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 <klu...@panix.com> > To: frameworks@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 <j...@kinetta.com> > To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks@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 > j...@kinetta.com > kinetta.com > > Sent from iPhone. > > > On Nov 20, 2019, at 9:53 AM, Scott Dorsey <klu...@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@jonasmekasfilms.com > > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: alena williams <al...@lowculture.com> > To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks@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 <klu...@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@jonasmekasfilms.com > > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Eric Theise <ericthe...@gmail.com> > To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks@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 <al...@lowculture.com> > wrote: > >> love this! >> >> > On 20. Nov 2019, at 07:53, Scott Dorsey <klu...@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@jonasmekasfilms.com >> > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >> _______________________________________________ >> FrameWorks mailing list >> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com >> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: mariah garnett <mariah.garn...@gmail.com> > To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks@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@jonasmekasfilms.com > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
