I picked this up from John Sexton's newsletter and post the link below. The new 3-D scanners will reportedly do in your unprocessed film instantly.
https://petapixel.com/2019/10/21/bew...r-camera-film/
Printable View
I picked this up from John Sexton's newsletter and post the link below. The new 3-D scanners will reportedly do in your unprocessed film instantly.
https://petapixel.com/2019/10/21/bew...r-camera-film/
Unprocessed film...
...and film that has been shot but not processed...
Yes, both fresh and exposed but not processed film will be ruined
My point was, OP changed the Headline from "Beware: New 3D Airport Scanners Will Wipe Unprocessed Camera Film"
We should quote source exactly as not doing that is causing a lot of political damage in this PC era.
Any personal reports of bad effects yet?
Just went through Boston and Seattle and did not see any of these machines at the terminals I used.
Maybe hospitals can get these someday as hand-me-downs and not spend small fortunes to look at people's innards in 3d.
This TSA link lists where these scanners are in operation now:
https://www.tsa.gov/computed-tomogra...X-XzRaHn8LG_7Q
Another nudge to digital?
Send the film USPS if this becomes widespread. Just remember all the fun things are being restricted everywhere it's not just film. This is at a stadium. Looks like a bucket list to me...
Attachment 197770
Did Freestyle just pick the "thousand times" more radiation out of the air? I appreciate the warning, but how about some actual numbers, results of real-life tests? This forum has a lot of members who like to play with actual scientific concepts, so somebody, please, run a roll of 400ISO thru a scanner to give us a data point. I'll pay for the roll of film and develop it myself, if you wish.
Here is some reading material that might help. One article references possible use of periodic exposures in the CT slice method, which has some implications for film (stripes?). Looks like you can calculate the exposure in mrem using the ma and kv values, assume a constant exposure based on the track speed. On first pass I don't see anything connecting mrem to film iso. Perhaps compare the older luggage scanner mrem to the new scanners. And never forget that radiation exposure is cumulative.
https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q12361.html
http://2gxj9i15530c1434fe5wog0d-wpen...eet-180206.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Ho...g_any_detector
http://www.radprocalculator.com/RadProDownloads.aspx
The PetaPixel article only offers conjecture, not proof. Not one mention of any first hand experience with these new scanners. Someone needs to actually run a roll of film through one and see what actually happens.
One unexposed modern sheet film in the original packaging may tell more than a roll of 120
When processed...
I agree. A sheet oriented orthogonal to the source and in the center of your baggage.
Re sending film through the mail, why should that be assumed to be a safe mode?
When information about these new machines was first posted here over a month ago (https://www.largeformatphotography.i...nners-fog-film), I immediately wrote to both Analog and TSA to inquire about possible effects on light meters, specifically those with silicon photo diode cells. Analog, the maker of the new machine, has not responded, but today I received an answer from TSA which I copy below for those who may be interested in what the agency had to say. I gather from the answer that their recommendation applies to all light meters regardless of type:
N. Riley
http://normanrileyphotography.com
Good Afternoon,
We appreciate your recent inquiry through the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Contact Center (TCC) regarding Computed Tomography (CT) scanners and photographic film.
TSA does not have information on the effects that CT scanners have on the calibration or function of light meters in photographic film. Due to high sensitivity of undeveloped film and possible camera light meter issues, TSA recommends having film and cameras with light meters hand-inspected by a Transportation Security Officer to prevent possible damage.
If you require further information, please contact the TCC for assistance.
Thank you,
APM Communications Team
Contractor, E3 Federal Solutions
TSA says you can put film in checked baggage. They also say CT scanning is currently being used for checked bags. Anyone have any experience with film being affected in checked bags? I assume hand inspection is still an option for film being carried on.
"If true that is new information. Can you quote a source for that?"
No he can't because it's not true. All reliable indications are that film transported in checked luggage will be adversely affected. However, he is correct in stating that hand inspection remains an option for carry-on, and I believe this should not be a problem most of the time so long as the boxes are factory-sealed. (The last time I tried this, October 2019, the agent swiped the boxes for traces of explosives, but did not insist on breaking the factory seals and opening the boxes.) I have grave concerns about hand inspection for exposed sheet film which I transport home in boxes that are taped, and clearly labeled in all relevant languages as "Exposed photographic film, Please do not open in daylight" (an image appears below). As far as I can see, the best option for the time being is to fly, however inconvenient it may be, through airports that have not yet installed the new Analog scanners. If anyone has a better idea short of "stop using film" or "become a digitographer" I'd love to hear it.
N. Riley
http://normanrileyphotography.com
Attachment 198141
1. From the TSA website, under the heading "Advantages of CT": https://www.tsa.gov/computed-tomogra...X-XzRaHn8LG_7Q
2. If hand inspection is still an option, why all the fuss?
No where does the link you provided say it's okay, i.e., safe, to put film in checked baggage - if it does then I have overlooked that information and ask you to point it out to me - you will have not only my apology, but my gratitude as well. The reason for the fuss - which is only with respect to exposed film in boxes no longer factory sealed - is that there is no reason to think a security agent will always believe the boxes contain only what you say they contain. I've flown enough to know not every TSA agent (or their counterpart in foreign countries) is familiar with large format photography - in fact most of the time I am pulled aside when going through security because the average inspector is not familiar with LF cameras or lenses and wants to see those items in my carry-on up close. If you happen to get tangled up with an agent who's in a bad mood, overly zealous, or otherwise skeptical that the box contains exposed film as you say vs. some contraband, there may be little or nothing you can do to prevent them from opening the box and ruining your work. That's my only concern. I am not at all worried about hand inspection for my light meters or factory-sealed boxes of film. I'm worried about getting my exposed film home without being molested because I refuse to put the film through one of the new CT machines.
N. Riley
http://normanrileyphotography.com
I (nor the TSA) never stated it is safe to put film in checked baggage. All I was pointing out is that people are getting their shorts in a wad over the new CT scanners for carry-ons. I asked if anyone had had film ruined in checked baggage, sine the CT scanner seem to be in use for that.
I just flew to OKC and they had signs up that said film would be ruined if in checked baggage.
Time to dig out the old Rand McNally I guess!
Unfortunately, all you'll find out is whether that particular film, run through that particular scanner, at that particular time was safe or not.
I don't know how these new scanners will effect film. My suspicion is that these new scanners may require some time to "dial in" and their impact on film today could be better or worse than it is 6 months from now. Personally, I will continue to hand check film and allow extra time through security.
I assume you mean, drive to all locations.
However some cities seem to have truck scanners that can see inside while it drives by...
Ports definetly have various methods, https://phys.org/news/2017-05-compan...nightmare.html
I am sure we don't find everything on Google
I did not come on here to argue with you or anyone else. I urge you to do whatever you want with your film. To be clear, I entered this thread only to call attention to TSA's recommendation that light meters also be hand-inspected. And my shorts are fine, thank you.
N. Riley
http://normanrileyphotography.
Thanks for the correction.
N. Riley
http://normanrileyphotography.com
And this is why I mail my film ahead when I go to Las Vegas.... I've had TSA swear that their X-ray machines don't fog film and refuse to hand inspect film.
How does this new machine foul up light meters?
TSA isn’t obligated to hand inspect. They do it as a courtesy... when they feel like it. Those folks are paid low salaries to do a thankless task so expecting anything more than the minimum is wishful thinking. I’ve encountered some very nice TSA folks but in general they are not very motivated.
X-ray, no matter how many dimensions, has never been shown harmful to exposure meters. Mine, both electronic and mechanical, have survived over the years of being x-rayed. I suspect vibrations from the aircraft would be more harmful.
That response from the TSA communications contractor is the classic “we don’t know; won’t find out; but need to say something to be polite so well say something very conservative to be safe... despite no information “. Frustrating!
TSA states you can bring film in carry-on or checked baggage. They don't say the film won't be affected. They recommend asking for hand inspection.
Attachment 198174
Politicians don’t listen to me; there is no political issue here to solve. Besides, I’d like a credible answer. If all I wanted was smoke blown up my skirt I’d read some of the inane posts in this this thread. :)
It’s purely an engineering question for which nobody has data to support or refute assumptions and fears.
As you well know, back in the days before film became a niche item there was a consortium that did testing that was the basis of TSA and film company recommendations regarding film safety at airport x-ray inspection.
Nobody cares any more...
Sorry Bob, but I doubt it...
The data probably doesn’t exist on those exact machines... no matter who is asked. Why would anyone bother figuring out if film is vulnerable to CT since it’s already well understood. Right now I’m still busy working for a living to pay for a family. But maybe when I retire I’ll crowdfund an effort to actually measure the impact of these new CT machines. I have more than just a passing knowledge of the past efforts. But I don’t work cheap so the funding will have to be generous!
Okay, my point is that if it screws up light meters-what does it do to digital sensors in cameras?
There's not been any evidence posted that it affects light meters. That was brought up in post #19, but the poster did not offer any reason for being concerned that the X-ray machine would affect silicon photodiodes. He contacted the TSA, and the TSA response was basically "we can't assure you that it won't affect light meters." I can't blame them for that. I haven't seen one of these machines or passed anything through it yet.
In general, I believe the semiconductor junction of a typical SPD light meter is larger than an individual pixel of a CCD or CMOS sensor (which are a few microns), and size typically makes a semiconductor more tolerant to individual faults such as radiation damage. If the X-ray machine were harmful to light meters, it would likely be destroying digital cameras left and right, and probably cellphones, computers, and other silicon devices.
The light-sensitive reaction is different for film versus electrical sensors (CdS meter cells, SPDs, CCDs, etc) and so even if a X-ray machine exposes film, it doesn't necessarily follow that it damages electrical/electronic light sensitive devices. I can't assure you that it's safe, I'm just not worried about that aspect of it.
I think the Light Meter comment was a confusion with 2 languages
Perhaps the OP meant emulsion sensitivity
Here is some real life experience with one of the new scanners. I was traveling back from Germany to the US through Amsterdam and got an additional security check going from the EU flight section to the international one there. They had one of the new carry-on CT scanners, this one a “ClearScan” by L3Harris, here is a link: https://www.sds.l3t.com/aviation-che.../ClearScan.htm. It looks a bit different than the Analogic machine shown in the article mentioned above, but it is essentially the same thing. I had a bunch of 120 roll film with me and asked for a hand inspection, which they fortunately did. However, anticipating I might encounter a CT scanner on this trip, I left one roll of T-Max 400 in my carry-on. That roll had some blank frames plus some frames exposed to approximately Zones 1-3 on it. I just developed it plus a similar roll that had not seen the scanner, shown side by side on the light table in the attached image - the regular roll on the left, the scanned one on the right. The new scanner fogged the whole film, unevenly, with some repeating pattern visible. The fogging is a bit weaker on the inside of the roll due to the shielding by the outside film layers. Measuring the additional density over the film base + fog of the regular film results in additional values of 0.53 -0.59 for the end of the roll (i.e. the outside) and 0.46 - 0.53 at the start of the roll ( the inside of the exposed roll). In short, any film going through one of those machines will be rendered unusable.