The lenses I use are not 'real' condensers I think, but maybe that's why they work so well. I took one from a super8 camera and the other one from a broken telephoto lens. They are both about 40mm in diameter and not more than 5mm thick.
Matthew, I used the glass of a smaller filter.

Interesting discovery....

...a thin layer of vaseline makes a sharp focusing screen with no appreciable light loss. But wow...the hot spot sucks and so does the static image.

Any pictures Matthew of what the vaseline looks like?

OK, but I would not use something that is too soft already. Also I wouldn't try to solve the light-loss issue with a different wax type, because the micro-wax at thinnest layer (in relation to the hotspot) gives just 1 stop light-loss.

One important thing I found out this week. I couldn't do anything because it's so terribly hot here this week (The Netherlands) that it's officially a heatwave.
Doing nothing didn't give me no results, in stead it proved that the wax (all of the test glasses too) holds perfectly in hot summer conditions. No melting, other deformations or whatever.

That's good news - I know that I wondered if it would melt under the hot sun - no melting at all? No running or dripping?

No, the wax doesn't even get softer, so there is no issue on that part.

It will get softer and melt if you leave it exposed to extreme conditions at length. The melting point of S&P's wax is 96 degrees -- under most conditions it will be OK, but put it inside a black box or metal tube, then sit that in your trunk on an outting on a hot day and you'll get into trouble.

My microwax framegrabs and test footage are now located here:

http://70.147.193.182/mwtest

Download times on the larger files may be a bit slower, as we have switched from a T1 to DSL and the upstream is reduced.

Quoting myself from another thread:

I started working on a new microwax glass using the Oscar Spier method -- I'm leaving a 49mm filter untouched, placing a 43mm filter removed from its retainer ring ontop (with single layer tape spacers), and dunking the entire solution in melted wax. I'll have it finished tomorrow and let you know if/how it works.

Well, on the positive side, there are no bubbles or dust on this thing. The downside is the appearance of small anamolies, which plague this project for me :(

I'm thinking perhaps I need to place some weight ontop of the glass while it solidifies in order to even them out, but until then my results aren't worthwhile.

- jim

just a thought, may have been mentioned, but have you tried just letting the wax vapour condense on a glass plate?

hold a glass filter about 2inch above a tin of hot wax and let the condensed wax form a few molecules thick?

- move it about before its sets for even coverage.

That sounds like a lot of work to keep clean, get an even coating, and one of the right thickness. Thanks for the idea, though.

John: That's a clever idea! I wonder if the thickness would be adequate enough, though. If someone tries it, please share your results!

Quoting myself from another thread:
The downside is the appearance of small anamolies, which plague this project for me :(

- jim

Jim, what do you mean by small anamolies? Can describe it?

Yes... small variations in the surface of the wax. We're talking very very slight shifts in thickness in randomized patterns. You can get these kinds of things from a variety of problems -- oil on the surface of the glass (from your fingers); stratification from varied levels of cooling; or very small shifts in pressure between the glass at various points. I eliminated the first two. Can't seem to get past the last one while simultaneously working at a sufficiently thin layer of wax.

What you end up seeing in footage, and you can't see it clearly in static shots, is a subtle shift in exposure randomly across the frame. It really shows up if you pan across a brightly lit object, like the pages of an open book, or a white wall.

If you hold the filter at arm's length, you'd be hard-pressed to see these small variations -- but if you bring it closer to your eye and look through the wax at a light source, they show up pretty obviously as "shadows" across the wax's surface.

If you've got this problem solved, I'd be willing to offer you a fair amount of money to just make me a wax GG and ship it to me.

- jim

Jim, you are too close to just leave it... I think these irregularities in the wax most likely come from different melting or cooling times, or it could be the wax de-mixing. The last one I avoid by shacking the melted wax or vibrate it.
To get the best heating and cooling I wait some time after putting the first glass with filter in the wax. In the same time I heat up the other glass, because the wax must not cool down on the surface of the glass when I put the top glass in the wax.

Did you ever try to remelt the wax glass again (just a short time) to even out the surface?

Jim, you are too close to just leave it...
I second that! Giving up is nothing but a waste. (I wished I could offer practical help though....)

I second that! Giving up is nothing but a waste. (I wished I could offer practical help though....)

I'm with you, but I've sort of tired of the exercise for the moment and am eyeball deep in unfinished work. So, time is limited.

And speaking of, I'm on my way to Montreal in the morning. A solidified pool of microwax with the latest attempt beneath the surface sits here, and it will have to wait for me to return to dig it out :)

Who knows, maybe I'll come back recharged.

- jim

Back from Canada and tried again today. Like I said: would you be willing to sell me one, Oscar? :D

Re-read your posts here and found that I've been omitting two details in my attempts: I haven't been heating the glass, and I haven't been pushing down on the glass with wooden tongs/spoon while the wax is liquid to squeeze the wax.

Tried heating the glass today -- even hotter than the melted wax -- dropped it into the melted wax without issue. Results are better, my best so far, but still off the mark enough to be worthless. Same fluctuations in the wax.

Re-heated the same wax and gave it a press with a wooden spoon. Cooling it now.

Also, I have been refrigerating mine and let it cool naturally today -- I guess that's a third difference in our techniques. It didn't solve the persistent issue, obviously.

- jim

Jim:

These fluctuations you're seeing in the wax...can it be described as a sortof wavey pattern colored a bit differently than it's supposed to be? It could be due to multiple reheatings of the wax and introducing particles into the mix each time. ...or it could be due to the cooling.

I just know that I got my best results with a fresh batch. (Also with a clean pot each time.)

I was at Hobby Lobby recently and saw the "Do-It-Yourself Microwax Glass Kit for Videographers" but it was way too expensive. j/k ;-)

Jim, Frank could be right about that. Also, try to mix the wax several times before you drop the glass in by shaking it or like I did a view times, hold a electric razor or something against the side to vibrate it. Another reason (you probably already know) of differences in the wax is uneven cooling. I put the whole box on a cool (not cold) flat surface.

Looking at my wax glasses (micro and paraffin), they have those things you describe on the sides where the spacers are, but they are outside the frame area.

Is it nice, Montreal?

Well, I ran another test yesterday -- all I did was reheat the wax sandwich and press on it with a wooden spoon. The good news is that it shows that the source of my headaches is some sort of shift in pressure, not temperature or other problems. In other words, things came out looking near perfect. The only issue now is redoing the sandwich and pressing on it while it's still submerged in the wax. I'm hoping to find a flat faced, round piece of wood (piece off of a dowel) to press with so that I get an even dispersion of pressure across the surface of the glass.

The sandwich I did yesterday, not being in the wax at the time, when I pressed on it, the wax seeped out the sides. The wax that remained had no issues, looks perfectly uniform and thin, but there formed a small ring of little-to-no wax around where I'd placed the pressure. My hope is that this won't be a problem if the wax is given a chance to return.

As for Montreal, I loved it, especially since it's very much the antithesis to New York. There's a high value placed on leisure there, something I wish was more common in the States, and definitely more common in NYC. Life here is very pressing and rough for someone like myself, trying to split time between an average income and work week, and trying to endeavor "art" and all sorts of other pursuits (like this adapter). What started out as a trip from hell -- multiple delays of our flight, our only piece of checked luggage being sent to Puerto Rico, an absent host and an overflowing toilet -- turned out to be wonderful because the people and atmosphere were so open and genuinely friendly. There's a big hip-hop community there and overall the town has a sort of youthful chill-out energy. It's nice to see a place that plans around the natural environment instead of through it -- recycling "trashcans" on every street, wide bike paths, a fast, quiet subway, and little cars filled with generally curteous drivers. Plants and trees all over the place, and a crime-rate so low people generally leave their doors wide open and windows lifted over night. Oddly, though cell phones are commonly advertised and offered, I literally not once saw someone speaking on one -- must be some sort of implicit rule -- the sound of background chatter and noise in NYC is deafening by comparison.

Needless to say, a place in Europe might be a better home for my girlfriend and I.

- jim

OK. Now it's confirmed -- the pressure seems to make all the difference. Last one came out perfect but for some dust (I've re-used this wax several times). Using a fresh batch of wax now and should have final results tomorrow.

I gotta hand it to you Oscar, your technique takes a lot of the guesswork out.

I'm working with my wax and filters in an old Altoids tin and it's great :)

- jim

I literally not once saw someone speaking on one -- must be some sort of implicit rule

Damn that does it. I'm moving to Canada. Sounds like a natural haven!

OK Jim, I hope it works for you. One thing I can say about the pressure is that I push the top glass with a piece of wood and try to move the it on the filter glass to get as much as I can. Maybe you can flip it up just a mm a view times.

I never been to Canada, although two very good friends of my father live there. A 'well known' director Pierre Falardeau and the actor Julien Poulin (Elvis Graton), both from Montreal. I got the same impression your describe about Canada from their films (or more their view on the US)

Sounds like a natural haven!
hehehe.......

Things with this new wax look damn good but not perfect yet. Grrrr. So close...

Still seeing very minor "smudges" in the wax -- it looks like a subtle smudge on the lens if I didn't know better. They're only really perceptible if I'm panning across a white, or brightly lit/colored surface, but they're there. I have no idea if a pair of condensors will "iron" these out. I do know they're a result of needing greater, even pressure displaced across the glass' surface while the wax is still liquid, though. I'm going to work on a setup, possibly with a c-clamp, sometime over the weekend.

On a related note, Oscar -- what are you using for spacers again? Foil and epoxy or something else?

I've taken some test footage and I'll see if I have the time to post frame-grabs tonight or by Sunday. Good news is that I gain a stop with the wax versus the 3 micron a-ox -- scenery that looks good in f/3.4 at 1/60th with the wax needs f/2.6 with the ground glass.

- jim

Good to hear it's going the right way. Yes, aluminium foil glued on the top glass with epoxy, really pushed on the glass. Terrible to do, because you can't spoil the epoxy, or clean it immediately with aceton. But it's the only thing I could find that doesn't give those bubbles in the wax. You have to wait some hours at leased though.
A condenser is very important in my opinion. I learned about the two condensers from Frank and later found it back in the design of the MovieTube. You can also clearly see the effect (like glowing highlights)of the condenser in the Guerrilla35 footage.

Frank,

Was wondering about your footage (shot labelled "MicrowaxAdapter_shot_02_24p_720x480.avi") -- are you using condensors in this shot? What kind of cam is it again?

I'm asking because I'm looking over my latest footage now and there's still considerably more grain than in your shot, despite the fact that my sandwich is separated by one layer of Scotch tape :/

- jim

Jim, were did you find that footage anyhow, Franks homepage is empty. Is it possible to post a frame-grab or two, I remember that I could never play those files of Frank because of my slow connection or something. I'm very curious to his results.
I wonder if this thread is going to be crowded now that Matthew is selling microwax to everyone in another thread.

http://70.147.193.182/mwtest

It was switched up recently. He's got frame grabs there, as well, though they come across slowly even on my connection (cable, broadband). It's officially the high-water mark in my mind :)

Ah...I've seen those some time ago, when I didn't know what I was looking at. I see the 'grain' is the same as mine, the difference is the camera. I used a consumer camcorder on my tests.
I'll put a new wax glass in my double camcorder system in the coming weeks, in which two (consumer) camcorders film the image in two halves and create a 720x1080 image.

Oscar,

How do you get rid of the line down your double-camera image, anyway? I saw a basic reference to how you did it, in another thread.

You mentioned in another thread the use of vacuum pumps. That seems like a pretty good idea, actually, to ensure that no air bubbles (even very small ones) get in.

Next week I'm going to buy some microscope slides (cheap, made of decent glass, very thin, guaranteed to have a very even surface since they're viewed under extreme magnification) and cut them down from 1''X3" to 1''X2'' (23mmX46mm) using a glass cutter. Then, I'll use Oscar's method except that I'll put them in a vacuum pump and allow them to solidify while in a vacuum. Then, I'll cut the edeges out with a heated x-acto knife and clean the wax off the top and bottom. Hopefully this will be pretty reliable and (since slides are cheap) very inxpensive as well.

One camcorder shoots through a mirror. That mirror is put at some distance from the GG so it will create an overlap area between the left and the right part of the frame.
Than I put a 'feathered' mask on the overlap area in post.
This makes it more clear. (http://s01.picshome.com/52a/0-00-09-02c.jpg)
Maybe I'll dig up my old thread on this when I start to work on it again.

If anyone wants to delete my thread on this, they can. I should have posted here instead.

I got capillary action working and it seems to be pretty simple and give incredibly even results, although I was surprised to see grain from the wax when I was hoping for none (or at least less). The results appear to be almost identical to Oscar's method (although less refined--this is a first attempt) with a few minor flaws that resulted from me removing the the screen instead of letting it cool in the wax. The wax is also thicker than I'd like, but I'm going to use thinner spacers for my next attempt. Also, about 1/4'' of the glass gets a layer of wax on it and the rest stays clean, which is pretty nice. One could conceivably make a large batch all at once, too, which is an advantage and it's really fast to make and pretty easy. The one problem is that you basically need to use rectangular glass, so circular glass is not an option.

Does anyone know where to buy thin sheets of glass? I wanted to buy microscope slides, but their dimensions are 22mmX66mm when I'd prefer something along the lines of 75mmX40mm.

I'll post pics later. (Of the diffuser, not footage, since I used random shards of glass which woudln't fit into an adapter. Trust me, I tried.)

With respect (really), you are starting all over again. I developed my method because Jim and Frank were using capillary action at first(see the beginning of this thread), which didn't work out well enough. I tried a variation myself and then moved on to a horizontal setup. Have you actually tried what I described on my site? It's not difficult nor messy. If it does not work for you every time, you are doing something different. There are numerous little things that are crucial for a good result.

Capillary aciton works well for me, but I'll try your method as well and compare. I'm curious (re-reading the thread) what the problem with it was. The only thing I can think of is that if it cools ouside the wax, cracks could theoretically form, but slow cooling would prevent this.

It's not that one technique works and another doesn't work. It's just that you probably won't be able to solve those little problems using Capillary action. Trust me, I've been working on this for months, I don't see the point in trying the same things again.
And don't forget that if your wax layer is too thick, not only the light loss is too much, but the image wouldn't be as sharp as can be.

Frank,

Was wondering about your footage (shot labelled "MicrowaxAdapter_shot_02_24p_720x480.avi") -- are you using condensors in this shot? What kind of cam is it again?

I'm asking because I'm looking over my latest footage now and there's still considerably more grain than in your shot, despite the fact that my sandwich is separated by one layer of Scotch tape :/

- jim

Jim: In the "02_24p_720x480" shot, I didn't use any condensers. I think the only clip in the bunch that was shot with condensers is the one called MicrowaxAdapter_Test_Condenser.mpg, which I shot to test out a new condenser setup.

They were all shot with a Canon GL2 in frame mode. The 24p ones were converted with Twixtor in After Effects.

The main reason for lack of grain in some of my footage is likely due to thickness. (I tended to use thicker spacers.)

There is a balance somewhere in there...

If it's too thin, you have hotspot and more visible grain. Too thick and you have a diffused / soft image that isn't bright enough.

Somehow if you can get it thick enough to distribute the light more evenly and be more grain-free, but also of acceptable brightness...that's what you want.

In polymer chemistry and metallurgy, faster cooling leads to smaller crystalline structures (or smaller "grains") and vis-versa. I assume the rules apply to wax. Has someone tried a rapid cool down step with an ice bath or nitrogen?

Yes, but cooling rapidly gives too much side effects, like patterns in the wax.

About the grain, I have one strip spacers and with a fairly open aperture I don't have noticeable grain and I loose just about 1 or 2 F stops of light. You can check all my test images and see that the ones with bright sunlight have some grain but the ones with lower light (I don't mean darker) don't have grain. The more the iris closes on the camcorder, the more contrast it gives on the wax glass.

I tried rapid cooling -- dumping a 350 degree glass and wax sandwich into a cold bucket of water. Surprisingly, the glass didn't break, but the wax layer stayed practically clear. I couldn't believe it. I didn't try it with a thicker layer of wax, though. I'd been trying to get the same success as Oscar, and am still struggling, though having fun with this ;)
I'd hoped the rapid cooling would completely eliminate the patterns/stratification I keep encountering in the wax. It did -- too much. I believe what makes the wax so effective is the crystalline structure it achieves over slow cooling -- rapid cooling seems to destroy that structure completely.

Glen,

Are you related to either Chris or James Hurd?

<<<<though having fun with this>>>>
You sometimes forget this....it's allot of fun.

Glen, I had the same thing putting the glass is the fridge.
Also something to keep in mind, if you remelt the wax too often the grain will get bigger, so you could better let it cool down on a normal cool flat surface.

I tried rapid cooling, too (with a thinner spacer, two layers of scotch tape instead of one layer of aluminum tape) and the grain was so much smaller I could no longer see it with my naked eye (or barely). With slow cooling, it was very easy to see. Unfortunately, the slow cooled wax was near perfect but the quick-cooled one was a bit of a mess. Somewhere inbetween might be ideal, although the small patch in the fast-cooled wax that was perfect was incredibly even, smooth, and virtually grainless.

To describe the grain on my wax glass (normal cooling): you can only see it under a strong lupe. The grain has also allot to do with how you heat the wax. You should mix or vibrate it when it's hot. That's the reason I use the horizontal setup. The wax can settle before you catch it between the glass. And even then I move the glass to even out the wax.

Glen,

Are you related to either Chris or James Hurd?

But I've never seen so many Hurds in one place before. I've been lurking for a month, hoping I'll have something to contribute soon. But I don't ;)
I am buying more MicroWax, however, since discovering that I can't keep re-using what I've got and expect to get the quality needed for a static adaptor. Anyone want to buy some off me? (JUST kidding! :)
I've tried capillary (thick and thin), melted in a frying pan, melted in a toaster oven, melted with a propane torch (broke three that way). Frozen, dunked in water, slowly cooled over 12 hours (5 degree drops at a time). Used rubbing alcohol, film cleaner, cotton, paper towels . . . What a blast! Every time I put a ground glass in my cereal box with my Nikon lens taped to the end I catch my breath. Some day I'll be able to shoot video that looks like this!! Only without the patterns and evolving bubbles, etc.
Or so I hope.

I just used a cereal box yesterday! I even tried mounting it to my dvx. Talk about messy.

Glen, before you end up making fish and chips in your microwax..., take a look at my site (if you haven't already) because this actually works: http://members.chello.nl/a.schultzevspierenburg/wax/wax2.htm
Make that circular filters in stead of square glass if you want(like the top image). One filter with the ring left and one with just the glass and spacers.

I know I'm kinda late to this discussion, but I just figured out a real cheap way of doing this. Sure, the quality's not even close, but it works decently for playing around.

Step 1. Buy bag of 100 Votive Candles from IKEA. Cost: $10. (Don't you just love IKEA pricing?)
Step 2. Pull votive out of metal by it's wick.
Step 3. Pull wick and metal plate out of wax.
Step 4. Cut wax in half and put in metal container.
Step 5. Set on stove on lowest setting.
Step 6. When melted, pour over a cut piece of CD Jewel Case cover.
Step 7. Let cool for about a minute, then play!

It acually produces relatively decent footage. I don't have a box to put it in yet though, so the footage is a little tainted, thus I haven't recorded enough to make a web-ready clip.

This stuff really is fun.