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

71–80 of 166 posts

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

#71

Post by slumdev »

GlenTheMachine wrote: post #52
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

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…

> Buying a 100 megapixel digital camera would cost me ten thousand dollars minimum.

Hasselblad makes some nice ones.

https://www.hasselblad.com/h-system/

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

#72

Post by klodolph »

modo_ wrote: post #45

I've never run into any trouble getting film hand checked while traveling within the US. Sadly 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.

I decided to switch to digital for anything where I want to go over 400 ISO. My personal feelings are that the image quality of 800 ISO film is just terrible. YMMV based on personal preference, I know people who really like the look of fast film.

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

#73

Post by uptown »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #21
coldcode wrote: post #20

If its bad for film, would it not be bad at some level for people?

This is for the checked luggage, not the people scanners.

Sometimes they’re one and the same.

https://twitter.com/CaughtCctv/status/1212381004591255553

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

#74

Post by GlenTheMachine »

slumdev wrote: post #71
GlenTheMachine wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Buying a 100 megapixel digital camera would cost me ten thousand dollars minimum. Hasselblad makes some nice ones. https://www.hasselblad.com/h-system/

Yeah, they're marvelous. But the digital back by itself is $26,000. A full camera is around $35k.

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

#75

Post by et-al »

gambiting wrote: post #69
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

So I know someone who is very much into photography but is of modest means. Turns out you can pick up a second hand analog camera and film for it for very little money, and achieve quality that you'd need something like a Canon EOS 5D for otherwise. Obviously there are things you can't do with the analog that you can with the 5D, but not everyone is made out of money.

The hashtag #shootfilmstaybroke exists for a reason.

Film's initial cost may be cheaper than digital, but after 10-20 rolls of film, digital comes out to be cheaper when accounting for film + development costs.

A used Canon 5D MkII kit can be had for under $800 these days.

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

#76

Post by kgoltsov »

djsumdog wrote: post #35
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

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…

Once you get into 70mm film or 70mm IMAX, you're better off just leaving it alone and projecting it directly. I think 70mm could be scanned to 8K, and I'm not sure there's even a equivalent for 70mm IMAX yet.

That's why Nolan still screens his films with 70mm IMAX projectors. He might use digital for effects, but I believe he preserves the analog film in the final prints instead of using a digital intermediate.

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

#77

Post by et-al »

hadtodoit wrote: post #9

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.

SFO checkpoint staff have always been accommodating with hand-checking my film regardless of ISO.

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

#78

Post by tecleandor »

tpmx wrote: post #31
hadtodoit wrote: post #9

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.

Seems like there are relatively more film users at SFO (insert outdated hipster joke)

Jokes aside, I'll take care from now on, film goes at least two two four times through the scanner on a plane trip...

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

#79

Post by kailuowang »

I have been traveling with a Filmguard bag. Sometimes they take it out and ask for a hand inspection, sometimes they don't they rarely insist on scanning the films themselves outside the bag. Regardless never check-in your films. Nothing can protect them from the powerful scan for check-in luggages.

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

#80

Post by mark-r »

ohazi wrote: post #37

How 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..…

An SSD cell could actually be more susceptible, since it stores multiple bits by using multiple voltage thresholds - it takes much less perturbation to change the value. Cell size might make a big difference though, and I don't know how those compare.
Post reply on HN