New (as of 2019) airport CT scanners

[spijker]

It's not about getting through security faster for me. That's is the airport's advantage with the new scanners. Since people do not have to take things out of their hand luggage anymore, things will go faster at security. I just want my films not to be damaged and I'll be happy to spent 5 more minutes at security for that. I'll often do that anyway as security wants to give my camera bag with 2 cameras and multiple lenses a swab test. I have no issue with that. So if airport security refuses hand inspections for film then a such a nanotek pouch will force them to do a hand inspection anyway. Goal achieved.

 

[BrianShaw]

So if airport security refuses hand inspections for film then a such a nanotek pouch will force them to do a hand inspection anyway. Goal achieved.

Not necessarily. Back in the olden days using a lead pouch would often get one diverted to secondary inspection where the agent would remove the pouch from luggage, open it, and put the pouch and contents -film- onto the belt to get x-rayed.

but I’m with you... I’m more than willing to spend a bit more time at the screening point if they’d not mess up my film!

 

[destroya]

i was hoping to fly into paris and then fly out of AMS for a trip to europe in april, but now im thinking maybe not. any news on CDG and will they do hand checks?

 

[Sean]

I flew through LAX eons ago, asked for a hand check and they said 'it goes through the scanner or in the bin', I guess it depends who is on duty. I didn't want to push it because the agent gave me the vibe of 'push this and you're going to have a bad time'. Seems like there will be no hand checks once new scanners are fully implemented. Wouldn't any bad actor just stuff dangerous/illegal contents into a film package and ask for a hand check if that were the case? Another potential issue is if these scanners + AI are implemented in all mail centers, and all global mail and packaging are whisked through these scanners. The volume of mail is impossible to do this with humans, but I could see new large scanners that can use AI to find anomalies and keep the packages shooting through as normal.

 

[babil]

i was hoping to fly into paris and then fly out of AMS for a trip to europe in april, but now im thinking maybe not. any news on CDG and will they do hand checks?

don‘t worry about CDG. They don’t use CT scanners for hand luggage. Just let the films pass through.
All my films that passed through CDG are ok.

 

[Agulliver]

The newer baggage scanners will indeed most likely subject the contents of your bags to greater doses of radiation but please once again note the reference to scanning in "slices" 2mm or 5mm apart. There is, as far as I am aware, no way of producing uniform fog on film with X-ray CT scanning devices.

Do bear in mind that while my degree in Applied Physics is some years old, I made a study of medical imaging and x-ray CT scanners. Unless someone has completely redefined computer assisted tomography and the way x-rays are produced....they won't uniformally fog film in the manner presented by our friend earlier in the thread. X-rays don't do that to film. They produce lines or patterns, ie discrete lines 2-5mm apart....as explained in the article.

I am prepared to be shown to be wrong, if CT/CAT and x-ray production have undergone a radical change in recent years.

 

[DWThomas]

I paid no attention to the machine -- if it was even identified by anything publicly visible -- but I brought some exposed rolls of 400TX and HP5+ through Schipol on the return from a Rhein River cruise at the end of April with no apparent visible effect. Of course it's possible not every security line had the same equipment (or the operator was taking a smoke break!) Just one teeny tiny data point.

It would be nice to see some properly conducted tests.

 

[Agulliver]

As yet nobody seems to have conducted proper controlled tests. Which is why people begin to panic when someone posts an unsubstantiated post containing pictures of allegedly x-ray fogged film.

I would suggest that the poster with these films first contacts Kodak to see if they think x-ray damage could be the cause. I've said my bit enough times that those who don't want to listen have probably shut their ears. However the fact remains that the jury is out on these newer machines and there's no clear information there, because nobody has conducted proper tests. Sites such as KosmoFoto saying thery're worried doesn't actually mean anything because they are no more an expert on the new bag x-ray scanners than you or I.

 

[BrianShaw]

However the fact remains that the jury is out on these newer machines and there's no clear information there, because nobody has conducted proper tests.

While I won’t disagree with you that the typical Invision CT damage is banding, the tests of the legacy Rapiscan x-ray machines indeed showed overall density increases. Mostly noticeable after 10 to 25 scans. Hence the old machines declared “film safe”. it’s in the data that’s been around for eons that was scientifically measured by a film manufacturers consortium... back when anyone really cared.

But I struggle with your lack of concern. The effect of CT on film is well known. Having a background in applied physics I assume you understand all about this. The design of these machines is not well understood except that they use CT vs traditional x-ray. I assume there are all sorts of visualization enhancements and automated detection technologies too. Are they two-phase, like the newer checked baggage scanners? If so, that could possibly explain density vs banding.

Not knowing much is what’s generating discussion. Ignoring a possible concern really isn’t in human nature... unless one completed abandons intelligent thought and settles for just believing what they are told.

... but given what we know historically... there’s plenty of reason for discussion and concern. I’m not seeing any “panic” though...

 

[Agulliver]

Well yes, I am aware that CT scanners as used in checked baggage scanners certainly can and do damage film. It's documented and well understood. A whole day's shooting on "Lost" was...umm...lost due to a trainee mistakenly checking rolls of film flying from Hawaii to mainland USA. While it's also been shown that the old Rapiscan machines showed fogging as you say it's over 20 or so passes.

The fogging shown by our friend here has never previously been seen by any kind of X-ray apparatus and I struggle to understand how it could be caused by any kind of CT scanner. Personally I am not panicking. People have panicked every time x-rays are mentioned here and elsewhere. Perhaps it's "crying wolf" syndrome but I'm sceptical.

 

[traveler_101]

i was hoping to fly into paris and then fly out of AMS for a trip to europe in april, but now im thinking maybe not. any news on CDG and will they do hand checks?

I have a similar question. If decide to bring my film camera on the next trip, I would be travelling through PHX and ORD with exposed film - both of which have the new machines according to a list I found on the internet. So I am thinking now - what is the point of bringing my film camera if there is a chance my exposures will ruined? This thread has managed to raise doubts about whether the evidence of damage introduced here could have resulted from the new CT machines, but has anyone gone through the machines with no effect on their film?

 

[Huss]

I flew through LAX eons ago, asked for a hand check and they said 'it goes through the scanner or in the bin', I guess it depends who is on duty.....

It’s changed. I have flown dozens of time through LAX this year and they have been very amenable to hand checking my film. Never an issue.
In Europe not a chance.

 

[acroell]

Here is some more real time experience with the new scanners in Amsterdam. I was flying from Germany back to the US, my flight connection was through Amsterdam. I 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 there, a “ClearScan” by L3Harris, here is a link: https://www.sds.l3t.com/aviation-checkpoint-screening/ClearScan.htm. It looks a bit different than the "Analogic" machine with the blue rings, but it is essentially the same thing, a CT scanner. I had a bunch of 120 roll film with me and asked for a hand inspection, which they fortunately did, although they did ask for the ISO values of my film. However, anticipating I might encounter a CT scanner on this trip, I left one 120 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 CT scanned one on the right. The new scanner fogged the whole film, unevenly, with some repeating patterns 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 densities of 0.53 -0.59 for the end of the film (i.e. the outside of the roll) and 0.46 - 0.53 at the start of the film (the inside of the exposed roll). That is essentially the equivalent of a zone IV exposure with just one scan, which tells me that even ISO 100 film would get an uneven (!) zone 2 pre-exposure. If anybody could do a similar test with the Analogic machines, that would be appreciated. Btw, both films went through three regular X-ray carry-on inspections (non-CT). I actually intend to bring these two films with me on any future trip to show the security personnel (or the supervisor) if they refuse a hand inspection. If that helps, who knows.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks acroell, this looks pretty conclusive evidence to me. Either hand inspections are now introduced or you may as well stop taking film on flights. Maybe the film companies will now exert some pressure on airports, making it clear that we have a revival of film and that film users are not insignificant group of travellers, assuming of course that in airport cost to benefit terms we are a significant group

I have a terrible feeling that airports may not see us as being significant, nor am I sure that film makers have the "muscle" to exert sufficient influence or maybe not even the will to try

Maybe Henning can use his influence here

pentaxuser

 

[Prest_400]

I've been lurking the thread for long as the CT scanners caught my attention. As of traditional carry on Xrays, no issue at all, but the implementation of CT is worrying if it can fog film. I actually, despite having travelled around Europe quite a bit, never bothered to have hand checks. Appalling to see that and my opinion echoes the one of pentaxuser's post above. Acroell, thank you very much for conducting this test.

 

[traveler_101]

Thank you for posting this report. It provides clear evidence of the effect of the new scanners. I am just curious about the film on the left that didn't go through the new scanner. That seems to have some fogging as well?

 

[acroell]

Thank you for posting this report. It provides clear evidence of the effect of the new scanners. I am just curious about the film on the left that didn't go through the new scanner. That seems to have some fogging as well?

No, the one on the left doesn't have fogging apart from the regular fb+f (film base +fog) of TMAX 400 in this developer - the base of TMAX 400 is grey. The darker patches that you see in the lower parts are exposures of - in zone system parlance - approximately Zones 1, 2, and 3 by photographing a wall at about 50cm distance with the focus at infinity. You can see similar exposures in the fogged film on the right if you look closely. Since I did not know how weak or strong any influence of the CT scanner would be, I wanted to have some patches with weak exposures for measuring densities in those areas. A very low X-ray dose might not show up in blank film but might be measured in the density of a shadow area, similar to the "flashing" of photo paper. Obviously, that wasn't really necessary.

 

[pentaxuser]

I suppose that while acroell's evidence is good we really need a few more examples if possible to really confirm our worst fears. While the new scanners are not yet universal I'd assume that eventually they will be so in some airports film will still be OK but some body( not individual travellers) with some influence needs to press for a change to the scanners( unlikely to happen, I'd have thought) or a change to the protocol whereby airport personnel are mandated to agree to hand inspection.

Otherwise my analogy would be that in flying terms the film companies are producing the equivalent of TVs that only work on analogue signals when the signal transmission has started to go digital and will eventually be totally digital rendering the product useless when flying.

pentaxuser

 

[acroell]

I suppose that while acroell's evidence is good we really need a few more examples if possible to really confirm our worst fears. While the new scanners are not yet universal I'd assume that eventually they will be so in some airports film will still be OK but some body( not individual travellers) with some influence needs to press for a change to the scanners( unlikely to happen, I'd have thought) or a change to the protocol whereby airport personnel are mandated to agree to hand inspection.

Otherwise my analogy would be that in flying terms the film companies are producing the equivalent of TVs that only work on analogue signals when the signal transmission has started to go digital and will eventually be totally digital rendering the product useless when flying.

pentaxuser

Agreed on the need for more testing, especially since there are at least two manufacturers around, maybe more. In one of the early posts in this thread, there was a quote from Travel & Leisure magazine where the spokesperson for "Analogic" CT scanners (the ones with the blue ring) supposedly stated they are film safe. This might have been just his statement to sell it to the public, without any technical background to back it up, or it might be true. The technology of the detector arrays in CT scanners can vary significantly, and a standard detector would need more X-ray power vs. a much more sensitive (and expensive) one.

 

[wiltw]

Here is some more real time experience with the new scanners in Amsterdam....The new scanner fogged the whole film, unevenly, with some repeating patterns visible.
View attachment 237332

Kudos to you for proving hard proof of film showing what some scientist had earlier mentioned for radiation measurements (which I quoted)

 

[traveler_101]

. . . While the new scanners are not yet universal I'd assume that eventually they will be so in some airports film will still be OK but some body( not individual travellers) with some influence needs to press for a change to the scanners( unlikely to happen, I'd have thought) or a change to the protocol whereby airport personnel are mandated to agree to hand inspection.
pentaxuser

Hand scanning on request is already protocol in the US, but it would help to get clarification on the need for hand inspections in light of the new technology. AND I have never ever succeeded in getting hand inspection of my film in a European airport.

 

[acroell]

Hand scanning on request is already protocol in the US, but it would help to get clarification on the need for hand inspections in light of the new technology. AND I have never ever succeeded in getting hand inspection of my film in a European airport.

Well, they actually did do a hand inspection -thankfully - for my other 120 rolls in Amsterdam, swabbed it for explosive residue, although somebody else earlier in this thread reported they denied it to him, also in Amsterdam. Before the CT scanners I never bothered to ask for a hand inspection except onetime also in Amsterdam when I carried Delta 3200 with me, and they allowed it then, too. I guess from now on I’ll always carry some Delta 3200 with me. I am really concerned when it comes to sheet film boxes of exposed but unprocessed film, because it’s not obvious that it’s film to your average person, and after exposure the factory seal will be broken.

 

[AgX]

Thank, acroell. That at least is something more alike the test I proposed.

I admit the whole scanner business is quite veiled when it gets into details, understandibly. But the silence of film manufacturers on this issue, to whatever direction, is puzzling.

Or is that even another form of the Kodak Alaris backing-paper approach of we can't help it, so we better not talk about it ?

 

[traveler_101]

Well, they actually did do a hand inspection -thankfully - for my other 120 rolls in Amsterdam, swabbed it for explosive residue, although somebody else earlier in this thread reported they denied it to him, also in Amsterdam. Before the CT scanners I never bothered to ask for a hand inspection except onetime also in Amsterdam when I carried Delta 3200 with me, and they allowed it then, too. I guess from now on I’ll always carry some Delta 3200 with me. I am really concerned when it comes to sheet film boxes of exposed but unprocessed film, because it’s not obvious that it’s film to your average person, and after exposure the factory seal will be broken.

Again, acroelll, thanks very much for posting your report. I think the bottom line is that without clear guidelines issued by various authorities getting hand inspections will be hit or miss. That makes flying with film an unacceptable risk, sadly.

 

[Agulliver]

Thank you Acorell, that fogging could indeed be caused by x-rays. It doesn't look catastrophic but it would certainly affect most photographs and make them much more difficult to print or scan.