Flying out of SFO, the security gave me a heads up about putting aside film. They are not TSA, but at least they had been briefed.
That's really impressive, given how few people are using film.
Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
31–40 of 166 posts
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Is it that hard to mail them off for digitization?
Depends on how sentimental you are. I personally would not mail my negatives. The $12 insurance payout would not be worth it if they were lost.
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#33Genuine 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 actually stopped using my DLSR entirely in the last year and picked up a pristine Canon EOS 3 for super cheap since I knew I'd be comfortable using it pretty quickly. I always found (now continued) kodachrome film to be incredibly beautiful, and when I realized there were still other color reversal films out there I took the plunge, and have been very happy with Fujiflim's Velvia[0]. and I end up putting much more thought into photos I take. It feels really different.
Here's a pretty lengthy breakdown comparison[1] of digital and film from a few years back if you wanted a read.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvia
[1] https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-v...
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#34Genuine 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 like doing landscape, architecture, and portrait photography with view cameras. Scanning backs are rare, expensive, and not suitable for anything that might move. Backs that work like film are even more expensive (likely more than I'd pay in a lifetime for film and development supplies) and they have a very low resolution.
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#35Genuine 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
There's a great documentary called "Side by Side" produced by Keanu Reeves where he goes through the history of the movie industry moving from film to digital. There are still a lot of major Hollywoo releases that are made on film. It's producer/director preference a lot of times.
In the past, stuff on film meant you could rescan the originals and remaster them in 4K, which you can't do with 1080p digital recordings (like Star Wars ep1 .. they used other digital techniques to upscale them). But there are limits to that. Trying to rescan old film at 8K often results in a lot of noise, and you don't gain much even after trying to clean it up .. so there are limits to the resolution of the analogue medium that we are just now surpassing with digital sensors.
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#36Genuine 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 have no idea why, but colors look SO bad on digital point and shoot. They are always a bit too crisp.
Perhaps very high-end digital cameras are good. But if you need a good dynamic range for cheap: use film.
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#37How much radiation would it take to flip a bit on an SSD? What about RAM (many people send their laptops through in a suspended-to-RAM state)?
I would assume that RAM is more susceptible, since we still store a single bit per RAM cell, while some SSDs now store multiple bits per cell, but I've never tried to do the math on "what would it take to actually make these problems start to appear?" Might be a fun exercise... has anyone looked into this?
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#38Can wait until very important data is lost to bit flips / corruption from scanner. " Cure to cancer lost to TSA scanner "
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#39Genuine 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
Why do people use hand saws and chisels when powered table saws, compound saws and biscuit joiners are available to us?
As someone who shoots film, there are a number of reasons, one being the asthetic you get from film that you can't (even with x hours in Photoshop) get from digital. I shoot large format and there are no (within my budget, at the very least) 8" x 10" digital sensors.
Film also more or less forces you to make prints. I would hazard a guess that a small percentage of digital photos ever make it to print and half of a photograph for me is a tactile thing you can hold in your hands and give to someone else.
Lastly, it's the process. That's something I can't explain.
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#40Genuine 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 don't know that I believe this is a "genuine question", because it's quite easy to look up that yes, people still use film, and the article itself is a clear indication that Kodak still produces and sells film. As far as not understanding, there are things about film that are different than digital. It's may not necessarily be a technical discussion any more (though others may disagree with me), but artistic choice…
It was a genuine question despite what you think. I genuinely did not understand why, with the many advantages (IMO) of digital why people would choose analog.