Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,727   Posts: 1,515,086   Online: 1168
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 48
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,963
    Yes, CT also uses xray. In fact the new two-step checked baggage uses low-level xray then high power CT if required. It is "kinder and gentler" and saves wear-n-tear on the higher cost CT equipment. Rather than believe threads it is better to read mfg specs (all on-line).

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    44
    Two summers ago, I went to Vienna, Salzburg and Berlin. I started and ended in NY. While in the US, you can ask for a hand inspection and they must oblige, the EU doesn't have a policy like this. So there were a few zaps of carry-on luggage in the EU, plus the handful of film I brought with me into the Reichstagsgebäude. So that's 3 zaps for most rolls with a handful getting 4. No issues with development. I even marked the ones that got four zaps of x-rays instead of three to see if there would be a difference since I had no idea how strong the x-rays were there. Not a single problem.

    Film included:
    Adox CMS 20
    Neopan 1600
    Provia 100F
    Provia 400x

  3. #13
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,162
    Images
    148
    US carry on scanners aren't all film safe which is why they'll allow hand checking, however in the UK/Europe they are safe and virtually all airports will refuse to hand check film. Even if you hand them the film boxes for checking they will still scan the film, there may be a the very odd exception.

    Unlike the UK/Europe the US has a large number of smaller commercial airports and not all have modern scanners, my own experience was that even in a major hub airport the scanners were years old compared to the ultra modern scanners I've seen in UK/Europe, South Aerica etc.

    Ian

  4. #14
    wiltw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    725
    Kodak's previous published wisdom a few years ago:
    1. With film of ISO 400 and less, the carry-on baggage scanner is safe for multiple passes of the film thru scanner
    2. With film of ISO 1600 and higher, try to get your film hand inspected (which NEVER WORKS in London Heathrow airport!!!!)
    3. NEVER EVER put your film thru checked luggage, which is put thru a CT Scan which will ruin unprocessed film

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,963
    I'd love to see the supporting documentation that any US carry-on is not filmsafe. Which airport and which make or model of screening device?

    The visual inspection and trace detection was intended to address high-speed film sensitivity to xray.

  6. #16
    wiltw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    725
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    I'd love to see the supporting documentation that any US carry-on is not filmsafe. Which airport and which make or model of screening device?

    The visual inspection and trace detection was intended to address high-speed film sensitivity to xray.
    Kodak's current stance, which seems to indicated that there may in fact be higher exposure scanners in use for some hand carryons! Note, however, that this is for motion picture films, which Kodak had previously mentioned as more prone to fogging.
    http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Suppo...ys_airport.htm
    "Carry-on baggage inspection conveyors using low intensity x-rays, used at security checkpoints in US airports, usually do not affect film. However, these machines may now be supplemented in some cases by high intensity machines that will fog all unprocessed film. Travelers should be wary of all scanners at foreign airports."
    Last edited by wiltw; 03-17-2013 at 12:57 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,963
    That wisdom is based on industry research done for FAA, and the scanners have become even more film-friendly since then!
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltw View Post
    Kodak's published wisdom:
    1. With film of ISO 400 and less, the carry-on baggage scanner is safe for multiple passes of the film thru scanner
    2. With film of ISO 1600 and higher, try to get your film hand inspected (which NEVER WORKS in London Heathrow airport!!!!)
    3. NEVER EVER put your film thru checked luggage, which is put thru a CT Scan which will ruin unprocessed film

  8. #18
    wiltw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    725
    Brian, read my post 16!

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,963
    That is a decade old, amigo.
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltw View Post
    Kodak's current stance, which seems to indicated that there may in fact be higher exposure scanners in use for some hand carryons!
    http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Suppo...ys_airport.htm
    "Carry-on baggage inspection conveyors using low intensity x-rays, used at security checkpoints in US airports, usually do not affect film. However, these machines may now be supplemented in some cases by high intensity machines that will fog all unprocessed film. Travelers should be wary of all scanners at foreign airports."

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,963
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltw View Post
    Brian, read my post 16!
    Carry on scanners have been updated and reaced at least twicw since Kodak issued that notice.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin