage where the above pics were captured.

- jim

Dam, dam, dam , dam ,dam GOOD!!!!!!!!! Just when I was about to say "I have seen it all", here comes Jim to "help" me change my mind. Dam! I have to do it (4fun but I will). Would you care to comment on:
1.the light loss? (about? and my "wild guess" is... no more than 1 stop, yes?)
2. frame size (18/24?)
3. lens used (1.8/50?)
oh, yeah! and please do not "embarrass" the rest of us with resolution charts! We have seen enough (hair)! A bit (just a bit) of vigneting is still there, but by all means BRAVO!

But...what are we looking at here? It's not a wax glass is it?
So do you see static grain on certain areas when you pan or tilt?
The images are very good, but it's a bit difficult for me to compare this to a wax glass when there is lots of contrast and detail. It's them d'mn vage area's that give the trouble...

Sort of mixing and matching responses...

It's ground glass, 3 micron aluminum oxide used. I've gone much lower than 3 microns but can't get them to grind at all (I have .3 and .05 micron a-ox here). Perhaps 2 or 1 microns would work, and be even better, if they can be found?

Yes, there is noticable grain, but only if you're looking for it, and only in bright, flat areas, if the cam is moving. There's not much to do but: a) resign yourself to this but take comfort in the fact that very few "regular joes" will ever notice, and b) shoot "around" the adapter's limitations. The G35 people seem to have no problems selling these things "as is," so the grain must be OK :D

Incidentally, the same static grain problem, albeit supressed further, plagues micro-wax adapters, with added problems as well -- hair, dust, and small inconsistencies in the wax's surface which show up in footage. For instance, I worked a lot on microwax sandwiches that employed spacers thinner than one piece of foil -- which is approaching the thinness needed for proper light transmission -- and at that very slight "smudges" of residue on the glass' surface showed up as inconsistencies in the wax. I tried a lot of things -- basically taking the glass right from a sealed package and into the wax, or cleaning the wax thoroughly with strong detergents, but it never worked out perfectly. I've yet to see microwax footage from anyone else's adapters so there's no telling whether they've gotten around these obstacles...Oscar?

I lose I'd guess 1 to 1.5 stops with this, which is an annoyance given the GL1's poor low-light performance to begin with. I shoot everything for the moment with an f/1.4 50mm Nikon lense.

Vignetting -- you see it in the outdoor, downtown shots but not in the cafe shots. This is because the GL1 has no presets -- so every time I turn the cam off, or have it shut down after some time of idling, I have to reset the focus. Sometimes I get it wrong and a little vignetting shows up. Also, there may be an issue with the placement of the GG relative to the macro I'm using -- the footage posted is from two versions of the same adapter, and slight inconsistencies in the glass placement may account for the vignetting.

I've yet to see microwax footage from anyone else's adapters so there's no telling whether they've gotten around these obstacles

Here's one of the original clips I posted. (uncompressed 720x480 AVI...around 168 MB)
http://209.214.235.122/mwtest/MicrowaxAdapter_shot_02_24p_720x480.avi

I was pretty happy with it, but I kept working with the wax, making it thinner, in an effort to get more light in.

It's a tradeoff between wax and glass. I think moving ground glass is the best solution because you wouldn't have as much light loss, and the grain wouldn't be an issue...but the device is more complicated. Static is simple, but then you have to suppress the grain problem.

As far as static adapters, I've gotten the best results with microwax (ie. minimal grain, less hotspot, etc...) ...but as we know, wax is difficult to work with.

Power of moving GG is in moving dust. If you have a dust on GG, its hard to get it out. Harder if its FFS. When you move it, you move all the dust with it, so its not so you do not have to worry about cleaning, if you do not want :) ... But with static you can simply close it into some tube with clear filters far enough from GG to see the dust on it... so...

Yes Daves, that's what I'll do. I know your right about moving GG in adapters, I built two. I am just doing all of this to see how far I can get it.

Jim, I've gotten around the obstacles you mention, for now take my word for it, no dust and a perfectly even layer. The only thing is the grain. I can't even say it's grain, more a vage pattern or structure. It's grain though when there is a lot of light. Same thing; if you don't look for it, you don't see it.

Frank or Jim, it's difficult to find microcrystalline in my country, but does one of you know if either Stearine or Vybar is the same thing?

First I've heard of Vybar or Stearine.

Here's a page that mentions Microcrystalline and Vybar:
http://www.candlemakers.co.uk/cmproduct/cmsframe.html

Looks like it might be an additive, but Microcrystalline is often mentioned as an additive as well. If it's inexpensive, you might pick some up and give it a try.

Frank,

That's clearly the best footage yet. Let me put that another way: DAMN.

Was it pure microwax or some combo of microwax and another? What was the light-loss like, and how thick were the spacers?

Oh, and lastly, what cam were you using? Sorry if you've answered all these before...

Thanks for checking it out, Jim!

This was done using pure microcrystalline from spwax.com.

I had quite a bit of light loss. Not sure about how many stops, but it was definately more than 1 or 2. The spacers in this case were double-folded tape strips, so that made for a thicker layer of wax. HOWEVER, with all that thickness, the image was still acceptable (in my opinion) in terms of sharpness. I believe that the thicker it is, the less the wax pattern/grain (which is practically invisible anyway...or at least very negligible) will show up...BUT, obviously, the more light you lose. I say if all you're doing is shooting outside daylight stuff, then go with a thicker layer of wax because you won't have nearly the hotspot problems you would with a thin layer. It might even be worth it to have two wax adapters (maybe that you can slide in & out of the housing) with varying thickness for day & night shooting.

I'm using a Canon GL2 (NTSC). The footage was captured in Frame Mode and converted via. After Effects->Twixtor to 23.976p.

Huh. Thanks for the info!

Hrm... might have to try out Oscar's method with some new filters. I've got some of the wax still left.

Frank I'm trying to see your footage, but my slow connection seems to choke on it...What you say is very true, unfortunately I need to shoot allot interiors.
But putting a thin waxed glass between two lenses (I think they aren't even real condensers) get rid of most of the hotspot and light problems. I get some of those 'nice' G35 artifacts like over-lit highlights (they must be using a very thing GG).

Jim, if you stick your nose into wax again, be sure you don't use my first method, but the last one I described. Maybe I'll post some step by step pics.
The next thing I'll try is one layer of aluminium foil glued on one piece of glass with epoxy glue. I'll wax that tomorrow and see what happens.

I made some progress this week and I'll try and post some pics sometime this weekend. I think I had either the flange distance off or the back focus was off so the images were soft, but over all 100 percent better than my last version.

Jim, if you stick your nose into wax again, be sure you don't use my first method, but the last one I described. Maybe I'll post some step by step pics.

This would be awesome and much appreciated. If you need help hosting the pics, tutorial and footage, drop me a line -- jim@ideaspora.net

OK, here you go: http://doublecam.250free.com/wax/wax2.htm

I didn't have a lens filter for this one, but you get the idea. I used some fine sculpting wax for this one, but it turned out to be some mix of waxes, because it had strange patterns in the layer.
The aluminium foil with epoxy glue works very well and leaves no bubbles like tape does.

BUT! I finally found microcrystalline wax. Right now I'm in Belgium and found it in a candle making suppliers store. I'll start testing tomorrow.