SJP Posted February 20, 2012 Share #21 Posted February 20, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) This article seems interesting, relevant and well rsearched http://harvestimaging.com/pubdocs/090_2005_dec_IEDM_terrestrial_cosmic_rays.pdf The effect is more than I would have thought, or at least appears to be well analysed, although I am not sure about the absolute effect they are measuring (yet). Seems to be mainly a slight increase in noise/sensitivity - not really dead/hot. Comments anyone? They suggest that 24 hrs in flight is equivalent to 100 days at ground level, which seems a lot to me. Still I will happily fly with my gear, especially as bringing 20 meters of concrete for protection is discouraged by most airlines. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 Hi SJP, Take a look here Sensor Damage In Flight?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted February 20, 2012 Share #22 Posted February 20, 2012 There are other options - you can put your camera in a container with heavy water, or alternately, transport it at a constant temperature of 110 degrees C. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milehigh Posted February 20, 2012 Share #23 Posted February 20, 2012 So.... I'm an airline pilot, flying up to 900 hours a year. Just ordered a black M9-P... and I'm planning to always keep it with me. Should I cancel the order....? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted February 21, 2012 Share #24 Posted February 21, 2012 So.... I'm an airline pilot, flying up to 900 hours a year. Just ordered a black M9-P... and I'm planning to always keep it with me. Should I cancel the order....? No but you better consider changing your job. How about deep sea diver and while you are at it start looking for underwater housing for your camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted February 21, 2012 Share #25 Posted February 21, 2012 Certainly an interesting phenomenon. But as far as the M9 goes, one of the big reasons I got back into RFs was for travel. I've never noticed any issues in all my travels on any of my cameras (so far) - but I think the slight effect demonstrated is a worthwhile risk. These days I couldn't imagine leaving the house without my M9 let alone travel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougg Posted February 21, 2012 Share #26 Posted February 21, 2012 FWIW, and perhaps coincidentally, my blue line appeared in the first pics upon arrival in Malta after flying from Seattle. No line in the prior batch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted February 21, 2012 Share #27 Posted February 21, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Wow. Is this unique to Leica and Kodak? I wonder who supplied the sensors for all those satellites equipped with cameras up in space? Kodak has the most experience here having worked with NASA all these years. And I hear that their sensors cannot handle a few plane journeys? Next I will read about pixels suffering from sea sickness from cruises. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5308 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougg Posted February 21, 2012 Share #28 Posted February 21, 2012 On the good side, the convoluted return trip via Rome, Barcelona, Madrid, side trip to Canary Islands, and back to Seattle did not result in any further bad pixels or columns. I've since been twice to Hawaii and back with no sensor errors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 21, 2012 Share #29 Posted February 21, 2012 Wow. Is this unique to Leica and Kodak? I wonder who supplied the sensors for all those satellites equipped with cameras up in space? Kodak has the most experience here having worked with NASA all these years. And I hear that their sensors cannot handle a few plane journeys? Next I will read about pixels suffering from sea sickness from cruises. NASA to Launch Kodak Professional DCS 760 Digital Camera On Mission to International Space Station | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference No - if you had read some of the articles provided you would have found that it happens to all sensors and is in no way brand-specific. And NASA has to use a new camera for each mission, specifically for this reason. How NASA Modifies the Nikon D2Xs DSLR for Space Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted February 21, 2012 Share #30 Posted February 21, 2012 And NASA has to use a new camera for each mission, specifically for this reason. How NASA Modifies the Nikon D2Xs DSLR for Space This may be true for outer space, but wouldn't Kodak and Nikon with their years of experience have suitably addressed this for consumer electronics. After all an airline flight is safe for humans and most day-to-day electronics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 21, 2012 Share #31 Posted February 21, 2012 They have been trying, but the butterfly nets they issued were not robust enough to catch neutrinos, nor did the tin foil hats help... Seriously, natural phenomena and the laws of physics cannot be avoided...As far as cosmic radiation is concerned, 12 Km up in the Stratosphere is close enough to outer space to matter, especially on the North transpolar route. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted February 21, 2012 Share #32 Posted February 21, 2012 Simple. Just start traveling with a Hassy, loaded with film. If it's good enough for the Moon, it's good enough for overseas flights! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted February 22, 2012 Share #33 Posted February 22, 2012 I just found two bad pixels today. One made a very obvious vertical red line and the other made a fainter vertical blue line. Just my luck. All I need now is a green line and it'll be like Christmas. Woo hoo! I haven't been in a plane with my M9 and my spaceship is on the ground because I'm out of rocket fuel. Anyway, it's no fun to see these on my files. I can fix it in post but that's kind of tedious. Isn't there some way to remap the pixels ourselves? Or do I really have to send it off to Leica? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 22, 2012 Share #34 Posted February 22, 2012 No, no DIY option. There is a program called pixelfixer however. Or make a mask in Photoshop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted February 22, 2012 Share #35 Posted February 22, 2012 No, no DIY option. There is a program called pixelfixer however. Or make a mask in Photoshop. I saw a post of yours from two years ago about doing a long exposure to get the pixels going again. I guess that doesn't work, eh? I don't mind fixing in post. But it's developed a pretty prominent long red line (like the 'M8 red line issue.') I don't use Windows OS so Pixelfixer is out of the question. I realize it's the nature of digital (like dust and scratches on film ) But I don't see why there can't be a remap setup in firmware. I think other manufacturers have this. Hot pixels will happen again. Having a program the user can run makes a lot of sense. Otherwise it's sending it off all the time (which also costs money; we have to pay for the shipping and insurance each time.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 23, 2012 Share #36 Posted February 23, 2012 Some cameras nowadays do have a remap option in firmware. I'm not sure why it is not in the M9. Maybe it hassomething to do with CCD vs CMos. Yes, heating the sensor up may help in some cases. It kinda slipped my mind Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brill64 Posted February 23, 2012 Share #37 Posted February 23, 2012 So.... I'm an airline pilot, flying up to 900 hours a year. Just ordered a black M9-P... and I'm planning to always keep it with me. Should I cancel the order....? no but when your wife packs your sandwiches, ask her to wrap your m9 in silver foil also.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted February 24, 2012 Share #38 Posted February 24, 2012 They have been trying, but the butterfly nets they issued were not robust enough to catch neutrinos, nor did the tin foil hats help...Seriously, natural phenomena and the laws of physics cannot be avoided...As far as cosmic radiation is concerned, 12 Km up in the Stratosphere is close enough to outer space to matter, especially on the North transpolar route. Nothing catches or stops neutrinos not even mass of the earth. Besides neutrinos don't interact with anything just fly through. Vacuum of space if full of charged particles and these get mostly deflected by earth magnetic field, Aurora Borealis anyone? Higher you fly exposure is more pronounced. Does any one know how much more are airline pilots susceptible to developing cancer in comparison to general population? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 24, 2012 Share #39 Posted February 24, 2012 There have been studies that suggested a triple chance of brain tumours for airstaff on the transpolar run. Later studies indicated that there was no elevated risk. Still later studies again suggested there was a double chance. So like many things in medicine : inconclusive, but a serious consideration. Deuterium will absorb Neutrinos, I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 24, 2012 Share #40 Posted February 24, 2012 Wow. Is this unique to Leica and Kodak? I wonder who supplied the sensors for all those satellites equipped with cameras up in space? No. There is a good article in the search Jaap gave us on how NASA uses its Nikons and it ends with a statement that all cameras are inspected after space flight and some are redeployed, and others suffered too much damage to use again. If I got a defect, presuming it's not a deal killer, I'd continue to use the camera until there would be time free to send it back in for repair. I did the same with a Bronica that had a tiny light leak at one corner and considered it a trademark. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.