Can somebody explain to me what the speaker in the original video says about pixels in electronic sensors being burned any time one takes a plane? (I'm not that good in understanding everything he says).
Does he mean that happens for every technology (CCD, CMOS, still, video) or only for some (only video? Only CCD which he mentions at the beginning?)
Does it seem to attribute the problem to depressurization, or to X-ray treatment? (In both case I suppose and hope it should apply only for cameras in checked-in baggage).
Most importantly, has anybody of you experienced anything similar with your digital camera, which you brought with you as carry-on baggage? I have a digital camera with all cells working well. Next time I take a plane I was thinking about taking the digital with me to avoid problems with X-rays and films, but what I hear in this video might make me change my mind!
Essentially he's saying that high energy gamma rays from the sun and the universe in general aren't absorbed by our atmosphere yet (since you're so high up) and hence it can penetrate just about any substance still and cause micro-electrical charges that fry the conductive nature of the photo cell.
I think that's rubbish. I've never heard or seen anything of that sort....think of how long we've been using digital technologies in space without this issue....
Originally Posted by btaylor
Print films are coated on the 'estar' base, and use a completely different emulsion and don't use the same developing agent as any of the other colour films.
Originally Posted by Klainmeister
Not to mention all electronics are photovoltaic pretty much, just sealed from light. But if they can penetrate a camera body, they can penetrate the plastic film around a resistor or capacitor.
Weel, he's convinced me. It is back to an all mechanical camera, learning the Sunny 16 rule so not electronics and film ISO of 25 so ther eis no chance of gamma or x-ray damage. Guess I was lucky to find that pre-Spotmatic Asahi slr a few months ago and have a coulple of others. Of course being all metal cameras, security will probably think it is hiding something and strip it down to the last screw.
So is he saying that the Airbus A380 which uses external camera systems all over to monitor flight controls and performance, is (or should be) using film due to gamma rays?
Come to think of it, they could probably fit a mini-lab on an A380 or a 747. Has anyone tried to fit a into a Beseler into a 747 washroom...maybe do a little in-flight, gamma ray-proof imaging while on the trans-atlantic run?
I think Kodak would do best to show off the unique and interesting aspects of film rather than trying to discredit digital systems with internet folktale meme FUD.
I wonder how the cameras on space craft like the Hubble and and planetary missions survived so long? As far as speed, film has a quantum sensitivity of 0.25 whereas digital has a quantum efficiency of 0.5--it is very hard to improve on that. This is regardless of fill. So the implication that film is going to have better speed just does not hold up. Sorry, but my BS detector is going off with a lot of statements made in the video.
You would think people would use a process because they like it without have to invent technical justifications. Film certainly has many technical issue, just like digital.
Why can't photographers just get along?