Can wait until very important data is lost to bit flips / corruption from scanner. " Cure to cancer lost to TSA scanner "
"Plans to turn TSA scanner into radiation therapy machine corrupted inside TSA scanner."
Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
51–60 of 166 posts
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#52Genuine 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
Another point in film's favor is that it has extremely high resolution per dollar.
I just bought a Rolleicord TLR camera, which shoots 6 cm square negatives. It cost me $250 on eBay. If shot with good quality low grain film, and scanned with a professional grade negative scanner, the equivalent resolution I get from it should be on the order of 100 megapixels, and possibly more in good lighting conditions.
Even regular 35 mm film shot in a decent SLR will give you 30+ megapixels. You can buy good used 35 mm cameras all day long for less than $100. You can buy a Hasselblad 500C, the very same camera the Apollo astronauts went to the moon with and that Ansel Adams used for shooting his iconic photographs of Yosemite, which uses the same 6 cm film as my Rollei, for less than $1000.
Buying a 100 megapixel digital camera would cost me ten thousand dollars minimum.
See: https://petapixel.com/2014/12/18/comparing-image-quality-fil...
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#53Genuine 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
Another point in film's favor is that it has extremely high resolution per dollar. I just bought a Rolleicord TLR camera, which shoots 6 cm square negatives. It cost me $250 on eBay. If shot with good quality low grain film, and scanned with a professional grade negative scanner, the equivalent resolution I get from it should be on the order of 100 megapixels, and possibly more in good lighting conditions. Even regul…
Hell, my Yashica TLR was only $100. Those 6x6 negatives look AMAZING.
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is for the checked luggage, not the people scanners.
It's for carry on. Checked luggage goes through WAY more radiation and you should never put undeveloped film or anything else that's radiation sensitive in your checked luggage.
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#55Genuine 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 get why techies can't understand why people might not choose to do things just like they do
As other comments have alluded, film still is very good for things. Even the best digital camera sensors can't match the dynamic range of film. Digital photography is so much more than just megapixels
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#56On the topic of film, this little short video "Behind the Film - Inside the ILFORD factory" is cool - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXpoALotxf0 They also have a lab that do b&w prints from digital files on photo paper interestingly.
> They also have a lab that do b&w prints from digital files on photo paper interestingly.
Not new or uncommon. The “last generation” of photo finishing (think drug store 1 hour photo mats) since the early 2000s mostly used digital printers. They called them laser printers no less (not a xerographic process, but direct exposure)
The developed film was scanned and this of course allowed them to give you a CD cheaply. Also of course allowed printing digital media easily.
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#57Genuine 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
You’re getting all kinds of answers but a key one, for me, is that film is unavoidably slow and expensive. Digital cameras teach you that each frame is cheap and throwaway. That encourages some kinds of photographic/artful thinking while obscuring others. Old masters of large format film photography have a workflow and thought process that’s vastly different from modern digicam shooting. When you have just one or two…
This, this and this. I've consistently found my keeper ratio to be much higher when shooting film, as the memory cards are small and single-use only.
That forces you to think your composition through, take an extra second or two to ensure the exposure is good - it basically enforces self discipline.
(Which reminds me I've got a few rolls to develop after my latest outing with the Texas Leica - a Fuji G690BL; the 6*9 format gives me eight exposures on a roll of 120 film.
Besides the enforced self discipline, I spend all of my working time in front of a computer, so I find it a bonus to have a hobby which does not (necessarily) involve one; I do shoot digital, too, though - I just mostly prefer the analog workflow for recreation.
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#58On the topic of film, this little short video "Behind the Film - Inside the ILFORD factory" is cool - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXpoALotxf0 They also have a lab that do b&w prints from digital files on photo paper interestingly.
> They also have a lab that do b&w prints from digital files on photo paper interestingly. Not new or uncommon. The “last generation” of photo finishing (think drug store 1 hour photo mats) since the early 2000s mostly used digital printers. They called them laser printers no less (not a xerographic process, but direct exposure) The developed film was scanned and this of course allowed them to give you a CD cheaply.…
Yeah, I've had colour prints before, but not really seen anyone do true b&w prints.
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#59Genuine 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.
There are usually a bunch of color profiles you can set to control the colors. He defaults are too “vivid”. High end cameras can shoot “raw” images and have more control over color as you need software to “develop” the raw into a more useful format(jpg/tiff...)
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#60Genuine 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.
To my mind, the hypersaturation of colors in digital photography is the same as the loudness wars on CDs (which ironically loses one of the great benefits of CD, the huge dynamic range which is now effectively unused outside of few jazz and classical recordings), and the televisions/monitor defaults that emphasize red and high contrast.
Consider, too, with CCD and the lens systems, there are shifts toward certain hues, and further post-processing (e.g. photoshop) is used to distort the color balance.
Of course they probably said the same about Kodachrome's vibrant, but unnatural colors "back when..."
But why? It's done, because we can. And it's noticeably different. And it's sometimes not a matter of being better, just different, since in a saturated world of media (no pun intended) differentiating one's work from the millions of others is often enough of a deciding factor to trigger a choice. Which brings me to the topic of the fashion industry...