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

101–110 of 166 posts

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

#101

Post by scblock »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #40
scblock wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The poster I responded to edited his statement after my reply to change his "genuine question" from "do people still use film anymore" to "why do people use film". Like the original question, the poster's edit was dishonest, or at least done in bad faith.

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

#102

Post by Finnucane »

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

Clearly, you've never used a Hasselblad.

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

#103

Post by colejohnson66 »

scblock wrote: post #101
colejohnson66 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The poster I responded to edited his statement after my reply to change his "genuine question" from "do people still use film anymore" to "why do people use film". Like the original question, the poster's edit was dishonest, or at least done in bad faith.

Was it dishonest though? Because as the poster of both that you've responded to, I can assure you that it was a genuine question. You can keep claiming I'm being dishonest, but you're not correct.

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

#104

Post by joecool1029 »

madflo wrote: post #90
anfractuosity wrote: post #47

On 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.

ILFORD is still selling photo paper in rolls with the specific chemicals required for regeneration of baths. It does allow a skilled lab operator to use Durst Lambdas or even a 1hour laser-based minilab like a Noritsu QSS or Fuji Frontier to print on real b&w paper! However, the same skilled operator should be able to calibrate her minilab in order to obtain decent looking b&w prints on color-based paper (RA4 process…

>However, the same skilled operator should be able to calibrate her minilab in order to obtain decent looking b&w prints on color-based paper (RA4 process - used by Noritsu & Fuji).

It's actually a fairly good way to test if your lab sucks ass. B/W is not forgiving to poorly calibrated equipment or chain stores that are cheaping out on replenishment.

small nitpick: RA-4 is a Kodak process. The Noritsu minilab I ran used Kodak chemicals. Fujitsu labs typically use a 'compatible' version of their own that can't be called RA-4. While the two systems work, we always found C-41 Fujifilm looked inferior printed on the Kodak processes and vice-versa.

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

#105

Post by thedance »

cm2187 wrote: post #68
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..…

Don't SSD have some kind of cyclic redundancy check?

I posted the same comment yesterday and for some reason got downvoted to oblivion. SSDs do not rely on bits being correct. Raw bit error rates in multi-level flash are generally over 1%. In other words if you read a 4K page you are guaranteed to get several wrong bits. The only reason a of it works at all is because of sophisticated error-correcting codes.

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

#106

Post by klodolph »

ghaff wrote: post #88
klodolph wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Leaving aside the work associated with chemical processing generally, you could “coax” ISO/ASA 400 B&W films up to 1600. Maybe 2400. But you definitely lost a lot as soon as you started pushing. For a lot of photography, especially basic journalist event stuff, I find the fact that I can go to about 3200 without even thinking about it a huge benefit of digital.

Sure, you can push two stops if you like swaths of flat black in your photo. Same thing with TMZ, which says “3200” on the box but if you look carefully it doesn’t actually say “ISO 3200”, because its ISO speed is actually something like 800.

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

#107

Post by cannam »

Finnucane wrote: post #99
joecool1029 wrote: post #97

My first job over a decade ago was managing a photo lab. The x-ray machines would often damage film that people traveled with. Amateur photographers just weren't aware. The damage typically looks like white fuzzy diagonal lines across the image. It's not enough to completely destroy a picture, but it'll ruin it. The most common widespread damage we saw were people that bought like 50 disposable cameras for their Cari…

Ever put the fixer in first? That's fun too.

There are companies like Silbersalz (https://silbersalz35.com/) selling ECN-2 cinefilm stock in 35mm cartridges. You have to return the film to them for processing, rather than take it to a C-41 lab - and they warn that if you send them to a C-41 lab, you can damage the lab's equipment and ruin everyone else's photos as well as your own.

I don't know how paranoid the warning is, but that seems like it could be pretty bad.

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

#108

Post by joecool1029 »

cannam wrote: post #107
Finnucane wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever put the fixer in first? That's fun too.

There are companies like Silbersalz ( https://silbersalz35.com/ ) selling ECN-2 cinefilm stock in 35mm cartridges. You have to return the film to them for processing, rather than take it to a C-41 lab - and they warn that if you send them to a C-41 lab, you can damage the lab's equipment and ruin everyone else's photos as well as your own. I don't know how paranoid the warning is, but that seems like it could be pret…

> There are companies like Silbersalz (https://silbersalz35.com/) selling ECN-2 cinefilm stock in 35mm cartridges.

To be fair, anyone buying that likely knows what they're getting into. Tri-X was sold next to C-41 film in every store, so a lot of people would just grab it when they wanted B&W thinking it was the same thing to develop as color film. (Yes, there is B&W C-41 film as well)

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

#110

Post by freeone3000 »

welly wrote: post #39
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

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…

What makes a digital picture any physical size? Is there a standard assumed pixel density?
Post reply on HN