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 <[email protected]> wrote: > love this! > > > On 20. Nov 2019, at 07:53, Scott Dorsey <[email protected]> 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 > > [email protected] > > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > _______________________________________________ > FrameWorks mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
