This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I'm not following the article. I think I understand what the rack focus technique is, described in the first sentence. But what does that have to do with a non-reflex lens viewfinder arrangement? What does the last sentence mean?:
Is it suggesting the camera split apart so the viewfinder could be in the focal frame? Or is it merely that the viewfinder showed the correct focus, but was significantly off-axis? Neither is obvious how it would connect to the focusing effect. — EncMstr 04:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a pointless stub article, and should be deleted. The follow focus article is a little better (though technically in the film business "Follow Focus" refers the the mechanism on the camera used to achieve this rather than the actual technique itself, though I don't have a reliable source that asserts this.)
The Richard Rush claim is either nonsense or a severe distortion of what Rush might have said (I have no access to the cited source). The technique of racking or pulling focus as described in this article has existed since the early days of movies. DW Griffiths' 1912 film "The Musketeers of Pig Alley" clearly shows the technique in use before Richard Rush was even born. Verlaine76 ( talk) 13:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I propose to merge Focus puller with this page, Racking focus because the Focus puller page links here and is essentially a description of the process. The article may then require some more cleaning up and streamlining, but I think it makes sense to fuse them. Don Tango Enchained ( talk) 16:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I'm not following the article. I think I understand what the rack focus technique is, described in the first sentence. But what does that have to do with a non-reflex lens viewfinder arrangement? What does the last sentence mean?:
Is it suggesting the camera split apart so the viewfinder could be in the focal frame? Or is it merely that the viewfinder showed the correct focus, but was significantly off-axis? Neither is obvious how it would connect to the focusing effect. — EncMstr 04:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a pointless stub article, and should be deleted. The follow focus article is a little better (though technically in the film business "Follow Focus" refers the the mechanism on the camera used to achieve this rather than the actual technique itself, though I don't have a reliable source that asserts this.)
The Richard Rush claim is either nonsense or a severe distortion of what Rush might have said (I have no access to the cited source). The technique of racking or pulling focus as described in this article has existed since the early days of movies. DW Griffiths' 1912 film "The Musketeers of Pig Alley" clearly shows the technique in use before Richard Rush was even born. Verlaine76 ( talk) 13:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I propose to merge Focus puller with this page, Racking focus because the Focus puller page links here and is essentially a description of the process. The article may then require some more cleaning up and streamlining, but I think it makes sense to fuse them. Don Tango Enchained ( talk) 16:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)