The Quickest Way to Lose My Respect...

[Scott Crawley]

Luckily this is a question you can answer yourself. Hold up your hands and look through your fingers with 2 eyes.... And then one. The framing changes dramatically depending on which eye you look through.

But what is wrong with looking at it with both eyes? If i were an incredible dork and my eyes each blinked out of synch with one another i can see how i might confuse myself. Choosing one eye over the other in that case would definitely have it's benefits.

What could be better looking with one eye? If you were intent upon making flat looking images I can see how that might help. ;-)

If you wanted to make this guy look more like a tool asking him to squint one eye would have helped.

 

[Stephen Strangways]

If your dominant eye is strong, and you're used to looking through a viewfinder with it while keeping the other eye open, you can probably finger-frame with both eyes open just fine.

Wait a second... did I just get into an argument on finger-framing technique? :ack2:

 

[Martin Whittier]

So I admit I have been guilty of this and thats ok because it served a purpose. Everyone's hands are slightly different in proportions but I have done the comparison with my hands and if I touch finger to thumb the frame is nearly spot on for 16x9 framing. Sure you still have to know what lens will need and the applications for this is limited, but if you simply want to see how a subject and the environment will fit within the 16x9 guides then I guess it has its place. Fun side note that I picked up during a Steadicam class with Garrett Brown, you can also use your hands for determining lens choice based on viewing angle for a standard S35mm frame. This is much harder to find a photo of but basically it works like this. Hold your middle and pointer fingers out at a relaxed V shape then hold the intersection point just in front of your eye. Everything between your fingers will be in frame on a ~70mm lens. Do this again with you pointer and pinky finger to represent a 35mm and again with your thumb to pinky for a 10mm. Its a fun little tip that works fairly well when scouting a location and thinking about lens choices and framing.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Hold your middle and pointer fingers out at a relaxed V shape then hold the intersection point just in front of your eye. Everything between your fingers will be in frame on a ~70mm lens. Do this again with you pointer and pinky finger to represent a 35mm and again with your thumb to pinky for a 10mm. Its a fun little tip that works fairly well when scouting a location and thinking about lens choices and framing.

I'm actually going to file that one. Thanks. :smiley:

That little tidbit aside, I think this has drifted from the silly to the ridiculous.

 

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

Guilty as charged

 

[Patrick Grossien]

They can help you visualize. I kinda made one of my own too just playing around, but didn't see the need to release yet another $0.99/free camera tool to clutter the app store. The shortcoming with them is you can't really approximate very wide angle / short focal lengths via the integrated camera. I don't recall which of the viewfinder apps does it, but there's one that attempts to simulate the AOV/FOV of wider than physically possible framing by showing the onboard camera image with stretched/interpolated garbage on each side. It's not really useful, but does at least give you a frame of reference <pun intended> that shows how at least elements in the center of your view would relate to the overall acquired frame size.

Tank you Scott and Jeff for your insight! Maybe it's time to offer something full fledged but until then, I'd probably end up picking one. Maybe I'll try out the Viewfinder Cine or Pro version for starters.

Jeff, have you often programmed stuff before? Never tried out anything on iOS but heard from some programmers, that it's not as easy as they hoped.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Ever the trailblazer, Kubrick does "The Hybrid":

Q: How many eyes do you think he is using?
A: Both. One method for each eye, simultaneously. HFUIT?:shocked:

:devil:

 

[Jeff Whitehurst]

Well played Jonathan, 7 pages and counting...

 

[Mike Garrick]

Bobs Dreamtime.com pics shows what REAL "finger framing" is all about .

Looking cutting edge, smart, insightful, shooshed . The more pics I see the more lame it looks, but I gotta say man they look so good ; )

Why aren't there any pics of women directors do it ...is there something freudian going on here?

 

[Scott Crawley]

You see what I mean Jeff? Will the real douchebag please step forward... #2!! Miraculous!

Well played Jonathan, 7 pages and counting...

Women are way too aware of what a douchebag looks like to even go there.

Bobs Dreamtime.com pics shows what REAL "finger framing" is all about .

Looking cutting edge, smart, insightful, shooshed . The more you look at people doing it the more lame it looks, but man they look so good ; )

Why aren't there any pics of women directors do it ...is there something freudian going on here?

 

[Jeff Whitehurst]

You see what I mean Jeff? Will the real douchebag please step forward... #2!! Miraculous!



Women are way too aware of what a douchebag looks like to even go there.

Thanks to this thread, my render times have been a lot less boring today Here's the video, I vomited a little bit in the back of my throat, so be warned. I counted no less than 20 instances, (including females)... http://www.vitecgroup.com/

 

[Scott Crawley]

Thanks to this thread, my render times have been a lot less boring today Here's the video, I vomited a little bit in the back of my throat, so be warned. I counted no less than 20 instances, (including females)... http://www.vitecgroup.com/

uke:

I think the question was about actual female Directors on set, not actresses and models... those camera hounds will do whatever. After all it's only practical they are being paid to do it.

 

[Martin Whittier]

I dug through my old handbook, The Steadicam Operator's Handbook to be exact and found the section referencing lens choice from finger framing, enjoy. (Yes my memory was off a little on the finger to mm)

 

[Luis de la Cerda]

But what is wrong with looking at it with both eyes? If i were an incredible dork and my eyes each blinked out of synch with one another i can see how i might confuse myself. Choosing one eye over the other in that case would definitely have it's benefits.

What could be better looking with one eye? If you were intent upon making flat looking images I can see how that might help. ;-)

If you wanted to make this guy look more like a tool asking him to squint one eye would have helped.

Your camera is a one eyed monster and yes, the images that come out of it are flat.
Even if you shoot 3D, it's not really 3D, but rather two flat images to create the illusion of 3D.
Once shot, a 3D movie cannot be seen from different angles by changing parallax, that would require something like holographic projection.

So, to sum things up, in the future when we start shooting for holographic 3D, I'll do finger framing with both eyes open

 

[Evan Starkey]

Sorry guys end of discussion its cool to do it

 

[Scott Crawley]

.
So, to sum things up, in the future when we start shooting for holographic 3D, I'll do finger framing with both eyes open

Whatever works for you, Luis.

One eye, two eyes, left eye right eye it's all just masterbation if you ask me. It may help you visualize but as a means of communication it is a big hairy FAIL. Nobody else can view your finger framing the way you do, so you might as well just point at the ground and say Give me a X shot of Y from there. I usually use my right index finger. Sometimes I use my left. If I'm feeling really creative... Well, you know which one

For me personally, if I can't use an actual lens to show me a frame, I'll use my imagination. After all, I'm a cameraman, why wouldn't I use a camera to create a frame? With a digital camera i can do it in an instant and I always have a camera on me. Finger framing is a relic from an analogue world. If I want to communicate a frame without using a picture I'll find some other shorthand for a thousand words.

I guess if I were making a show for the finger frame cinema, I would use my fingers to make the frame. For you I say, do all the finger framing you want. (Just don't do it in public, that is called a Pee Wee Herman.) =-)

And the award for best use of a link in this thread goes to...

Sorry guys end of discussion its cool to do it

 

[Luis de la Cerda]

In the post-apocalyptic world when there are only zombies, finger framing will be all we'll have to remind us we were once photographers

 

[Mike Garrick]

This is the problem with finger framing apart from being lame, as illustrated by Martin's fantastic steadicam document. It doesn't allow for cultural differences. .......

In Australia, the finger positions for 24mm means in a pub "I will have 2 Schooners of beer plus 2 shots of spirits". In LA gang culture I don't even know what it means except I'm sure it doesn't mean 24mm. Whilst the 75mm position means in Australia I will have 2 latte's or 2 sugars with my latte. Alternately if the back hand is directed towards the audience this means "up yours"

No where in Australia do these finger framing gestures equate to 24mm & 75mm lensing ....unless you have steadicam manual on hand ; )

 

[Matthew Scott]

He's still got my respect...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i99TpYtFvgc&feature=autoshare

 

[RikiButland]

when I first started in photography, over 30 years ago, my mentor showed me an easy way to get framed up with a 10X8 camera, instead of moving the heavy camera around, you use a 10 X 8 mask to find the position, another interesting thing is the distance you hold the mask away from your eyes in mm would be the focal length of the lens e.g if the mask was 10cm away then you would need a 100mm lens, it works. It also works for any size mask, all the way down too 35mm. obviously the tricky bit is measuring the distance from your eye plane to the mask