Pais, great idea. Tomorrow I'm going to try to get my hands on a 10 pound brick of microcrystalline wax and see what I can do. I'm also considering getting a condenser lens, which should help fix issues with vignetting. Unfortunately, I have a pretty much full time job now, and I'm pretty busy otherwise, so the free time just isn't what it used to be.
Home made mini-35 footage (pretty good) DVX
- Thread starter Policar
- Start date
Dizkoteck
Well-known member
I had a dream last night....
Why dont we sandpaper the UV lens instead of putting wax on it. Its kinda like grinding down a blank CD without the spinning. And having wax out there on a hot sunny day is gonna look real ugly you know what Im saying.
Im having trouble finding the right mount, it seems theres a lot of fancy pancy mounts on the B&H site. Is there any particular model number or something I should look for?
and oh yeah, goddamn! I just found out the price of achromatic doipters, I quit.
Why dont we sandpaper the UV lens instead of putting wax on it. Its kinda like grinding down a blank CD without the spinning. And having wax out there on a hot sunny day is gonna look real ugly you know what Im saying.
Im having trouble finding the right mount, it seems theres a lot of fancy pancy mounts on the B&H site. Is there any particular model number or something I should look for?
and oh yeah, goddamn! I just found out the price of achromatic doipters, I quit.
Scratched up glass won't work so well, but ground glass you can buy from optosigma will work! There will be more grain, though, and more light loss. Still not bad.
The new wax I'm getting (hopefully today!) melts at 174 degrees. It's microcrystalline, too so it should be even better. I will probably add a condenser if necessary, after that.
The macro lens I'm using cost under 20 dollars shipped (but it sucks). Anchor surplus optical has some nice looking achromats for around 30-40 dollars. Not century optics quality, but they look pretty good.
The new wax I'm getting (hopefully today!) melts at 174 degrees. It's microcrystalline, too so it should be even better. I will probably add a condenser if necessary, after that.
The macro lens I'm using cost under 20 dollars shipped (but it sucks). Anchor surplus optical has some nice looking achromats for around 30-40 dollars. Not century optics quality, but they look pretty good.
Dizkoteck
Well-known member
Question: Is there a difference between a Macro lens and a achromatic diopter? sorry if its a stupid question, I havent used them.
Also, I was reading this photography book about homemade cameras and they mentioned how to make ground glass. One way is using glassine. The other is with skim milk: pour skim milk on lens, let that thing dry up for a day or two and spray some sort of hardener(?) so the skim milk wont crack or flake.
Also, finding a 72mm 10+macro lens is pretty expensive, Will it still work if I were to get a 58mm 10+ and attach it via a step down ring?
Also, I was reading this photography book about homemade cameras and they mentioned how to make ground glass. One way is using glassine. The other is with skim milk: pour skim milk on lens, let that thing dry up for a day or two and spray some sort of hardener(?) so the skim milk wont crack or flake.
Also, finding a 72mm 10+macro lens is pretty expensive, Will it still work if I were to get a 58mm 10+ and attach it via a step down ring?
Macro lenses and diopters accomplish the same thing. I think diopters have an extra element that leads to less distortion. Definitely better to get an achromatic diopter.
Those methods may work pretty well, actually, but the ground glass has to have MUCH finer grain than standard ground glass used for large format photography since you're blowing the image up so large. If you're okay with tons of grain, both will work, but if you want a good image, neither will.
The step down ring may work. It probably will, but I'm not 100% sure how well. I think the g35 and micro35 both use it.
Microcrystalline wax is awesome, by the way! But it's so hard to work with. Grrr....
Again, my 72mm +10 was 18 dollars on ebay, but it doesn't work so great (although I have much better images than these early ones.)
You may also need a condenser lens, but I'm not convinced it's necessary with a thicker ground glass.
Those methods may work pretty well, actually, but the ground glass has to have MUCH finer grain than standard ground glass used for large format photography since you're blowing the image up so large. If you're okay with tons of grain, both will work, but if you want a good image, neither will.
The step down ring may work. It probably will, but I'm not 100% sure how well. I think the g35 and micro35 both use it.
Microcrystalline wax is awesome, by the way! But it's so hard to work with. Grrr....
Again, my 72mm +10 was 18 dollars on ebay, but it doesn't work so great (although I have much better images than these early ones.)
You may also need a condenser lens, but I'm not convinced it's necessary with a thicker ground glass.
I've had pretty decent results with ground glass, Dizkoteck. Not by using sandpaper, however, but a very fine-grit grinding powder. I'm curious about this "beeswax" approach because I've never heard of it before, and the results are a bit soft, but not bad at all.
Actually, my biggest problem is finding a good condenser -- namely a high quality, small, fine-ridged fresnel lens. Vignetting really brings out the grain in ground glass, and my credit card book magnifier works, but causes highlight flaring sometimes. Let me know if you come across anything, Policar, and do tell me more about that microcrystalline wax.
Actually, my biggest problem is finding a good condenser -- namely a high quality, small, fine-ridged fresnel lens. Vignetting really brings out the grain in ground glass, and my credit card book magnifier works, but causes highlight flaring sometimes. Let me know if you come across anything, Policar, and do tell me more about that microcrystalline wax.