Dynasty tvseries 1980 vintage color grading technique

[Marc Wielage]

Marc, Marc, Marc. You keep talking about projects you had, at most, only a peripheral knowledge of as if you were intimately involved. Even worse, you're talking about things that I WAS intimately involved with.

Funny, I don't see you credited for them on IMDB. Anybody who wants to check my credentials is free to do so.

I worked on those shows strictly as a colorist and not as a manager, a supervisor, or a clerk pushing paper from one place to another. I was actually in the trenches, turning the knobs. And I have the scars to prove it.

Note that some of the shows we're talking about went for years bouncing around to different post houses. Murder was at TAV in 1985-1986 (with my old friend Pat Miller), then we inherited almost all the Universal shows over at Sunset Digital from 1987-1989. I had previously done all the color on quite a few Universal shows at Video Duplication/U.S. Video in 1979 and 1980. And I did the work on Dallas, Knott's Landing, and Dynasty at Command Video over on Seward when they were a division of TAV from 1982-1984. All of this is ancient history now: most of these companies are gone and not much is left except the memories. As I said, very interesting times, because things changed so much in the 1980s and 1990s.

 

[M Most]

It IS ancient history because all of the dates you just listed, with the exception of Universal, were prior to any of the changes you claim such intimate knowledge of. And I already mentioned that Universal was one of the last - if not the last - studio to adopt electronic post approaches.

I'm really tired of this stupid "competition." The fact is that no shows were "at" video post houses in the early to mid 80s because they were all finished on film. The only thing post houses did was air transfers from the answer print, often done on the fly for the most part. You know very well that I was "in the trenches" for many years - at least as many as you - so stop implying that I somehow wasn't and therefore don't know what I'm talking about. I've done different things in my life, all of which have informed all the others, and my years at Lorimar were both informative and incredibly educational, as well as groundbreaking (the company, not me). Making the decisions as to how things are going to be done, and figuring out how to do it, and being involved in all phases (including post sound, network deliveries, and bringing producers and editors into the process) is at least as "in the trenches" as being a telecine operator, and it yields an awful lot of insight that one cannot have when one's involvement is only in the final stage. Personally, I feel honored to have been able to be a part of it, and I certainly wasn't a "clerk pushing paper" (if only it has been that easy.....). I was part of a rather small team that basically reinvented television post production, and yes, I'm damn proud of that. I chose my path(s) and you chose yours.

As for IMDB, funny, I don't see you credited for any of the Lorimar shows, nor do I see you credited for Dynasty. But then again, I was going to say that IMDB is not exactly a definitive bible of the film industry, particularly when it regards positions which were generally uncredited in those days. Looks like that works both ways (although if you really want to, feel free to look up "Midnight Caller" under production management.....). And yes, once again, it is all ancient history, but if one is going to talk about the way things were done, one should be accurate, and that usually benefits from having some insight that goes beyond sitting in a colorist's chair. That's what I try to do, even when it's in a historical context. And with that, I'm done.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I'm really tired of this stupid "competition."

I saw no competition, just varying experience from industry professionals and fact checking. Don't see the problem.

 

[Jake Wilganowski]

This is all great stuff. So much history scattered across this forum. Thanks for writing gents.

 

[Sergio Popirechnik]

07-17-2018, 08:39 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Sergio Popirechnik View Post
My question is, could I achieve same vintage look using only Davinci resolve with red one camera and RED ONE 18-50 T3.0 PL Zoom Lens ?

NO.


Really? But why some DSLR photo cameras with 422 can do it then? And my 444 Red couldn't?
Here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzIYI7hq3sE

 

[Marc Wielage]

As for IMDB, funny, I don't see you credited for any of the Lorimar shows, nor do I see you credited for Dynasty.

I only did the syndication passes, which I did for about a year over at Command Video (then a division of TAV, owned by Merv Griffin). My 400+ credits on IMDB do not generally include my home video and syndication work, which would be at least another 1000 titles. A lot of those are in my resume, but as we know a lot of this stuff gets done and redone two, three, four times as time and technology goes by.

My point is that there are people who actually do the work of a colorist every day (which I do about 80 hours a week, sometimes more), and then there are those who just supervise or manage. Any colorist would have a tougher job without a project producer, supervisor, or manager to take care of the background details, but it's not the same as actually sitting in the chair and doing the job for real. And I have the back pain, repetitive-stressed hands & joint pain, and headaches to prove it.

I agree with Hrvoje above: I think Mike is citing his experience from Encore, while I'm recounting what happened at Modern Videofilm, Sunset Post, TAV, Command Video, Compact Video, Post Group, and Complete Post over a period of 10-15 years. A lot of this stuff overlapped, but I think Mike has the narrow point of view of what he saw at Encore. I saw what happened at many companies in the 1980s, some of which are now defunct or absorbed by other firms. There were times when I literally felt like, "wow, we're now going to do this in a totally different way," which happened quite often from the early 1980s through the end of the 1990s. Going from all-analog film to all-digital HD went down a road with a lot of twists and turns.

The key point for anybody trying to figure out the "look" of a big-budget 1980s network show like Dynasty is that a lot went into it, and it's not necessarily just technology. Most of it is actual technique and the limitations of what they could shoot 30-35 years ago. As one example, the recent Dallas looks quite a bit different from the 1980s Dallas... and yet several of the creative team and some of the actors were all the same.

 

[Marc Wielage]

My question is, could I achieve same vintage look using only Davinci resolve with red one camera and RED ONE 18-50 T3.0 PL Zoom Lens ?

No, that would not do it, in my opinion. I never liked the Red lenses and think they were really junky: soft, prone to vignetting, and not a great image. I'm also not a fan of the Red One, but that's totally my opinion.

Throw a Red Helium and Zeiss Master Primes on it, plus great lighting, diffusion on set, some very mild diffuse filtration (like a 1/8 ProMist), and you'd get a lot closer. Cookes are good, too. You can't go wrong with Panavision lenses... all valid choices.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

No, that would not do it, in my opinion. I never liked the Red lenses and think they were really junky: soft, prone to vignetting, and not a great image. I'm also not a fan of the Red One, but that's totally my opinion.

Throw a Red Helium and Zeiss Master Primes on it, plus great lighting, diffusion on set, some very mild diffuse filtration (like a 1/8 ProMist), and you'd get a lot closer. Cookes are good, too. You can't go wrong with Panavision lenses... all valid choices.

Actually...if he went with Helium and Master Primes he'd drift faaaar away from that look with vastly higher "sharpness" (acuity) and filtration doesn't achieve the same type of "softer" feel as older glass and lower pixel count. But once the optical and acquisition parts are taken care of, skilled colorist is a must.

 

[M Most]

I think Mike is citing his experience from Encore, while I'm recounting what happened at Modern Videofilm, Sunset Post, TAV, Command Video, Compact Video, Post Group, and Complete Post over a period of 10-15 years. A lot of this stuff overlapped, but I think Mike has the narrow point of view of what he saw at Encore.

This is the last reply I'm going to make on this topic, so here goes:

Bullshit. I didn't even arrive at Encore until 1990. Beginning in 1978, I worked at Studio Television Services in Hollywood, Bluth Video Systems in Burbank, and Lorimar Technical Services (later renamed California Video Center) near LAX, all as a colorist (well, Telecine Operator in those days). I used both Rank and Marconi telecines, as well as a Cohu film chain when I started, and I used multiple control systems including Topsy, Amigo, Dubner, and various peripherals. We recorded to everything from quad to IVC9000 to one inch B, one inch C, various multitrack audio machines, and other things I don't even remember. I then spent almost 6 years working for Lorimar (during which we basically invented electronic post for film style shows, the essence of which is still used to this day, including the terminology), the first of which I spent helping to set up the dailies operations at the LAX facility, as well as doing all of the dailies transfers for both Dallas and Knots Landing. Towards the end of my time at Lorimar I was asked by Sunset Post to help with a number of syndication transfers of Miami Vice and Equalizer, and then asked by Fotokem to spend a few months there (during the writer's strike) doing everything from feature dailies to music videos by the Rolling Stones and Roxette (yes, "Must Have Been Love" was one of mine.....). It was only after all of this that I spent about 3 months at CFI, followed by almost 10 years at Encore. I then spent about 7 years in visual effects, 2 years as a technical manager (and part time colorist, as well as setting up a DI theater) of a facility in Florida, and came back to another 4 or 5 years of coloring (Next Element and Level 3 Post, both television and DI's) prior to joining Technicolor in my current capacity as a director of On Location Services. So even beginning to imply that I have a "limited" view of any of this, or that it's completely colored by one facility, or that somehow I haven't had the "hands and joint pain and headaches" to show for it is very, very insulting. As is the notion that I somehow don't understand how looks were created, especially during the days of film production and film finishing, when I spent 6 years at a studio and 7 years as a VFX supervisor, in addition to my almost 30 years in a colorist's chair.

And BTW, your comments about Dallas also show a lack of knowledge regarding how that show was done in the 70s and 80s. Dallas was finished on film until the 1984-85 season. It was then finished on tape using the methods developed by Lorimar (and tested on Knots Landing, partly in collaboration with Pacific Video) and eventually adopted by all Lorimar shows and ultimately by the entire industry. The film finished shows were aired and/or transferred from prints (after 1982, low con prints). When it went to tape finishing it was switched to negative transfers, which severely changed the look of the show even though production was exactly the same (including the DP at the time, Bob Caramico). Later that season it was switched to 3 perf film, a change that led to a grainier look (we were using Fuji film at the time, which also contributed to that). Final color for air was done tape to tape at Image Transform in North Hollywood. The Dallas reboot involved very few people from the original series (pretty much actors only). The original was shot on film, primarily in Los Angeles, with about 6 weeks spent in Dallas at the beginning of each season. The reboot was shot on an Alexa, entirely in Texas, with a largely Dallas based crew. There is no way they would have looked similar even if the same crew was shooting it - which they weren't.

OK, that's it, I'm done.

 

[Marc Wielage]

This is the last reply I'm going to make on this topic, so here goes: Bullshit. I didn't even arrive at Encore until 1990.

Wait a minute. I thought you were already gone!

I left out a year at U.S. Video (Andy McIntyre's company on Highland) in 1979, which is where I did a lot of the Universal shows from low-con print. In those days, we were lucky to get 4 hours to knock out a 1-hour episodic to 2". What's hilarious is that I'm now working about 4 blocks from that old building, nearly 40 years later. I like to think I'm better as a colorist now, but I think what that really means is, I make new and different mistakes today than decades ago. I don't miss jumpscan Ranks.

I was also at Image Transform in 1983 over on Lankershim (about two blocks from Universal), but we did not do much final color on episodic TV in that period. Our biggest client then was RCA SelectaVision Videodisc, and I did at least a couple of dozen feature transfers for them. Image was famous for their early encoded tape-to-tape systems, run by Ron Nichols, who I believe is still working in the business. All their tape-to-film during this period was done initially to 16mm, then blown up to 35mm (which was a little secret). Very interesting place -- Ken Holland was the mad scientist who held it all together.

The one point I'll make is that post changed radically every couple of years for decades, and in effect is still changing today. It's interesting to me that people are scrambling to get these "vintage" looks, because you can make a good argument that they're dated and kind of old-hat... but I get that people like what they like, and they react from a visceral, nostalgic place. If Dynasty symbolized a classy, lush, beautiful look in the early 1980s, I can see where you'd want to go for a look like that in a relevant production.

Here's a tape grab of what Dynasty looked like in 1981, and looks like a very warm/brown crappy lo-con print transfer done by ABC (to me) on their old RCA TK-28 chains:

By the end of the decade, the look got a bit more sophisticated:

It's very interesting how much things changed in this period, and it's a fascinating topic for those of us who had to roll with the punches and deal with radical changes in workflow every other season. To me, the biggest change happened in 1992-1993, when tape-to-tape became much easier with Digital Betacam and the wide adoption of the early daVinci color-correction systems (and others that could adapt to component digital video). Once it was all digital, tape-to-tape correction looked terrific and was a perfectly viable way to go.

 

[Les Hillis]

07-17-2018, 08:39 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Sergio Popirechnik View Post
My question is, could I achieve same vintage look using only Davinci resolve with red one camera and RED ONE 18-50 T3.0 PL Zoom Lens ?

NO.


Really? But why some DSLR photo cameras with 422 can do it then? And my 444 Red couldn't?
Here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzIYI7hq3sE

Sergio, there are many different 'film looks'.

In the Dynasty example you posted, the overall look is determined just as much by what's in front of the camera (including sets, costumes, make-up, lighting, lenses and lens filters) than by the 35mm film medium it was captured on.

In your second example, the look is mostly determined by the visual artifacts of the 16mm film medium itself (with less concern for the actual content).

You would have to decide exactly which particular film characteristics (and perhaps also which film-to-video-transfer characteristics) you want to emulate. That will determine whether the answer is yes or no.