CineStill Xpro C-41 800 in Danger ?

[trendland]

Many years ago I have had extreme trouble caused by x-ray damage on
press films c41 in russia.

Since that happened I avoided any
x-rays to my films.So I never had x-ray
damage again - of cause so !

What is the effect whit CineStill 800 you suppose - could it be x-ray damaged on airports ?

I am shure it could.

But CineStill 50 should
be safe, or not ?

What's aboud other c-41 films due to
ISO 400 - 1600 ?

with regards

 

[AgX]

These days in another thread you urged us to believe you that ISO 800 films are not safe at all, as you got manufacturer data concerning radiation output.
Thus why do you ask now?

 

[dmr]

Here's a shot on Cinestill 800 which accidentally went through a domestic US checkpoint scanner when I spaced off asking for a hand inspection. As you can see there's no fogging evident and the negatives look clear (amber) and normal in the unexposed portions. You do see the typical "Cinestill Glow" around the highlights.

 

[trendland]

Ideed - so I have investigated some facts again (have it had only in mind from last year at first)

And it wasn't the best idea to discus film facts outside " Color : Film, Paper, and Chemistry" perhaps ?



with regards

 

[trendland]

Here's a shot on Cinestill 800 which accidentally went through a domestic US checkpoint scanner when I spaced off asking for a hand inspection. As you can see there's no fogging evident and the negatives look clear (amber) and normal in the unexposed portions. You do see the typical "Cinestill Glow" around the highlights.

Very nice picture, thank you.


with compliments

 

[Rudeofus]

I can confirm dmr's experience, I've brought all kinds of film through all kinds of European, US and international airports, never bothered with hand checking, and certainly never had any kind of fogging due to X ray machines. I always carry film as hand luggage. My films included Cinestill 800, Superia 800, Provia 400X, Delta 3200 and Tri-X pushed to insane levels.

 

[removed account4]

Many years ago I have had extreme trouble caused by x-ray damage on
press films c41 in russia

i don't know for sure, but i think scanner technology has gotten better since glasnost.

 

[trendland]

I would never doubt your personal experience Rudeofus - and as others know as well as you - there are many
reasons that x-Rays have normaly no efects to films.

But this depends strongly on the circumstance of inspection with x-Ray
scanners.

As you may know what Kodak stated in 2002 due to this new kind of scanner technology in regard of x-Ray damaged
films - isn't it a little simplehearted to have a blind faith in : "up to ISO 800"
signs on airports ?

with regards

 

[Frank53]

I would never doubt your personal experience Rudeofus - and as others know as well as you - there are many
reasons that x-Rays have normaly no efects to films.

But this depends strongly on the circumstance of inspection with x-Ray
scanners.

As you may know what Kodak stated in 2002 due to this new kind of scanner technology in regard of x-Ray damaged
films - isn't it a little simplehearted to have a blind faith in : "up to ISO 800"
signs on airports ?

with regards

What would be the interest of manufacturers of x-ray equipment, film manufacturers and airport security in giving incorrect information about this?
Beside that we are talking here about personal experience of quite a lot of people. People here seem to be flying a lot with lots of film. I did not read about bad experiences yet.
Imo there can only be one conclusion.
Regards,
Frank

 

[trendland]

What would be the interest of manufacturers of x-ray equipment, film manufacturers and airport security in giving incorrect information about this?
Beside that we are talking here about personal experience of quite a lot of people. People here seem to be flying a lot with lots of film. I did not read about bad experiences yet.
Imo there can only be one conclusion.
Regards,
Frank

That is indeed a very good question Frank.

"What would be the interest of manufactors of x-ray equipment? "

Should we say that the focus changed ?

The focus becomes more and more to


- TSA security comprehensitivity
- passenger throughtput efficiencty
- automaticly alarm detecting Systems

and this " change " of priority you find also in new egulations.

Film safety is not on the Top 5 List in regard of this.


with regards

 

[Frank53]

That is indeed a very good question Frank.

"What would be the interest of manufactors of x-ray equipment? "

Should we say that the focus changed ?

The focus becomes more and more to


- TSA security comprehensitivity
- passenger throughtput efficiencty
- automaticly alarm detecting Systems

and this " change " of priority you find also in new egulations.

Film safety is not on the Top 5 List in regard of this.


with regards

Not really reasons to deliberately give wrong information.
Certainly not for film manufacturers.
Regards,
Frank

 

[Rudeofus]

If air port X-ray scanners could do reasonable harm to film, it would be extremely unsafe for people to work near these machines all day long. Remember the lead laced aprons medical staff wears during X-ray scans. X-ray scanners at air ports have rather big openings on both ends, too, to accommodate larger carry-on bags, so there isn't all that much shielding either.

PS: the ISO 800 limit is mostly pointless these days. since there are almost no emulsions out there with higher than ISO 800 speed, and even Delta 3200 is less than a stop above.

 

[trendland]

........

If air port X-ray scanners could do reasonable harm to film, it would be extremely unsafe for people to work near these machines all day long. Remember the lead laced aprons medical staff wears during X-ray scans. X-ray scanners at air ports have rather big openings on both ends, too, to accommodate larger carry-on bags, so there isn't all that much shielding either.

PS: the ISO 800 limit is mostly pointless these days. since there are almost no emulsions out there with higher than ISO 800 speed, and even Delta 3200 is less than a stop above.

But Kodak itself stayted this differently
I think you know about.

with regards

 

[Wallendo]

Cinestill is actually ISO 500 (not that different from the 400 "limit" on X-Rays), so it probably should be OK.

Cinestill gives it a box speed of 800 claiming that the C-41 process gives it a speed boost.

 

[Frank53]

........

But Kodak itself stayted this differently
I think you know about.

with regards

Well, this is what Kodak says about this:

X-ray equipment used to inspect carry-on baggage uses a very low level of x-radiation that will not cause noticeable damage to most films. However, baggage that is checked (loaded on the planes as cargo) often goes through equipment with higher energy X rays

And that is exactly what what most of us here have expirienced.

Regards,
Frank

 

[trendland]

Cinestill is actually ISO 500 (not that different from the 400 "limit" on X-Rays), so it probably should be OK.

Cinestill gives it a box speed of 800 claiming that the C-41 process gives it a speed boost.

Yes Wallendo you mention it (thank you for this) Kodak make an exeption for
proffessional films : "........shouldn't
worry aboud possible x-ray damage .....
unless they are carrying - Film with an ISO speed or exposure index (EI) of 400
or higher "
So what ? Suddenly we are regarding ISO 400 films and this is meant by Kodak due
to x-ray scanners signed "up to ISO800"
by inspections of on board baggage.
Cinestill 800 is originally an ISO500 film
I agree with you and you are absolute right - it is close to a "limit" of ISO400 witch is recomended by Kodak.
But please don't mix up ISO and exposure index.
The more important fact to x-ray effects
by official recomendation of Kodak here
is : with Cinestill800 you use Motion
Picture Film (Kodak Vision3 500 T)

Examples have shown us here that x-ray damage is no "must" with Cinestill800
But it depends strongly on the circumstance of inspection.

with regards

 

[trendland]

Yes Wallendo you mention it (thank you for this) Kodak make an exeption for
proffessional films : "........shouldn't
worry aboud possible x-ray damage .....
unless they are carrying - Film with an ISO speed or exposure index (EI) of 400
or higher "
So what ? Suddenly we are regarding ISO 400 films and this is meant by Kodak due
to x-ray scanners signed "up to ISO800"
by inspections of on board baggage.
Cinestill 800 is originally an ISO500 film
I agree with you and you are absolute right - it is close to a "limit" of ISO400 witch is recomended by Kodak.
But please don't mix up ISO and exposure index.
The more important fact to x-ray effects
by official recomendation of Kodak here
is : with Cinestill800 you use Motion
Picture Film (Kodak Vision3 500 T)

Examples have shown us here that x-ray damage is no "must" with Cinestill800
But it depends strongly on the circumstance of inspection.

with regards

www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml

 

[trendland]

Well, this is what Kodak says about this:

X-ray equipment used to inspect carry-on baggage uses a very low level of x-radiation that will not cause noticeable damage to most films. However, baggage that is checked (loaded on the planes as cargo) often goes through equipment with higher energy X rays

And that is exactly what what most of us here have expirienced.

Regards,
Frank

Yes Frank, you refered to Kodak's Technical Information Bulletin effektive since last update from April 8, 2003

Thank you for this too, I gave the source for this - forgot it first.

But you should read it twice - it's important.

As Kodak anounced : ........that will not
cause NOTICEABLE damage to MOST films.
Thats interesting isn't it ?

Because any x-ray scan on film will damage it - of cause so.
However it is noticeable - that is here
question.

And we are talking only about inspections of carrying baggage of cause.
Named it boarding baggage I meant the
stuff you have with you when you are boarding your Airplane,Train,Ship.


with regards

 

[trendland]

If air port X-ray scanners could do reasonable harm to film, it would be extremely unsafe for people to work near these machines all day long. Remember the lead laced aprons medical staff wears during X-ray scans. X-ray scanners at air ports have rather big openings on both ends, too, to accommodate larger carry-on bags, so there isn't all that much shielding either.

PS: the ISO 800 limit is mostly pointless these days. since there are almost no emulsions out there with higher than ISO 800 speed, and even Delta 3200 is less than a stop above.

Yes Rudeofus I see this term identical.
Gamma waves from x-ray scanners are
harmful to humans but it depends to several coefficients.
As there were - wavelength/type of wafe
- energy strength
- time of exposition
- rate of accumulation
and do not forget these types of wafes
are strongly directed.

You will also have effects of reflection and redirection.

But the most energy will absorbed in the
detected material.

Shielding is done most as possible due to
the efficience in use.

TSA get all certifications wich are needed
to declare it hazard free.

I still don't wonder about it :-(

 

[Rudeofus]

Gamma waves from x-ray scanners are
harmful to humans but it depends to several coefficients.
As there were - wavelength/type of wafe
- energy strength
- time of exposition
- rate of accumulation
and do not forget these types of wafes
are strongly directed.

You will also have effects of reflection and redirection.

But the most energy will absorbed in the
detected material.

All this applies to medical X-ray machines just as well, yet medical staff wears these protective aprons or go outside whenever these machines are operated - and these medical X-ray machines have substantially lower duty cycle than the typical air port scanner.

Shielding is done most as possible due to
the efficience in use.

There can be no shielding to speak of if whole bags can go in and out without interference - continuously. Sure, most X-ray radiation will be aimed at the detector, some will be absorbed, but again: the exact same applies to medical X-rays. Aprons - no aprons, see the difference?

TSA get all certifications wich are needed
to declare it hazard free.

If service for TSA turns into an one way ticket to the oncology ward, then I dare guess that generously granted certifications won't help much. Some folks here may not shed many tears for TSA agents, but their relatives will.

Note, that none of this applies to checked-in luggage, in which case they could run the output of a whole synchrotron through your luggage without irradiating anyone in the process.

 

[Eric Rose]

Don't worry be happy. I have gone through repeated xray machines with the same film in the bag and no problems were noticed after development. Mind you if you go to a third world country who may employ older xray machines you might not be so lucky.

 

[railwayman3]

Don't worry be happy. I have gone through repeated xray machines with the same film in the bag and no problems were noticed after development. Mind you if you go to a third world country who may employ older xray machines you might not be so lucky.

Same here, film from 25ISO up to 1000ISO (years ago, the old Kodak VR1000 !), always in carry-on-luggage, to Europe, China, Far East and Australia, no visible problems at all. The only film I've ever had spoiled by X-rays was an exposed colour film sent by standard mail from the UK to a lab in Germany. Other film in the same batch processed at home was OK, and the lab in Germany was a reputable one, no reason to expect any issue with them. Odd.

 

[Agulliver]

This topic.....again?

As others have already said.......I've travelled a lot with C41, E6, B&W and motion picture film....from 25ISO up to 3200ISO...never had any issues.

The one golden rule is pack your films in your hand baggage. The x-ray scanners used for hand baggage inspection are much lower intensity than the ones used for checked luggage.
Most air and sea ports will guarantee that film up to 800ASA/ISO is safe in your hand baggage. But many of us here on APUG including myself have put faster film through. I had a roll of Delta 3200 go through seven airport x-ray inspections and it came out fine.

Many years ago, airport security personnel used to wear dosimeters and had limits on how many hours they could operate the x-ray scanners. Today the hand baggage scanners are less powerful, more directional and do not damage film. Security personnel do not wear dosimeters, aprons nor do they hide back from the x-ray scanners. The intensity is very low. Learning about x-rays and various kinds of x-ray machines was part of my Applied Physics degree. Now I did that around 20 years ago, but I do know the difference between an airport scanner and a hospital diagnostic x-ray machine.

 

[trendland]

This topic.....again?

As others have already said.......I've travelled a lot with C41, E6, B&W and motion picture film....from 25ISO up to 3200ISO...never had any issues.

The one golden rule is pack your films in your hand baggage. The x-ray scanners used for hand baggage inspection are much lower intensity than the ones used for checked luggage.
Most air and sea ports will guarantee that film up to 800ASA/ISO is safe in your hand baggage. But many of us here on APUG including myself have put faster film through. I had a roll of Delta 3200 go through seven airport x-ray inspections and it came out fine.

Many years ago, airport security personnel used to wear dosimeters and had limits on how many hours they could operate the x-ray scanners. Today the hand baggage scanners are less powerful, more directional and do not damage film. Security personnel do not wear dosimeters, aprons nor do they hide back from the x-ray scanners. The intensity is very low. Learning about x-rays and various kinds of x-ray machines was part of my Applied Physics degree. Now I did that around 20 years ago, but I do know the difference between an airport scanner and a hospital diagnostic x-ray machine.

"In cases of uncertainty ask a specialist"

As I haved been involved in this topic last year I found an news aricle concerning that new technology wich is in use and will come to any airport in western world in the next years.

Technical data on the websides of the manufactors showed
many advantages due to security aspects.

As I had it correct in mind from last year, these machines are able to pas massive steel
with a material thickness up to 25cm.

May be thats incorectly, may be these manufacturer exaggerate a little due to concerns of house advertising.

May be that I have it not correct in mind
so it was "only" a material thickness of
20cm or perhaps "only" 15cm but as I remember - it was somewhere in the near
of 20cm (steel) !!!

I will follow with my question (cell-phone troubles)


with regards

 

[trendland]

This topic.....again?

As others have already said.......I've travelled a lot with C41, E6, B&W and motion picture film....from 25ISO up to 3200ISO...never had any issues.

The one golden rule is pack your films in your hand baggage. The x-ray scanners used for hand baggage inspection are much lower intensity than the ones used for checked luggage.
Most air and sea ports will guarantee that film up to 800ASA/ISO is safe in your hand baggage. But many of us here on APUG including myself have put faster film through. I had a roll of Delta 3200 go through seven airport x-ray inspections and it came out fine.

Many years ago, airport security personnel used to wear dosimeters and had limits on how many hours they could operate the x-ray scanners. Today the hand baggage scanners are less powerful, more directional and do not damage film. Security personnel do not wear dosimeters, aprons nor do they hide back from the x-ray scanners. The intensity is very low. Learning about x-rays and various kinds of x-ray machines was part of my Applied Physics degree. Now I did that around 20 years ago, but I do know the difference between an airport scanner and a hospital diagnostic x-ray machine.

So it was last year : ENORMOUS ???

I can't find that technical datas again :-(

So it is not velidatable to me again.

I found the news artice - as I remembered there are two big companies involved with.

That was allways correct in mind :
L-3 Communications, Rapidscan - nice
companies with many informations in there websides but wich muss less technical infos I had in mind.

So either they have closed their Special Data Info Plate or (seams more realistic)
I was aditionally on other sides from
further companies.

There are several duzen manufacturer.

I can't find the webside again.


Are gamma wafes from x-ray scanners able to pas the thicness of 25cm steel by operate
with highest amound of Power?

Rapidscan used the term "multi-energy x-ray technology" therefore.

By that time I am sure this can only be possible in concerns of Automatic Systems (you mentioned dosimeter).

As I learned gamma wafes pas any heavy
material of any thickness.

It is only a question of power and absorbtion rate.


with regards