The Shape of a Palette #3

A harmony template is a set of hue anchors at fixed relative angles. Fitting one means finding the rotation that best explains where a shot's chromatic weight actually sits. This third edition starts with 46,934 shot rows from 35 films. Their photographed picture ranges leave 40,597; the eligibility and structure gates leave 16,051; and stage two decodes and scores 1,729 shortlisted frames on a continuous hue distribution.

8 of the 8 exemplars changed: a frame the previous edition had never seen now fits those templates better than the one it chose. The larger corpus changes one of the old study's most durable-looking findings. 6 of the seven hue templates now win on their own best frame: rectangular tetradic finally clears its nearest rival, while square tetradic still does not. The eight exemplars come from 7 different films, rather than clustering in one low-saturation grade.

The report keeps purity and force separate. Each shape begins with the frame that fits it best, then adds a more forceful legible example where one exists and a third-film example where the corpus can supply one. The achromatic case remains separate: it has no hue template, so its evidence is the absence of chromatic weight and the structure carried by light and dark.

Two stages, because the two instruments cost differently. Stage one fits each shot's five-colour CIELAB palette. It is cheap and coarse, so it only shortlists. Stage two decodes 1,729 stills and scores them on a continuous saturation-weighted hue distribution measured from the active picture at 512 pixels, in 72 bins of 5°. Every winner comes from stage two.

The photographed picture is the first gate. The source runs contain 46,934 shot rows. Per-film picture ranges remove distributor idents, titles and credits from 31 of 35 films; the 4 older ungated films enter whole and remain named in the payload. Upstream analysis_eligible flags also remove detected burnt-in subtitles and the collapsed strobe passages of Enter the Void. That leaves 40,597 photographed shots before the ordinary duration, light and chroma candidate rules.

A field of colour is not a photograph of a scene. A flat screen fits a one-leg template perfectly by construction, so this edition also requires σL* ≥ 4.0 and p90−p10 ≥ 8.0. The rule sets aside 45 otherwise-eligible flat frames. After every gate, 16,051 shots can supply candidates.

A frame must beat every rival template on its own pixels. Templates nest, so raw fit alone would hand too much material to monochromatic. The exemplar and per-film profile both use the winning margin. 1 further frame was set aside by hand, with its reason preserved in the frozen payload. An analysis source is deliberately outside this corpus: sampled on a clock rather than cut into shots — it has no shot durations, and the observational unit of this study is the shot.

One hue family, varied only in lightness and chroma. One anchor: every chromatic pixel sits in a single hue family.

The best-fitting frame in 16,051 eligible shots is A Very Long Engagement shot 0366, at 01:31:42:08, held for 5.8 seconds. It fits: 1.000 against the template, and the nearest rival reading (analogous) reaches only 0.000.

Its hue spread is 4°, its mean chroma C* 18.4, its mean key L* 14.5, and 32% of its pixels carry enough colour to vote on hue at all.

The louder frame is the stronger picture. 46% of it carries enough colour to have a hue at all, against 32% of the exemplar, and that colour sits 2.5× further from grey — mean chroma C* 45.6 against 18.4. That is what makes it read as its harmony from across a room.

The quieter frame is the better fit. It scores 0.970 against the template where the exemplar scores 1.000: less of its chromatic weight lands inside the template's windows (97% against 100%).

Purity and force are different questions, and this pair is the clearest place to see it: the template describes where a frame's colour sits, not how much of it there is. A frame can obey its template almost perfectly and still whisper.

A third film, on purpose. A Very Long Engagement and Hero supplied the frames above, and two frames from one or two films cannot tell you whether a shape belongs to the template or to a grade. Amélie (2001) is here because it is the best legible example of this template in a film neither of them used.

It fits the template at 0.778, against 1.000 for the exemplar — enough to be a legible example of the shape, which is the bar a companion frame has to clear. Its own photography is a different proposition: mean chroma C* 34.1 against 18.4, mean key L* 25.2 against 14.5, and 50% of the frame carrying colour against 32%.

Neighbouring hues, no opposition. 3 anchors, 32°, 32° apart, each with a ±22° window.

The best-fitting frame in 16,051 eligible shots is A Very Long Engagement shot 0036, at 01:05:25:23, held for 1.5 seconds. It fits: 0.943 against the template, and the nearest rival reading (monochromatic) reaches only 0.476.

Its hue spread is 32°, its mean chroma C* 10.5, its mean key L* 19.3, and 11% of its pixels carry enough colour to vote on hue at all.

The louder frame is the stronger picture. 51% of it carries enough colour to have a hue at all, against 11% of the exemplar, and that colour sits 4.1× further from grey — mean chroma C* 43.3 against 10.5. That is what makes it read as its harmony from across a room.

The quieter frame is the better fit. It scores 0.842 against the template where the exemplar scores 0.943: less of its chromatic weight lands inside the template's windows (92% against 98%) and what lands is shared less evenly between the legs (balance 0.92 against 0.96).

Purity and force are different questions, and this pair is the clearest place to see it: the template describes where a frame's colour sits, not how much of it there is. A frame can obey its template almost perfectly and still whisper.

A third film, on purpose. A Very Long Engagement and Amélie supplied the frames above, and two frames from one or two films cannot tell you whether a shape belongs to the template or to a grade. Enter the Void (2009) is here because it is the best legible example of this template in a film neither of them used.

It fits the template at 0.913, against 0.943 for the exemplar — enough to be a legible example of the shape, which is the bar a companion frame has to clear. Its own photography is a different proposition: mean chroma C* 31.4 against 10.5, mean key L* 22.1 against 19.3, and 36% of the frame carrying colour against 11%.

Two hues directly opposite. 2 anchors, 180° apart, each with a ±24° window.

The best-fitting frame in 16,051 eligible shots is Drive shot 0717, at 02:17:12:22, held for 1.8 seconds. It fits: 0.991 against the template, and the nearest rival reading (monochromatic) reaches only 0.502.

Its hue spread is 118°, its mean chroma C* 10.3, its mean key L* 26.7, and 16% of its pixels carry enough colour to vote on hue at all.

The louder frame is the stronger picture. 43% of it carries enough colour to have a hue at all, against 16% of the exemplar, and that colour sits 3.4× further from grey — mean chroma C* 34.9 against 10.3. That is what makes it read as its harmony from across a room.

The quieter frame is the better fit. It scores 0.970 against the template where the exemplar scores 0.991: what lands is shared less evenly between the legs (balance 0.97 against 1.00).

Purity and force are different questions, and this pair is the clearest place to see it: the template describes where a frame's colour sits, not how much of it there is. A frame can obey its template almost perfectly and still whisper.

A third film, on purpose. Drive and O Brother, Where Art Thou? supplied the frames above, and two frames from one or two films cannot tell you whether a shape belongs to the template or to a grade. Hero (2002) is here because it is the best legible example of this template in a film neither of them used.

It fits the template at 0.986, against 0.991 for the exemplar — enough to be a legible example of the shape, which is the bar a companion frame has to clear. Its own photography is a different proposition: mean chroma C* 31.2 against 10.3, mean key L* 45.3 against 26.7, and 45% of the frame carrying colour against 16%.

One hue against the two neighbours of its opposite. 3 anchors, 150°, 60° apart, each with a ±22° window.

The best-fitting frame in 16,051 eligible shots is Moonlight shot 0075, at 01:13:48:16, held for 4.4 seconds. It fits: 0.932 against the template, and the nearest rival reading (complementary) reaches only 0.517.

Its hue spread is 102°, its mean chroma C* 18.8, its mean key L* 38.5, and 22% of its pixels carry enough colour to vote on hue at all.

The louder frame is the stronger picture. 51% of it carries enough colour to have a hue at all, against 22% of the exemplar, and that colour sits 2.1× further from grey — mean chroma C* 40.1 against 18.8. That is what makes it read as its harmony from across a room.

The quieter frame is the better fit. It scores 0.521 against the template where the exemplar scores 0.932: less of its chromatic weight lands inside the template's windows (95% against 98%) and what lands is shared less evenly between the legs (balance 0.55 against 0.95). On this frame the template loses outright to a analogous reading at 0.747.

Purity and force are different questions, and this pair is the clearest place to see it: the template describes where a frame's colour sits, not how much of it there is. A frame can obey its template almost perfectly and still whisper.

A third film, on purpose. Moonlight and Suspiria supplied the frames above, and two frames from one or two films cannot tell you whether a shape belongs to the template or to a grade. Super Deluxe (2019) is here because it is the best legible example of this template in a film neither of them used.

It fits the template at 0.604, against 0.932 for the exemplar — enough to be a legible example of the shape, which is the bar a companion frame has to clear. Its own photography is a different proposition: mean chroma C* 26.4 against 18.8, mean key L* 51.4 against 38.5, and 32% of the frame carrying colour against 22%.

Three hues evenly spaced around the wheel. 3 anchors, 120°, 120° apart, each with a ±24° window.

The best-fitting frame in 16,051 eligible shots is Oldboy shot 0722, at 02:33:48:18, held for 6.5 seconds. It fits: 0.628 against the template, and the nearest rival reading (monochromatic) reaches only 0.376.

Its hue spread is 104°, its mean chroma C* 13.5, its mean key L* 21.8, and 16% of its pixels carry enough colour to vote on hue at all.

The louder frame is the stronger picture. 18% of it carries enough colour to have a hue at all, against 16% of the exemplar, and that colour sits 1.0× further from grey — mean chroma C* 13.1 against 13.5. That is what makes it read as its harmony from across a room.

The quieter frame is the better fit. It scores 0.545 against the template where the exemplar scores 0.628: what lands is shared less evenly between the legs (balance 0.66 against 0.76).

Purity and force are different questions, and this pair is the clearest place to see it: the template describes where a frame's colour sits, not how much of it there is. A frame can obey its template almost perfectly and still whisper.

A third film, on purpose. Oldboy and Bugonia supplied the frames above, and two frames from one or two films cannot tell you whether a shape belongs to the template or to a grade. Zatoichi (2003) is here because it is the best legible example of this template in a film neither of them used.

It fits the template at 0.444, against 0.628 for the exemplar — enough to be a legible example of the shape, which is the bar a companion frame has to clear. Its own photography is a different proposition: mean chroma C* 13.8 against 13.5, mean key L* 19.3 against 21.8, and 16% of the frame carrying colour against 16%.

Four hues at right angles. 4 anchors, 90°, 90°, 90° apart, each with a ±22° window.

The best-fitting frame in 16,051 eligible shots is In the Mood for Love shot 0264, at 01:46:24:03, held for 14.7 seconds. It does not fit. This is the closest the corpus comes, and even here the template scores 0.364 while a monochromatic reading scores 0.458. The frame is better explained as something simpler.

Its hue spread is 74°, its mean chroma C* 11.7, its mean key L* 14.0, and 14% of its pixels carry enough colour to vote on hue at all. There is no louder alternative for this one: no other frame in the corpus is both a legible fit for this template and a more forceful picture than the exemplar.

A third film, on purpose. In the Mood for Love supplied the frames above, and two frames from one or two films cannot tell you whether a shape belongs to the template or to a grade. The Handmaiden (2016) is here because it is the best legible example of this template in a film neither of them used.

It fits the template at 0.361, against 0.364 for the exemplar — enough to be a legible example of the shape, which is the bar a companion frame has to clear. Its own photography is a different proposition: mean chroma C* 9.9 against 11.7, mean key L* 36.4 against 14.0, and 8.2% of the frame carrying colour against 14%.

Two complementary pairs, unevenly spaced. 4 anchors, 60°, 120°, 60° apart, each with a ±22° window.

The best-fitting frame in 16,051 eligible shots is Super Deluxe shot 0596, at 02:11:46:05, held for 3.8 seconds. It fits: 0.518 against the template, and the nearest rival reading (split-complementary) reaches only 0.392.

Its hue spread is 91°, its mean chroma C* 22.4, its mean key L* 40.4, and 28% of its pixels carry enough colour to vote on hue at all.

The louder frame is the stronger picture. 40% of it carries enough colour to have a hue at all, against 28% of the exemplar, and that colour sits 0.9× further from grey — mean chroma C* 19.7 against 22.4. That is what makes it read as its harmony from across a room.

The quieter frame is the better fit. It scores 0.402 against the template where the exemplar scores 0.518: what lands is shared less evenly between the legs (balance 0.49 against 0.69). On this frame the template loses outright to a complementary reading at 0.832.

Purity and force are different questions, and this pair is the clearest place to see it: the template describes where a frame's colour sits, not how much of it there is. A frame can obey its template almost perfectly and still whisper.

A third film, on purpose. Super Deluxe supplied the frames above, and two frames from one or two films cannot tell you whether a shape belongs to the template or to a grade. Amélie (2001) is here because it is the best legible example of this template in a film neither of them used.

It fits the template at 0.474, against 0.518 for the exemplar — enough to be a legible example of the shape, which is the bar a companion frame has to clear. Its own photography is a different proposition: mean chroma C* 16.8 against 22.4, mean key L* 16.4 against 40.4, and 29% of the frame carrying colour against 28%.

No hue survives the chromatic threshold. Nothing here clears the chromatic floor, so the frame has no hue to be harmonious with.

The best-fitting frame in 16,051 eligible shots is Another Round shot 0402, at 01:45:21:20, held for 2.2 seconds. There is no template to fit. Only 0.00% of the frame carries enough colour to be placed on the wheel at all, which is what makes it the corpus's clearest achromatic frame.

Its hue spread is 180°, its mean chroma C* 0.2, its mean key L* 41.6, and 0.00% of its pixels carry enough colour to vote on hue at all.

The louder frame is the stronger picture. 0.00% of it carries enough colour to have a hue at all, against 0.00% of the exemplar, and that colour sits 0.0× further from grey — mean chroma C* 0.0 against 0.2. That is what makes it read as its harmony from across a room.

The quieter frame is the better fit. There is no template to lose: what an achromatic exemplar must not have is colour, and this frame has NaN× as much of it — 0.00% against 0.00%. It is the more dramatic picture and the less colourless one.

Both are worth looking at. Only one of them is the measurement.

A third film, on purpose. Another Round and Roma supplied the frames above, and two frames from one or two films cannot tell you whether a shape belongs to the template or to a grade. Sisu (2022) is here because it is the best legible example of this template in a film neither of them used.

Only 1.1% of it carries any hue at all. Its own photography is a different proposition: mean chroma C* 3.2 against 0.2, mean key L* 29.4 against 41.6, and 1.1% of the frame carrying colour against 0.00%.

The square tetradic remains a visible absence. Its best candidate scores 0.364 against the square template and 0.458 as a monochromatic reading. It is shown because it is the closest the corpus comes, and labelled as a loss because it is not evidence that the category occurred.

Rectangular tetradic is different in this edition. Its best frame scores 0.518 against its own template and beats the nearest split-complementary reading at 0.392. That is a rare, imperfect four-leg result, not a reason to promote the square candidate beside it.

The distinction is the finding: a larger corpus can turn an earlier absence into an occurrence, but only where the selected frame actually beats every simpler explanation on the same pixels.

Monochromatic leads almost everywhere, so the useful comparison is how much material escapes it. A film's departure is the share of eligible shots assigned to anything wider than one hue family.

The upstream package reports 34 film rows with enough eligible observations. Super Deluxe leads at 54%; A Very Long Engagement sits at 0.10%. That describes these measured editions under the same gates. It does not identify who caused the pattern, and it does not turn shots nested inside one film into independent films.

97% of eligible shots are still explained by one hue family or two adjacent ones. Triadic and both tetradics together account for 0.10%. The wheel's widest shapes exist, but they remain exceptional rather than a grammar most photographed scenes regularly use.

The per-film profile makes the difference between films legible without pretending the leading shape changes: Super Deluxe has the largest measured departure from one hue family at 54%, while A Very Long Engagement sits at 0.10%. Those are descriptive profiles of these editions and gates, not signatures of a director, cinematographer or colourist.

One achromatic frame needs an external note the instrument cannot infer. The selected Another Round image is archival black-and-white news photography carried inside the film. It belongs to the photographed picture range, but it is a found image rather than the production's own photography.