[Tig] ArriLaser vs Cinavator

Florentijn Bos|bosti.nl tig at bosti.nl
Wed Jul 29 00:09:49 BST 2009


Hi Carl,

I got quite a bit of experience on recording to both Arrilaser and the 
Cinevator. I can tell you a bit of my experience, but I will tell you in 
advance, I never did an butterfly test or any other form of side by side 
comparison. Companies usually don't feel urged to do so and production 
usually chooses the cheapest/best option for the production the 
post-house can offer. Not necessarily evolving from evaluating options 
closely.

However, I do remember seeing a first direct to print (with audio) made 
by the Cinevator a few years ago and being stunned by the amount of 
sharpness and colour. This does make sense, since we skip the whole IN - 
 > POS optical steps in the lab. Like you already mentioned though, this 
is only interesting when doing a festival print, or low quantities.

A few years ago when I worked on an animated short there where some 
issues with the colour management system, resulting in strange (digital) 
artifacts in some high saturated areas. However this did got resolved by 
the technicians and I never seen it since. Stuff I'd never seen on the 
Arrilaser though, the Arri CMS has of course a very long and reliable 
history.

Now, concerning creating negative on the Cinevator vs Arrilaser. On one 
project I've graded (with Truelight) for the Arrilaser - > AGFA CP30 
(common in these areas, and I like it :-) we created a successful Kodak 
IN and AGFA CP. During duplication however one reel got ripped to pieces 
and there was no time to wait ~30 hours to create a new IN on the 
Arrilaser, and then ship it to the duplication facility too! Thus based 
on my satisfactory results in the past I recommended production to 
create a IN on the Cinevator. I forwared the AIM details to the facility 
operating the Cinevator, it took them almost a day to get the AIM 
identical. But the resulting IN/Print fitted flawless in between the 
other Arrilaser reels.

Now this movie was sourced on 35mm, scanned 4k and recorded 2k (2.35 
anamorph). It was colourful comedy high in contrast and saturation. So 
some of the little details you might have on a more 'traditionally' 
looking movie might where not there to compare.

For my background, I am a freelance colourist doing some DI supervision 
on occasion. I do regularly freelance for companies who own a Arrilaser 
but also a company who outsources to the Cinevator.

Oh also, the REC709 - > IN/PRINT CMS works good in my experience. 
Grading in HD space and then from tape to Print gives very nice results 
on the Cinevator.

Hope this helps you,
Cheers,
Floor

Carl Skaff wrote:
> Sohonet http://www.sohonet.co.uk sponsors the TIG.
> July 2009: 2210 subscribers.  Carl Skaff supports the TIG.
> http://reels.colorist.org  Colorist Reels
> http://tig.colorist.org/wiki3/index.php/Facility_Table
>  ====
>
>
> Hi
>
> Does anyone have a comment about ArriLaser vs Cinevator?
> (If you work for a company that owns one, please say so if you comment, so we know:)
>
> I´m working on a feature, shot on Red. Post completely done in HD linear. Will have a master on HDSR422.
> We might not have time to do a ArriLaser-shootout + prints. So we are thinking about using the Cinevator.
> Either for just making one first "filmfestival"print. Or to make a Cinevator-NEG and then to Prints from that.
>
> I know some will say, doing direct to Print is OK due to less generation if I'm only doing ONE print.
> But to do one print with Cinevator and THEN do a "propper" ArriLaser-neg and do multiple prints from that, would just be to much money for the single first print. Then it would be smarter to do all the prints from the Arri-neg, if we have time.
>
> So if anyone has some honest opinions about the quality on Cinevator compared to ArriLaser, I'm very interested.
>
>
>
> /carl
> _______________________________________________
> http://reels.colorist.org
> http://www.colorist.org/wiki3
>
>   





More information about the Tig mailing list