Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
NOTE: Board emails should be working again. Information on forum upgrade and style issues.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 22 released November 17th * EXCLUSIVE * We Are Mentioned in a Book!!! Interview with Mary Guillermin on Rapture, JG & More)
Polls: Favourite Movies (Results), 1998 (Results), DtC - Ratings (Apr 26th), Coming of Age (Apr 30th)
Challenges: Doubling the Canon, Animation, Middle East
Film of the Week: Moya lyubov, May nominations (Apr 30th)

Screenshot appreciation

User avatar
dirty_score
Posts: 548
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 6:00 am
Contact:

#121

Post by dirty_score »

In Ghostbusters II

Image

Funny thing that the all-female cast reboot was released that year.

Also this kid says "my dad says you're full of crap".

Image

This is Jason Reitman, son of the director Ivan Reitman, and he will be the director of Ghostbusters 3 next year.
PirateJenny
Posts: 435
Joined: February 21st, 2019, 6:42 pm
Contact:

#122

Post by PirateJenny »

Image
Image
PirateJenny
Posts: 435
Joined: February 21st, 2019, 6:42 pm
Contact:

#123

Post by PirateJenny »

Image
Knife In The Water
User avatar
dark_frances
Posts: 19
Joined: May 8th, 2017, 6:00 am
Contact:

#124

Post by dark_frances »

Babylon Berlin - because expressiveness
Spoiler
Image
Triad Underworld - because dreamy in a cruel world, i.e. a bit Wong Kar Wai-ish
Spoiler
Image
Running out of Time - because cuteness overload
Spoiler
Image
Running out of Time again - because expressiveness
Spoiler
Image
A Moment of Romance - because archetypal AF
Spoiler
Image
True Detective season 6 - because light, angle and dust
Spoiler
Image
Far from Men - because colour and expresiveness
Spoiler
Image
Night of the Demon - because I love this kind of simultaneous long shot / close-up, and I hope someone will help me with a technical name to describe it; also, shadows and shapes
Spoiler
Image
User avatar
Perception de Ambiguity
Posts: 3851
Joined: July 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#125

Post by Perception de Ambiguity »

dark_frances wrote: April 2nd, 2019, 9:13 pm Night of the Demon - because I love this kind of simultaneous long shot / close-up, and I hope someone will help me with a technical name to describe it; also, shadows and shapes
Spoiler
Image
Simply deep-focus photography, I don't know of any more specific term. I guess technically it would be considered a medium long shot despite something being in the foreground (and in focus) that in reality is much smaller compared to the rest of what's inside the frame due to the difference of distance to the camera. The main attribute of the shot is that everything is pretty well in focus in spite of the big differences of distance, hence the shot would be noted for its deep-focus photography most of all. To create similar shots to this one filmmakers sometimes also have "cheated", though, using a so-called split-focus diopter, and that has nothing to do with deep-focus photography.
Image
Basically it enables the lens to not have one focal point, but two, with a split somewhere in the frame (usually right in the middle). Brian De Palma loved using those in a very showy way, it can look quite striking but a lot of times the "cheat" is very noticeable...
Image
...because it just looks weird that one half of the frame has something in sharp focus in the foreground and the background being very blurry, and the other half suddenly has a much sharper background and maybe even the same object/person in the foreground but on that side of the frame it's just a blur. In extreme cases it can seem like the things in the two halves don't even occupy the same space and it straight up looks more like a split screen rather than an in-camera effect. Not that filmmakers often times even want to hide the effect and make it look seamless and natural. No doubt QT is among them who even want you to notice it and geek out over it, and he certainly partly likes using it especially because De Palma used it so much and is often associated with it, since he's a De Palma fanboy.

Here's a little article on this, if you are interested:
http://vashivisuals.com/splitting-focus-de-palmas-blow/

Or how about a video montage of notable split diopter moments in films:
https://vimeo.com/184418293
We do not have to understand new things, but by dint of patience, effort and method to come to understand with our whole self the truths which are evident.Image
LETTERBOXD | MUBI | IMDb | tumblr.
User avatar
dark_frances
Posts: 19
Joined: May 8th, 2017, 6:00 am
Contact:

#126

Post by dark_frances »

Perception de Ambiguity wrote: April 3rd, 2019, 5:47 am Simply deep-focus photography... To create similar shots to this one filmmakers sometimes also have "cheated", though, using a so-called split-focus diopter, and that has nothing to do with deep-focus photography.
Basically it enables the lens to not have one focal point, but two, with a split somewhere in the frame (usually right in the middle).
Ohh, that was quite useful. So I get that deep-focus photography is a precursor of 3D (of sorts)?

Hm, there might also be a mild "dimensional" difference between DFP and SFD - the former seems to create a continuous space between the foreground and the background, while the latter superimposes the foreground on the background, almost in the vein of split screen, or like a collage, where spacial continuity is precisely not the point. With various conceptual consequences. But I'm not entirely sure about this.

But is this DFP or SFD?
Image

And is this DFP, or just normal close-up?
Image
PirateJenny
Posts: 435
Joined: February 21st, 2019, 6:42 pm
Contact:

#127

Post by PirateJenny »

What Have They Done To Solange? focal zooming. :D
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Perception de Ambiguity
Posts: 3851
Joined: July 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#128

Post by Perception de Ambiguity »

dark_frances wrote: April 3rd, 2019, 8:03 pm
Perception de Ambiguity wrote: April 3rd, 2019, 5:47 am Simply deep-focus photography... To create similar shots to this one filmmakers sometimes also have "cheated", though, using a so-called split-focus diopter, and that has nothing to do with deep-focus photography.
Basically it enables the lens to not have one focal point, but two, with a split somewhere in the frame (usually right in the middle).
Ohh, that was quite useful. So I get that deep-focus photography is a precursor of 3D (of sorts)?

Hm, there might also be a mild "dimensional" difference between DFP and SFD - the former seems to create a continuous space between the foreground and the background, while the latter superimposes the foreground on the background, almost in the vein of split screen, or like a collage, where spacial continuity is precisely not the point. With various conceptual consequences. But I'm not entirely sure about this.

But is this DFP or SFD?
Image

And is this DFP, or just normal close-up?
Image
I wouldn't call it any kind of precursor to 3D. Perceptually it can have a similar effect on you, but that's only because it makes you see the image differently to what you are used to from that medium and this isn't at all unique to deep-focus photography. For example, take a picture in a coloring book. You choose to color only one element and that element will pop out to you, giving you, in a way, also a 3D effect.

With deep focus you kind of take focus out of the equation in terms of where to draw the viewer's attention, since it is an important tool for doing that, but there are other ones, so if done half-way decently your eyes don't just drift aimlessly within the frame. It just makes intelligent frame composition, lighting, staging, sound design, etc. more important.

#1 I wouldn't dare say looking at this image alone. Could possibly also be split-screen made to look like the same shot but really being two shots stitched together in post. Or if it was shot with a video camera or a TV camera (can't exclude that possibility either right now) deep focus usually is easy to achieve, with everything in the frame easily being pretty well in focus without much ado.

#2 Well, depends. Is your greatest worry categorizing each shot in a film on a technical basis? :D I reckon even a shooting script wouldn't be that precise to try to categorize it on those terms. It would just describe the shot, or more likely the director would either describe it vocally to the DP or he'd make a storyboard and the DP would try to shoot it as close as possible to the drawing, utilizing all the technical expertise and equipment that he has. Technically the pig in the background seems to be slightly more in focus, but our gangster hero gets much more of the light, plus he's in the foreground. Focus is important, but the amount of light very much also is (as is movement, but since we just have one frame here...), so on a purely visual basis the viewer's attention is likely to go to both relatively equally (and to the lamp itself, which is brightest of all) depending on who talks/moves during the shot.

@PirateJenny
That one is called a rack focus shot. ;)
Meaning that the camera changes focus (there's no zooming involved, usually, and little physical movement of the camera itself), drawing the viewer's attention to something else in the same shot and frame, depending on what or who is in focus at any given moment. Essentially it's in-camera editing since you could also simply shoot the elements separately. A version of "shot, reaction shot, a wider shot of both of them together" that requires more pre-planning. Alternatively you could stage the same (presumingly) conversation with them not being in the same frame at first, so instead of either focus pulling or editing the camera would pan from one character to the other during the conversation until finally the woman would walk up to the man and they both would be in the same frame. But no version of shooting it is necessarily more sophisticated than the other, each would have their own special implications and effect depending on the scene itself and the greater context of it within the film.
We do not have to understand new things, but by dint of patience, effort and method to come to understand with our whole self the truths which are evident.Image
LETTERBOXD | MUBI | IMDb | tumblr.
User avatar
dark_frances
Posts: 19
Joined: May 8th, 2017, 6:00 am
Contact:

#129

Post by dark_frances »

Perception de Ambiguity wrote: April 4th, 2019, 1:14 pm I wouldn't call it any kind of precursor to 3D. Perceptually it can have a similar effect on you, but that's only because it makes you see the image differently to what you are used to from that medium and this isn't at all unique to deep-focus photography. For example, take a picture in a coloring book. You choose to color only one element and that element will pop out to you, giving you, in a way, also a 3D effect.

With deep focus you kind of take focus out of the equation in terms of where to draw the viewer's attention, since it is an important tool for doing that, but there are other ones, so if done half-way decently your eyes don't just drift aimlessly within the frame. It just makes intelligent frame composition, lighting, staging, sound design, etc. more important.

#1 I wouldn't dare say looking at this image alone. Could possibly also be split-screen made to look like the same shot but really being two shots stitched together in post. Or if it was shot with a video camera or a TV camera (can't exclude that possibility either right now) deep focus usually is easy to achieve, with everything in the frame easily being pretty well in focus without much ado.

#2 Well, depends. Is your greatest worry categorizing each shot in a film on a technical basis? :D I reckon even a shooting script wouldn't be that precise to try to categorize it on those terms. It would just describe the shot, or more likely the director would either describe it vocally to the DP or he'd make a storyboard and the DP would try to shoot it as close as possible to the drawing, utilizing all the technical expertise and equipment that he has. Technically the pig in the background seems to be slightly more in focus, but our gangster hero gets much more of the light, plus he's in the foreground. Focus is important, but the amount of light very much also is (as is movement, but since we just have one frame here...), so on a purely visual basis the viewer's attention is likely to go to both relatively equally (and to the lamp itself, which is brightest of all) depending on who talks/moves during the shot.
My current worry is being able to interpret the visual part of movies, so I'm in the process of learning terms and their meanings. I'm actually sitting on a pile of books about cinematography (not literally, though...). Hence the obsession with categorizing :), and hence why your answer was really useful. Thanks also for the TV camera info.
The ideal way to go about it would be to read some stuff, then get one scene / image and try to interpret the various filming choices. So you might catch me again being super-anal about technicalities - it's all done for a greater purpose, I swear :ph43r:

Frame composition and lighting - ahh I'm getting there. You're right, in #2 light does seem to contribute to the effect.

And yes, I didn't mean a literal precursor of 3D, I was thinking that it has a similar effect. With coloring books see your point, but they don't have a similar effect on me - I'm still heavily aware that I'm seeing a 2-dimensional thing. But maybe that's due to the paper. The screens have automatically a slightly more abstract feel, which helps my brain interpret the visual input differently.
(also, I haven't read coloured books in quite a while, now I'm busy reading black-and-white manga)(gosh the horrors that can be portrayed by this medium!).
Areck!
User avatar
TajSamKojiJesam
Posts: 108
Joined: February 14th, 2018, 7:00 am
Contact:

#130

Post by TajSamKojiJesam »

Lost Lovers (1971)

This seldom seen ATG production is maybe one of their most visually enchanting films. Too bad the story felt padded out and unsatisfying to me.

A few screenshots:
Spoiler
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 33726
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#131

Post by joachimt »

ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 33726
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#132

Post by joachimt »

Same movie...

Image

Image

Image

It's a shame this is just a very small part of the movie. Most of it contains pretty boring classroom scenes.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
User avatar
Hunziker
Donator
Posts: 1294
Joined: November 3rd, 2014, 7:00 am
Location: Guatemala
Contact:

#133

Post by Hunziker »

This face in Kino-Pravda 15. Haunting.

Image
2 more
Image
Image
This is the voice of world control. 🤖 - iCM
Image
User avatar
Hunziker
Donator
Posts: 1294
Joined: November 3rd, 2014, 7:00 am
Location: Guatemala
Contact:

#134

Post by Hunziker »

Umasked (1917)'s opening shot

Image
This is the voice of world control. 🤖 - iCM
Image
User avatar
Armoreska
Posts: 13253
Joined: November 1st, 2012, 6:00 am
Location: Ukraine, former Free Territory
Contact:

#135

Post by Armoreska »

Image
Image

more DEpreciation and more sub quote than sshot
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNcxxBjEOgw
La Classe Operaia Va In Paradiso
Last edited by Armoreska on April 2nd, 2021, 9:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
he or A. or Armo or any

Image
currently working towards a vegan/free world + thru such film lists: GODARD, r/antinatalism recommends,..
the rest
ANARCHISTS, ANIMAL RIGHTS, Assisted suicide, Existential films, SOCIALIST CINEMA (an amalgamation of lists), Feminist lists, various GSSRM lists (aka LGBTQ+), 2010s bests, Visual Effects nominees, kid-related stuff, great animes (mini-serie or feature), very 80s movies, mah huge sci-fi list, ENVIRO, remarkable Silent Films and Pre-Code (exploring 1925 atm) and every shorts and docu list I'm aware of and
/forum.icmforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1434
and "Gordon" Liu Chia-Hui/Liu Chia-Liang and Yuen Woo-ping and "Sammo" Hung Kam-bo
imaginary awards | youtube channels | complaint lounge | explain how big a fan of slavery you are here, ..viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1535 and here: ..viewtopic.php?f=12&t=4484
User avatar
Armoreska
Posts: 13253
Joined: November 1st, 2012, 6:00 am
Location: Ukraine, former Free Territory
Contact:

#136

Post by Armoreska »

this makes sense now! and has for decades!
Image
*he's making up nonsense in scene
he or A. or Armo or any

Image
currently working towards a vegan/free world + thru such film lists: GODARD, r/antinatalism recommends,..
the rest
ANARCHISTS, ANIMAL RIGHTS, Assisted suicide, Existential films, SOCIALIST CINEMA (an amalgamation of lists), Feminist lists, various GSSRM lists (aka LGBTQ+), 2010s bests, Visual Effects nominees, kid-related stuff, great animes (mini-serie or feature), very 80s movies, mah huge sci-fi list, ENVIRO, remarkable Silent Films and Pre-Code (exploring 1925 atm) and every shorts and docu list I'm aware of and
/forum.icmforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1434
and "Gordon" Liu Chia-Hui/Liu Chia-Liang and Yuen Woo-ping and "Sammo" Hung Kam-bo
imaginary awards | youtube channels | complaint lounge | explain how big a fan of slavery you are here, ..viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1535 and here: ..viewtopic.php?f=12&t=4484
Post Reply