[Frameworks] X-Ray motion-pictures

Thu Nov 21 14:31:33 UTC 2019

Hi Scott and Eric,
Thanks a lot for your kind replies. So much information there!
Really appreciate taking the time to answer in depth, Scott, this is a
fascinating topic.
I'll go scouting for cardiologists here that may have this technology and
would be willing to help. Let's see if I can delve further into this for my
next film...

All my best,
Diana
--
diana vidrascu
www.dianavidrascu.com

>
> From: Scott Dorsey <kludge at panix.com>
> To: frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 10:53:49 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] X-Ray motion-pictures
> Okay, old guy tells stories.
>
>
> Back in the twenties and thirties, doctors would employ open fluoroscopes,
> with an X-ray source behind the patient and a fluorescent screen in front
> of them.  X-rays passing through the patient would cause the screen to
> illuminate and the doctor could see what was going on inside in realtime.
>
> Many of the old classic sequences that still show up in educational films
> such as the man eating and man voicing different vowels and consonants,
> were shot off the screen of an open fluoroscope.
>
> This approach has some problems.... namely it takes a lot of radiation to
> get a nice bright image, and all of that radiation (not just the
> backscatter)
> is pointed at the doctor.  So although you can see open fluoroscopes in old
> movies where W.C. Fields has swallowed his cigar, you will not see them in
> use today.
>
> Because doctors needed to see movement and didn't want to irradiate
> themselves
> constantly, a number of manufacturers made cinefluoroscope systems with a
> Mitchell or Acme 35mm pin-registered camera movement, a very fast lens,
> and a fluorescent screen all in one package.  The high speed Leitz Noctilux
> lenses were originally designed for these applications.
>
> These were in common use for heart imaging until maybe a decade ago, and
> if you are looking for a film image you may be able to find cardiological
> radiologists around with a film cineangography system.  These systems all
> provide full aperture 35mm images.  So if you want 16mm you'd have to get
> the lab to bump it down.
>
> All of these systems today have been replaced with high resolution video
> systems.  The nice thing about the video systems is that they result in
> less radiation to the patient because the light sensor is faster than
> Tri-X.
> These systems are small and convenient enough that some cardiologists will
> have their own system rather than contracting it out to a radiologist.
> The bad thing about them is that they tend to have more smear on motion
> than the film systems because of the longer persistence phosphors.
>
> Now... if you don't need to deal with human beings, you can pour a whole
> lot more radiation into the object.  There are a bunch of fairly
> inexpensive
> X-ray inspection systems for PC boards that give you realtime video with
> decent resolution.  Not very high energy radiation since they just need to
> be looking at thin board traces for the most part.
>
> So... if I were looking to rent some time on a machine, I would ask a
> cardiologist if they could recommend a local radiology guy, or I would
> talk to PC board fab people, depending on whether I was looking at people
> or objects.  I have only done static x-rays, not moving ones, and there
> aren't a lot of folks doing moving ones artistically today so it could be
> really cool.
> --scott
>
>
> lens was originally designed
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jeff Kreines <jeff at kinetta.com>
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:57:47 -0600
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] X-Ray motion-pictures
> Great post, old-timer!
>
> Jeff Kreines
> Kinetta
> jeff at kinetta.com
> kinetta.com
>
> Sent from iPhone.
>
> > On Nov 20, 2019, at 9:53 AM, Scott Dorsey <kludge at panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > Okay, old guy tells stories.
> >
> >
> > Back in the twenties and thirties, doctors would employ open
> fluoroscopes,
> > with an X-ray source behind the patient and a fluorescent screen in front
> > of them.  X-rays passing through the patient would cause the screen to
> > illuminate and the doctor could see what was going on inside in realtime.
> >
> > Many of the old classic sequences that still show up in educational films
> > such as the man eating and man voicing different vowels and consonants,
> > were shot off the screen of an open fluoroscope.
> >
> > This approach has some problems.... namely it takes a lot of radiation to
> > get a nice bright image, and all of that radiation (not just the
> backscatter)
> > is pointed at the doctor.  So although you can see open fluoroscopes in
> old
> > movies where W.C. Fields has swallowed his cigar, you will not see them
> in
> > use today.
> >
> > Because doctors needed to see movement and didn't want to irradiate
> themselves
> > constantly, a number of manufacturers made cinefluoroscope systems with
> a
> > Mitchell or Acme 35mm pin-registered camera movement, a very fast lens,
> > and a fluorescent screen all in one package.  The high speed Leitz
> Noctilux
> > lenses were originally designed for these applications.
> >
> > These were in common use for heart imaging until maybe a decade ago, and
> > if you are looking for a film image you may be able to find cardiological
> > radiologists around with a film cineangography system.  These systems all
> > provide full aperture 35mm images.  So if you want 16mm you'd have to get
> > the lab to bump it down.
> >
> > All of these systems today have been replaced with high resolution video
> > systems.  The nice thing about the video systems is that they result in
> > less radiation to the patient because the light sensor is faster than
> Tri-X.
> > These systems are small and convenient enough that some cardiologists
> will
> > have their own system rather than contracting it out to a radiologist.
> > The bad thing about them is that they tend to have more smear on motion
> > than the film systems because of the longer persistence phosphors.
> >
> > Now... if you don't need to deal with human beings, you can pour a whole
> > lot more radiation into the object.  There are a bunch of fairly
> inexpensive
> > X-ray inspection systems for PC boards that give you realtime video with
> > decent resolution.  Not very high energy radiation since they just need
> to
> > be looking at thin board traces for the most part.
> >
> > So... if I were looking to rent some time on a machine, I would ask a
> > cardiologist if they could recommend a local radiology guy, or I would
> > talk to PC board fab people, depending on whether I was looking at people
> > or objects.  I have only done static x-rays, not moving ones, and there
> > aren't a lot of folks doing moving ones artistically today so it could be
> > really cool.
> > --scott
> >
> >
> > lens was originally designed
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > FrameWorks mailing list
> > FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: alena williams <alena at lowculture.com>
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 08:26:07 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] X-Ray motion-pictures
> love this!
>
> > On 20. Nov 2019, at 07:53, Scott Dorsey <kludge at panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > Okay, old guy tells stories.
> >
> >
> > Back in the twenties and thirties, doctors would employ open
> fluoroscopes,
> > with an X-ray source behind the patient and a fluorescent screen in front
> > of them.  X-rays passing through the patient would cause the screen to
> > illuminate and the doctor could see what was going on inside in realtime.
> >
> > Many of the old classic sequences that still show up in educational films
> > such as the man eating and man voicing different vowels and consonants,
> > were shot off the screen of an open fluoroscope.
> >
> > This approach has some problems.... namely it takes a lot of radiation to
> > get a nice bright image, and all of that radiation (not just the
> backscatter)
> > is pointed at the doctor.  So although you can see open fluoroscopes in
> old
> > movies where W.C. Fields has swallowed his cigar, you will not see them
> in
> > use today.
> >
> > Because doctors needed to see movement and didn't want to irradiate
> themselves
> > constantly, a number of manufacturers made cinefluoroscope systems with
> a
> > Mitchell or Acme 35mm pin-registered camera movement, a very fast lens,
> > and a fluorescent screen all in one package.  The high speed Leitz
> Noctilux
> > lenses were originally designed for these applications.
> >
> > These were in common use for heart imaging until maybe a decade ago, and
> > if you are looking for a film image you may be able to find cardiological
> > radiologists around with a film cineangography system.  These systems all
> > provide full aperture 35mm images.  So if you want 16mm you'd have to get
> > the lab to bump it down.
> >
> > All of these systems today have been replaced with high resolution video
> > systems.  The nice thing about the video systems is that they result in
> > less radiation to the patient because the light sensor is faster than
> Tri-X.
> > These systems are small and convenient enough that some cardiologists
> will
> > have their own system rather than contracting it out to a radiologist.
> > The bad thing about them is that they tend to have more smear on motion
> > than the film systems because of the longer persistence phosphors.
> >
> > Now... if you don't need to deal with human beings, you can pour a whole
> > lot more radiation into the object.  There are a bunch of fairly
> inexpensive
> > X-ray inspection systems for PC boards that give you realtime video with
> > decent resolution.  Not very high energy radiation since they just need
> to
> > be looking at thin board traces for the most part.
> >
> > So... if I were looking to rent some time on a machine, I would ask a
> > cardiologist if they could recommend a local radiology guy, or I would
> > talk to PC board fab people, depending on whether I was looking at people
> > or objects.  I have only done static x-rays, not moving ones, and there
> > aren't a lot of folks doing moving ones artistically today so it could be
> > really cool.
> > --scott
> >
> >
> > lens was originally designed
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > FrameWorks mailing list
> > FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Eric Theise <erictheise at gmail.com>
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 08:40:26 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] X-Ray motion-pictures
> Since Diana also asked for examples I'll chime in with the most obvious:
> Barbara Hammer's Sanctus which reworked James Sibley Watson's archival
> x-ray footage.
>
>
> http://www.scienceandfilm.org/articles/2710/barbara-hammer-and-the-x-rays-of-james-sibley-watson
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 8:26 AM alena williams <alena at lowculture.com>
> wrote:
>
>> love this!
>>
>> > On 20. Nov 2019, at 07:53, Scott Dorsey <kludge at panix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Okay, old guy tells stories.
>> >
>> >
>> > Back in the twenties and thirties, doctors would employ open
>> fluoroscopes,
>> > with an X-ray source behind the patient and a fluorescent screen in
>> front
>> > of them.  X-rays passing through the patient would cause the screen to
>> > illuminate and the doctor could see what was going on inside in
>> realtime.
>> >
>> > Many of the old classic sequences that still show up in educational
>> films
>> > such as the man eating and man voicing different vowels and consonants,
>> > were shot off the screen of an open fluoroscope.
>> >
>> > This approach has some problems.... namely it takes a lot of radiation
>> to
>> > get a nice bright image, and all of that radiation (not just the
>> backscatter)
>> > is pointed at the doctor.  So although you can see open fluoroscopes in
>> old
>> > movies where W.C. Fields has swallowed his cigar, you will not see them
>> in
>> > use today.
>> >
>> > Because doctors needed to see movement and didn't want to irradiate
>> themselves
>> > constantly, a number of manufacturers made cinefluoroscope systems with
>> a
>> > Mitchell or Acme 35mm pin-registered camera movement, a very fast lens,
>> > and a fluorescent screen all in one package.  The high speed Leitz
>> Noctilux
>> > lenses were originally designed for these applications.
>> >
>> > These were in common use for heart imaging until maybe a decade ago, and
>> > if you are looking for a film image you may be able to find
>> cardiological
>> > radiologists around with a film cineangography system.  These systems
>> all
>> > provide full aperture 35mm images.  So if you want 16mm you'd have to
>> get
>> > the lab to bump it down.
>> >
>> > All of these systems today have been replaced with high resolution video
>> > systems.  The nice thing about the video systems is that they result in
>> > less radiation to the patient because the light sensor is faster than
>> Tri-X.
>> > These systems are small and convenient enough that some cardiologists
>> will
>> > have their own system rather than contracting it out to a radiologist.
>> > The bad thing about them is that they tend to have more smear on motion
>> > than the film systems because of the longer persistence phosphors.
>> >
>> > Now... if you don't need to deal with human beings, you can pour a whole
>> > lot more radiation into the object.  There are a bunch of fairly
>> inexpensive
>> > X-ray inspection systems for PC boards that give you realtime video with
>> > decent resolution.  Not very high energy radiation since they just need
>> to
>> > be looking at thin board traces for the most part.
>> >
>> > So... if I were looking to rent some time on a machine, I would ask a
>> > cardiologist if they could recommend a local radiology guy, or I would
>> > talk to PC board fab people, depending on whether I was looking at
>> people
>> > or objects.  I have only done static x-rays, not moving ones, and there
>> > aren't a lot of folks doing moving ones artistically today so it could
>> be
>> > really cool.
>> > --scott
>> >
>> >
>> > lens was originally designed
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > FrameWorks mailing list
>> > FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
>> > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: mariah garnett <mariah.garnett at gmail.com>
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 10:09:07 -0800
> Subject: [Frameworks] Bolex Repair in LA
> Hi!
> I'm looking for people in LA who can repair a bolex. It looks like a
> fairly simple fix - the piece that snaps into the takeup daylight spool (in
> the middle) came off, but the takeup motor is still working. I tried to
> snap it back in myself but no dice.
>
> Any ideas?
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20191121/cfee01fb/attachment.html>