NAB PL Mount Lens Explosion

[Blair S. Paulsen]

So I walk up to the AbelCine booth and am treated to a front row seat while Paul and Matt Duclos examine the new Rebel IBE primes being handed to them by none other than Mitch Gross himself. Hope Evin can get a set for SALT.

Looked at the Zeiss compact primes - nice barrels, smooth action, Zeiss glass, felt like Cine lenses to me. The mismatched max apertures and slow wide end are tough to accept, even at this price point.

Ran across a tiny booth showing their own set of PL primes, prototypes only.

Angenieux was heavily promoting the Rouge zooms.

Didn't get a chance to see the new Panchros and the Madman won't be showing the RPPs until Wednesday at the earliest but it was still boggling.

WTF? You ship a few thousand cameras with PL mounts and all of the sudden... :cool:

[Frank Weeks]

Spent some time with Mitch today myself. I agree with your accessment. Mitch was strait up about the good and bad qualities of the Lens. For those of you attending, their worth a look

[Jannard]

I was able (no pun intended) to visit Mitch at his booth today. I agree that there are a lot of really interesting lenses to see there and highly recommend that anyone attending the show check it out. Just make sure you stop by the reduser party also. :-)

Jim

[Martin Stevens]

Perhaps if certain film industry people "use" to pay $20,000. + for just ONE Arri Master Prime lens, then maybe one day when Jim and the Red Team have some spare time, we will see a $20,000. Red lens that is oh say, T0.7, as in a VERY fast lens. The type of fast lens that Kubrick would/might have used for the Barry Lyndon candle lit scenes.

[Matthew Duclos]

Blair, it was nice to finally meet you in person. Along with several others.
I agree. Mitch Gross is a straight shooter and well worth a visit.

[Mitch Gross]

Thanks for all the kind words, guys. I've been so busy prepping our booth for NAB that this is my first moment back at REDuser since Friday, so it's certainly nice reading this particular thread. Matt & Paul were looking at the Rebel lenses while I got a look at their Tokina 11-16. Jim was incredibly gracious stopping by, but then again when you're in the catbird seat I guess you can be. It's just FUN this year at NAB. There are more lenses than you can shake a stick at plus lots of other great toys. I didn't even get a chance to see the finished Rebels myself until the Germans arrived (late) on Monday morning with them in hand -- I was getting abit nervous but imagine my surprise when I saw the 18-blade iris in each lens. Talk about near-perfect bokah!

Anyway, we also have fun stuff like our RED NULL lens for setting perfect backfocus on the RED and there's lots of sweet stuff and pretty glass all over the floor. All are welcome to come on by the booth and I'll bring everything I can carry over to the party at the Rio.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

good to meet you today Mitch,
Thanks for the lens run through.

also checked out the mb-28 (i like:)

[Rick Darge]

How are you guys liking those Rebels?

[Zakaree Sandberg]

cant judge until they are out of prototype mode.

glass looked good through a finder.
alot of iris blades.. nice bokah

[Matthew Duclos]

cant judge until they are out of prototype mode.

Agreed.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

I should have mentioned the Red Null lens. Full props to Mitch for this great tool to set back focus. He claims it will typically get you within 5 microns and is simple to use in the field - sweet.

I also got to hold the Tokina 11-16mm rehouse prototype Matt was carrying around. I look forward to being the proud owner of a production unit sooner than later. What a useful focal length range, particularly when windowing the sensor for overcranks. It would also provide a stop gap for buyers of the RPPs who need something wide in their kit - I wouldn't expect it to be particularly well matched to the RPPs but with some deft DI work I would expect it to pass on most material (realistically wide angle lenses often read rather differently than "normal" lenses even in matched sets just because of their width anyway).

Exciting times.

[Tonaci Tran]

Whatup Blairman, any word on price for the red null?

[Blair S. Paulsen]

I think the Red Null MSRP is $1,500 but I will defer to Mitch for any further specifics as he knows the piece far better than I.

[Paul Leeming]

Hmm, this is new, re: the Red Null lens. I've been eyeing the UniqOptics diascope at US$2,500 but if this "lens" can do the same thing for US$1,500 then I'm REALLY curious to know more!

Cheers,

Paul

[Curran Giddens]

also checked out the mb-28 (i like:)

Did you happen to get a price quote on the mb-28?

[ericyoung]

...Anyway, we also have fun stuff like our RED NULL lens for setting perfect backfocus on the RED...

Ooo. Tell us more! Even more importantly, does it only work with PL mount, or can it be used or adapted to work with Birger EF mount, Nikon or other mounts?

[Ken Willinger]

I'll take a look at the Null today. Also of interest at the show yesterday was the UniQoptics prime set. This looks to be a very nice set built by real pros at a very reasonable cost. Apparently they will not be mass made but done in limited runs.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Also looking for more info on the null lens here! Need a good way to collimate in the field, preferably without any extra power source or expensive field collimator / stripped down bench collimator.

[Vincent S]

Also looking for more info on the null lens here! Need a good way to collimate in the field, preferably without any extra power source or expensive field collimator / stripped down bench collimator.

I think it's this one
http://www.ibe-optics.com/RED_Null_Lens

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I'll take a look at the Null today. Also of interest at the show yesterday was the UniQoptics prime set. This looks to be a very nice set built by real pros at a very reasonable cost. Apparently they will not be mass made but done in limited runs.

Would like to read some specifics on these lenses. It seems no one knew of their existence before yesterday and so far I haven't seen any posting of what focal lengths, apertures, prices, etc.. we're looking at.

I'm not sure about the null lens, I guess I'd have to work with one and see if it's really any better than collimating with a wide prime that is known to have proper markings.

[chuck colburn]

Is this "Null" device a "Sharpmax" type thingy? Got any photos of it?

[Matthew Duclos]

It's basically a super wide lens with a precise ffd setting that you can use to adjust back focus on a red. I'll have some pics shortly. Won't be as precise as a micrometer diascope but it's cheaper.

[chuck colburn]

It's basically a super wide lens with a precise ffd setting that you can use to adjust back focus on a red. I'll have some pics shortly. Won't be as precise as a micrometer diascope but it's cheaper.

I see, it's a fixed focus standard as it were. So you still have to use an autocollimator or such to present a source of infinity to it.

[Neil Duffy]

What is fascinating is that the entire industry is changing because of RED. All the established companies are racing to come up with Lenses that work with RED, or RED equivalent cameras.

And the Lens Tests section of REDUSER is the best source information about new lenses for digital cinema on the web.

Have fun at NAB 2009.

[lensmaster]

For an amazing back focus demo, check out the UniqOptics diascope at their booth.

This is a must have accessory!!!!

[ericyoung]

For an amazing back focus demo, check out the UniqOptics diascope at their booth.

This is a must have accessory!!!!

How much?

[chuck colburn]

How much?

There seems to be a few different models on their web site. From around 2k to 20 some odd k.

[Matthew Duclos]

The IB/E null lens is cool, but it's no replacement for the micrometer diascope.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Spent some time at UniQoptics today with Evin talking to the main guys. The back focus / FFD tool was pretty impressive, they even have a kit that includes what appeared to be a field collimator. Different versions of the kits started at just under $3K and went up to around $7K with all the bells and whistles. I will leave it to Evin, Matt Duclos and the guys at UniQoptics to break it all down in greater detail but it looks like a solid value proposition to me.

Bottom line - buzzed focus in 4K is glaringly obvious and for the foreseeable future, not fixable in post.

The lenses are still prototypes, they are going to do a short run with upgraded glass in the next couple of months. They might bring them to Evin for SALT but the owner was understandably reluctant to "sell a wine before it's time".

They have industry credentials, a glass supplier and (even on the prototypes) solid mechanics. Jury is still out on what the shipping versions will be like but I can't say I'm sorry to see more players in the PL lens space. Maybe I can get them to make my dream zoom lens for handheld...

BTW, the Fujinon 18-85 T2 is a nice bit of kit but at an estimated $75K I'll be curious to see how many they can sell, even to rental houses.

Cheers- Blair

[Greg M]

Looks like we have 3 new options for back focus adjustment:
1. UniQoptics Diascopes
2. IB/E null lens
3. FFD by Denz

Anyone care to do a full review of all 3?

[Tim Zarraonandia]

Looks like we have 3 new options for back focus adjustment:
1. UniQoptics Diascopes
2. IB/E null lens
3. FFD by Denz

Anyone care to do a full review of all 3?

Feel free to stop by uniQoptics in Simi Valley, CA for a demo. Bring your camera and we will check your back focus for free. Call ahead to ensure a qualified technician will be there... For a limited time only.

[Mitch Gross]

The price on the Red Null has yet to be set, but we're working to make it as reasonable as possible. It's definitely going to below the other options out there. I'll shoot a video showing how easy it is to use and get it up on our blog as soon as possible. In the meantime I will tell you that as tested it is a very accurate device. Five micron pitch accuracy is within the Nyquist limit of the RED sensor, meaning that it is as in focus as you're ever gonna get. And so simple to use a caveman could do it. We will have them available in volume soon. The design is currently for PL mount, but it is possible to crease models for other mounts.

Let me say that I have been consulting with some of the other collimating device makers for quite some time now and wish them all the best. I think that there is a place for their designs as well and i know that they are always working to improve them. No matter which device you decide upon, I firmly believe that every RED owner should have one of these units in their kit. After looking at the Red Null at the REDuser party, Jim said we should set our goal to at least 3000 units. From his lips to God's ears, unless that's redundant in the world of RED.

[Paul Leeming]

Waiting keenly to see the price and video, Mitch!

Cheers,

Paul

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I'm very interested as well.

"so simple to use a caveman could do it" -- Finner will be pleased.

[AIO Films]

BTW, the Fujinon 18-85 T2 is a nice bit of kit but at an estimated $75K I'll be curious to see how many they can sell, even to rental houses.
Cheers- Blair

$82,900, I was told by the Fuji rep. The image circle is around 28mm (with no intention to modify to cover Super 35 full frame or Epic 5K). I have to wonder if their mind is set on Sony F35 only. The R&D costs for all four huge and extremely well made zoom lenses for the very niche of a niche market?

[David Mullen ASC]

The Genesis / F35 sensor is Super-35 in size, more or less (similar to 3-perf 35mm Full Frame) -- the active sensor area is 23.622 x 13.2842mm. That's a 27.5mm diagonal, which the Fujinon PL-mount zoom should cover, otherwise why else make the lens?

[Greg M]

The price on the Red Null has yet to be set, but we're working to make it as reasonable as possible. It's definitely going to below the other options out there. I'll shoot a video showing how easy it is to use and get it up on our blog as soon as possible.

Thanks, please notify me when I can order.

[Mitch Gross]

I'll be sure to let everyone know! We'll try to get the video up on the blog tomorrow.

[AIO Films]

The Genesis / F35 sensor is Super-35 in size, more or less (similar to 3-perf 35mm Full Frame) -- the active sensor area is 23.622 x 13.2842mm. That's a 27.5mm diagonal, which the Fujinon PL-mount zoom should cover, otherwise why else make the lens?

That's what I understand. But it still doesn't make business sense to make FOUR highly sophisticated zoom lenses for the Genesis and F35 only.

In my not-so-humble opinion, ignoring the RED Epic 5K is a mistake. Next generation RED cameras are going to replace film even more. Big productions are going to embrace it so that rental houses will be willing to mate the Epic cameras with expensive lenses.

[David Mullen ASC]

I believe the Fujinon zooms cover almost every existing Super-35 digital cinema camera out there -- F35, Arri D21, RED ONE, Phantom HD, not to mention 35mm film cameras. And I suspect that they were made primarily for the Sony F35, just to continue a long partnership of providing optics for Sony cameras. But they would work on any number of other Super-35 cameras.

I think they are just betting on the continued use of the Super-35 format, which is a fairly safe bet even if EPIC enter the marketplace and creates a need for optics that cover more than Super-35. I suspect that companies like ARRI, Panavision, and Sony are going to stick to Super-35 sensors and optics for a long time.

This does bring up something we haven't really talked about, which is the lens coverage for zoom lenses like the Ang. Optimos, the Cooke zooms, the Zeiss Master Zoom, not to mention the two RED zooms -- how many of them will cover beyond Super-35?

And ultimately, it seems silly to be designing new lenses that cover halfway between Super-35 and FF35 just to barely get away with covering the 5K area of the 6K Monstro sensor. I mean, what sort of format is that? Super-35-Plus-A-Litttle-More? If one were really designing lenses for the future EPIC cameras, then the lenses should cover the full FF35 Monstro sensor, not just 5/6ths of it. If you're going to fault Fujinon for not designing their lenses with the EPIC Monstro sensor in mind, then why not fault RED for creating new lenses that don't cover it either? The new RED lenses just cover the Mysterium-X sensor area. If Fujinon is confused by this 5K format, who can blame them?

[Jannard]

There are two new standards going forward. 5K and FF35. Lenses that are designed specifically for these formats will command a premium. IMHO.

Jim

[AIO Films]

I believe the Fujinon zooms cover almost every existing Super-35 digital cinema camera out there -- F35, Arri D21, RED ONE, Phantom HD, not to mention 35mm film cameras.

I agree. What I was trying to say was that Chuck Lee, the Fuji rep we all know over the years in this business, told me that the 18-85mm would not cover FULL FRAME Super-35. I don't know if people still shoot full frame Super-35 for standard def TV commercial finishing. If they do, these lenses won't be able cover the entire frame.

I wasn't trying to fault Fuji. However, by excluding the Epic 5K format, Fuji is going to sell a lot fewer lenses. And that's a pity.

Pardon me if I am not too clear on what I wanted to say due to my less than perfect English. It's a second language to me after all.

[Casey Green]

There are two new standards going forward. 5K and FF35. Lenses that are designed specifically for these formats will command a premium. IMHO.

Jim

As Alan Kay once said, "The best way to predict the future is to invent it."

:-)

[Evin Grant]

I agree. What I was trying to say was that Chuck Lee, the Fuji rep we all know over the years in this business, told me that the 18-85mm would not cover FULL FRAME Super-35. I don't know if people still shoot full frame Super-35 for standard def TV commercial finishing. If they do, these lenses won't be able cover the entire frame.

I wasn't trying to fault Fuji. However, by excluding the Epic 5K format, Fuji is going to sell a lot fewer lenses. And that's a pity.

Pardon me if I am not too clear on what I wanted to say due to my less than perfect English. It's a second language to me after all.

I think he was talking bout Full Frame (24x36) not full aperture S35, which they will certainly cover.

[Sanjin Jukic]

If some companies today introducing a new format, for example like a RED with

Epic-X 5K cine digital with 30x15mm sized sensor (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=409560&postcount=4)

or a Leica with S-System

like a brand new digital SLR camera that has a special

new middle format sensor with 30 x 45 mm and 37.5 megapixels (http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/s_system/)

so these companies should take their own risk for a development of new unique formats.

And the market will tell us (soon) who will succeed and who will fail.

[David Mullen ASC]

I agree. What I was trying to say was that Chuck Lee, the Fuji rep we all know over the years in this business, told me that the 18-85mm would not cover FULL FRAME Super-35.

He's just confusing two terms, Super-35 (which is 35mm cine Full Aperture) and Full Frame 35mm. There is no such format as Full Frame Super-35. He meant that the lenses would not cover Full Frame 35mm.

[David Mullen ASC]

Maybe it's the English Lit major in me... but we need a better label than "5K" as the format between Super-35 (cine) and Full-Frame 35mm (still) -- as everyone here knows, "5K" does not suggest any particular sensor dimensions, you could have a FF35 sensor that is 5K if you wanted.

The term in grammar would be a lack of parallelism...

Unless RED wants to start from scratch and relabel all of the formats in something that makes sense, from 2/3" up through FF35 and beyond. The boring way would be to label the formats by the diagonal measurement of the sensor, but if RED wants to stick to labelling by pixel dimensions, maybe the Mini-Reds should be labelled "3K RED's", the 18-50mm zoom is a "4K RED" and the new lenses are "5K RED's" and whatever comes out for FF35 will be "6K RED's" -- though this strikes me as problematic since, as I said, it assumes some sort of universal micron size for photosites.

[Rudi Herbert]

There are two new standards going forward. 5K and FF35. Lenses that are designed specifically for these formats will command a premium. IMHO.

Jim

Well, this is indeed, an interesting point. When RED first came onto the cinematography landscape, it did so with a mix of something old and something new: the proven S35 format with 4K resolution. As such, it was easy to use existing lenses on the RED, or for companies like Cooke and Angenieux to modify existing lines of their products and re-badge them as RED oriented. With the FF35 format, something similar will happen yet again. True, the movie world has not used the format as a standard for a long time, but there are existing technologies that can be modified, reworked, adapted and shoehorned into fitting the format. I see an explosion of still glass being rehoused for the FF35 RED cameras for example. And contrarily to what many believe, the FF format WILL become immensely popular since it negates the need for super wide, super expensive and somewhat slow lenses to attain the same field of view that many cheaper, better and faster lenses can achieve on the wide end of the spectrum. These faster lenses will also bring with them the benefit of less lighting requirements and will be a bonafide success with steadycam, underwater, aerial, action, landscape and many other genre shooters.

However, this 5K, in-between-S35-and-FF35 format that RED is betting so much on, will probably remain the exclusive domain of RED. I mean, if you're going to design new lenses that need to cover bigger than S35 area, then what makes sense is going all the way up to FF35, which can use existing glass and technology AND be used on all other formats smaller than it, including this new 5K flavor. I don't envision anybody else, save for RED, coming up with lenses that are aimed squarely at one particular type of RED format, even if they can provide improved imaging capabilities on S35 format cameras. Then again, this probably doesn't much matter, since most people will still be shooting S35 for a long, long, long, long time to come...

[AIO Films]

He's just confusing two terms, Super-35 (which is 35mm cine Full Aperture) and Full Frame 35mm. There is not such format as Full Frame Super-35. He meant that the lenses would not cover Full Frame 35mm.

Sorry, both Chuck and I meant Super-35 Full Aperture which I used to shoot TV spots for standard def deliverable with.

I apologize for all the confusion caused by my wrong lingo.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

In my not-so-humble opinion, ignoring the RED Epic 5K is a mistake. Next generation RED cameras are going to replace film even more. Big productions are going to embrace it so that rental houses will be willing to mate the Epic cameras with expensive lenses.

S35 is the current "standard". It's going to take some time for anything larger to really catch on as most optics out there do not cover. RED 5K works with the Master Primes and the RPP's and a few select oddball lenses here and there.

These new Fujinon lenses have been in development for some time, they didn't just appear out of thin air. I'm sure the specs on these new lenses have been solidified for some time, and quite a while before anyone knew of RED 5K. So they're not really ignoring anything, it just is what it is.

[mickpacifici]

Chuck explained to me that the Fuji lenses wont cover 4 Perf Super 35.

[David Mullen ASC]

Just means they won't cover the full 4x3 area on 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture (Super-35) but they'd cover a 16x9 area, or 3-perf (which is naturally 16x9), or the 16x9 Super-35 digital cameras. 4x3 on 4-perf Super-35 is a 30mm diagonal more or less. 16x9 on 4-perf Super-35 is a 27.5mm diagonal.

But it sounds like you couldn't use the new Fujinons if you were shooting for 4x3 on a 4-perf Super-35 camera.

[AIO Films]

Plus the fact that it won't cover the 30 X 15mm Epic 5K sensor. So we have fewer choices and they will sell fewer lenses.

That's my whole point, not trying to fault Fuji or anything.

[Stephen Williams]

Plus the fact that it won't cover the 30 X 15mm Epic 5K sensor.

Pretty much like all existing motion picture zooms.

[Evin Grant]

It won't cover the entire sensor but it should do fine in the recording area especially for 1.85:1, 2.40:1 or 16:9. The only issue might be at 2:1 aspect ratio.

[Shawn Nelson]

Maybe it's the English Lit major in me... but we need a better label than "5K" as the format between Super-35 (cine) and Full-Frame 35mm (still) -- as everyone here knows, "5K" does not suggest any particular sensor dimensions, you could have a FF35 sensor that is 5K if you wanted.

The term in grammar would be a lack of parallelism...

Unless RED wants to start from scratch and relabel all of the formats in something that makes sense, from 2/3" up through FF35 and beyond. The boring way would be to label the formats by the diagonal measurement of the sensor, but if RED wants to stick to labelling by pixel dimensions, maybe the Mini-Reds should be labelled "3K RED's", the 18-50mm zoom is a "4K RED" and the new lenses are "5K RED's" and whatever comes out for FF35 will be "6K RED's" -- though this strikes me as problematic since, as I said, it assumes some sort of universal micron size for photosites.

Agreed! Because one day they (or someone else) may release a 6k, 7k or 8k sensor that is the same size as this "5k" size.

[Evin Grant]

How bout we call it "R35" for Red 35 instead of S35 for super 35?

[Mitch Gross]

R35 already means regular 35 or Academy aperture. But then again RED insisted on coming up with FF35 when there was already the perfectly good VistaVision name.

[Daniel Browning]

Maybe it's the English Lit major in me... but we need a better label than "5K" as the format between Super-35 (cine) and Full-Frame 35mm (still)

Agreed. It should clearly delineate between size (30x15) and resolution (5K). And it should be simple, direct, and intuitive.

I propose a simple system using "K" for everything. The first K is the number of pixels (5K). K-2 is the sensor width (3K = 3 * 10mm = 30mm), K-3 is the actual measured luma resolution after AA filter and de-Bayer (3K), and K-4 describes the type of sensor, where Mysterium-X is 1K and Monstro is 2K.

Instead of saying "EPIC Mysterium-X 30x15 5K", we just say:

"5K-1 3K-2 4K-3 1K-4". Just rolls off the tongue.

EPIC Monstro 36x24 6K becomes AKA 6K-1 3.6K-2 4.5K-3 2K-4".

On second thought, perhaps we should only use K for one thing instead of two or four. :)

[Evin Grant]

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".

[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.