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