According to Kodak airplane travel destroys your digital camera

Started Jul 2, 2011 | Discussions thread
Deleted1929 Forum Pro • Posts: 13,050
Real science and how to use it

Keep in mind you are claiming that air transportation makes a significant increase in the likelihood of defects.

One by one, here is why you have presented no proof. In fact you have actually provided the opposite, as one document explicitly requires time scales of tens of thousands of hours, and one states explicitly that the cameras involved in the study produced stunning imagery despite the defects.

Document One - JAI's Tech note

This is a brief tech not describing only the effect of certain types of defects that can arise during storage. It is not a scientific paper that has been peer reviewed and sites no such material. But let's assume we accept their limited claims.

The primary point to note about this is that these defects can occur at ground level as well as during air transportation. The relatively short time period for transportation is completely swamped by the much, much larger time the equipment will exist at ground level. As a consequence the effect of air transport is actually negligible in a practical sense. In order for air transport to make a real difference defect rates would have to be huge.

As I understand this it actually states that defects need not be major. but can simply result in a slight signal offset. There is no claim it would affect photographic images in a significant way. In fact I think normal hardware level noise reduction methods would more than overcome this effect in photography applications.

Document Two - A private paper related to long term defect growth

Bare in mind that again there is no evidence this paper has been published or peer reviewed in any way. That sort of material would never be accepted as scientific proof. Again let's assume the statements are true anyway.

All the paper actually says is that defects probability grows with time. And the time scales are in the tens of thousands of hours and above level. Each 10k hours is over a year ! The significance of these defects in photographic images is not discussed, but common sense will tell you that single pixel defects are not significant in any but the most extreme display scenarios. The defect rates rise when prolonged exposure at high altitude is examined, but that, again requires the kind of 10k+ hour time scales being discussed. Again the overall time scales and level of defects makes this irrelevant in any practical sense to your point.

I might also draw your attention to the distinction between transient ( temporary ) hot spots per image frame, and permanent defects - stuck pixels to be simplistic.

I'd actually regard this as the closest of all the documents to scientific papers, although the lack of proof of peer review would block it's acceptance.

Document Three - Alleged NASA Research

Actually some kind of bullet pointed presentation, without any citations, references, figures and absolutely no resemblance to a research paper in any way. No evidence it has even been presented to NASA in a formal sense and enough misspellings to suggest it hasn't.

Even if I ignored those facts all it describes is HD imaging systems in orbital scenarios, which is a vastly more hostile radiation environment that commercial aircraft, let alone ground level.

So combined as a whole your references not only do not prove your point, they actually disprove it in a practical photographic context !

-- hide signature --


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow