RED air transport, gamma radiation, and effect on sensor?

[Storyline]

I remember when we bought a BVW-300 in 1990 and suddenly found dead pixels after a cross-country flight. We went to the Sony facility in New Jersey (we were shooting nearby) and this was before they had developed any policies about image block replacements nor had they developed the de-tuning abilities to map out dead pixels. At the time, their best guess was radiation, altitude, heat.....in other words, they had little idea. It could have been anything - even just plain old use. Those pixels are tricky. In general, they can come and go. I wouldn't particularly worry about it, as long as there is a way to map them out temporarily (Sony's black balance can do that).

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Hmmm, my little Canon digicam has suddenly developed a dead pixel after a few flights to and from the US (33000 miles up, for 10+ hours). I'm gonna compare photos I took before the first flight, in between the flights and after the last one.

33000 miles? That's like 1/3 the distance to the moon. What airline were you on??? :D Hehe...

I've traveled a lot with my digital cameras and haven't had any issues... Seriously, they get exposed to much more harmful and intense radiaton going through X-ray baggage scanners than any high-atmosphere radiation. Not to say that in-flight radiation isn't having an effect, but I personally haven't seen any effects that I could associate with air travel. I do have two dead pixels on 5 or 6 year old Canon G2 still camera, but it hasn't traveled with me anywhere near as much as my other cameras. Sooo... I don't know.

For in-flight concerns, I would be far more worried about how gear is treated and handled by baggage systems and employees and extreme temperature chainges than any atmospheric radiation.

[Axel]

We had a Sony 790 (just sold and bought a pana HDX900) and we were travelling the world extensivly. After two years we run into pixel problems. The internal correction had reached its capacity. Sony suggested to buy a new optical block. We got mad and finaly a technician was able to fix the memory problem somehow. We learned that the problem seemed to touch sony cameras delivered to europe via the pole. Nothing was ever documented or published by sony. Since then we wrap the camera body on each an every flight in a lead sheet. Security checks get a little bit anoyeng because trhey just don't see anything. But the chip is safe. i strongly recommend doing this with your cameras if your flying extensivly.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Since then we wrap the camera body on each an every flight in a lead sheet. Security checks get a little bit anoyeng because trhey just don't see anything. But the chip is safe. i strongly recommend doing this with your cameras if your flying extensivly.

Hmmm.... I still have a few of those lead "film bags" I used to put my rolls of film in when traveling. I suppose I could dig them up and put my digicams in them when I travel. Not sure what I'd do with something like RED... Get lead sheets/blankets I suppose -- like the ones used by x-ray technicians to sheild people or sensative materials.

...I wonder where Lex Luthor gets his lead boxes to store the Kryptonite? Ok, that wasn't really funny, but anyway. If you fly your RED all the time, it might not be a bad idea. Maybe I don't fly enough to have problems and that's why I've been OK, or maybe I'm just luckier than some.

[Rob Lohman]

Sorry about that, should read 33000 feet and not miles. If only, that would be a dream come true!

[Garrett M. Smith]

Maybe the DALSA guy was talking about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contain...ity_Initiative

or something similar to it that we don't know about. Like what Homeland Security uses to screen your checked baggage behind closed doors.

In any case, the dosage of radiation that your cameras receives when it goes through the X-ray scanner for carry-ons is far higher than it would receive in the airspace that we fly - minus the chance that a nuclear weapon goes off nearby.

Nearly all the high energy EM radiation (like gamma rays) generated inside the sun that aren't absorbed by the outer layers of the sun, are absorbed by our upper layers of atmosphere.

Most cosmic rays (which is merely a general term for the particles and high-energy photons impinged on us from elsehere, mostly the sun, 99% or so comprised of alpha particles and protons) are also absorbed by our atmosphere. Although it is true a portion of them do reach our surface, the ambient background radiation we receive anyway is far higher. However, this amount does increase as you travel higher into the atmosphere as there is less air to absorb and react with the particles, but it is still relatively low.

Even so, most CCD photosite-cosmic ray interactions merely result in a hot pixel during operation (a fact which limits your exposure time for a telescope and requires the use of multiple exposures). Besides, if there was enough gamma radiation to destroy a sensor onboard a standard plane flight, everyone else on board would've probably got all kinds of cancer! (or radiation poisoning) Gamma Rays = DNA destruction which = cancer. So it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that plane flights alone would destroy a sensor, but hey, maybe DALSA's sensors = crap.

Garrett

This is Bullshit plain and simple. The earths magnetic field is what protects us from the majority of Gamma and X-ray radiation and it extends thousands of miles into space.

There is no way that 5 miles in the air adds any significant risk factor for exposure to cosmic radiation. Even the Apollo moon astronouts were safely inside the earths magnetic field!

P.S. The Earth's magnetic field protects us from the barrage of the solar wind - charged electrons and protons basically - but not any type of EM radiation.

[tj williams]

So the question is still out there.... Sony/Panasonice and all I assume also the still folk have a way of hiding burnt pixels. These buffers have a certain size then it's all over.... Send the Camera to Lucke to extend it's life if he supports that model otherwise buy a chip or have a boat anchor.

Will someone from RED Talk about how they address this problem. Maybe it doesn't occur in still camera beyer sensors?

[tj williams]

Well I'm willing to talk to myself here to keep this at the top of the pile...
Hey RED TEAM!!!!

1. I've found out Sony has serious limits on the number of dead pixels they can mask. Are we going to be better off?
2. Will there be a guarantee on the camera that will include this kind of failure for some period of time?
3. If our sensor fails, from where-ever the radiation comes from, will we have to pay more than a dog house or more than a people house to get a new one?

[Finner]

TJ

Very limited testing has been done on the camera so far and much more needs to be done. Considering this, I highly doubt that high altitude pixel loss testing would be at the top of the list right now. There is so much information and testing that needs to be done and documented by independent DP's far before altitude pixel loss is done. Sure pixel loss is an issue but how about we concentrate on finding out if the camera lives up to all its claims first.

As far as cost, well we all know the camera costs $17,500 so I would say it is a safe bet that the sensor would be less then that.

[doubletap1911]

click for hi-res

This camera seems to have many dead pixels. The screen shot was taken from Discovery HD: Live From The International Space Station