New (as of 2019) airport CT scanners

lauffray · Oct 21, 2019

Just came across this article about new scanners being introduced that could wipe film with one scan. Has anyone had any experience with this? Fake news?

https://petapixel.com/2019/10/21/beware-new-3d-airport-scanners-will-destroy-your-camera-film/

pentaxuser · Oct 21, 2019

Would be nice to see any test data on this and, as importantly, comments from the film makers such as Kodak, Fuji, Ilford. If it is true and these scanners are to be spread to all airports then you'd expect signs saying declare all film to security for hand inspection. If these scanners spread to the U.K. where apparently we don't do hand inspections then I wonder what will happen?

Here's where Simon Galley came into his own. In the past, once the posters had got into the kind of frenzy that occurred in Airplane , he'd appear on the forum to say something helpful and soothing. That's still Simon I am referring to and not Leslie Neilsen

On a less whimsical level a comment from Ilford on its understanding of the facts would be helpful.

pentaxuser

lauffray · Oct 21, 2019

I want to see some actual data too, that way i can decide whether to develop before coming home. Requesting a hand inspection is a bit of a lottery, I don't feel like taking chances with some grumpy officer the day I'm coming home with 30 rolls of film.

wyofilm · Oct 21, 2019

I have no opinion about the new scanners, but I always carry at least one roll of Ilford 3200 to highlight that my bag has high speed film. I have had no issues of hand checking film and several US airports and airports in Norway and Amsterdam. I hadn't heard that the UK won't do hand checks. That is disappointing.

AgX · Oct 21, 2019

"The luggage CAT scan is perfectly safe to use. It won’t damage film or mess with electronic devices."

Mark Laustra, Vice President, Global Business Development and Government Programs at Analogic (manufacturer), quoted 2017 in Travel+Leisure

BrianShaw · Oct 21, 2019

... in case someone wants to read it in context:

https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/futuristic-luggage-scanner

Despite Mark Laustra’s excellent credentials... let’s not forget that he’s a marketing manager trying to sell his company product in the face of competitors.

Independent testing and real data would be much more reassuring.

john_s · Oct 21, 2019

I'm going on a trip in February next year and will be on four international flights (Australia, Singapore, Kolkata and Mumbai) and eight internal filghts in India. I'm planning to go digital given the risk of film being spoiled. However, I will take an exposed roll of 120 iso400 film with me (no metal canister which might protect 35mm film), and develop it back home, just to see how it goes.

Some years ago I also carried a couple of old expired Delta3200 films to encourage officials to hand inspect, but most of the times it was ineffective. (That wasn't as many filghts). The iso400 films turned out ok.

pentaxuser · Oct 21, 2019

john_s said:
I'm planning to go digital given the risk of film being spoiled.

Surely precisely the reason why the likes of the film manufacturers should comment, otherwise if we multiply your intention by even most of the other flying film users then it might made a dent in those manufacturers profits and possibly scupper Henning Serger's findings that film is making a serious comeback

Incidentally I based my statement on alleged no hand searches in the U.K. on a couple of comments from U.S. members here that had said they had asked for such searches at U.K. airports and had been refused. If there were other U.S. visitors who had no such problem getting hand searches I do not recall them making any counter responses.

One thing seems sure to me and that is: If there is no response by any film authority on this subject and film users even in their dozens suddenly find on their return to home soils that their films are ruined there will be quite a backlash. I forget the ratio but one disgruntled user is said to cost any industry a loss of sales that is out of proportion to his own purchases

pentaxuser

BrianShaw · Oct 21, 2019

To do that experiment it is critical to know the manufacturer and model number of each scanner used. There was independent data from a film manufacturer consortium that led to the past FAA guidance but that was a long time ago and those machines are being phased out in favor of this newer technology. The consortium disbanded a long time ago and it would shock me if a similar test capability were to be re-established. It doesn’t sound to me like anyone really cares about film safety anymore... except for us niche photography enthusiasts.

The goal now seems orientated to easier and more reliable screening of electronic devices.

BrianShaw · Oct 21, 2019

“I forget the ratio but one disgruntled user is said to cost any industry a loss of sales that is out of proportion to his own purchases.”

10-fold. But that was for consumer services and products. I’m not sure if 10 people would choose to not fly because 1 film photographer was not gruntled.

pentaxuser · Oct 21, 2019

BrianShaw said:
“I forget the ratio but one disgruntled user is said to cost any industry a loss of sales that is out of proportion to his own purchases.”

10-fold. But that was for consumer services and products. I’m not sure if 10 people would choose to not fly because 1 film photographer gruntled.

Quite so but the point I was trying to make is that if a lot of flying film users became disgruntled because they had lost precious photos as a result of new scanners it might have a disproportionate effect on film especially if film makers had said nothing about the dangers, should they really exist, with the new scanners.

pentaxuser

BrianShaw · Oct 21, 2019

Yes, it could drive some folks to digital for their travel photography. Just the possibility has already driven one film photographer to digital in this thread alone!

Richard Man · Oct 21, 2019

Supposedly it only affects non-exposed film, and most airports will hand check films when asked, so it really only affects large format sheet film, which I do not trust to be handchecked (the TSA agents would probably insist on opening the box).

BrianShaw · Oct 21, 2019

“Supposedly it only affects non-exposed film,”

Can you tell us more? I’m not sure physics works like that; but I could be mistaken. Had you said it only affects non-developed film...

mshchem · Oct 21, 2019

Wow, those are impressive machines. I hate airports and airlines. I love flying, but today's version of air travel is a nightmare. Ship the film ahead or hand inspection. This is just the way it is.

wyofilm · Oct 21, 2019

mshchem said:
Ship the film ahead ...

I've considered this, but haven't resorted to this strategy ... just yet.

koraks · Oct 22, 2019

Shipping the film ahead may take it through cargo scanners which means a very high risk of fogging.

etn · Oct 22, 2019

mshchem said:
Wow, those are impressive machines. I hate airports and airlines. I love flying, but today's version of air travel is a nightmare. Ship the film ahead or hand inspection. This is just the way it is.

I love flying, but I think it just sucks as soon as there are more than 4 persons in the aircraft

etn · Oct 22, 2019

BrianShaw said:
“Supposedly it only affects non-exposed film,”

Can you tell us more? I’m not sure physics works like that; but I could be mistaken. Had you said it only affects non-developed film...

A not really scientific explanation is:
Once the film has been processed, it is not sensitive anymore. Therefore there’s no risk of fogging.

etn · Oct 22, 2019

BrianShaw said:
Yes, it could drive some folks to digital for their travel photography. Just the possibility has already driven one film photographer to digital in this thread alone!

I’m afraid i’m potentially one of those... which would suck, as I do most of my photography when traveling. And I can’t really bind with digital.

I would expect, though, that not all airports would roll out those new machines at once. Lets wait and see until more data and first hand experience are available before going crazy! When the problem is confirmed we’ll figure out a solution (even if the solution is going digital !)

wiltw · Oct 22, 2019

Folks, there are TWO KINDS of scanners that have been in use for decades now...

Short pulse low dose X-rays are used in Security scans of HAND LUGGAGE
CT scans inherently use stronger doses of X-rays to obtain images of CHECKED BAGGAGE

Kodak had been providing warning for a LONG TIME, about the relative safety of <ISO 1600 film in Security X-ray scanners, but had also WARNED about damage to film of any speed by the cargo CT scanners!
So the story quoted is a rehash of what was already true about film risk, although the newer CT technology might well be less destructive than the older CT scanners that have been in use for scanning checked luggage.

IOW, if you have been deliberately not putting exposed film into checked luggage, and put it in hand carry luggage, your risk to your film will be no greater tomorrow, than the magnitude of risk over the past decade!

BTW, exposed film is MORE vulnerable than unexposed film, because the film has been taken beyond the minimum threshhold during the picture taking, so incremental exposure to radiation will show to a greater extent.

As for the comment about Heathrow refusing hand inspection of film, that has been true of hand carry film since the 1980's, per my own experience of passing thru Heathrow repeatedly over the decades.

wyofilm · Oct 22, 2019

koraks said:
Shipping the film ahead may take it through cargo scanners which means a very high risk of fogging.

How is film not ruined by cargo scanners when shipped worldwide by vendors and manufacturers?

BrianShaw · Oct 22, 2019

wiltw said:
Folks, there are TWO KINDS of scanners that have been in use for decades now...

Short pulse low dose X-rays are used in Security scans of HAND LUGGAGE. (Snip)

So the story quoted is a rehash of what was already true about film risk, although the newer CT technology might well be more destructive than the older CT scanners that have been in use for scanning checked luggage. (Snip)

IOW, if you have been deliberately not putting exposed film into checked luggage, and put it in hand carry luggage, your risk to your film will be no greater tomorrow, than the magnitude of risk over the past decade!

The article was about a technology refresh. This kind is being phased out... at least in some airports... and replaced by CT.

While the warning/concern may be the same it’s driven by “unknown”. Aside the one quote provided by one manufacturer rep, there is currently silence on film safety. I looked at two of the manufacturer sites and saw nothing discussed. Just a lot about the two major concerns: seeing more clearly into carry/on bags/electronics and increased throughput. Data sheets are hard to acquire as one must “apply” for them.

Who knows (at this point)... the newer CT might be more gentle than the older CT on film. I tend to doubt that would be likely but in the face of no information it’s another guess that could be made.

But I sincerely hope you end up being correct about the future!

BTW, there are 3 kinds: also a 2-phase that is a hybrid.

AgX · Oct 22, 2019

BrianShaw said:
Aside the one quote provided by one manufacturer rep, there is currently silence on film safety. I looked at two of the manufacturer sites and saw nothing discussed.

Some months ago I checked the sites of all luggage scanner manufacturers I got aware of and at no site I found any hint at film safety. Film is a non-topic at their sites.

Ko.Fe. · Oct 22, 2019

I was flying from Logan in Boston, they had this new scanner. They put “safe up to 800 ISO” sign. I’m using 400 film. No problem to fly over USA this and previous year then new scanners were installed.

New (as of 2019) airport CT scanners

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency