According to Kodak airplane travel destroys your digital camera

Started Jul 2, 2011 | Discussions thread
Joseph S Wisniewski Forum Pro • Posts: 34,294
And debunked, yesterday...

Aku Ankka wrote:

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

samWebster123 wrote:

Can't get better proof than this Joe

http://www.harvestimaging.com/...90_2005_dec_IEDM_terrestrial_cosmic_rays.pdf

ERROR 404 - PAGE NOT FOUND

Hi Joseph,

Hi Aku...

DPR seems to do something ugly to URLs. The link he wanted to provid is in the domain http://harvestimaging.com/
and in there at /pubdocs/090_2005_dec_IEDM_terrestrial_cosmic_rays.pdf

OK, got it. He posted that one earlier that day, in a different link. It's hard to tell with Sam, because he posts the same links over and over and over again, in his attempts to create the impression that there's actually the "lots of" research that he claimed.

The first time he posted this one, several people, myself included, thoroughly debunked it.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=38831113

(A highly recommended blog by Albert Theuwissen on that site, btw.)

Thanks. I'll check it out.

According to the paper terrestial cosmic rays do have some effect on creating dead pixels. A round trip by plane from Belgium to Tokyo (roughly 24h total) equals to about 100 days on sea level. Experiments at storing at high altitudes and deep underground were also performed.

Actually, according to that paper, they don't have an effect.

The author of the paper sent his sensors on two different trips, at different altitudes, and there was essentially identical results, the same degradation, or, to quote the author "effects can not be separated from the experimental results,"

In other words, he subjected two devices to two entirely different levels of cosmic ray exposure and yet got the same result from both. So, it's pretty obvious that, if the level of degradation is totally independent of the level of cosmic ray exposure, that the cosmic ray exposure was not the cause of the degradation observed. It's obviously something that was constant between the two experiments, his handling of the devices, the scans that they were subjected to by airport security, it's unknown.

That's apparently why the paper is not peer reviewed or published. The author admits it's something he cooked up in his basement. Not necessarily a "bad thing", I've had research published that started off in my basement, but I'm betting his basement isn't like mine, with 6 lab benches, an anechoic chamber, and as many as 3 technicians working on projects.

Now, for consumers this in crease in hot pixels is of course irrelevant. I don't know if in some professional imaging fields equipment is constantly being transported, but if it is, then there may be some significance in the long run for some.

If the equipment is constantly being transported, it's a good indication that it's paying for itself, and is still saving the equipment's users a lot of money over film (which also gets fogged by airport security procedures).

However, those are the sort of people who would be most likely to complain about equipment problems, in places where they'd be heard at high levels, and there appears to be a rather profound lack of complaints...

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 Nikon Z7 +45 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
tko
Izu
Izu
Izu
Izu
(unknown member)
Izu
Izu
Izu
(unknown member)
Izu
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow