Is it just me or does the color on Letterman never look quite right. Leno's HD color balance seems very neutral and very natural. When you switch to Letterman, it seems the color is skewed to the red/pink. I'd like to say it's 'subtle', but I really think it's more than subtle. In fact, I'd have to say for a live or taped HD studio telecast, it's probably the worst color I've seen.

What's odd is that it's the newest setup and I assume has some of the best equipment. Very weird. :confused:

Just as movie transfers utilize a "colorist" to determine the look, live or taped video has a similar position. Here the cameras are kept in balance and the overall look can be changed from warm to cool.

It's a subjective call. If it really looks bad, that person may be replaced by the director.

Go to www.videopark.com. He is one of the top freelence guys around for live and taped productions.

I'm sure that's the case Glimmie, but when you change channels from Leno to Letterman, it really doesn't look good IMO. The color just doesn't seem natural. I've never seen a live HD broadcast that's so obviously skewed....regardless of network. All the other CBS live HD material I've seen has been very color-neutral. That's what strkes me as so odd. It's just hard to believe they were stiving for a pink/red look. It's not flattering.

I see the difference being Letterman's going for a New York City at night vibe with the cooler shading and non-amped up color, Leno's doing the SoCal neon, over-the-top L.A. look. At 11:35 at night, I'll take Letterman's easier on the eyes look.

(Don't even get me started on the content....)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that rarely do I see HD studio broadcasts look 'colorized' or anything other than natural. Leno fits in the 'natural' category to my eyes and Letterman doesn't. I've just never seen studio HD look so 'off' as compared to accurate color.

If you look at ABC's Good Morning America, you can quibble about the sharpness (or lack thereof), but the color usually looks spot-on.

Letterman uses Ikegami cameras, while Leno uses Sony. I know the video operator (VO) makes a huge difference, but I think the Sony cameras look better. Conan O'Brien & American Idol also use Sonys.

Letterman uses Ikegami cameras, while Leno uses Sony. I know the video operator (VO) makes a huge difference, but I think the Sony cameras look better. Conan O'Brien & American Idol also use Sonys.

But any state of the art HD (or SD for that matter) camera can produce a neutral picture even though there may be subtle differences. What Ken is describing sounds deliberate or just plain sloppy work.

I think the lighting in the Letterman studio isn't as bright.

To me, Leno's show looks overly-bright/neon because of the bright lights and all the pink and bright colors, but Conan O'brien's show looks the best of the 3. (I'll take Letterman over Leno for content, unless there's a particular guest I want to see on Leno - Leno's show is so obviously scripted and rehearsed it's almost painful to watch the interviews)

I think the lighting in the Letterman studio isn't as bright.

To me, Leno's show looks overly-bright/neon because of the bright lights and all the pink and bright colors, but Conan O'brien's show looks the best of the 3. (I'll take Letterman over Leno for content, unless there's a particular guest I want to see on Leno - Leno's show is so obviously scripted and rehearsed it's almost painful to watch the interviews)

Well if the lights are dimmed, they go orange. Perhaps there is next to no blue left in the scene. The camera ultimatly can't make what isn't there.

But any state of the art HD (or SD for that matter) camera can produce a neutral picture even though there may be subtle differences. What Ken is describing sounds deliberate or just plain sloppy work.I don't think it's as much color balance as it is colorimetry. But, as you say, the VO makes a big difference too. Masking and matrix settings can hurt as well as help. I also think the enhancement looks a bit harsh on Letterman.

A fairly well known telecine engineer in LA originally from Australia once told me a several years back that the proper way of using traditional 6 vector secondaries was to turn down the telecine saturation and maximize the saturation on the secondaries. To my eyes this produced some very unusual colorimetry. The vectorscope looked like a star.

to my non-technical eyes, Leno's colors look a little too punched up, Conan's are a bit cool, and Letterman's fall in the middle.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that rarely do I see HD studio broadcasts look 'colorized' or anything other than natural. Leno fits in the 'natural' category to my eyes and Letterman doesn't. I've just never seen studio HD look so 'off' as compared to accurate color.

If you look at ABC's Good Morning America, you can quibble about the sharpness (or lack thereof), but the color usually looks spot-on.

It must be a matter of taste, I like the look on Letterman and GMA looks way too orange to me.

It must be a matter of taste, I like the look on Letterman and GMA looks way too orange to me.


I think that's just a question of the sets. They do tend to use quite a bit of yellows and oranges, but the flesh tones are perfectly normal to my eyes. All the flesh tones seem to be within a relatively narrow range on all most of the shows, but Letterman's just always seem very pink to me. I've watched him on all my TVs (both HD and non-HD) and he and the guests are just too pink. Conan's colors are cooler, but again fleshtones seem fairly accurate.

Saturday Night Live's colors look most natural to me of the studio-based video that I've seen. A bit better than Leno which is better than Letterman.

SNL also uses Sony cameras. OTH, so does GMA.

Interesting enough if you search the archives, you will find George commenting that to him Letterman looks better with the older equipment Leno uses beginning to show its age.

Guess its grass is always greener effect.

I watch Letterman every night and can't say that I ever thought it looked bad (except perhaps during the early NBC days when they were using TK-44s ...). With this thread in mind, tonight I flipped back and forth between Letterman and Leno -- I'll agree they look different, but I wouldn't say that either one is "right" or "wrong." It looks more like a difference in the colorimetry of the cameras than a conscious decision to skew the balance in any direction. They both look good to me.

A fairly well known telecine engineer in LA originally from Australia once told me a several years back that the proper way of using traditional 6 vector secondaries was to turn down the telecine saturation and maximize the saturation on the secondaries. To my eyes this produced some very unusual colorimetry. The vectorscope looked like a star.

Eek! That is so absolutely wrong. Aside from inducing chroma noise, it will (as you point out) create a very uneven color gamut.

Those old six-vector color secondaries are now antiquated. Modern colorists use "power vectors" that can target a particular color no matter where it falls on the vectorscope. We can now qualify any color we wish to modify by hue, saturation, and luminance. But I would suspect on a regular TV program such as Letterman or Leno that secondary color correction is not utilized. The color differences between the shows are a function of camera setup, set lighting, and the taste of the producers and technical directors.

This is a facinating topic for me. I'm glad that AVS forum members are keen observers of the technical nuances of the video signal. I remember some time ago there was a discussion on this forum about the look of NCIS. Apparently the producers of that show used secondary color correction to make flesh tones look very red, and there was quite a howl about it here.

You guys are true videophiles, and I salute you.

To properly evaluate these colorimetry issues, both the Leno and Letterman shows must supply more female skin. Only by comparing captured images in these technical forums can we come to a proper conclusion.

I like the look of Letterman better over Leno. Looks more like what I have seen in TV studios , to me anyway.

They look different, but both appear fine to me. I wouldn't want them to look exactly alike anyway. It seems like it's just the lighting, more than anything. And the set and decor.

Letterman looks more lifelike to me in terms of color. It also seems sharper and more detailed.

SNL also uses Sony cameras. OTH, so does GMA.

And interestingly to me, they both appear to have a color balance in the same ballpark. But Letterman is the only show I've seen with this skewing of color, a color balance that just looks different than any I've seen from a stuido equipped for HD. It's interesting that some here prefer it though. Certainly to some degree, the 'which is more accurate' question will depend on how the final viewer's HDTV is calibrated. But at least on my displays Letterman just doesn't quite look like the fleshtones I see in the real world.

Man, it's terrible to be so anal! :D

Letterman looks more lifelike to me in terms of color. It also seems sharper and more detailed.

I have to agree with this. Leno's colors seem too saturated. Almost cartoonish. Letterman's colors seems so much more natural and lifelike. I also agree Letterman seems sharper and more detailed.

That is why they have blondes, brunettes and redheads guys. I will say that my Panny 50PHD7UY has been calibtrated by Greg Loewen and Letterman looks really good on it. Very natural. When it was done a couple months ago, I played a section of Letterman from D-VHS and Greg though it looked perfect. However, we call react to the world differently. Leno used to look much better before the advent of Weather Plus however, and I have the tape to prove it!

To properly evaluate these colorimetry issues, both the Leno and Letterman shows must supply more female skin. Only by comparing captured images in these technical forums can we come to a proper conclusion.

Why can't male skin be used to evaluate colorimetry?

That is why they have blondes, brunettes and redheads guys. I will say that my Panny 50PHD7UY has been calibtrated by Greg Loewen and Letterman looks really good on it. Very natural. When it was done a couple months ago, I played a section of Letterman from D-VHS and Greg though it looked perfect. However, we call react to the world differently. Leno used to look much better before the advent of Weather Plus however, and I have the tape to prove it!

JWhip, keep in mind that "Weather Plus' or any subchannel will impact on the issue of artifacts more than color quality.

It used to be much clearer with better color and contrast to my eyes

Why can't male skin be used to evaluate colorimetry?Two reasons come to mind.

Hmmmm....

.....Letterman looks more colorful tonight......very similar to Leno......

I compared Jay and Dave during their opening monologues tonight. From my local stations and my eyes Dave appeared more detailed than Jay such that you could make out the features of his face more easily.

As far as coloring goes Dave’s complexion looked more real life to me. It had a lot more shades of colors and it did lean more towards red than Jay’s which leaned more towards orange. During the opening Jay cut to a bit and the color lost the orange tint and appeared right on (although the bit’s color was at times all over the board).

I watched until both of them sat down and basically saw the same results. If you check out Dave’s hands you will see a nice range of (accurate) colors and increased detail (on my setup) and Jay’s hands were again lacking detail and more monochrome with a hint of orange.

I prefer Dave’s color and certainly the increased detail. Didn’t I read here a long time ago that Jay’s show uses a filter… for skin tone?

Letterman is shot closer during the monologue than Leno; he should look more detailed.

Letterman is shot closer during the monologue than Leno; he should look more detailed.I don't think it's the distance rather the monochrome skin tone of Jay. It's noticeable from any angle or distance, which gives you a lot less contrast and detail.

Letterman looks more lifelike to me in terms of color. It also seems sharper and more detailed.I guess I should have just said I agee. :)

I haven't seen anyone comment on the contribution of makeup to the the color of the skin tones. It would seem to me it would have a greater effect than the type of camera or decisions made by video operator.

Letterman has a tan, because Michael Douglas(s?) even pointed it out and complimented him on it the other night.

Tonight's show:

http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/2325/letterman11ep.th.jpg (http://img129.imageshack.us/my.php?image=letterman11ep.jpg)
http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/3618/leno13yw.th.jpg (http://img74.imageshack.us/my.php?image=leno13yw.jpg)

i definitely see more detail on Letterman's HD shows than i do with Leno...and as others have said, the colors look a little artificial/oversaturated on Leno.

The Tonight Show uses an airbrush for makeup, not sure what Late Show uses. The process was new for TV, but deemed needed due to the detail HD has.

As far as filtering, The Tonight Show has used it for guests, not sure about Leno.

Hmmmm....

.....Letterman looks more colorful tonight......very similar to Leno......

Ken, it's hilarious you say that because I noticed the same thing!!!! I was going to ask my wife what she thought and as I flipped back and forth I said "what the heck?" (well I didn't use 'heck'). The color was definitely different last night on Letterman! The pink was gone and the fleshtones were much closer to Leno!

So, a coincidence or was CBS reading AVS???? :D

But any state of the art HD (or SD for that matter) camera can produce a neutral picture even though there may be subtle differences. What Ken is describing sounds deliberate .
Agreed, there are also multiple user pre-set (color temp) gamma curves built into the camera matrix profiles, pre-fabricated gamma files can be down loaded, or created manually.

Ken, it's hilarious you say that because I noticed the same thing!!!! I was going to ask my wife what she thought and as I flipped back and forth I said "what the heck?" (well I didn't use 'heck'). The color was definitely different last night on Letterman! The pink was gone and the fleshtones were much closer to Leno!

So, a coincidence or was CBS reading AVS???? :D
Although I know CBS reads AVS, I'm not sure about this one.....maybe....who knows.....

Even though they looked similar tonight, in general, Letterman's show always looks better to me than Leno's in general. The one annoyance I have consistantly with CBS HD is that the voice sync is really bad, and gets worse as the show continues. By the time Letterman is over, dialogue is about 2 seconds ahead of the action on screen. It's the only HD channel on the local cable (Buckeye Cablesystem in Toledo, OH) that ever has any really bad sync probems.

Does CBS have this problem, or is it the local system? I know it's not the TV, as it happens on everyone that I've asked about it.

Does CBS have this problem, or is it the local system? I know it's not the TV, as it happens on everyone that I've asked about it.

Local.

What? no Trisha Helfer alerts? She was on Letterman last night. Looked great; she could've been green and I wouldn't have cared.

Even though they looked similar tonight, in general, Letterman's show always looks better to me than Leno's in general. The one annoyance I have consistantly with CBS HD is that the voice sync is really bad, and gets worse as the show continues. By the time Letterman is over, dialogue is about 2 seconds ahead of the action on screen. It's the only HD channel on the local cable (Buckeye Cablesystem in Toledo, OH) that ever has any really bad sync probems.

Does CBS have this problem, or is it the local system? I know it's not the TV, as it happens on everyone that I've asked about it.

We have a sync problem on channel WIVB out of Buffalo, NY. It's insane.

The ChromaDuMonde from DSC Labs is a popular color chart used to help a network video operator accurately tweak an HD camera's matrix to different light sources and maintain a consistent look to the show.

http://www.dsclabs.com/pro's_corner.htm

Just wanted to say this thread is hilarious and fascinating at the same time. :) This is why i love avsforum.

Is it just me or does Leno look really crappy? Everything just looks kind of blurry and out of focus compared to Letterman or Conan. For instance, during the monologue when Leno moves quickly his face has a motion blur look to it while Letterman's face stays sharp and detailed. Also, it seems like during the Leno interviews and closeups everything is more detailed and sharp, is it because they are using different cameras or what? I thought Leno looked decent on my 32" lcd, but on the 42" plasma it just looks blurry and out of focus. IMO Conan is the only one I find funny however.

Is it just me or does Leno look really crappy? Everything just looks kind of blurry and out of focus compared to Letterman or Conan. For instance, during the monologue when Leno moves quickly his face has a motion blur look to it while Letterman's face stays sharp and detailed. Also, it seems like during the Leno interviews and closeups everything is more detailed and sharp, is it because they are using different cameras or what? I thought Leno looked decent on my 32" lcd, but on the 42" plasma it just looks blurry and out of focus. IMO Conan is the only one I find funny however.

Do you have Sat service? The "motion blur" is classic DIrect TV.

Leno is colorful and crisp with my 1920x1080i high bit rate cable. I DO agree that Dave is slightly sharper with more muted/sensible colors.

Do you have Sat service? The "motion blur" is classic DIrect TV.

Leno is colorful and crisp with my 1920x1080i high bit rate cable. I DO agree that Dave is slightly sharper with more muted/sensible colors.
Nope good ol Time Warner.