>>3547715>There's no chance it was an oversight. Showing a zoomed in finder when using a tele lens, because the plot requires the protagonist to look further than his naked eyes allow, is a small inaccuracy that advances the plot.
There I would disagree. This is an inaccuracy due to laziness. An inaccuracy that advances the plot would be more like:>protagonist needs to take a zoomed in photo and "enhance image" to make it easier to see what's in the distance
essentially what I mean by "inaccuracy to advance the plot" is "something that can't be done or can't be done under those constraints that's needed for things to move forward." The constraints of "has a professional but portable camera" does not necessitate a rangefinder that's incapable of seeing through the lens when hundreds of other cameras fit the bill that can.>Virtually every digital camera is an SLR
Then maybe they should have used an SLR. That's my point.>If they were to use a "proper" view with an rf, 99.9% of the audience would perceive it as inaccurate
Right, but for this plot they wouldn't use a rangefinder. They'd use an SLR. The given is that she needs to see into the distance and has a camera. The given is NOT that she has a leica and needs something to do with it.>But maybe aesthetically an rf looked better for the scene compared to a big dSLR
high end pro mirrorless cameras are smaller than a RF>Again, if it fits the aesthetic it still makes sense to use an "inaccurate" prop that only a tiny fraction of the audience will likely even notice.
Assuming your audience is ignorant is poor filmmaking, plain and simple.