Paint brush review for miniatures

I have recently had trouble with a couple of brand new sable hair brushes from very well respected brands. They split into a fork, almost immediately that I started using them.

I'd recently watched a video about how these brushes were made and I realise that a significant part of the manufacturing process is the quality control at the end to weed out those that are just not going to stay in shape. That's the reason for buying a more expensive sable hair brush rather than a more budget version.

This is mainly a review of sable brushes for painting miniature plastic figures using acrylic paint. Most of my painting with these brushes is on resin 3D printed 28mm to 32mm figures.

Criteria

My main requirements for a brush for miniature painting is that it has a tip that stays in a sharp point while holding enough paint to work with. The feel, often referred to as spring of the bristles, is also a significant factor.

I have plenty of budget brushes which work well but they frequently need care during use to maintain the point. The spring varies but none of the synthetic bristles have quite the feel of a sable hair brush.

The Brushes

Based on other people's recommendations, I've bought a number of different brand's sable hair brushes from their series most commonly used for miniature painting. I've ended up with a few different types because my experience of them is not as consistent as the reviews would imply.

For me, they all have a better feel to the spring of the bristles than a synthetic brush. My main issue with synthetic brushes is that they invariably end up with a curl at the end. Some sooner than others.

Brushes come in different lengths and style of bristles, flat, round, long, standard, short and a host of speciality variations. For miniature painting, like most people, I find it is the standard length round bristle brush that gets used the most. There is also a shorter length that appears to have evolved specifically for miniature painting.

It is the normal dimension bristles that I use for getting most of the paint on a miniature. I find the shorter versions are better suited to small details because they do not hold enough paint for larger areas. When I do this it is typically with a size 00 Winsor and Newton Series 7 miniature. There are a lot of small details on miniatures, so I do use this brush a lot and I am very pleased with it. The series 7 miniature is not to be confused with the series 7 (not-miniature) that the rest of this testing refers to.

Brush Care

I won't go into detail on this subject, but all the brushes have been well looked after. In use, I try to avoid getting paint beyond the belly. This minimises the paint that gets in to the ferrule which over time, in my experience, is the ultimate demise of most brushes.

Testing

As an initial test, I decided to try out the same paint task with all of the respected brands brushes that I owned in a size zero. Not a long test, a few details on two figures with each brush.

I've then gone on to use them over time and revisited this article to add additional notes.

The Results

To set the record straight at the start, all of these brushes have a good feel when used. They are just not as consistent as I would like when it comes to holding their points.

All of the split hairs shown could be reshaped and the brush was then usable again until the next time. Some split again sooner than others.

Da Vinci Maestro series 10

• Bristles: Sable
• Initial experience: Stray hairs almost immediately.
• Extended use: I was pleased with this brush and found myself selecting it for getting the initial layers on to a miniature where they had lots of detail to work round. Perhaps not my first choice, but I'd buy series 10's again.

Da Vinci Maestro series 10

This series has a very slightly shorter bristle than the others I tested. A good compromise size between the very small miniature brushes that hold too little paint and the standard size. It might suit those wanting only one brush.

Artis Opus series S

• Bristles: Sable
• Initial experience: Good point but a stray hair after a short while. Easily sorted.
• Extended use: I found this brush competent and was my go to brush for medium details. It's point split only if I had been using it for a prolonged period and far less than the others I'm using. I like them so much that I've bought more of the series S brushes. 

Artis Opus series S

Winsor and Newton series 7

• Bristles: Sable
• Initial experience: A stray hair and split into a fork after using for a short while.
• Extended use: This brush was probably my most disappointing. Winsor and Newton have a good reputation. I now have several series 7 brushes and they all split dramatically and far too frequently. I now only use them for painting larger areas. I'm unlikely to buy any more series 7 brushes.

Winsor and Newton series 7

As mentioned earlier, the "series 7" and the "series 7 miniature" are two different product ranges. I still like the series 7 miniature for my very detailed work.

Raphael series 8404

• Bristles: Sable
• Initial experience: Nice point but split into a slight fork after being used for a short while.
• Extended use: With the brush I'm testing I have found that it splits into a fork more often than the other brushes I'm using. It is also the largest size 0 brush of those that I am testing. I find I select this brush less often than the others, that's probably because of the size. With other choices that I prefer, I am unlikely to buy any more of the 8404's.

Raphael series 8404

After I had used this a few times, when dry, the bristles on this 8404 brush separated. It does not hold it's point while being stored. The point forms again when wet.

My biggest complaint with the Raphael brushes that I received, was the sticker. 

Sticker on the Raphael brushes

The sticker was difficult to remove and I could only get rid of the residue with WD40.

I bought these from the same stockist and at the same time as other brushes, only the Raphael had the stickers on.

Rosemary and Co series 401

• Bristles: Sable blend.
• Initial experience: This is the only brush in the test which included some synthetic hairs in the mix. Guess what, the end curled! It also developed a fork.
• Extended use: It's a nice brush to use. I have to work round the curl but that can sometime be in my favour. I don't use it for the ultimate detail but it does everything else well. That said, I can't see myself buying any more series 401 brushes.

Rosemary and Co series 401

Rosemary and Co series 401

When dry the bristles on all the series 401's, that I have, separate and do not hold their point. The point forms again when wet.

Conclusion

My expectations are too great!

All of them needed to be cleaned and reshaped from time to time while in use. Some more than others. Despite the limitations I encountered,  my observation is that sable hair brushes form and retain their point with less irritations compared to brushes with other types of bristle and release the paint with a comfortable spring.

Based on the individual brushes that I have, I will mainly be using brushes from the Artis Opus series S range in the future.

==

Matt clear coat reviews

I made a mistake varnishing some miniatures and they ended up a little bit glossy. I put too thick a coat on. Pretty much any matt spray will end up satin if it is applied too thickly. This got me thinking that it is far too easy to go wrong with matt clear coat.

I decided to try a few clear coats to see which gave the best results.

For as long as I can remember I've struggled to find a matt varnish that I'm happy with. I already had a small selection and I bought a few more to test. The one that gets the best reviews by others, Mr Hobby, was not available, so I have not been able to test that.

I used the figures that were glossy to try out the varnishes.

The photo's did not show the variation in surface finish sufficiently to be of any use in comparing the results. I have looked at the models themselves, carefully, side by side. In the following images, the miniature on the right, with the tuft of grass, is my control, which remains as the glossy mistake..

I checked the instructions for everything I was testing and followed them as closely as possible. All the spray cans said roughly the same. Shake well and spray from about 30cm (12") in thin coats. For my tests I did two quick passes to get a fine mist over the surface.

I've included the hairspray because I had it to hand and it's what I've previously used to help hold grass flock in place.

Results

None of them were as matt as I would have liked bearing in mid that I started with a smooth satin surface.

My testing was very limited, so do not take my results as definitive. I have only tested one can or pot of each and only done one test with each. With that in mind, these are my opinions of the finished surfaces.

Wella Silvikrin Hairspray

• Application: Spray can
• Cost: £
• Result: More glossy.

Hycote Matt Lacquer

• Application: Spray can
• Cost: £
• Result: Slightly matt.

The Army Painter Matt Varnish

• Application: Spray can
• Cost: ££
• Result: Acceptable matt finish, joint best of the batch.

Winsor and Newton Professional Matt Varnish

• Application: Spray can
• Cost: £££
• Result: Acceptable matt finish, joint best of the batch.

Rust-Oleum Crystal Clear Matt

• Application: Spray can
• Cost: ££
• Result: Slightly matt.

Vallejo Matt Polyurethane Varnish

• Application: Brush or airbrush. Tested by brush.
• Cost: £
• Result: Slightly matt.

Xtracrylix Flat Varnish by Hannants

• Application: Brush or airbrush. Tested by brush.
• Cost: £
• Result: Barely matt.

Conclusion

Of the two that gave acceptable finishes, The Army Painter Matt Varnish spray is the best value. I will probably use that from now on.

I prefer the spray nozzle of the Winsor and Newton, but at nearly twice the price including delivery, The Army Painter is the clear choice.

For some finishes a matt that is less matt and more satin may be appropriate. I am likely to use some of the other clear coats specifically for those effects. I'm thinking of steel armour, for one. The Rust-Oleum Crystal Clear Matt is my go to for those surfaces.

In Practice

When using a clear coat to protect model figures, I do two quick passes from the front, the same from the back and usually a single pass from above. Depending on the base finish, I often do an extra layer over the base, trying to avoid getting any more on the miniature. This last step is to help hold the basing materials in place.

Another thing to note is that the finished result does depend on the starting surface. All of the clear coats I have tried are more matt if the original surface is already matt. 

==

AI to SVG online conversion reviews

I needed to convert a single Adobe Illustrator (AI) file to a Scaleable Vector Graphics (SVG) file. Primarily I want to be able to reproduce it at any size with the minimum loss of quality.

AI and SVG are both vector graphics formats. AI is proprietary and SVG is open.

Good quality - finished result

I was surprised when I did the first conversion online that the result was a poor quality, apparently raster image, not a vector. I tried another site and got a much better result. That's when I decided I should write a quick review to remind myself of which sites to use in the future.

Reviews

The process was very simple. I uploaded the same file to each site, as instructed by that site. I asked for it to be converted and then I downloaded the file when it was ready. I compared the results in Inkscape.

It was a friend's file, so there was no value for me to pay for the conversion. It was at no cost or not at all.

I did not do any thinking, I expected the online site to select the best output for me. That may not have been appropriate if I was testing raster graphics but for vector graphics, I would expect a perfect reproduction without any need for input from me.


CloudConvert
https://cloudconvert.com/ai-to-svg
Speed: Quick. The 2 meg file took only a few seconds.

CloudConvert

Output: Top quality vector graphic. Perfect. The black was blacker than the others and closer to my expectations.
I was able to ungroup components and re-position them.

Convertio
https://convertio.co/ai-svg/
Speed: Quick. The 2 meg file took only a few seconds.

Convertio

Output: Top quality vector graphic. Perfect. The black was a bit greyer than I expected.
I was able to ungroup components and re-position them.

Zamzar
https://www.zamzar.com/convert/ai-to-svg/
Speed: OK. Took less than a minute to convert.

Zamzar

Zamzar - close up of the tip of a petal - shows flaw

Output: Acceptable but slight flaws in the vector positions. The black was a bit greyer than I expected.
I was able to ungroup components and re-position them.

onlineconvertfree.com
https://onlineconvertfree.com/convert-format/ai-to-svg/
Speed: Quick. The 2 meg file took only a few seconds.

onlineconvertfree

Output: Raster graphic encapsulated in a vector file. That is not what I expected nor what I wanted. Poor result. No groups.

Scan

I used a scan of some finished artwork to confirm which of the vector conversions was closest to how the original designer intended.

Conclusion

CloudConvert and Convertio produced almost identical results except for a slight variation in colour. Both will be perfect for my needs.

==

A bit about Vector Graphics

There are only a few applications whose main purpose it to create vector graphics. Adobe Illustrator is probably the most widely used professional application. It is very well known and liked. For those of us that are reluctant to invest that cost for the odd bit of casual drawing, it is more common to use the free Inkscape application.

==

Heavy duty tie down D ring review

This is perhaps an odd thing to write a quick review on but I bought two different makes, to ensure that at least one turned up on time.

Both from Amazon:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07D75G239
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07GBW1BSX
Both with the same specification, 1200lbs (540kgs) breaking strain and 400lbs (180kgs) load.

As it happened, they arrived at the same time.

They are both more than adequate for any job that I am likely to use them for but one make was clearly much better made and finished than the other.

One had a visible weld and a more chrome like finish. The slightly raised weld made the loop stiff in the clip. The other type was a continuous loop and looked more like a solid metal finish. It ran smoothly in the clip.

They were similar prices in the quantity I purchased. If I had only seen one, I would have been happy with either but if I was buying again, I would prefer the type with the cleaner finish.

==

Budget fitness tracker

For over a year I have had a Fitbit. Shelley bought us each one to make sure we stay healthy in to our old age. The Fitbit would no longer sync with my phone.

As a replacement, I have recently bought a low budget, £32, fitness tracker from Amazon and it works better than I was expecting.

Last year, when the Android operating system was updated, my Fitbit stopped synchronising to my phone. This was annoying but, after having reported it, I expected the well known brand to fix their app fairly quickly.

Here are just a few examples of the failure:
https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Charge-2/Oneplus-6-not-syncing-with-Charge-2/td-p/2977959
https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Charge-2/Add-OnePlus-6-into-your-supported-devices-for-Charge-2/td-p/2847419
https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Versa-Versa-Lite/OnePlus-6-and-Versa-compatibility/td-p/2773251
https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Android-App/Syncing-and-notification-issues-on-oneplus-6/td-p/2870890

6 months or so later, they still answer the queries with "It's not on our compatibility list".
Most people do not check a compatibility lists before buying a device that works with Android and most people expect the well known brands to be on the case to fix faults.

I am very disappointed with Fitbit.

The new one I have bought is branded more-Fit but there were a dozen identical models with different brand names. I picked more-Fit over others because they were on Amazon with answers to customers questions.

The model I have bought is excellent. It was easy to set-up. I just downloaded the VeryFitPro app on my phone, after finding the device it prompted to bind the fitness tracker, I then entered a minimum of personal details, job done.

The fitness tracker I now have does not count as many steps as my Fitbit used to but there is no way to know, which is correct. The software display is not quite as clear but everything I need is there. The fact I can get anything on my phone is the important bit and better still it reliably syncs.

I don't know why but I am, yet again, surprised by how poor some big brands are at looking after their customers and how good some of the very low price, usually Chinese, products are.

==

Cuprinol v Ronseal fence colour

I've used two different makes of black treatment for some garden fence panels.

• Cuprinol Ducksback
• Ronseal One Coat Fence Life

I'm primarily using them to change the colour of the panels. The added weather protection is just a bonus.

I have no reason to doubt the protective nature of both products. I have used similar products from both brands in the past and they have lasted well.

Both are water based products. I much prefer that over oil based products.

Ronseal Fence Life

This has a thin, near water like, consistency.
It is fairly easy to apply with a brush and gets in to the crevices.
The colour is described as a black oak colour. I can understand why. On the pressure treated fence panels it is not completely black, more a, watery, very dark brown.

A nice colour but not entirely black.

Cuprinol Ducksback

This has a thick gloopy consistency.
If it is not watered down, it needs a bit of effort with a brush to work in to the rough sawn timber.
The colour is black. No question about it. The result is almost like paint.

I prefer the colour of the Cuprinol and it covers a wider range of materials including, to some degree, galvanised steel.

Watering Down

I'm sure the manufacturers of both products would be horrified that I water down their products.
On sawn timber I find that the thinner consistency is much easier to apply when using a brush.

Mixed to the following approximate proportions the colour change was barely noticeable on sawn timber:
Ronseal: 60% Fence Life to 40% water.
Cuprinol: 40% Ducksback to 60% water.
Remember that I am only interested in the colour. Watering down is likely to have an adverse effect on their protective abilities.

The Ronseal pot is a larger diameter, so it is much easier to fit the brush in to, it is also easier to open and close.
I have kept the Ronseal pot to fill with Cuprinol :-)

==

Update: November 2024

We were advised by a number of people to use Bedec Barn Paint for The Shed build.

I tried it on some fences and gates first and that has lasted very well for the last 18 months with no sign of deterioration.

This has been used undiluted as a preservative as well as the colour, so is not a fair test against the other two, but has done a very good job and is now what I use for every outside timber job.

I apply it with a brush. It's fairly easy even though it has a quite thick consistency.

==

Mini filament review

For the last couple of days I have been printing some signs.
They are mainly flat with raised lettering.

Due to various failures I have been trying different types of filament among other things to fix the issues.

The results have led to some conclusions and preferences.

Filament choices in order of preference:

Rigid.ink PLA Plus
This is the best at the job so far. It stays flat on the glass with no warping even on the largest size flat prints.
It's not perfect though. The end of the spool is wound so tightly that the Ultimaker 2+ extruder struggles to get the last half dozen layers of coils off of the spool. That's a lot of wasted filament!
My guess is that the tight loops press against the inside of the Bowden tube so I can't even use it loose from the spool.
Heated to 225C with the bed at 45C.
The results have a nice tidy surface finish with sharp edges.
Takes spray paint well.
Update: Rigid.ink is no longer available. They suggest trying https://shop.3dfilaprint.com. I have used them before but have not got any in stock to try out. I'll update this article when I have tested some.
I'll probably try their Premium PLA:
https://shop.3dfilaprint.com/filaprint-black-premium-pla-285mm-3d-printer-filament-1380-p.asp


ColorFabb PLA/PHA
This was a lot better than standard PLA. It stayed flat on most prints with only a slight tendency to curl.
I get best result running it hotter than the suggested.

For me I heat to 215C with the bed at 60C.
The surfaces are nice and tidy. The raised details have a very slight bulge at the corners. If I was not comparing to other prints I would not have noticed.
When spray painting it is obvious the surface is porous along the print lines.

3DFilaPrint.com PLA
This would not stay flat. Even before it had done the third layer the edges of the brim were curling up and by the time the print had finished, the main body had lifted by a couple of millimetres at several corners.
I've used this successfully on other prints. It just does not like the thin flat prints.
Printed at 210C with the bed at 60C

Inconsistent Information
Several of the manufacturers provide guides or printed temperature ranges on their boxes. This information often changes. One manufacturer has three different heated bed temperature suggestions for the same filament, one on their web site, a different figure on a card supplied in the box and yet another range on the side of the box!

I no longer take the instructions as fixed rules. I use the suggestions as a guide to get me in the right direction. Trial and error is the only sure way.

==

Glass Thickness

As far as fixing the various issues, I think the glass is the main problem.

One of the problems is that the prints would warp. This always started in the rear right corner. For many prints that was the only issue but invariably the print would lift so high it would impede the print head and ruin the print.

I can only assume there is a slight inconsistency in the glass thickness. If I avoid printing on the rear right quadrant of the print bed, I get much more reliable results.
The affected area extends about 50mm from the right hand edge to about half way forwards from the back edge.

I managed to avoid this by rotating the largest prints and they have all worked since.

I plan to experiment with bed levelling to see if by deliberately setting a greater distance at the front left corner I can get better reliability at the rear right.

==

Worn Nozzle

Before I was able to get anything working I had to replace the nozzle.
The filament would flow for a while then get straggly. Small blobs every few millimetres with thin thread like strands between!

I don't know if the hot end nozzle was contaminated or worn but after I replaced it the flow was even again.

==

Printed with Thicker Layers

In the past I have found that thicker layers are troublesome. Now that I have done some more trials, I am able to successfully and reliably print with the following settings:
Nozzle: 0.4mm
Layer height: 0.24mm
Edge, top and bottom thickness: 1.2mm
Print speed: 60mm/s
Travel speed: 120mm/s
Adhesion: 7mm brim
Bed: Glass with hairspray (once in a while)

Rules of Thumb
I found on an Ultimaker forum, a rough guide to layer thickness and print speeds.
This approximately lines up with my experience, so I will use it from now on, rather than my usual guess work.

Maximum layer thickness: 3/4 of the nozzle diameter
e.g. 0.4mm nozzle can print a layer up to 0.3mm thick.

Maximum speed
The maximum print speed is determined by how fast the filament extruder can feed.
Stock Ultimaker 2 extruder, maximum throughput of 2.85mm filament: 7mm³/s

Calculation: Nozzle diameter x layer height x speed = throughput area
e.g. 0.4mm x 0.3mm x 40mm/s = 4.8mm³/s
Maximum speed calculation = Maximum throughput / (nozzle diameter x layer height)
Therefore the maximum speed is likely to be:
7mm³ / (0.4mm x 0.3mm) = 58mm/s

I have an Ultimaker 2+. According to the Ultimaker web site, the Ultimaker 2+, can print up to 16mm³/s with a 0.4mm diameter nozzle. It has a maximum travel speed of 300mm/s.
In theory, therefore, I could double the above speeds. In practice I have not been able to a achieve speeds much faster than the above calculations.
I tried, just as a double check. 0.4mm nozzle, 0.24mm layer and 90mm/s at 210C with PLA = 8.6mm³/s. It came out lumpy and did not stick to the bed properly.
The kit was clearly capable of pushing it at that speed but it would need a lot more tinkering to get close to something usable.


Nozzle Temperature
The hot end temperature is far more trial and error. That is partly because the thermostats in the printers are not that accurate.
Most manufacturers recommend starting at the low end of their suggested range of temperatures and work up.
According to most vendors, 2.85mm diameter filament tends to need to be about 5C hotter than 1.75mm filament for the same speed, so for a standard Ultimaker, which uses 2.85mm filament, start at 5C above the manufacturers suggested lowest temperature.
Increase the temperature for faster throughput. Alternately, it would be simpler to increase the speed for lower layer heights so the throughput is always roughly the same area per second, therefore the temperature could remain the same for all prints.

==

Electronic schematic editior reviews

All I wanted to do was draw a couple of simple circuit diagrams.
I quickly came across the following list:
https://www.intorobotics.com/draw-circuit-diagrams-using-these-tools/
I was surprised how many applications there were to help draw them.

Unfortunately, the first few I have tried were not quite right. They were not bad but I felt that they could do better. I was particularly looking for something that I could just pick-up and run with. If the interface was not obvious I moved on to the next.

I've written the following mini-reviews to remind myself of my thoughts. I've given them a rough rating. 1 out of 5 (x----) through to 5 out of 5 (xxxxx).

My favourite for ease of use creating traditional diagrams, so far, is an online app called SchemeIT closely followed by another online app called EasyEDA.
For features I would use the installed app called KiCAD.

However for mixed diagrams with component images I'm tending towards Inkscape. It's not a schematic drawing app but it allows more flexibility to get clear readable drawings.


Installed
I tried these on Windows 10.

Inkscape (xxxx-)
https://inkscape.org
Inkscape is not an electrical schematic tool but it is a drawing program. There are libraries of electrical symbols available for it and plenty of downloadable symbols.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:SVG_electrical_symbols
I found this more versatile but it does have a steeper learning curve than the dedicated apps.

KiCAD EDA (xxxx-)
http://www.kicad-pcb.org
Available on Linux, Mac and Windows.
This is a suite of products. The circuit and PCB editors felt solid, I didn't try any of the others.

It took a few minutes to get my head round the extensive menus and tool bars but it became fairly easy to use very quickly.
KiCAD has a very comprehensive component library and the ability to easily add to it.
I could not find a way to export to SVG, which was disappointing but it would copy a graphic to the clipboard for use in other applications.

TinyCAD (xx---)
https://www.tinycad.net
I struggled to find how to group objects to make a single component. This may have something to do with using different terminology. I believe I should have looked at schematics or libraries but the very fact it was not obvious was why I moved on.
The sets of existing components did not include some of the basic elements I would have expected. For example, there were lots of specific connectors but I could not find a standard logical connector symbol.

QElectroTech (xxx--)
https://qelectrotech.org
Nice enough to use and had some good logical symbols but only a small number of specific components.

I could not find out how to create a component. The instructions called them Elements and said they should be saved as xml but how to do that was not obvious.
I also managed to crash the app.

Online
I was using Opera as my web browser while using most of the following but did check that a couple also worked with Chrome.

Circuit Diagram (xxx--)
https://www.circuit-diagram.org/editor/
I liked the idea of this one because it is an open source web based app.
I had some trouble selecting parts and I could not work out how to group them. I hit a bug or two. At one stage, all I could do was move the view, despite clicking the 'select' option.
Component search was frustrating and browse was in such a tiny window, it was useless.
Shame, it felt like a good idea. If I had more time I would have made some modifications to the code.

CircuitLab (xxx--)
https://www.circuitlab.com
This looked tidy and was easy to use but as it was designed to simulate circuit operation, rather than just draw the diagrams, I found it was a bit limited for my needs.

EasyEDA (xxxx-)
https://easyeda.com/editor
This is very easy to jump right in.
I found it easy to use. I did not go so far as to create a component using the Symbol Lib function but I was able to custom configure a simple IC like component very quickly.

This is probably worth spending a bit more time on.

SchemeIT (xxxx-)
https://www.digikey.co.uk/schemeit/project/
This had lots of pre-built symbols and components and a fairly easy way to make custom components.
The important bits were that the component moved as one, I could easily add pins and I was able to label those pins.
I could not work out a way to save the component, despite what the instructions said, however, it worked within the drawing I was in.

Creating a diagram was obvious and easy.

==
DISCLAIMER
The reviews are my own personal opinion based, in most cases, on very minimal use of the application.
==

Hot glue gun

I was reading a question on Facebook about what Hot Glue Gun people use. The question was asked because they had problems with the ones they had used.

I've had mine for a couple of years and I have not had any problems and I like it. I thought it was worth recording that.

It is a high temperature 195C glue gun that fits 11mm glue sticks. A Dremel 940. The built in fold up stand is more useful that I had expected. I chose this one partly because of the detachable cord. That feature has been invaluable because it can be used for a few minutes untethered so it can get in to awkward places more easily.

MultCloud review

Following on from my post the other day about AmazonDrive I have been using MultCloud to help me transfer from OneDrive to AmazonDrive.

I started off doing it the hard way. Setting my NAS to sync to AmazonDrive and in conjunction using a different Internet connection to manually upload photos. One of those methods is slow due to the amount of data involved and the other is time consuming doing a few folders at a time.

I hunted around for a cloud storage aggregator service. There are a few, like Mover.io and Otixio that are often mentioned in reviews but for some reason MultCloud is less commonly mentioned. From my experience it should be number one on people's lists. Hence this review.

The advantage of using an online service is that it is not constrained by the speed of my own Internet connection. The files transfer via the aggregators servers. From my perspective, direct from one storage location to another. I can log off or shutdown and the transfer carries on behind the scenes, day and night.

The other providers I looked at had very limited or no free offering and worked out very expensive for the near terabyte of photos I need to transfer. MultCloud is very generous with its limits and supported all the storage providers I needed plus lots more and it gets better...

MultCloud's free tier offers up to 2TB of data transfer. I thought the two terabytes was a typing mistake. I had to check several times and found it repeated in their documentation. Good for them.

I'm using it now and I can say it works very well.

Configuring the cloud end points and adding transfer tasks was easy. It even supported creating the target folder as it went. I now just sit back and wait.

The free service uses only 2 threads and is in no particular hurry but it is still more than twice as fast as I could do it any other way. In addition it is far simpler, just sitting there in the cloud while I get on with other things.

I think a lot of cloud companies might be missing a trick. I'd be prepared to pay a small one off fee for a week or months' use but I don't want to get stuck paying recurring fees for a service I only need once every few years.

I'm happy, the job is getting done at no cost to me. Thank you MultCloud.

AmazonDrive review

UPDATE: November 2020

Amazon Drive no longer works with Synology Cloud Sync.

I don't know the details but my understanding is that this is something Amazon have prohibited.

==

ARCHIVE:

It's very early days but I have so far been very impressed by AmazonDrive. So much so that it has made me want to write a few comments.

Firstly I need to be clear about my usage, as that may determine if what I say is helpful to you or not applicable.

I want a way to backup the contents of my Synology NAS to the cloud automatically. I do not want any process running on a PC to facilitate that. It must be a direct NAS to cloud file copy.

The true backup providers, like HiDrive, that support NAS backups, are too expensive for the amount of data I want to store. I therefore have to use a consumer cloud storage synchronisation solution. There are several available, Microsoft OneDrive, Box, Dropbox, Google Drive and of course AmazonDrive that I have just started to use. There are others but I don't know enough about them to consider using them.

The most important data that I want to protect are our irreplaceable photos. We have getting on for nearly 20 years of photos in digital form, taking up over 800GB at the moment and currently growing by over 200GB per year!

I thought I had a solution in OneDrive because, a couple of years' ago, they offered unlimited cloud storage and I specifically took out OneDrive then, for this very purpose. I knew Microsoft had stopped that offer but I had stupidly assumed that Microsoft would honour their contract and retain unlimited space for those existing customers.

I was wrong, Microsoft have now started to cull drives over 1TB. They claimed customers were abusing the available storage space but if you offer unlimited, people are going to take you at your word. Don't blame customers for selecting the best value product for their needs!

I am just on the cusp of the terabyte that Microsoft have limited us to but in a month or two I would easily be over that storage limit! I can be as annoyed as I like with Microsoft but I can't see that getting me my storage back. I therefore have to find an alternative.

Of the providers listed above, at this moment in time, only Amazon offers an unlimited or large capacity solution at a price I am prepared to pay and that I can use directly from my NAS box.

I have signed up for the free trial of AmazonDrive that will continue on to the paid solution in three months' time.

I am most interested in the NAS synchronisation and the web client. I specifically do not want a desktop client that synchronises to my hard drive. I have nearly a terabyte of data in the cloud and only a 256GB SSD on my laptop. Microsoft OneDrive is a pain, being automatically installed and linking to the cloud automatically. Even when I set the client to online files only, the local directory information for the thousands of files I have online, takes up a large chunk of the local hard drive!

With AmazonDrive I can opt not to use the client at all.

The web client supports drag and drop file, and more importantly for my initial setup, folder upload.
It is a clean interface with just the options I need.

The Synology client for AmazonDrive is part of the same tool used for OneDrive and Google Drive etc..

So far AmazonDrive has worked well. It does not have all the sort and view options of some of the others and does not have any online editing, as far as I can tell but for pure storage and ease of use, it suits what I need it for.

==
Update:
I used a cloud storage aggregator to help with the transfer of the data.