Dramatic color differences between Leno & Letterman

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 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....)

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)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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

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

Two reasons come to mind.

Hmmmm....

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