NAB PL Mount Lens Explosion

[David Mullen ASC]

At least, maybe the lens series should be marked by the format they are designed to cover, and then the actual coverage -- if you want to call the 5K format a 34mm diagonal, for example, and a lens actually covered a 37mm diagonal, it could be marked as 34mm(37mm) or 34F/37C something ("F" for format, "C" for coverage). OK, that looks too much like a temperature...

Not very catchy, I know. And the truth is that while the diagonal is probably the most accurate way to describe something, we know formats by the horizontal measurement of the sensor mostly. And "35mm" isn't even that, it's the width of the piece of film including the sprocket holes.

I suspect RED is going to want to stick to the well-known industry names like 2/3", Super-35, Full-Frame-35... so the question is what to call an inbetween size? Ultra-35? Super-Duper-35?

Maybe FF35 should be renamed Vista-35 (to recall VistaVision, which is also the same thing as FF35), so it could go: Super-35, Ultra-35, Vista-35 in terms of smaller to larger?

I also suspect that the industry will just keep referring to lenses as covering either Super-35 or FF35, and we'll all just have to learn which specific ones cover this new 30mm-wide "5K" format...

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Alright how Bout "D35" it can stand for either "Digital 35" or "DSMC 35".
You could also go with DS35 but I like the simplicity and conformity (to existing vernacular) of something "35".

Or if this is because of the new 30mm-wide Mysterium-X sensor, maybe X35 or 35X or the "35MX" series? Or Max-35?

 

[Shawn Nelson]

Or if this is because of the new 30mm-wide Mysterium-X sensor, maybe X35 or 35X or the "35MX" series? Or Max-35?

That works, then on the scale of size it'd go
35, s35, x35, ff35

 

[Evin Grant]

I'll go for that. Now we al have to start using it. Promise :thumbsup:

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Not sure what we would refer to the larger format size as... Can't really identify it as "RED 5K" or something directly related to Mysterium-X. That's what it is now, but this same image area will be about 4.7K on Monstro and will most likely be comprised of more pixels with future sensor designs.

35X or X35 isn't a bad way to identify the format. And with the larger sensors with the Monstro-based cameras, one could think of it just like what Shawn typed above, wit X35 being a bit larger than S35, but smaller than FF35. For pre-defined frame sizes in the cameras, choose X35 and know it's bigger than S35, but still covered by your RPP's Master Primes and other upcoming optics.

 

[J. P. Sendall]

My head hurts

 

[Brian McGraw]

I think there are too many instances of a certain K meaning a certain image capture size, so it is very good to try and keep this discussion moving forward. S35 is a perfect example of a mixed signal, as only the width is generally meant in the digital imager, but S35 by definition is a Width and a Height....

 

[Mitch Gross]

S35 is one width but various heights depending on how you wish to use it. The only number that matters in this conversation is image circle, so that is the number that should be referenced.

For years I had to maintain a list of lenses that did or did not cover Super-16 v. regular-16mm. There was also Academy 35 v. Super-35. This is really nothing new, just new to you. In the end there are only so many lenses and there are only so many formats, so you'll have to keep track with some lists. If one knows the image circle of a given lens then no matter the format it is easy enough to determine coverage with a calculator.