First, the history. In the early 1990s, Kodak created its Lightning
recorder, using a laser directed at a spinning mirror to record film
frame-by-frame. "If you consider the concept, there was no lens
anywhere between the light and the film," says Rainmaker director of
technical development Ken Hayward. "It was the perfect laser recorder."
Well, except perhaps for the price ‘ an estimated $2 million each for
Lightning I, and $1 million for Lightning II. But the laser recorder
was a huge improvement over the only other existing option: painfully
slow CRT recorders, which ‘ because the phosphors on the tubes tended
to glow and the tubes wore out in time ‘ didn't provide a consistently
reliable result.
Reliability, speed and great image made laser recorders, such as the
Arri, an industry standard (though it's interesting to note that,
unlike the Lightning, potentially distorting lenses now sit between the
laser and the celluloid). "CRT feels like old technology," notes
Pacific Title & Art's head of imaging Michael Moncreiff. "When the
laser came in, people were thrilled to have something sharp and fast."
But CRT technology for recorders hasn't stood still; Celco, in
particular, has made great efforts to improve image quality and speed.
So, is CRT's bad rap a relic of history? "It's a very interesting
debate," admits Moncreiff, who reports that animation projects often
prefer the camera negative 5245 output of the Celco recorder. "They
each have their own characteristics."
At Post Logic Studios, says chief engineer Wayne Veitschegger, both
solutions are available, with the Celco particularly useful for large
format film recording. [Interchangeable heads make it possible to use
the machine for 35mm and 70mm.] "I can't say one is better than the
other," he says. "It's just different."
CFI Laboratories has both Arri laser recorders and a new Celco Fury,
and executive director of sales Robert Dennis reports that the two
recorders are now comparable in terms of speed. Though the Celco was
brought in to support the lab's large-format film work, they recently
did a blind shoot-out with some 35mm trailers. "We didn't do any
technical measurements," he says. "But on screen, we found the Fury to
be the equivalent if not better in terms of apparent subjective
resolution and contrast." "Believe me, none of this is to take anything
away from the Arri," he says. "It's just an additional tool in the
toolbox."
CRT versus laser ‘ we're just scratching the surface here ‘ how much is perception and how much is reality? Readers?