I am just doing all of this to see how far I can get it.You are my man... Like your access to it. You are curious as me... How far can we push it and where are the limits :)

like I told ya; der aint no limits or.... better put: WE are the only limits.

I made a really, really rough wax projection screen for an adapter I built in about an hour. Here's my test footage (sorry to link to another forum):

http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?p=230485#post230485

I used beeswax.

Looks pretty good (or pretty ánd good)Matthew. Beeswax is about as fine as Paraffine. So did you use my method? I made this step by step guide today http://doublecam.250free.com/wax/wax2.htm Feel free to post the link on that tread.

I definitely dig your shots -- no apologies or qualifications needed.

I've got some time to myself in the coming week and I'll definitely be hitting the wax and make a go of Oscar's method. I'm planning on using a 46mm UV filter as the "internal" glass, with a 49mm filter kept in its ring.

Incidentally, you might find Oscar that, since you're melting such a large area of wax, you could lay the pieces of glass in the wax side-by-side, thereby using the wax to bring both pieces of glass to the same temp (rather than heating the glass separately). I've found in my experiments that so long as both pieces of glass got submerged in the wax for a bit of time, no stratification of the wax occured.

I also found it helpful, and I intend to try this again, to place the wax in the fridge to cool. At thinner progressions of the wax, this was indespensable.

I used a method very much like the one you described for my tests, then modified it to be almost exactly what you did once I saw your link.

I've also found putting wax in the refridgerator helps, but if you can keep it in one place while it melts and let it take its time, that can provide even better results.

If someone has trouble of dust in the wax layer, try spraying a large space around your work area with water (with a spray for plants or something) before you begin. I learned this when I painted parts of my car. You can even spay a bit of water on your clothes to fix the dust.

as an alternative (for those obsessed with quality) try the bathroom. Colse the door, turn on the shower hot, then cold, a few times till the room is full of steam. Wait for it to settle and the dust is gone! oh yeah, and do not open the door. (from... a working procedure about making a plastic window in the hrad drive's case www.overclockers.com)

It's going to be tough getting my oven in there :D

hmmm...tough indeed, but not impossible! a hose and shower in the kitchen?

I thought about parking my car in the shower when I wanted to paint it 'dust free', but I didn't even get it through the front door.
My microcrystalline is cooling down right now, it just a first test with my new wax, but who knows.

Oscar: where'd you get your circular glass cutter? Was it off eBay?

I don't have one. I wish I did. Keith Kline has one.
Until now I used clear lens filters.

I don't have one. I wish I did. Keith Kline has one.
Until now I used clear lens filters.


Ah, ok -- the shots with square plates of glass in your latest tutorial were confusing.

Microwax is definitely many times finer than Paraffine. The glass I made today with the microwax is almost perfect. I just need to wait if some small bubbles on the sides that came from the epoxy (I learned you better wait 12 hours) don't expand the coming days. They are outside the frame area, so I hope it stays that way.
It was dark when I had a chance to test it, but I really can't see any grain so far.
I did a side by side test just to see the light loss. It's two stops for this one:
http://s01.picshome.com/4b4/dv-wax.jpg (Left> only the camcorder. Right> with wax)

One other shot (just before it was getting too dark outside)
http://s01.picshome.com/4b4/1.jpg

Anyway, I'll test this further tomorrow.

Also, don't forget about glass picture frames. I bought up a bunch of 50 cent circular frames which were around 50mm in size from a nearby Hobby Lobby store. My first couple of tries were with circular UV filters, but that can get expensive fast.

Oh my lord Oscar, that side by side is incredible!!! they look almost the same - you have reached the pinnacle I think. No light loss, it looks like - when can we see a night shot?

Where did you get the microwax? I have to get my hands on some....

Yep, I am going to get some myself!

I found it at a hobby store that sell lost of suppliers for candle making. In my country it's called micro-wax. I got micro-wax 'soft', but that's no problem, the melting point is high. I'll post some new shot's if I have a chance today.

I'll post some new shot's if I have a chance today.We do not want some more shots... We saw enough already ! (rotf)

Speak for yourself.

The previous post was clearly a joke, Jim (as a paraphrase to an earlier similar comment I guess)
The image is awesome by all means (vigneting I think is still a bit visible though, but you guys are there...) Show us till it hurts no mo... ;'-(<

So this is my own "guerrilla35 war". (their 'static gg' footage really triggered me) Dan, your right about the vignetting, I went to a photo equipment shop, but couldn't find the center grad filter. Try some other shops this week.

I shot allot of today with only the sunlight coming from the windows. Until now, also with a smaller aperture on the camcorder I don't see any grain from the microwax. In movements maybe you could notice some vage still structure, but it could just as well be something on the monitor glass.

Sorry Daves, here are some frames from the footage:
http://doublecam.250free.com/wax/microwax/
I'm happy with the fruit shots, because they were shot with just a little light from a window 4 meters away.

Looks good Oscar. Are you finding that closure the iris is combating the grain problem, but in contrast, causing the problem of alot of light loss?

So this is my own "guerrilla35 war".Yes. You are definitely like me. When I was building my adapter, I take it also as my little personal war against everything what I saw before... Simply, I just wanted to have best image OR at least have one of the best... lol... And I am happy to left most of expensive adapters behind me... So understand you very well, wish you luck (even if you do not need it), and hope you got my previous joke...

I got your joke Daves and like to repeat Jim: Speak for yourself. I was about to cry Haalleeluujaah, but than again, I didn't oscillate anything.
Leo, <<<Are you finding that closure the iris is combating the grain problem, but in contrast, causing the problem of allot of light loss?>>>
No, I meant that even the closure the iris doesn't give any noticeable grain(which would normally be the case). I have about 1 or 2 stops light loss, which is no problem.

I thought about parking my car in the shower when I wanted to paint it 'dust free', but I didn't even get it through the front door.

You either need to buy a smaller car or use a faster speed.

No, I'll just wax my car with micro-wax so I don't need to paint it, Bill.

After some outdoor shots I am happy with the results. No grain (seriously), only some vage still structure because the small aperture due to allot of sunlight. I'm thinking maybe with sunlight a gray filter would give a better result because the camcorders aperture would be bigger. Maybe on the adapter or on the camcorder. Any thoughts?

Oscar,
First: Leave the car and the cat out of this.... (for now)
Second: In an "ideal" (subject to defining ideal) world, the light would be just right for every scene and no one would even notice some "structure" due to less than "required" light + certain camcorder's behaviour at less than required light.
Untill that happens, I have noticed quite a few times a patern using the camcorder alone (no IMAGE CONVERTER) It happened in less than ideal light. Noise? AGC? Ugly for sure! So.... I think what you have is as good as it could be for the real world. Seeking perfection is a life and health ruining road. It never ends for nothing is perfect and "only perfect can create perfect" (how could an imperfect creature do a perfect "thing" or job?)......
Third: If you add an ND filter (purchase or home made)on the SLR lens you will only cut down the light reaching the screen. Camcorder's iris will open to compensate. But this way, the 'WHATEVER' structure might become more visible. I would keep the SLR lens wide open (no filters) and
1) use an ND filter on the camcorder's lens (to keep the iris open)(althought I did not understand why?) or
2) increase the shutter speed (for the same puropse) or
3) while keeping the iris open on camcorder (using ND or shutter speed) manual focus A TOUCH soft on the screen. See what happens. I loved the
FX. Not consistent though and subject to each scene readjusting focus..... but nice.

Dan, that's right. Funny thing is, we are perfecting the 'imperfection' /depth of field.
Accidentally, by hitting the camcorders lens or something, I've done like you say <manual focus A TOUCH soft on the screen> Maybe just a bit too much, but it certainly got rid of every pattern.
http://s01.picshome.com/4ae/4.jpg It gives a 70's look.

yeah..a bit too much, but better than "video look"

If anyone is looking for microwax sources I found out that it is used for Batik fabric dyeing so craft shops that sell supplies for that should stock it.
Batik is an Indonesian craft so this might be most applicable to people in SE Asia/ Australasia.
NZ stockist is Boise: http://www.boise.co.nz/office_supplies/SS_WAX_MICROWAX_BATIK_500GM_-2817861.htm

What I wonder about is how the Movie Tube, and similar products, have such allegedly perfect focusing screens. Apparently the Movie Tube actually uses beeswax. I suppose a possibility is to melt wax and use an airbrush to apply a thin and even layer of it, then bake it, but that seems kinda tricky.

There are things like this: http://www.llumar.com/PDF/English/deco%20spec%20sheet.pdf that look interesting, but I doubt they work well. Hmm...oh well.

Some of the foils you post are usable, but only on a moving GG.
Beeswax isn't good enough and so isn't Paraffine. I can spare you weeks of testing, I used both of them. Matthew, when I started this I read this thread several times to see what progress people made and were it got them so far. In short it's like this:
Frank Ladner tested different wax types and came to the conclusion that Microcrystalline was far best. Jim Lafferty started this thread and did lots of tests and came a long way with the microwax.
Keith Kline begun with the same technique as Frank and Jim and stranded with some problems I initially thought to solve with a technique which didn't work well enough on thin layers.
After about a month I came up with the technique that works 100% every time and I made a 'tutorial' http://members.chello.nl/a.schultzevspierenburg/wax/wax2.htm
I also came to the conclusion that Microcrystalline was far out best. 'No' grain and such a thin layer combined with two small condensers give just 1 to 2 stops of light loss.

I read the Movie Tube site closely, it says: Intermediate image> a special developed microcrystalline grain screen.
Sounds nice, but I regard microcrystalline grain as microcrystalline wax.

Your site seems to be 404.

Thanks Kyle, it's the bandwidth limit. I put everything up here:
http://members.chello.nl/a.schultzevspierenburg/wax/wax2.htm

Oscar,

Are you just wiping the wax off the outside or must it be scraped off?

Bill, you know you got me interested in this static thing in the first place, with your post on the G35....remember Jonath...hmm..Bill. Now I don't know if they use wax, but they certainly proved to have high quality without a moving GG. Thanks.
-
OK,
I scrap the wax off with a knife and a flat screwdriver and really pay attention that I don't scratch the glass. I leave the edge with wax. Than I clean it with refined petrol (not white spirit) and then with methylated spirit (if this is the right term - the blue alcoholic stuff)

I'd suggest a razor over a screwdriver -- it's what they use to remove decals from windshields without scratching the glass. An isopropyl alcohol paired with some disposable optical wipes will get the residual bits off.

Why not just tape up the glass and leave a tab sticking out of the wax, then peel it off after it cools?

Same thing -- you've got to clean off the tape residue, instead of wax. Might be a little easier to clean, but could present other problems during the wax procedure.

It sounds like it's a hell of a job to clean the glass, but it's not. A razor is fine unless it's too big to leave the wax on the side of the glass. I wouldn't use tape, because of what Jim says, it will produce bubbles in the wax and possibly make it useless if you want to use the wax again.

I'm about to make a higher resolution(1080 x 720) system (again) using two camcorders (filming the left and right part of the GG separately). I tested it by zooming in 2x on the wax glass: No Grain.

Let us see as soon as you can Oscar - it will be interesting to see the sideXside of the old GG and the new GG on the awesome double cam.

Bill, you know you got me interested in this static thing in the first place, with your post on the G35....remember Jonath...hmm..Bill. Now I don't know if they use wax, but they certainly proved to have high quality without a moving GG. Thanks.

LOL
I assure you I am not him! But it is cool I got you interested in static adapters. And you're welcome; seeing your DIY page is really neat so thank you in turn. But I do think you should pay attention to the sticker on the cigar tin.

One problem though: we don't have petrol in the United States.

Hey guys. I've been working on some other gear and still trying to get my garage/workshop clean out. I'm planning on ordering a few things from surplusshed.com I was thinking about trying to add a condensor lens or two to use with a micro wax gg. Does anyone have any clue what I should be looking for. Would I want a DCX lens or DCV or ?? I have no clue about that stuff. If anyone might know what focal length and what type of lens would work that would help a lot.

Hey Keith,
I use two thin condensers which are flat on one side so you can put them right on the GG. Frank told me to do something like that, but you can also see the Movie Tube patent page showing the exact same setup (with wax too)
The thing is, the condensers captures the whole image (not only spread the light) only without the DOF. But this enables you to make the wax layer very very thin, so you get a sharp bright image.
Did you notice my step by step wax page? http://members.chello.nl/a.schultzevspierenburg/wax/wax2.htm

Okay i see what you mean do you know what those type of condensors are called? I know like DCV and DCX lenses are curved on both sides. Not sure what the type are that are flat on one face.

I've been following your updates on the wax. Glad to see you found some micro wax. I'm gonna give your steps a try this weekend. I got some glass left over from before, plus I have about 5-10 sets of circular glass lenses I cut a few weeks back and Might give those a try. I'm trying to figure out a way to adapt your technique to use with the circular glass.

Flat on one side is called plano convex or PCX. I've tried a couple from Optosigma. I found if I put an 80mm focal length PCX between the lens and GG I got blurring of the image towards the edges. At the moment I've got GG PCX PCX camcorder like |)( It still has a little barrel distortion and chromatic aberration so I'm going to try 120mm focal length next (50mm diameter).

What diameter are your condensers Oscar? How thick are they? The 80mm focal length I have is about 13mm thick, longer focal length = thinner and less distortion, but possibly less hotspot correction.

What do you use for the second piece of glass when using a filter? Do you take that glass from another filter?