• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / GFX 50S / The secret behind GFX sharpness with native lenses

The secret behind GFX sharpness with native lenses

April 1, 2017 JimK 7 Comments

In my GFX tests, I’ve found that the camera is about as sharp as you’d expect when tested with adapted exotic Zeiss glass, but it is surprisingly good with the presumably lower-quality Fuji 63 and 120 macro.

Why is that?

For the answer, I turned to a group of experts: the brilliant, unconventional folks at Lirpa Labs. Some of you may be familiar with the Labs. They are a division of the larger Sloof Lirpa optical conglomerate, and the yin and yang of Lirpadom have produced many breakthroughs over the years.

The Lirpalites are usually very busy this time of year, but they did take my question seriously. They disassembled my GFX so that they could reverse-engineer the tricks that the Fuji folk had put in there. They even reassembled and returned it to me, together with a handful of screws that were left over after the reassembly. Not satisfied with what they were able to find via that process, they took it upon themselves to befriend Fuji engineers at a technical conference, and take them out for drinks. Quite a few drinks, if the expense report that they turned in to me was any indication. By this social engineering, they were able to discover even more of what makes the GFX and its lenses a match made in heaven.

There are two pieces to the secret, and they work together.

The first is that the back element of the GFX lenses has a coating applied to it. Fuji has developed a special mix of chemicals that slowly breaks down, emitting nano-particles that enter the air space behind the lens and interact with the sensor. The Lirpa folks were able to learn the secret name for those particles; they’re referred to by those in the know at Fuji as floobydust. The Sony sensor in the GFX, like all such CMOS sensors, has back-biased photodiodes which trap electrons knocked loose by photons impinging on the sensor. Normally those electrons spread out more or less evenly over the capacitor formed by the back biased diode. The floobydust pins down the electrons so they can’t move around. That means that there are more electrons in the places in each pixel where more light fell, and fewer electrons where there was less light.

This means that the sensor can resolve details that are smaller than the pixel pitch. Pretty amazing, huh?

Now you know why the micro lenses in the GFX are smaller than usual. They have to be that way so that the floobydust can get around them. Understandably, Fuji doesn’t mention this in any of their product literature.

But floobydust isn’t enough. In order for the GFX to realize its full potential there had to be another breakthrough. In a normal CMOS sensor, there is a MOS transistor arranged in a circuit configuration called a source follower. The source follower buffers the voltage that is an indication of the number of electrons stored in the photodiode. A normal source follower would provide a voltage proportional to the total number of electrons stored in the photodiode. Thus all the sub-pixel detail would be lost. All the good things that the floobydust had done would be for naught.

The Fuji engineers have discovered a way to process the Sony sensors so that the source followers become unstable, and report the charge stored in only part of the sensor pixel. What part varies randomly over time. They call the modified source follower a Frammis Follower, after the legendary pioneer in the field of Marginal Engineering.  Then they run the ADCs that look at the voltage fast so they can see the variation.

Pretty neat. But there’s a problem. Actually, there are two.

The first is that the sub-pixel readings come out in random order. Fuji solved that through extensive signal processing that looks at adjacent pixels and calculates what the order must have been for each sensor pixel for each exposure.

The second is more mundane. The floobydust only lasts about two years. After that the rear element of the Fuji lenses must be re-coated. Fuji solved that problem by engineering each lens to malfunction after two years. The user will send the lens in to be repaired, and will be none the wiser when they receive the repaired lens with a re-coated rear element.

So now you know the secret. Thanks to the Lirpa Labs experts for figuring it out, and thanks to Fuji for being so clever.

GFX 50S, The Last Word

← Otus 55 on D810 & a7RII Visual shadow noise with GFX, D810, & a7RII →

Comments

  1. Andrea Blum says

    April 1, 2017 at 11:07 am

    Ok, I admit that for about a quarter of a second there I went for it because I was skim reading. That’ll teach me! “-)

    Reply
  2. Average DP Review User says

    April 1, 2017 at 12:40 pm

    Another technical article way above my pay grade.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      April 1, 2017 at 1:30 pm

      Did you notice the date?

      Reply
  3. Michael Demeyer says

    April 2, 2017 at 1:21 am

    I remember first learning of the Lirpa Labs innovations in (I think) Audio magazine back in the 70’s. They are truly creative this time of year.

    Nice to see they are still operating. Good to see some traditions preserved!

    Michael

    Reply
  4. Doug Dolde says

    July 2, 2017 at 2:16 pm

    I would find it unacceptable to have the lenses need repair after two years. Glad you pointed that out.

    Reply
  5. Steve Giles says

    October 16, 2019 at 1:30 am

    I have a GFX 50S and have recently been reading with great interest (and much gratitude!) your blog/articles on the same. This is the first time that I have been introduced to the wonderfully creative and inventive folks at the “Sloof Lirpa” labs. What a wonderful (and entertaining) resource to have available to you! I look forwards to their next innovation, presumably around the early part of Q2 next year!!

    Reply
  6. Bipin says

    April 3, 2021 at 12:03 am

    Brilliant article 🙂 cant wait for the yearly update

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.