Fiber screens, the future of the 35mm adapters?

Evangelos Achillopoulos

Well-known member
I just realized that to post in a thread that has the generic title “Focusing screens” is not most appropriate, because its not understood that the subject of my experiments are for a Fiber Optic ground glass or better focusing screen (its not grounded by either side…).

So I started this thread to post the specific results of my research.

Questions and answers…

Q. What is a Fiber focusing screen?

A. It’s a bucket of very fine (6 microns each) optical fibers perfectly aligned in parallel, compressed in a special process together to form a plate that then its being cut to thin slices that after polishing and coating are forming the fiber focusing screen. The look and feel is like a piece of glass polished in both sides that can be cleaned as a glass lens. The fibers are taking the light from one side and they transfer it to the other, each fiber is like a light pipe that doesn’t spill the light to the adjacent pipes. When you try to see from the other side is totally opaque, so the hot spot effect is not existent and a condenser lens is not needed. To see something it has to be touching the surface of the other side. Also the light allowable entry angle is 180 degrees, so light can enter even on the edges of a very wide lens.


Q. Its sounds as cutting edge technology?

A. Yes, fiber optic screens are used in very special imaging applications, from military imaging to nuclear reactors, that’s why they are subject to strict export regulation rules.


Q. Where is being used in the motion picture industry?

A. Arri and Panavision optical viewfinders are build around fiber optic screens.


Q. What are the potential benefits to 35mm adapters?

A. Due to the special properties that are incorporating, they can transfer an image with minimal loss in quality (contrast, resolution, it preserves original MTF etc.). Actually they transfer from one side to the other an image with no intervention at all, like if it was a clear glass window. That means, it is possible to get the pure image that a lens can formulate in the surface of the fiber screen, without the slightest intervention of the focusing screen, which is typical to all other screens. As it is known a different ground glass has a different bokeh i.e. Fiber screens are eliminating the GSE and in a certain design can eliminate totally the vignetting effect up to F22 in wide angle lenses or with lenses that are having small exit pupil. Also they don’t exhibit flare at all, so you can have a very bright area and no spill to the dark areas, the flare that is visible is solely from the lens characteristics. Moreover in certain conditions they can work without spin or vibration at all.


Q. OK it sounds perfect… what is the bad news?

A. It seems that they are loosing more light than a typical ground glass, about ½ stop more. But this is not final since experiments are still being done. And they costing almost double as a typical branded GG.


Q. Can they benefit spinners as well as vibrating adapters?

A. Yes, except that vibrating can also benefit from the lack of vignetting, spinners can’t due to the spinning of the GG. The trick is that they can work also as static with Brevis 35 i.e.


Bokeh and resolution comparison in a Brevis 35 MP.1 with CFX.

Bokeh_test.jpg


Stopdown test from F1.4 to F16.

http://www.motionfx.gr/Files/Stop_down_Zeiss_50mm_F14_FiberGG.mov

Sample footage

Evri1.jpg


Evri_2.jpg


And some HD video

http://www.motionfx.gr/Files/Demo_footage_FiberGG.mov


All shown tests are with Varicam recording in AVC-Intra 100, GG.relay rev2 2/3 B4 mount., Brevis MP.1, Zeiss 50mm F1.4 ZF, graded in Color.

More tests will come in a few days.

If you have more questions please ask.
 
Last edited:
Mm that looks pretty grainy to me...

Interesting idea, how does it handle bokeh?

How does it loose half a stop if its just a clear bit of glass?
 
Mm that looks pretty grainy to me...

Interesting idea, how does it handle bokeh?

How does it loose half a stop if its just a clear bit of glass?
It's actually a great idea. You can check some of the history here. The grain is actually from the camera and not the focus screen.
 
The CFXL appears to have more resolution -- check the grips on the cap, and the edges of the letters.
 
i think that's just different areas of focus, because you'll notice the soda can is sharper with the fiber screen. The real question these tests have to answer is whether or not its's worth about 200 more US dollars than the cfx. So far I'm not sure if I'm willing to drop the cash.
 
Last edited:
And if you sent me those grabs of CFXL I'd be asking for footage of the screen at 1/8000s. If it's an MP.1 I'd almost guarantee oscillation frequency is way too low. CFXL bokeh is actually much tighter then even CF1 or CF1le.
 
The CFXL appears to have more resolution -- check the grips on the cap, and the edges of the letters.

the in focus areas look much sharper on the fibre glass then the CFXL. It also looks alot less grainy and the bokeh is much better. The out of focus areas you mention are probably due to the different way each screen handles bokeh.

edit: after taking a longer stare I take back what I said on the graininess. They are about the same.

The extra $200 seems worthwhile to me if this can be put in a static diy adapter.
 
Last edited:
too me it's hard to make any judgments about bokeh differences from these tests, but the fiber screen is pretty darn grain free.
 
Mm that looks pretty grainy to me...

Interesting idea, how does it handle bokeh?

How does it loose half a stop if its just a clear bit of glass?

As I said in the first Q/A it looks like a glass window but is totally opaque and you can't see anything from the other side... to see something it has to touch the other side to be visible. In many medical applications its used cemented to a CMOS sensor and acts as a F1 lens with max MTF that operates with contact or when you projecting an image to it.

For the rest read below...

The CFXL appears to have more resolution -- check the grips on the cap, and the edges of the letters.

In my tests I used CFXL because is the best GG I have tested so far. The difference in the physics of light with Fiber screen are far more superior to any grounded GG. Is inherit to the GG the loss of resolution due to unavoidable diffusion. With my setup I can clearly see the difference... even by naced eye, I put a lens on both Brevis and I see the image with my eyes and in fiber its much more sharper. Remember Fiber screen does not diffuse.

And if you sent me those grabs of CFXL I'd be asking for footage of the screen at 1/8000s. If it's an MP.1 I'd almost guarantee oscillation frequency is way too low. CFXL bokeh is actually much tighter then even CF1 or CF1le.

Dennis I haven't touched the Brevis oscillation adjustment and as you know they are just being serviced and upgraded by Cinevate with the CFXL, do I have to adjust it? What do you mean by 1/8000? is this shutter speed? I can send you the stills in tiff if you want or the AVC-Intra 100 file if you open an FTP to upload it.

the in focus areas look much sharper on the fibre glass then the CFXL. It also looks alot less grainy and the bokeh is much better. The out of focus areas you mention are probably due to the different way each screen handles bokeh.

edit: after taking a longer stare I take back what I said on the graininess. They are about the same.

The extra $200 seems worthwhile to me if this can be put in a static diy adapter.

The "grain" is the typical look of Varicam that mimics the film grain... Varicam noise, with the magic of Panasonic engineers, is looking like grain... so the grain is from camera thats why its identical. The images is an 1/6 of the full image and

I really put an effort to focus the CFXL...

The main differences is the sharpness, the lack of diffusion, the havier blur (which is with the same lens, the same distance, and the same aperture F2.8) and the weird pattern in the bokeh of the CFXL that with Fiber static is much less.

Below are the full size frames:

The CFXL vibrating

CFX_1.jpg


And the Fiber screen NON vibrating.


FS_3off.jpg


Did anyone see the stop down test?

Everything its being shoot with the new GG.relay Rev2 that is suitable for flipped setups like Brevis 35 flipped and HPX500
 
to me it looks like the CFXL is focused on the yellow bottle and the fibre is focused on the closer green can which makes sense that the oil bottle is more out of focus.

i wonder if cinemek use the same type of fibre glass in their G35??
 
Last edited:
They are intentionally in the same line... or in any case if something is closer, that is the bottle by 4mm - 6mm, of what i can recall... if you closer look they have the same sharpness... the can and the bottle... its just the diffusion that makes you feel the lack of sharpness. If I show you just the image of CFXL you can easily say that is sharp, but in comparison you see how the lack of diffusion is giving more detail.

Compare the highlights in the bottle, they have a glow, this glow is not created from the lens, its the diffusion that is doing it. Sometimes is good, sometimes its better to control diffusion with a Tiffen filter...

About Cinemek, probably... now that you saying so... in static above F8 is getting something annoying about grain structure... Hmm they have similar light loss... from what I have seen thought G35 has diffusion... when vibrating its nothing visible up to F22...

Yes, fiber screen can be used in a static DIY adapter very easily...
 
Last edited:
so Evangelos, do you manufacture these fibre glass? are you planning on making adapters with these soon or just the glass?
 
No I'm not manufacture them, I have an exclusive agreement for my design with a very big manufacturer that build them for me. You see this technology its so advanced that it can't be made DIY... thats why i have so large cycles between new designs... Its not a piece of plastic/glass grinded... Its state of the art technology that involves fiber optics, coatings, forming and polishing machines that costing millions...

I was tempted to do an adapter, but I thing a Brevis 35 MP.1 is a very good host adapter for someone that wants to have the static option open, also Daniels kit could be used for a DIY adapter because the Fiber screen size fits to his holders as well as to Brevis for which is the original design...

I will stick to the original plan that is Fiber screens only.
 
It looks really nice, but have you tried it yet with a really wide lens, like a 17mm or 20mm. A really good benchmark would be the Canon FD 24/2.8, which doesn't vignette at all on a still camera, but vignettes like mad on a GG adapter, because of the small exit pupil.

Duncan
 
I looks promising. I have difficulty believing that the two shots are focused on exactly the same distance. But I may be under-estimating the effects of diffusion.

If it can be used statically at f/8 that would be worth extra money, not to mention the added sharpness and, if it can be cleaned like lens glass that alone is godsend. Another half stop isn't an issue if you're shooting at f/8. But indoors with the low end cameras like the HV-20 it's won't be very useful.

Bring it on! It looks like a promising addition to the available tools.
 
A really good benchmark would be the Canon FD 24/2.8, which doesn't vignette at all on a still camera, but vignettes like mad on a GG adapter, because of the small exit pupil.

I found one, a friend of mine has it... so when I will have the time I will test it... nice tip!

I looks promising. I have difficulty believing that the two shots are focused on exactly the same distance. But I may be under-estimating the effects of diffusion.

If it can be used statically at f/8 that would be worth extra money, not to mention the added sharpness and, if it can be cleaned like lens glass that alone is godsend. Another half stop isn't an issue if you're shooting at f/8. But indoors with the low end cameras like the HV-20 it's won't be very useful.

Bring it on! It looks like a promising addition to the available tools.

In the coming days I will try to redo the test to clear it up...

Yehhh the cleaning is super... and because it is glass, it does not easily peeking up static electricity by using forced air i.e.!

Hmm... I thing we never shoot in F8... its too bad for the lens... but to have the ability to do so, is good. Also static (non vibrating), can be used at will...!

Monday I will shoot a commercial... so in few days I will have new footage up...
 
yeah, the more I think about this the more excited I get. IF you can optimize light loss some more i think you will really blow the doors wide open. I really wish I could get my hands on one to test on the hv20.
 
Last edited:
show it!

show it!

Hi Evangelos,

Can you show photos of the fiber screen itself? I think everyone would like to see how it looks like in both sides...

Thanks
 
F8 is a great spot for the lens, not sure what kind of lenses you are using.

F4 F5.6 and F8 are most still lens sweet spots.
 
Back
Top