Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film

dpreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 166 posts

Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film

#11

Post by bebna »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #2

Genuine question: Why do people still use film anymore? I know some big movie studios do sometimes use it (The Hobbit comes to mind), but I don’t understand why anyone would use film when we have DSLRs that can have resolutions over 30 megapixels. EDIT: added “why” at beginning

MF is cheaper to acquire in film. Because of the big negatives, u do can make high resolution digital copies from them.

Uninteresting for most photograhic fields, because of the big and hefty equipment to a APS-C/FF system, but it could make sense for someone doing landscape or architecture. Those bigger lenses have less of a problem to keep the "resolution" high before it hits the sensor/film, that gives small things in big pictures more detail.

Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film

#13

Post by cattlemansgold »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #2

Genuine question: Why do people still use film anymore? I know some big movie studios do sometimes use it (The Hobbit comes to mind), but I don’t understand why anyone would use film when we have DSLRs that can have resolutions over 30 megapixels. EDIT: added “why” at beginning

I shoot on a film camera for fun. There's something indescribable about an image shot on film vs digital. The colors, texture, and vibrance of certain films are not easily achievable on a DSLR.

Also, you only get 24 or so shots per roll, so it forces you to be more thoughtful about each shot. It's not for everybody, but neither are vinyl records, and that business is thriving.

Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film

#15

Post by Seenso »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #7
Filligree wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do, for the same reason some people still use vinyl. It isn't about quality, it's about... quality, in a different sense of the word.

It's the scanners for carry-on luggage, not the ones you walk through. edit: I seem to have responded to the wrong comment here, but it's too late to delete.

> It's the scanners for carry-on luggage, not the ones you walk through.

They don't let you carry anything through the walk-through scanners.

Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film

#16

Post by hellisothers »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #2

Genuine question: Why do people still use film anymore? I know some big movie studios do sometimes use it (The Hobbit comes to mind), but I don’t understand why anyone would use film when we have DSLRs that can have resolutions over 30 megapixels. EDIT: added “why” at beginning

I still use and travel a lot with film, including ISO800 and ISO3200 film the latter of which is totally destroyed if it goes through the scanner, even in an film protection bag.

Megapixels are unimportant, there is a look to film you can’t reproduce no matter how many VSCO plugins you use :)

Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film

#17

Post by Seenso »

bebna wrote: post #11
colejohnson66 wrote: post #2

Genuine question: Why do people still use film anymore? I know some big movie studios do sometimes use it (The Hobbit comes to mind), but I don’t understand why anyone would use film when we have DSLRs that can have resolutions over 30 megapixels. EDIT: added “why” at beginning

MF is cheaper to acquire in film. Because of the big negatives, u do can make high resolution digital copies from them. Uninteresting for most photograhic fields, because of the big and hefty equipment to a APS-C/FF system, but it could make sense for someone doing landscape or architecture. Those bigger lenses have less of a problem to keep the "resolution" high before it hits the sensor/film, that gives small thing…

> MF is cheaper to acquire in film.

By "MF", I take it you mean medium format.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_format

That a very excellent point that emphasizes how technology is often about trade-offs, not linear advancement. With film, it's far cheaper to increase the sensor size because the sensor is literally a consumable item. With digital, the sensor is an sophisticated electronic component that it's much harder and expensive to fabricate the larger you make them.

Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film

#18

Post by epage »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #2

Genuine question: Why do people still use film anymore? I know some big movie studios do sometimes use it (The Hobbit comes to mind), but I don’t understand why anyone would use film when we have DSLRs that can have resolutions over 30 megapixels. EDIT: added “why” at beginning

Besides any modern negatives, there are historical ones that need preservation (my grandfather-in-law's WW2 negatives for example). We've been meaning to digitize them but time is always an issue.

Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film

#19

Post by mark-r »

hadtodoit wrote: post #6
colejohnson66 wrote: post #2

Genuine question: Why do people still use film anymore? I know some big movie studios do sometimes use it (The Hobbit comes to mind), but I don’t understand why anyone would use film when we have DSLRs that can have resolutions over 30 megapixels. EDIT: added “why” at beginning

Personally I enjoy the mystery of taking a photo and waiting to see how it turned out, there is a charm to film photography that isn't captured by digital for me. Getting photos developed is equally exciting, and having the physical copies to hand out or place in an album is nice. It's a dying art, but being held together by enthusiasts.

For me it was the opposite - my photography improved greatly once I didn't have a huge delay between taking the shot and seeing the result. Physical copies are still easy to do too.
Post reply on HN