CineStill Xpro C-41 800 in Danger ?

[trendland]

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.

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?

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.

Yes of cause, in my sentiment (meanwhile) I am 100% with you.
But coming back to films : There is still
a conflict with the recomandation on Kodak's experience due to "Motion Picture Film" as there is :

"Request a hand inspection for all motion
imaging origination films.
Testing shows fog on motion imaging films EVEN AFTER A SINGLE X-RAY SCAN."

As I understand that correct, and I never saw this different in the last years,
Kodak is speeking of "hand inspection".

And if this is so like Kodak adviced why is
this only for Motion Picture Films :

"......

 

[AgX]

Because still- and cine-films were seperate departments at Kodak.

Furthermore cine-films typically are too bulky to be handled as on-board luggage.

 

[trendland]

Because still- and cine-films were seperate departments at Kodak.

Furthermore cine-films typically are too bulky to be handled as on-board luggage.

I first have to translate it
"too bulky" not at all - but a good idea !

Let us be sure that Quentin Tarantino
will check in with bulky rolls.

And he will have "hand control" to his
1000ft 65mm rolls and let us be shure
too that he will not trust the shield "up to 800ISO "



with regards

 

[NJH]

Pretty much all the machines I have seen on my travels are made by these guys:
http://www.smithsdetection.com/index.php

Loads of info on their website on the different products.

 

[MattKing]

Pretty much all the machines I have seen on my travels are made by these guys:
http://www.smithsdetection.com/index.php

Loads of info on their website on the different products.

And if you look at the data-sheets for their various products, you are likely to see something like the following:
"Film Safety - guaranteed up to ISO 1600 (33 DIN) with a maximum of 5 inspections"
(This is from the data-sheet for the HI-SCAN 6040aTIX).

 

[trendland]

And if you look at the data-sheets for their various products, you are likely to see something like the following:
"Film Safety - guaranteed up to ISO 1600 (33 DIN) with a maximum of 5 inspections"
(This is from the data-sheet for the HI-SCAN 6040aTIX).

Thank you much for this additional Info
Matt, I noticed before on other sides from manufactors that they rated up
to ISO1600.

So are they all arrant liars? (the manufacturer)
I would never say so ! Fine companies they all do their job as good as possible.

As we know - their job can damage our
films (in some cases) - we have to
interpret their guarantees.

Thats what I am trying to cover out here.

1600ISO Films save to multiple scan
(5 times) thats sounds not so bad I would think.

May be you can have 8 scans of them
without NOTICIBLE damage to your films?

Sure you may have it so - in the
lowest power operation status of the
scanner.

And that is guaranded. (1600ISO
33DIN ) let it be 5 times scanned.

If the same funny scanner is operated
in its "alert modus" - Yes I know they
have automatic alert systems in use for
detection of stuff with very specific molecular wheight - but this is not meant
here) so name it " pre - alert - status "
the same scanner is able to scan with much highest power it is necessary to
prevent safety issues.

And therefore (in such cases) I will give a guarantee to
FOG on 1600ISO films with a powerfull
single scan.


with regards

(hope not to give classified information)

 

[Gerald C Koch]

It's all well and good to say that X-ray scanning is safe up to a certain ISO and number of scans BUT it all depends whether the equipment is calibrated correctly. It also depends on the age of the equipment. Major airports may have the latest equipment but smaller airports particularly in third world countries probably have older units which deliver a larger dose. No amount of X-ray exposure is truly safe.

 

[Agulliver]

OK quick show of hands.

Which of us has had film damaged by X-rays in hand baggage scanners...and where in the world did it happen?

 

[AgX]

StoneNYC had, in Florida 2010.
Seen the situation he depicts it was a carry-on luggage scanner:


(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[trendland]

It's all well and good to say that X-ray scanning is safe up to a certain ISO and number of scans BUT it all depends whether the equipment is calibrated correctly. It also depends on the age of the equipment. Major airports may have the latest equipment but smaller airports particularly in third world countries probably have older units which deliver a larger dose. No amount of X-ray exposure is truly safe.

"NO AMOUNT OF X-RAY EXPOSURE IS TRULY SAFE"
Thats one of the best predictors of this
thread - and exactly the state of affairs I am trying to point out here.
Thank you very much Gerald.

with regards

 

[dmr]

Very nice picture, thank you.

with compliments

Thanks {blush}

Here are a few more Cinestill shots, including two from the same shoot: http://www.demare.me/gallery/index.php/tag/24/Cinestill

 

[removed account4]

StoneNYC had, in Florida 2010.
Seen the situation he depicts it was a carry-on luggage scanner:


(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

well, maybe .... maybe not.

if the film might have received xray damage from being scanned for a postal service.
everything that is shipped is usually xray'd. random containers at container ports, mail .. everthing.

 

[trendland]

well, maybe .... maybe not.

if the film might have received xray damage from being scanned for a postal service.
everything that is shipped is usually xray'd. random containers at container ports, mail .. everthing.

You got it - and that's not so likeful to films in gerneral.

with regards

 

[trendland]

Thanks {blush}

Here are a few more Cinestill shots, including two from the same shoot: http://www.demare.me/gallery/index.php/tag/24/Cinestill

They are indeed as nice as your other
CineStill's.

But now I have also one - with true
ISO800 and a typical "white glow"
It has had an exposure of over 3 sekonds
look on the sharpness off the model -
she has been told not to breath for a while - therefore her look was a bit like
"Deep Frozen" {blush}

wth regards

 

[Wallendo]

http://old.seattletimes.com/html/television/2003564825_weblostfilm09.html
An entire days shooting of the series "Lost" was damaged by X-Rays (in this case by TSA incompetence).

Kodak does recommend that motion picture film not be X-Rayed in any form (as of 2013): http://www.kodak.com/motion/support...n/transportation/airport_security/default.htm
but, the rationale is never explained. Obviously the basic photochemical reactions are the same for still and print photography.
Although I have no actual evidence, I suspect the difference is that motion picture film is transported in large metal reels which represent a greater security threat than a cartridge of 35mm film. I suspect that large reels receive more radiation than small rolls.

I doubt that the bastard Cinestill 800 would behave significantly different from its highborn cousin Portra 400.

 

[AgX]

well, maybe .... maybe not.

if the film might have received xray damage from being scanned for a postal service.
everything that is shipped is usually xray'd. random containers at container ports, mail .. everthing.

Postal service???
StoneNYC described a situation at a passenger control.

 

[removed account4]

i realize that AgX, what i am suggesting is the damage could have happened before the film even got in his hands
and was already xray damaged before he travelled with it. if he got the film from another photographer "used/re-sold"
maybe the other photographer stuck it in stowed away/belly of the plane/non-carry-on luggage before the end user received it,
and again, it had nothing to do with tsa's handling of his gear+film.
unless film is shipped by truck from its source who knows how it is handled before one gets it.

 

[AgX]

I now see your point. Yes, that might have been the cause, such cases where reported.
But he stated that he had about 75 films, all good, just the film that got through that scanner was affected.

However, in case that was so, it still is the only such case I remember being reported here, against statements of hundreds of passes through carry-on scanners seemingly unharmed.

 

[removed account4]

exactly AgX

seemed kind of random 1 person out of the hundreds ( maybe thousands) i have read in 20 years with no problem...
that is why i suggested it might have been something else... i think PE has mentioned in "airport scanners and film" threads
that atmospheric radiation from being in a plane at 35ooo feet will effect film worse than carry on baggage scanners.

 

[trendland]

http://old.seattletimes.com/html/television/2003564825_weblostfilm09.html
An entire days shooting of the series "Lost" was damaged by X-Rays (in this case by TSA incompetence).

Kodak does recommend that motion picture film not be X-Rayed in any form (as of 2013): http://www.kodak.com/motion/support...n/transportation/airport_security/default.htm
but, the rationale is never explained. Obviously the basic photochemical reactions are the same for still and print photography.
Although I have no actual evidence, I suspect the difference is that motion picture film is transported in large metal reels which represent a greater security threat than a cartridge of 35mm film. I suspect that large reels receive more radiation than small rolls.

I doubt that the bastard Cinestill 800 would behave significantly different from its highborn cousin Portra 400.

As you said Kodak recommended " NO X-RAYS IN ANY FORM " to Motion Picture Films - and this is not in case of the
ramjet layer of them.

And as Kodak recommended this to "All MOTION PICTURE FILMS"
this includes the ISO50 films of cause.

Now finally it becomes crystal clear that
there is a real risk to all films in
concern to x-ray damage from
ISO25-ISO3200 (EI) !!!

Because I never saw a difference in
sensitive between different sorts of
films to x-ray ammounds (exept ISO of
Issues)

More higher your exposure index - more
higher the noticible damage on your films.

But you have also mentioned, Wallendo - a possible
reason to Kodaks exeption not
to x-ray M.P.Films in any way - cause of the metal film cansters.

By this, one should only think on the metal of a camera with one roll of still film inside.

And now we got an example of damaged
Motion Films in 2007 you mentioned it too Wallander ! Thank you much for this story from Seattletimes. A damage that
could have cost $200.000 from a high
power single scan - how bad at all !

"Incompetance of TSA" - some named it
the risk of "the human factor" this risk
will be always with you when you are traveling with film.


with regards

 

[trendland]

http://old.seattletimes.com/html/television/2003564825_weblostfilm09.html
An entire days shooting of the series "Lost" was damaged by X-Rays (in this case by TSA incompetence).

Kodak does recommend that motion picture film not be X-Rayed in any form (as of 2013): http://www.kodak.com/motion/support...n/transportation/airport_security/default.htm
but, the rationale is never explained. Obviously the basic photochemical reactions are the same for still and print photography.
Although I have no actual evidence, I suspect the difference is that motion picture film is transported in large metal reels which represent a greater security threat than a cartridge of 35mm film. I suspect that large reels receive more radiation than small rolls.

I doubt that the bastard Cinestill 800 would behave significantly different from its highborn cousin Portra 400.

As you said Kodak recommended " NO X-RAYS IN ANY FORM " to Motion Picture Films - and this is not in case of the
ramjet layer of them.

And as Kodak recommended this to "All MOTION PICTURE FILMS"
this includes the ISO50 films of cause.

Now finally it becomes crystal clear that
there is a real risk to all films in
concern to x-ray damage from
ISO25-ISO3200 (EI) !!!

Because I never saw a difference in
sensitive between different sorts of
films to x-ray ammounds (exept ISO of
Issues)

More higher your exposure index - more
higher the noticible damage on your films.

But you have also mentioned, Wallendo - a possible
reason to Kodaks exeption not
to x-ray M.P.Films in any way - cause of the metal film cansters.

By this, one should only think on the metal of a camera with one roll of still film inside.

And now we got an example of damaged
Motion Films in 2007 you mentioned it too Wallander ! Thank you much for this story from Seattletimes. A damage that
could have cost $200.000 from a high
power single scan - how bad at all !

"Incompetance of TSA" - some named it
the risk of "the human factor" this risk
will be always with you when you are traveling with film.


with regards

 

[trendland]

http://old.seattletimes.com/html/television/2003564825_weblostfilm09.html
An entire days shooting of the series "Lost" was damaged by X-Rays (in this case by TSA incompetence).

Kodak does recommend that motion picture film not be X-Rayed in any form (as of 2013): http://www.kodak.com/motion/support...n/transportation/airport_security/default.htm
but, the rationale is never explained. Obviously the basic photochemical reactions are the same for still and print photography.
Although I have no actual evidence, I suspect the difference is that motion picture film is transported in large metal reels which represent a greater security threat than a cartridge of 35mm film. I suspect that large reels receive more radiation than small rolls.

I doubt that the bastard Cinestill 800 would behave significantly different from its highborn cousin Portra 400.

As you said Kodak recommended " NO X-RAYS IN ANY FORM " to Motion Picture Films - and this is not in case of the
ramjet layer of them.

And as Kodak recommended this to "All MOTION PICTURE FILMS"
this includes the ISO50 films of cause.

Now finally it becomes crystal clear that
there is a real risk to all films in
concern to x-ray damage from
ISO25-ISO3200 (EI) !!!

Because I never saw a difference in
sensitive between different sorts of
films to x-ray ammounds (exept ISO of
Issues)

More higher your exposure index - more
higher the noticible damage on your films.

But you have also mentioned, Wallendo - a possible
reason to Kodaks exeption not
to x-ray M.P.Films in any way - cause of the metal film cansters.

By this, one should only think on the metal of a camera with one roll of still film inside.

And now we got an example of damaged
Motion Films in 2007 you mentioned it too Wallander ! Thank you much for this story from Seattletimes. A damage that
could have cost $200.000 from a high
power single scan - how bad at all !

"Incompetance of TSA" - some named it
the risk of "the human factor" this risk
will be always with you when you are traveling with film.


with regards

 

[Agulliver]

The day's shooting which was ruined for "Lost" was put through the wrong scanner. If you are travelling as a passenger on an airline with some rolls of Cinestill 800 in your hand baggage *THIS CANNOT HAPPEN - IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE*

Once again, Kodak recommend no X-rays for MP film for two reasons. Most users are significant film/TV productions for whom 100% perfect film is of paramount importance...and they are generally dealing with large cans which cannot be put through hand baggage scanners due to their size. Ergo Kodak recommends no x-ray scanning because they are only capable of scanning with the more powerful hold baggage scanners.

I ask again. Has anyone here had any film.....including high speed MP film, damaged by *airline hand baggage scanners*. Nothing else is of any relevance.

I've put V200T through them with no issues.....of slightly less relevance, Delta 3200 through 7 different scanners without any issues.

 

[trendland]

The day's shooting which was ruined for "Lost" was put through the wrong scanner. If you are travelling as a passenger on an airline with some rolls of Cinestill 800 in your hand baggage *THIS CANNOT HAPPEN - IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE*

Once again, Kodak recommend no X-rays for MP film for two reasons. Most users are significant film/TV productions for whom 100% perfect film is of paramount importance...and they are generally dealing with large cans which cannot be put through hand baggage scanners due to their size. Ergo Kodak recommends no x-ray scanning because they are only capable of scanning with the more powerful hold baggage scanners.

I ask again. Has anyone here had any film.....including high speed MP film, damaged by *airline hand baggage scanners*. Nothing else is of any relevance.

I've put V200T through them with no issues.....of slightly less relevance, Delta 3200 through 7 different scanners without any issues.

Yes in some facts you are right as well
Aguliver.

As you made some experience with "on board scanners"

You mentioned V200T and Delta 3200 with were scanned 7 times without
any damage.

As I stated before it is no "must" (x-ray damage) but I would suppose that you
have had your films nicely stored in a
transparent bag within your hand
baggage.

Thats the importance to these issues.
I woud further suppose that you carry
no suspecious equipment with you.

And more important : neither the scanner software nor the TSA operator
identified anything of your personal
stuff in your hand baggage as INCONVENIENT as in most cases.

That would simply explain the experience
of the very most with absolute no problems at all - even in cases of multible scans with ISO 3200.

As far as we se I would agree with you
that normal scans should cause NO
NOTICABLE DAMAGE.

But this is relative to the circumstances
of inspection and as you mentioned too
from the artice of "Seattlepost" it depends on the competance of TSA.

We all can simply see that this competance (to films) will easily remove
more and more with the time (from TSA).

So it will become a very big problem in the future - and we all should better be
extrem cautius with experience from the past. Would you not see this ?

At least - I am sorry to say so - but your
statement : "THIS CAN NOT HAPPEN IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE" is simply
incorrect.(in concerns of "hand baggage scanners")

Belive me they are able to destroy even
films with lower ISO rates as Kodak recomended to proffessional films ISO400 (only hand inspection)

Because they use multy - power scans.
The smalest ammound is practice in most cases - the more higher ammound
is necessary due to air safety - even when you will notice that their software
is so advanved that it will let no doubt
on savety issues at least.
By the time - sorry to reply this 3 times
again.You would have noticed it above.
It was not my intention to do this so.
It was just a technical problem caused
by transmission.

with regards

 

[dmr]

But now I have also one - with true ISO800 and a typical "white glow"

Interesting bokeh effect there, almost looks like it's dripping.

What I've found at the checkpoint scanners in the airports is that usually they will just let the bag pass as the belt rolls along. I'm sure this is fine for most modern film.

However, every so often they will stop the belt, back it up, move it back and forth as they stare at the screen, then motion over a co-worker or supervisor (is the beam on all this time?), and they talk and point and rock the belt back and forth over and over and over and over and finally let it go on through. It's thinks like this that would scare me. I almost always put the film in a baggie and ask for a hand inspection, which they almost always do without griping.