Primer on Film and Digital Capture by Rob Hummel

MD Optofonik · 10-19-2014, 01:42 PM - **1 Like**

You Tube

manntax · 10-19-2014, 02:15 PM

Excellent! Very enjoyable and informative - thanks for sharing !!

**ivanvernon** · 10-19-2014, 02:52 PM

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

**demondata** · 10-19-2014, 03:03 PM

As far as digital is concerned, most things Rob spoke about I'd heard before, but the part about killing pixels at altitude? That is a shocker... Film comes out as a very mature and sophisticated technology - digital still has a way to go. I wonder if lead enclosures will prevent the loss of pixels? Kickstarter Project 1, anyone? Maybe the question we typically ask about the no. of images taken with a used body should be joined by one about how much distance the body covered above 20,000 feet. LR extension? Kickstarter 2, anyone? ;-)

j0n4hpk · 10-19-2014, 07:36 PM

I've done a little of it in the past with a flat-bed USB 2,0 scanner with film adapter and an old Windows 2000 desktop PC with 768 MB RAM and 20 GB HDD, but I'll review this video later.

stevebrot · 10-20-2014, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by demondata

killing pixels at altitude?

That assertion was made in the video and has taken on the status of urban legend. I don't know that any controlled study has been made, but Hummel was roundly ridiculed in many circles at the time. The comments on this post on PetaPixel are useful:

Does Bringing a Camera onto an Airplane Damage Its Sensor?

Also:

http://consumertraveler.com/columns/does-airplane-travel-kill-digital-camera-sensors/

...and for the video perspective:

http://www.fdtimes.com/2010/10/15/sensors-at-high-altitude/

I would suggest that while there is potential for damage, the reported incidence where dead pixels could be directly traced to airline travel is extremely low and the risk is not worth worrying about. As one frequent traveler noted, "I am much more concerned about my testicles and I like my camera a lot."

Steve

MD Optofonik · 10-20-2014, 06:30 PM

I think Mr. Stough's statement,

Quote:

" ... the cost of taking extra protective measures would probably never pay off in terms of an actual lost-pixel event being avoided.",

is probably true for most of us enthusiasts and even someone making a short film. The YT video is clearly not aimed at still photography enthusiasts but I think such things are interesting enough to pay attention to, especially when presented by someone with Hummel's background.

Mr Hummel's comments regarding gamma radiation being less risky with film I believe would be based on the fact that most film is exposed and processed before gamma radiation can do any damage. As for sensors, Stough states that

Quote:

"It is always possible that a heavy ionization track will damage the insulator (oxide) at a pixel site to the degree that when the sensor is powered on, the resulting short circuit current would flood that pixel site, and burn it out. The possibility isn’t zero."

Zero risk vs slight risk may not seem like much but zero is zero and large production companies are notoriously averse to financial risk (that's why they have shareholders or LLC investors and release so many sequels). Again, when someone with Mr. Stough's background presents such information, I think it's worth taking into consideration.

It's important top keep in mind that Superman Returns, which is referenced in the Hummel video as an example of how digital camera sensors could be damaged by gamma radiation, was a $209,000,000 feature film and the extra care and cost in transporting cameras at that level is usually a matter of course. It's curious that this problem got past the pre-production camera tests. Still photography enthusiasts and people making short films aren't going to face the challenges inherent in making a large budget feature film so for us enthusiasts all this is academic. I'm a big fan of academic thought and discussion, though.

---------- Post added 10-20-14 at 06:31 PM ----------

Originally posted by stevebrot

Hummel was roundly ridiculed in many circles at the time.

By consumers on consumer electronics websites?

---------- Post added 10-20-14 at 06:34 PM ----------

Originally posted by stevebrot

As one frequent traveler noted, "I am much more concerned about my testicles and I like my camera a lot."

stevebrot · 10-20-2014, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by MD Optofonik

By consumers on consumer electronics websites?

By bloggers...and people on online forums...

Steve

MD Optofonik · 10-20-2014, 09:32 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by stevebrot

By bloggers...and people on online forums...

Steve

Exactly.

6BQ5 · 11-02-2014, 09:21 PM

I finally got to watching this. Fantastic little primer and well worth the 14 minutes! Thanks for posting this!

MD Optofonik · 11-15-2014, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by 6BQ5

I finally got to watching this. Fantastic little primer and well worth the 14 minutes! Thanks for posting this!

Glad you found it as informative as I did.

10-19-2014, 02:52 PM	#3
ivanvernon Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Medina, OH Photos: Albums Posts: 7,224	Excellent Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

10-20-2014, 11:03 AM	#6
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by demondata killing pixels at altitude? That assertion was made in the video and has taken on the status of urban legend. I don't know that any controlled study has been made, but Hummel was roundly ridiculed in many circles at the time. The comments on this post on PetaPixel are useful: Does Bringing a Camera onto an Airplane Damage Its Sensor? Also: http://consumertraveler.com/columns/does-airplane-travel-kill-digital-camera-sensors/ ...and for the video perspective: http://www.fdtimes.com/2010/10/15/sensors-at-high-altitude/ I would suggest that while there is potential for damage, the reported incidence where dead pixels could be directly traced to airline travel is extremely low and the risk is not worth worrying about. As one frequent traveler noted, "I am much more concerned about my testicles and I like my camera a lot." Steve Last edited by stevebrot; 10-20-2014 at 01:05 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
pentax film lenses on digital k5	Paulo Nami	Visitors' Center	5	01-08-2013 01:56 PM
M-Lens aperture blades works on film and do not on digital?	Ivan_M	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	11-24-2012 03:06 PM
Video explains how CCD sensors capture digital image and changed photography	photoleet	Photographic Technique	3	05-29-2012 05:20 AM
ALL ON PAPER: Journalism the pre-digital way, with film and typewriters	RioRico	General Talk	6	08-20-2011 07:25 PM
Photographed an underage music festival on digital and film, nothing but PENTAX!	Isaac314	Post Your Photos!	7	01-06-2009 03:46 PM

10-19-2014, 02:15 PM	#2
manntax Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,972	Excellent! Very enjoyable and informative - thanks for sharing !!

10-19-2014, 03:03 PM	#4
demondata Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Aurora, Ontario, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 632	As far as digital is concerned, most things Rob spoke about I'd heard before, but the part about killing pixels at altitude? That is a shocker... Film comes out as a very mature and sophisticated technology - digital still has a way to go. I wonder if lead enclosures will prevent the loss of pixels? Kickstarter Project 1, anyone? Maybe the question we typically ask about the no. of images taken with a used body should be joined by one about how much distance the body covered above 20,000 feet. LR extension? Kickstarter 2, anyone? ;-)

10-19-2014, 07:36 PM	#5
j0n4hpk Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 293	I've done a little of it in the past with a flat-bed USB 2,0 scanner with film adapter and an old Windows 2000 desktop PC with 768 MB RAM and 20 GB HDD, but I'll review this video later.

10-20-2014, 06:30 PM	#7
MD Optofonik Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 962 Original Poster	I think Mr. Stough's statement, Quote: " ... the cost of taking extra protective measures would probably never pay off in terms of an actual lost-pixel event being avoided.", is probably true for most of us enthusiasts and even someone making a short film. The YT video is clearly not aimed at still photography enthusiasts but I think such things are interesting enough to pay attention to, especially when presented by someone with Hummel's background. Mr Hummel's comments regarding gamma radiation being less risky with film I believe would be based on the fact that most film is exposed and processed before gamma radiation can do any damage. As for sensors, Stough states that Quote: "It is always possible that a heavy ionization track will damage the insulator (oxide) at a pixel site to the degree that when the sensor is powered on, the resulting short circuit current would flood that pixel site, and burn it out. The possibility isn’t zero." Zero risk vs slight risk may not seem like much but zero is zero and large production companies are notoriously averse to financial risk (that's why they have shareholders or LLC investors and release so many sequels). Again, when someone with Mr. Stough's background presents such information, I think it's worth taking into consideration. It's important top keep in mind that Superman Returns, which is referenced in the Hummel video as an example of how digital camera sensors could be damaged by gamma radiation, was a $209,000,000 feature film and the extra care and cost in transporting cameras at that level is usually a matter of course. It's curious that this problem got past the pre-production camera tests. Still photography enthusiasts and people making short films aren't going to face the challenges inherent in making a large budget feature film so for us enthusiasts all this is academic. I'm a big fan of academic thought and discussion, though. ---------- Post added 10-20-14 at 06:31 PM ---------- Originally posted by stevebrot Hummel was roundly ridiculed in many circles at the time. By consumers on consumer electronics websites? ---------- Post added 10-20-14 at 06:34 PM ---------- Originally posted by stevebrot As one frequent traveler noted, "I am much more concerned about my testicles and I like my camera a lot."

10-20-2014, 09:28 PM	#8
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by MD Optofonik By consumers on consumer electronics websites? By bloggers...and people on online forums... Steve

10-20-2014, 09:32 PM - 1 Like	#9
MD Optofonik Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 962 Original Poster	Originally posted by stevebrot By bloggers...and people on online forums... Steve Exactly.

11-02-2014, 09:21 PM	#10
6BQ5 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Nevada, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,348	I finally got to watching this. Fantastic little primer and well worth the 14 minutes! Thanks for posting this!

11-15-2014, 12:10 AM	#11
MD Optofonik Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 962 Original Poster	Originally posted by 6BQ5 I finally got to watching this. Fantastic little primer and well worth the 14 minutes! Thanks for posting this! Glad you found it as informative as I did.