Earlier 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.
Radiation doesn't harm film that's already been developed.
Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
41–50 of 166 posts
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#42If its bad for film, would it not be bad at some level for people?
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#43How 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..…
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Radiation doesn't harm film that's already been developed.
It does. Just not as badly.
Yes, at some scale, if you put it in the jet of a black hole the radiation is going to destroy the image from physically blasting it off. That's not a reasonable concern to raise about film stability. Having your developed negatives x-rayed will not harm them, full stop.
The exception is that you shouldn't project slides for days and days on end, because the color couplers aren't as stable as grandpa's black and white negatives and do fade out eventually. Early color negative films had some problems too and would fade out over time regardless of radiation. But still, flying with a developed slide is not a problem, we are talking about the difference between a few mw of energy and sticking it right next to a 200W projector bulb.
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#45Sadly it's a completely different story internationally. Indian security has been the strictest in my experience -- flat out refusal to do anything other than run the film through the X-Ray machine. I don't travel with fast film (800+ ISO) anymore. It's just not worth the stress.
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#47https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXpoALotxf0
They also have a lab that do b&w prints from digital files on photo paper interestingly.
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#48Genuine 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 yo…
You can make a scanner back out of a normal CCD film scanner. It comes with a lot of downsides since you have a giant "rolling shutter" that works on the scale of 10s+ but it does give you an image.
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#49Genuine 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 yo…
That analogy breaks down a bit because in the former case, there are very many circumstances where the small unpowered tool is the best fit for a job (touching up an area, finishing off a mortise, trimming off something by hand where a power tool would not be able to give the proper feedback).
In photography, the preference is a lot more subjective, at least when it comes to 35mm formats.
Most carpenters will carry hand saws and chisels with them even if they have all the top of the line power tools because they remain relevant and immensely useful.
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#50Genuine 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 yo…