New (as of 2019) airport CT scanners

[lauffray]

Schiphol has been using those new ct scanners for some time now. I’ve been flying 2 or 3 times each year, always with film in my handluggage and had never a problem after development. So, as far as I know, those scanners are not worse than the old ones.
Regards,
Frank

Thanks Frank. What type of film do you usually use?

 

[Frank53]

Thanks Frank. What type of film do you usually use?

Tmax 100 and 400 and HP5.

And I was thinking, those scanners have been in use since 2016 (as a test) and on the whole airport from 2017. I suppose this happened on many of the larger airports in the western world. So many of us must have past those, without even knowing. I didn’t know and checked after I read this thread. Just google “ schiphol ct scan hand luggage” and you find the articles. No metioning of film.
So if there are no reports of damaged films by now, we can trust they are safe.
Regards,
Frank

 

[lauffray]

And I was thinking, those scanners have been in use since 2016 (as a test) and on the whole airport from 2017. I suppose this happened on many of the larger airports in the western world. So many of us must have past those, without even knowing. I didn’t know and checked after I read this thread. Just google “ schiphol ct scan hand luggage” and you find the articles. No metioning of film.
So if there are no reports of damaged films by now, we can trust they are safe.
Regards,
Frank

I've seen many changes in large Western airports but I haven't seen these scanners yet, I fly at least once a year.
Also, that's not quite accurate. Simply because no incidents have been reported doesn't mean there are no incidents, just that they haven't been publicized. This is why direct first-hand experience like yours is more informative than the kind of guessing and speculation I see elsewhere online.

 

[CMoore]

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.

Yours is a bit of an extreme scenario, but...... perhaps many of us could mail the film home.
Maybe it still gets scanned if it is International Mail though.?

 

[wiltw]

An interesting article: https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q12361.html

Although not film specific, it suggests that the new scanners may emit 39 times the radiation of current scanners: 1.56 milliisieverts vs. 0.05 mSv. Interestingly, the amount of radiation used is not released by TSA for security reasons.

By comparison, a tradition Chest X-Ray delivers 0.1 mSv and a Chest CT scan delivers 7 mSv
https://www.health.harvard.edu/cancer/radiation-risk-from-medical-imaging#targetText=Most of the increased exposure,) — 70 times as much.

From that first article:

para 5: "Dosimeters that were passed through the "checked baggage" system that randomly activates the x ray had highly variable doses. If the dosimeters were near the area randomly selected by the software to activate the x-ray source, a higher dose would be measured. The average dose, after 10 passes through this type of system was about 28 mrem per scan (0.28 mSv per scan)."

para 6: "Dosimeters that were passed through the type of "checked baggage" system that stayed active for the entire screening process had an average dose of 156 mrem per scan (1.56 mSv) per scan. The newer carry-on screening systems are expected to deliver similar doses."​

IOW, the old Check baggage CT systems, which Kodak (decades ago) had warned WOULD FOG film have lower dose than the newer Hand Luggage 3-D CT systems! So unless the nature of the beam is much improved we have something to worry about, until another impartial and knowledgeable body (equivalent to the struggling remains of Kodak) publishes their own results! On face value, the new 1.5mSv CT machines should fog film, if 0.28 mSv CT checked baggage CT systems used to fog film!

 

[Rich Mulvey]

You'll definitely encounter them at JFK; I did yesterday.

I was with a fellow film-shooting friend, and she had a bunch of unexposed Natura 1600 in her bag, and I had a couple TMAX 400's. There were signs touting their new "Automated scanning systems" in front of a couple of the scanners--the ones with the glowing rings on the end.

I'm developing my TMAX tomorrow. If it's fogged I'm going to be pissed, but not as much as my friend, since Natura 1600 is basically worth its weight in gold these days.

FWIW, I just finished scanning the first roll of TMax 400 that went through the new scanners at JFK this weekend, Came out fine.

 

[lauffray]

FWIW, I just finished scanning the first roll of TMax 400 that went through the new scanners at JFK this weekend, Came out fine.

Brilliant, thanks Rich. Was the film shot at 400 or pushed? Do you remember how many times it went through the scanners? (sorry for the annoying questions)

 

[Rich Mulvey]

Brilliant, thanks Rich. Was the film shot at 400 or pushed? Do you remember how many times it went through the scanners? (sorry for the annoying questions)

Thanks! This was shot strictly at box speed, processed in XTol. It went through scanners twice; once in a "traditional" carry-on scanner in Rochester, and once returning back through JFK in the new ones.

 

[BrianShaw]

Kodak Alaris updated their film handling data sheet to address the new technology. The update is “as expected” and it is not clear if this advise is driven by data or driven by potential liability concerns.

Basically... request hand check.

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/photographers-photo-printing/film

 

[AgX]

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/uat/files/wysiwyg/pro/CIS_E30.pdf

Protect film from x-rays. X-rays can fog unprocessed film. When you travel by commercial airline, your checked luggage is commonly subjected to x-ray examination by a CT (Computed Tomography) scanner. Many airport security departments are now investing in additional CT scanners for carry-on bags, with a goal of eventually having the machines at every security checkpoint. To avoid any danger of fogging unprocessed film, always hand-carry your film - including loaded cameras - and always request a visual inspection at the airport security check point.


I read this of there being a danger now...

 

[lauffray]

I read this of there being a danger now...

I read it as a cautious recommendation, in the absence of more precise information regarding those scanners.

 

[AgX]

A recommendation that is of little use as many fellows here experienced to have been denied hand-check with the old scanners. Will security personnel now be less reluctant with thenew scanners?

 

[lauffray]

A recommendation that is of little use as many fellows here experienced to have been denied hand-check with the old scanners. Will security personnel now be less reluctant with thenew scanners?

No I agree with you, I don't think it's useful. But I don't think they know with certainty that these scanners pose a risk, they're just trying to say anything rather than nothing, even in the absence of reliable information. Which, again, is quite useless

 

[BrianShaw]

... and what’s more, TSA and the like are going to do whatever they feel they need to do with the indiscriminate power they seem to have regardless of any random suggestion/recommendation of Kodak or the like.

 

[CMoore]

... and what’s more, TSA and the like are going to do whatever they feel they need to do with the indiscriminate power they seem to have regardless of any random suggestion/recommendation of Kodak or the like.

Indiscriminate Power.....

I wish i had some.
I would force our ONE Lousy neighbor to quiet their dogs down, a bit.
And maybe treat our teachers in public schools more equally.

 

[braxus]

So what happens if you airmail something via USPS to your destination, and mail it back home? Does it still go through these scanners or is mail still low dosage?

 

[BAC1967]

So what happens if you airmail something via USPS to your destination, and mail it back home? Does it still go through these scanners or is mail still low dosage?

I always mail my film to a lab when I travel to avoid making another pass through the scanner. I’ve never had a problem, even when I mailed film from Guam, Saipan, American Samoa, Hawaii and Alaska. I don’t know about international but I don’t think domestic mail is scanned.

 

[babil]

I've seen many changes in large Western airports but I haven't seen these scanners yet, I fly at least once a year.
Also, that's not quite accurate. Simply because no incidents have been reported doesn't mean there are no incidents, just that they haven't been publicized. This is why direct first-hand experience like yours is more informative than the kind of guessing and speculation I see elsewhere online.

Hi,
unfortunately based on my experience with the new scanners in Amsterdam the last 12 months, they do damage films. I communicated this to the airport but I received a standard answer. I will send details in the forum with pictures from the negatives for each trip that I took through AMS and also through other airports to see the difference.

 

[babil]

Hi,

here the observations over the last 1.5 years passing by Amsterdam airport and travelling for the usually routes to China (and Japan in one case).
Same camera, same scanner (reflecta proscan), same development habits since 15 years.

Case 1
Film severely damaged, film base is darker than my usual pinkish tx400. visible damage from scanner. Passed through AMS 3d scanner upon return.



here a scan from the strip:


Case 2
Same as case 1 few months later, visible damage, dark base, bad grain, detail in shadow is lost



and a scan



Case 3
No scan in AMS, came back through CDG. TX400 as I know it. Almost clear base,


Here a scan, good contrast, no harsh grain, good shadow detail.


Case 4
Passed the scanner in AMS, darker base, lack of detail in shadows.


and scan


Case 5
Foma 200, you can see after passing AMS scanner the film base is slightly darker than what I get usually from Foma200


Looking at the scan, grain and lack of detail in the shadow is obvious.


Case 6
This is the case thad was the breakthrough in my observations. I was always suspecting the scanners in China but I was wrong. Flying to Japan and coming back through AMS (after shooting 25 films...) I realised that all the 400 ones are damaged (half of them)
The film base is darker than a normal tx400

Here a scan, detail in the shadow low and grainy.


Case 7
A case supporting my observations, I chose to go through CDG to China instead of amsterdam's. The films passed multiple times as you see through hand luggage scanners in China. All turned out in to be in very good condition. No dark film base, no flat images, no exaggerated grain in the shadows



and a scan


I passed through the AMS with 100 ASA film as well. didn't see any visible damage.
I had also a number of flights throughout Europe (not passing through AMS) without any film damage up to 400 ASA.

Do you have any similar observations?
The AMS airport management seems not to be taking this seriously,

 

[babil]

Here an image showing all TX 400 of the above cases side by side, you can spot the good ones.

 

[wiltw]

Here an image showing all TX 400 of the above cases side by side, you can spot the good ones.
View attachment 236381

It appears the jury (of one) has conclusive evidence that the CT scanners in Amsterdam ARE DAMAGING to ISO 400 after a single pass!!!, and the 'control' test thru Paris's scanners (non CT) are NOT FOGGED.
BS ...what the authorities claim to be the case.
Because they WANT to pass thru passengers with higher security yet faster speed...film be DAMNED!
And our godfather Kodak is no longer alive and well enough to be an authority on reality vs. urban myth

 

[BrianShaw]

It appears the jury (of one) has conclusive evidence that the CT scanners in Amsterdam ARE DAMAGING to ISO 400 after a single pass!!!, and the 'control' test thru Paris's scanners (non CT) are NOT FOGGED.

That’s completely consistent with all prior knowledge. I commend this kind of investigatory action!

the “authority “ included Kodak but was not exclusively Kodak. It was a joint industry consortium under contract of A government organization.

But you’re right... film safety isn’t their concern. Industry, both film and aviation security, silence proves that.

 

[mooseontheloose]

Thanks for these samples. I was worried about CDG since I'll be flying in and out of there from Japan, but couldn't find any information on the type of scanners they use. Although, to be fair, I could probably buy film and get in processed in Paris no problem. Unfortunately that won't necessarily be the case with other places I'll be travelling to.

 

[Agulliver]

Err...that doesn't look like x-ray damage....X-rays don't cause uniform base fog. Unless I am missing something i the pictures of negatives that you've posted.

 

[Frank53]

Err...that doesn't look like x-ray damage....X-rays don't cause uniform base fog. Unless I am missing something i the pictures of negatives that you've posted.

That’s what I was thinking. As I stated before, I never had any problems with films scanned on Schiphol, since those new scanners were installed.
I will not fly in the next half year or so, but next time I know of someone flying via Schiphol I will sacrifice some films and do a test.
Regards,
Frank