Bridges wrote:
The images projected by lenses are round. That
means the height of the image could be as high
as the length of the 35mm film. It should not
have effected the usability of the lenses at all.
Your trig is outa wack, as well as your
$$ sense. Lenses for a 43mm format
diagonal have only a 43mm circle of
sharp coverage. So unless the maker
thinks that unnecessarily heavier and
costlier lenses would be some sort of
Marketing Miracle , your 35x51mm
"unsprocketed" dream winds up DOA.
OTOH, given the fresh start that you
alluded to, a newer application of an
existing approach might have been
viable for SOME existing film lenses.
But many of those lenses had a 2x3
ratio mask at the rear, and all those
would have been compromised if a
43x43mm square format had been
adopted for digital cameras. Acoarst
43x43 would've spoiled the market
for all those "vertical grips" !
Consumers have long been oblivious
to format shapes. There have been a
number of successful square format
consumer lines. Square is excellent
for editorial work as well. Works well
for online commerce, cuz you gotta
leave room on that 9x13 screen for
all those adverts that occupy the far
right side of the screen.
The two very most important things
in favor of square are ...
1. That I perznally loooooove it.
2. It's ideal for selfies etc, as is born
out by the Instagram phenominon.
-------------------------------------
FWIW, unsprocketed 35mm film was
in use, for long roll portrait cameras
and also for consumer use as 8-shot
rollfilm [#828, aka "Bantam"]. Long
roll use was a success but the 8-shot
rolls were never a major piece of the
pie even tho it included Kodachrome !