• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Dual mode gambit simulation   scale study
 

Dual mode gambit simulation scale study

on

  • 632 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
632
Views on SlideShare
632
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Dual mode gambit simulation   scale study Dual mode gambit simulation scale study Document Transcript

    • el 111F-069415i01-79 -SEGRIETIGAVIIANDLE VIA BYEMAN CONTROL mono FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT 1 JULY 1979 DUAL MODE GAMBIT SIMULATIONSCALE STUDY 1111111111Mis RT DATA ENTERED DATE MICROFICI4ED DATE NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION: UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL SANCTIONS WARNING NOTICE: SENSITIVE INTELLIGENCE SOURCES AND METHODS INVOLVED DERIVATIVE C : Y: BYE-1 99 R EVIEW: .1 J DERIVED F -1 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE DECLASSIFIED BY: C / IART DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY• 2013 4EGRERG/ HI/HANDLE VIA NYMAN CONTROL SYSTEM 17
    • BIF-059W-15101-T9 4EGRIETIG/11/11ANDUI VIA WOMAN CONTROL SYSTEM NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 71 Total no. of pages 1.(IP °IV Copy no. n FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT 1 JULY 1979 DUAL MODE GAMBIT SIMULATIONSCALE STUDY 1111111111mi 3 NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION: UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL SANCTIONS • WARNING NOTICE: SENSITIVE INTELLIGENCE SOURCES AND METHODS INVOLVED DERIVATIVE CL BY: BYE-1 REVIEW: 1 JULY 1999 DERIVED FROM: BYE-1 —SEGREF/G/H/NANOUI VIA IMAM CONTROL SYSTEM 8P9-7 o15
    • BIF•059W-15101-79 TAGRET4G/ H/FIAN DLE VIA BYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM CONTENTS Introduction 1-1 Task Summary . 2-1 image Data Base 3.1 Simulation Geometry 3.2 Target Array 3.3 Mumination Conditions • • OOOOOOOOOO • 3.4 Image Motion 3.5 Camera 3.6 Film 3.7 Final Photography • • . • 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-2 3-2 3-3 3-3 3-4 Image Quality Experiments ,• • 4.1 Film 90-209 4.2 Film SO-208 . . . OO . OOO . ........ . • • • • • • • 4.3 Film SO-112 4.4 Smear Model Analysis 4.5 Extended Altitude and Format Analysis 4-1 4-4 4-5 4-8 4-7 4-8 Recommendations ... . ......... . . • • 5.1 Solar Altitude "Versus Quality for 130-112 Film . . . 5.2 Reconciliation of Do Difference 5.3 Interaction of Scale and Motion 5.4 Investigation of Operational Performance . . . . . . . . . 5.5. Contrast Versus Quality. ... . . . ... . . ... 5.6 interaction of Scale and Obliquity ... . . . .... . . . 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-2 5-2 • ' • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . • • • • , . • • Annotated Briefing . . ... . ........ . . .. . . Appendix A — Scale Study Imagery 8-1 A-1 Appendix B -- Scale Study Target Array Appendix C Rating /Log GRD . . . . . . • • • • • • B-1 C-1 -SEGRETIG/H/HANDLE VIA BYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013
    • BIF-059W-15101-79 —SEGREIFIG/WHANCILE VIA BYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM. FIGURES 4-1 Basic Experimental Flow Chart 4-2 Complete Set of Image Experiments Flow Chart . • TABLES 3-1 Net Photographic Scales . . . . 34 3-2 Processing/Duplication Specifications . . . . ..... . . . . 3-3 3-3 Condition Matrix . . . .... . ......... . . . . . . . . . . 3-4 4- 1 Rating Loss • "frEe7RETIG/11/HANoLi VIA BYEMAN CONTROL *wail NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013
    • BIF-059W-15101-79 -SEVIEWG/H/ HANDLE VIA STEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM 1. INTRODUCTION The scale study work was prompted by the potential use of the Gambit system in a dual mode, both in its present configuration as a surveillance system and to extend its capabilities to a search system. The dual mode, requirement was for the imagery to achieve a NIERS 4 rating at an altitude of 350 miles. The influence on performance of film type, illumination conditions, scale, and system dynamics were factors that had to be considered. The initial approach was to solve the problem analytically. That study indicated the search mode would achieve the required performance level. To confirm the analytical results, the scale study was designed to estimate performance based on assessment of simulation imagery by the actual users—photointerpreters. Two films were chosen for this study, 80 .209 and 80-112. Requirements were for resolution limits considerably greater than 80-208 and appropriate GRD at 350 miles to get a =RS 4 rating. 80-209 is the slower of the films and its anticipated application would be during the summer. The greater energy level during that part of the year would minimize exposure times and consequently reduce the amount of image motion. SO-112. was intended for wintertime use, since it is a faster film than 80-209, although. its resolution is less. • A major consideration of the simulation work was the selection of scales:to give a • reasonable incrementation both in scale and rating. The boundaries were essentially determined by. the two modes of operation, eurveillance and search. As a linear relationship exists between rating and log GRD, the spacing of the scale intervals was determined in a log scale domain to give uniform incrementation. The rating information generated can be applied to find an expected rating at a specific scale or used in the future with a 'statistical distribution of scale during a. mission to predict an average rating level. • ••• The scope of this project (for each film) was to determine if that film could perform the mission. This judgment would be based on achievement of a NIERS 4 rating for the search mode.. Accordingly, PI rating experiments were designed to assess the impact of scale on quality.. However, under similar acquisition parameters, absolute ratings of simulation and operational imagery can vary, but within an .expertment, differences in rating between images' are accurate. Therefore, a third film, 90-208, was 'included in the experimental desigri to serve as a reference: point for 80-209, and 80-112. Operational quality levels are known for 80-208 and in the experimental context, the 80-208 ratings can serve as a baseline comparison for the other films. The scale study analysed the suitability of 80-209 and 80-112 for their respective winter. and summer acquisitions applications. The question of.whether these films could perform the' mission was to be answered on the bests of the NI11113 rating level achieved. It should be emphasized that the study was not intended to select films. Imagery exists for such a taak, ' but the scope of the scale study was to determine the performance levels, of 80-112'and,80-209 films. -sEeRETIG/H/HANDLp VIA STEMMA CONTROL warm .14 NRO APPROVED. FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013
    • BIF-059W-15101-79 "elEeRETIG/H/HANDLE vIA BYERIAN CONTROL SYSTEM 2. TASK SUMMARY The basic objective of the scale study analysis was to investigate the rate of change of quality with scale. Within this framework, the specific effects of solar altitude, aerial contrast, and image motion were examined to provide exposure recommendations and performance predicNone of several films. The following tasks are performed to: Determine the rate of change of quality with scale through contrast for S0-209 film at a 34-degree solar altitude for three aerial contrasts, zero motion, and best exposure. Determine the rate of change of quality with scale through contrast for S0-112 film at a 19-degree solar altitude for three aerial contrasts, zero motion, and best exposure. • Determine the rate of change of quality with scale through contrast for 80-208 film at a 34-degree solar altitude for three aerial contrasts, zero motion, and best exposure to provide a quality baseline for comparison with 80-209 and 80-112 films. Determine the effect of motion and exposure on image quality and provide exposure recommendations for 80-209 and 80-112 films for 0.1 atmospheric transmission at 34- and 19-degree solar altitudes, respectively. • ' To accomplish these tasks, the scale study comprised two programs. The initial phase was to design and produce an image data base with the appropriate acquisition *parameters. Then, utilizing this photography, a series of image quality experiments were performed to analyze the effect of scale on quality and to provide recommendations for operational exposures. 271 RAGREWG/HiNANDLE VIA BYEMAN CONTROL STSTINA NRO APPROVED FOR. RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: CSART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013
    • BIF-059W-15101-79 • . SEGIREWG/H/HA L VIA-13YEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM ND E . IMAGE DATA. BASE The scale study imagery was produced at the Image Simulation Facility in conjunction with the Five Film Study photography. ‘The . total set comprises more than 24,000 iMagea taken under • awide variety of conditioM4 . Film type, illumination, image motion, exposure, amtpbotograPhic. • scale were all varied during the 'photography.- Selection of the imaging paraMetert was based On . the systems being simulated and the .tasks to..be performed... 'Descriptions the simulation. para-' meters and .amatrix of the acquisition parameters follow. . : • - • • ... 3.1 SIMULATION GEOMETRY The acquisition geometry requirements were basically those fOr the previous Three Film Study. Camera orientation simulated a platform moving northto south.operating in the aft mode with 10-degree pitch and 15-degree roll requirements, resulting in a net camera look angle of 18 degrees. The latitude specifications were 55 and . 70 'degrees north, and based upon the Three. Film Study analysis, correspond to sun angles of 34. and 19 degrees and sun azimuths of .162 and • 164 degrees, respectively. A third sun position was established at a 45-degree solar altitude and 159-degree azimuth from true north and provides another typical acquisition condition for both . systems. The net image motion direction was set to have an in-track to.croaa-track retie of 5: 7. The test pattern array was:rotated so that the four principal resolution targets had their .etementa aligned along in-track and cross-track direCtions, and the OB targets .were. rotated so that the . * . motion direction would be approximately 45 degrees to their long axes. • 3.2 TARGET ARRAY The target array used in the scale study consisted of selected air and ground order-ofbattle objects surrounded by several test patterns. Four scale models of the MiG-25 Foxbat were used; the 1 :87, 1 :100, and 1:150 scales being purchased in Idt form 'while n 1: 48 scale model was constructed using the J.: 87 scale aircraft as a pattern. These planes were painted to achieve a nominal 38 percent reflectance and were positioned on background of 25 percent reflectance. In addition, realistic insignia were added to the AOB. Ifodels of the 811-85 task destroyer (at 1: 50 and 1:87 scale) were also included in the scene, being 14 percent reflectance on an 8 percent background. Two lenses were used in the data base production, a 13- and 5.5- millimeter Switar. The reduction ratio at which a lens is operated and the model scale of a target combine to produce a net simulated scale. For example, a 1:150 model scale denotes the ratio of model size to real object size. At the Simulation Facility, the 13-min lens was used at a 1:769 redaction, image size to model size. When the 1:150 target was photographed with the. 13-mm /Niter, the slinu- lated scale is 1:115,000, image size to real object size. Table 3-1 lista the models in the target array and the resultant simulated scales. 3EVIEWG/11/HANDLE VIA EYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM 4 NRO. APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY C/IART I DECLASSIFIED. ON 10 JANUARY 2013
    • BIF-059W-15101-79 —SEGRETIG/H/HANDLE VIA BYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM Test patterns included in the target array were: Six 1951 USAF resolution targets Log periodic target Two VEM edge targets Double annulus ring target 5. Etieman's star target. A ground truth photograph of the target array is contained in Appendix B. Table 3-1—Simulated Scales Model AOB Scale A C GOB A 1:48 1:72 1: 100 1:150 1:87 1:150 Simulated Scale, x1,000, 13 mm Simulated Scale, x1,000, 5.5 mm (769 x reduction) (1748 x reduction) 37 84 126 55 77 175 116 ' 262. 67 115 152 262 3.3 ILLUMINATION-CONDITIONS • Aerial contrast and the sun-to-sky ratio for typical acquisition conditions were provided by another contractor. The initial phase of data base production involved the set-up and calibration of these illumination conditions. • The procedure involves determination of the effect of each of.. . the illumination parameters, atm, sky, and base, utilising photometric measurements. From this, a set of aim voltage settings for the lighting are derived, for each aerial contrast/sun-sky ratio condition. Subsequently, the film is used as a radiance sensor by : photographing Uniform reflectance. patches through an exposure range aid measuring the transmission denalties. of the processed iinagery. The resultant aerial contrast aid sun-sky ratio are calculated through • senaltometric comparisons, and voltage corrections can be made if required. TMs method was proven effective as measurements of the aerial contrast and su&sky ratio in the final imagery were on the average *Min 5 percent, of the aim specification... 3.4 IMAGE MOTION Image motion is simulated by introducing motion at the target plane during exposure. Both the type and magnitude of motion can be varied to simulate actual acquisition condition. Linear, sinusoidal, and rapid deceleration motion at levels from 0 to 16 micrometers in the image plane . • • are available. . . . • . In the scale study, linear motion levels of 0, 2, 4, 8, .and 18 micrometers were used during the photography. It necessary to modify the motion apparatus- to simulate•equal magnitudes of motion Withthe two Unties used in the scale photography:. Because the motion is introduced in. • the objectplane, the shorter focal length Ions required a greater relative movement to produce • the 'same amount of image plane motion as the longer lens. A0 additional' lever arm was pnitimied.. in the rod connecting the motion drive to the model. • • - .• 3-2 43EGRETiani/HANDLE VIA SYEMAN CONTROL SWIM NRO APPROVED FOR. RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013
    • BIF-059W-15101-79 -SEGRETIG/WHANDLE VIA SYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM 3.5 CAMERA • The Markin camera was designed and fabricated for the simulation facility, and allows for precise replication of photographic parameters. A wide variety of 70-millimeterrwidth materials are accepted by this camera. During exposure, a vacuum platen holds the film flat against three reference pins that define a repeatable focal plane.' The lens is moved' relative to the film plane by a differential micrometerto.-provide small focus changes. The lens mount has three-point suspension to allow alignment of the:ptical axis to the Sim plane. An electronic shutter and filter holder are positioned in front of the lens. A laser technique is used to align the film .plane, optical axis; and the ebject/model plane center. The alignment is verified by test photography of a resolution target array. - . • To provide the range of scale required for this study, 13- and 5.5-millbneter.Switar lenses were used. kal, and resolution measurements indicated the quality of the two lenses to be wont-. nally equivalent. 3.6 FILM The imagery was processed and duped according to operational. specilicationec A wide range of printing levels was used to ensure the optimum dupe . exposure was available fOr each level of original negative exposure: Table 9-2 lists the processing/duplication specifications for the scale • study films. Table 9-2 — Processing/Duplication Specifications Film Developer Prpcess Duplication '.Film SO-209 80-112 190-209 41 DN-V 40 DN-V 19' DN-V Yardleigh Yardleigh Yardleigh . SO-332 SO-332 SO-192 -91EeRET/G/H/NANDLE VIA STEMAN CONTROL 3-3 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013
    • BIF-059W-15101-79 -SEGRIETIG/ HI/HANDLE VIA DUMAN CONTROL SYSTEM 3.7 FINAL PHOTOGRAPHY Table 3-3 presents a matrix summary of the conditions under which the target array was photographed. Three duplicate exposures were made at each eitposure . . Also included in the data base are the images of large (4 x 4 feet) paint patches of known reflectances. These patches were photographed at each illumination condition and provide references foraerial . contrast and sun-sky. ratio calculations and for tonal transfer analysis. Table 3-3 - Condition Matrix [Solar altitude Illumination cone mow [Aerial contrast (A/C) and sun/sky (SA ) ratios] for each film A/C 2.27 1.92 1.63 Film S/E1 8.0131 {209 112 3.39 1.88 315 19 Degrees 45 Degrees 34 Degrees A/C VS 2.38 8.37 Film 209 112 315 Linear smear 0i 2t 4 s 8 , 16 micrometers 0, 2, 4, 8 18 Micrometers' Exposure range (8t0P10 +2, +1, +1/2, 0,' -1/2, -1, -2 4, +1, +1/2, 0, -1/2, -1, -2 Scales (x1,000) 3-4 A/C 1.92 1.83 1.41 WS Film 2.55 } {209 1.21 112 0.44 315 0, 2, 4, 8, . 18 micrometers +2, +1, +1/2, 0, -1/2, -1, • MTh: 37, 55, 77, 84, 115, 128, 175, 262 GOB: 87, 115, 152, 282 "eEeREWG/H/HANDu VIA STEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON 10 JANUARY 2013
    • BIF-059W-15101-79 SECREWG/ H/HANDLE VIA BYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM / — 4. IMAGE QUALITY EXPERIMENTS There were two types of questions addressed by the scale study. One dealt with the deter-. mination of the rate of change of quality. With scale and the other with the recommendation of an optimum exposure in the presence of system motion. These correspond to, in an experimental context, a scale change experiment and an exposure motion tradeoff experiment (EMTO). Three films, 80-208, 80-112, and 80-209 were involved in the scale change experiments. For each film, preliminary experiments were performed to select the best duplicate printing level per ON exposure and then the best ON exposure per atmosphere. When completed, the effect of scale on quality was tested through scale at three aerial contrasts. Two EMTO experiments were conducted, one each for 90-112 and 80-209 films. For these, only the best duplication printing level per original negative (ON) exposure needed to be selected prior to the EMTO experiment. The tradeoff analysis was performed at one scale and one aerial contrast for seven ON exposures and four motion magnitudes. Fig. 4-1 outlines the basic experimental flow chart. Optimum duplication determination serves a dual purpose as it is the first quality experiment for both the scale change and EMTO analyses. The latter analysis follows immediately; but in the scale change.work,•the optimum ON exposure must be determined first. Several measurement programs were also carried out on the imagery.. Quantification of aerial contrast and sun/sky ratio values required densitometry. Both macro and micro readings Were necessary to confirm equivalence of the illumination parameters for the 13. and 5.5millimeter lenses. In addition, -the density measurements are essential to relate simulation to operational exposures. Resolution readings of the targets surrounding the model array were made to assess the performance of each lens in the final photography seta. These measurements verified that both lenses were operating at comparable levels. The processed original negatives were each printed through a wide range of duplication policies to ensure that the optimum printing level was obtained for each of the ON eziwatusea. For each film, the initial step involved phototechnologist-screening of the available duplicates. Rank-order method was used to select the best four or five policies per ON exposure out of st dozen or more candidates. The chosen policies are then incorporated into eyed:mints for photointerpreter evaluation. The complete set of scale study image experiments are shown in Fig. 4-2. Essentially, they are the flow plan of Fig. 4-1 replicated for the three Bias. Alterationito the basic plan are that no =TO was necessary for•80-208 and the additional BMW shown for 80-112 . (experiment 832-12) was performed for the Five Film Study. In addition, a quality comparison among the three films was performed (experiment 632-14). A summary of the experiments, categorized by films, follows. SEeRETIG/HAANOLIE VIA 1WEIAAN maim SYSTEM, 4-1 NRO APPROVED. FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013
    • BIF-059W-15101-79 —SEGRET/G/ HI/HANDLE VIA BYEMAN.CONTROL SYSTEM intro annlYvis Optimum ON exposure determination 1 Scale change experiment Fig, 4-i — Baste experimental flow. chart 4-2 —SEGRENG/H/IIANDLE VIA BYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013
    • • • • ratINFTS-5 PI ratios . 04/3111:141, Completed Ofis . re Aistorstisol sms for sock ON exposers of_the 36SAON at the 34' S. AN across 3 A/C with the 13 ms WM. PT nu* Completed 10/76 Owl tote Policy Wumshatioe DATA MASS Coupartisi ttod 1/71 etod 1/71 1 632-13 Completed 1/71 rtat, latu Ostorstair rots of champ of qmsliAT with scale drew azattrialtat• 8 stales tin S.A611 .1134/C.4". ode ea 1104101 • Ssillicted Careionsi (21 chips) tem ilotermilttlar. °Pt MVO Thm best most be wlstd for loos at much A/C (3) with -se estios6 ' • . 632-10 le; 1 sittfie --•• I apartments •••• .0" (Minty bess '• among 1041 1. SO-209. sad 914814.3 A/C. 1:378 scale • MOM 631-14 Wito limesnoilirre The bast On oust he —TecTs71 for as se (AM) with no mates at the 1:378 scale 111=1112Lai. 432-9 lm _ TI-EsMg thm1:41)11 Completed 1/ga pal: Optimum SO-111 DATA iASE 632-7 1,1-rmak-order Sabolttod 61/78 ccipletsd 11/78 chips) sitthe saporimemk. Solmdtted 12/78 1.92 A/C; ad 0-16u motion EXPIRMIATION: 632-12 scale; IS' trairoCr emposeretNaton i .(40 chips) BOTO Way% 14S A08.at the S.A.; 21 1?... Duplicate Policy Istarsdastios OES4RIPT104: (Othaum act las determined for each ON of the 36% 1102 at 19° S.A. across 3 A/C and 2 loses. ) Fig. 4-2 — Complete set of image experiments flow chart ' 11611Milheoptum ALS: . SO-20Y (2414) . Su1mitted 12/71 Completed 12/78 Igt: Exposure/Notion iode-off 8440 a1 'Me. 1 37K scale; 11' S.A.; 360408. 1.92 A/C: sod 0-16r maim . Esimpipp 632-10 • NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON 10 JANUARY 2013 : afigirtat Eirtz).. - CdOpleAdd 10/31 rote of leag; of . chills of quality with scale dams 1051111:1:1:4118 7 scales a t ON mmosarer S.A.. 3 MC. with eo Igloo : . rallig Tmitts111/78 a , Completed 1/71 ocSCRtilM: 9110 at the 1 s1:17: mit sr 2• 21 WC: 04 me* palmiCTIOW 03241 Espoloroparitea . . osperimmats 17...1 scuba 110 Optima Lemur, Determisatlom pCscalfTiqp: The gest ON. s= fortett toes (2) at MO A/C (3) with so mattes ..••n• TASK: Duplicate Policy. Dotonsisatios bottom DP detarmlood for each ON of the 36 S woe 3441 S.A. across 3 A/C and 2 lemmasPPEADIRTATION: 632-1 ram% ardor (33 ch ips) suritesi YOB Complited 7/21 H201MTA ME SP7 PI EXPERIMENTATION- Lil
    • BIF-059W-15101-79 —SEeRETIG/H/HANDLE VIA BTEMAN CONTROL. SYSTEM 4.1 FILM 80-209 Experiment 632-1 The initial scale study experiment contained imagery from both lenses, the 115,000- and 128,000-scale AOB's from the 13- and 5.5- millimeter lenses, respectively. The reader is reminded that these scale values refer to the net simulated scale; image size to real object size. These are obtained by photographing a model (whose scale is given by model size to real object size) at a given reduction (image size to model size). The 115,000 scale resulted from the smallest model (1:150 scale) on the target array being photographed with the 13-mm lens at a 769x reduction. The 126,000 scale was realized by photographing the second largest target model (1:12 scale) at a 1,746x reduction with the 5.5-mm Swift:: The imaging conditions were identical for both lenses: 34 degrees solar altitude, 0.6 atmospheric transmittance, and zero motion. Photointerpreters were presented with a range (4-6) of duplicate printing levels for each of the seven ON exposures. For each group of DP's, the Pro rank ordered the images in quality and gave a NIIR13 rating to the best DP. The rank order data was analysed to determine the optimum duplication policies for each 80-209 exposure. Mean ratings were plotted as a function of exposure and a smoothed curve was drawn through the points. The peak of that curve indicates the optimum ON exposure and the quality levels for each scale. Nearly a full rating unit difference was shown between the two scales. The proximity of the scales, but the significant disparity in rating of the 13- and 5.5-mm images, suggested a possible difference in the quality of the two lenses. However, it was considered that the °boomers might be making a. categorical distinction between the two images. Although the simulated scales are close, the larger size of the total 13-mm lens image may have contributed to an impression of better quality. This issue was considered in the following experiment. Experiment 632-4 • Seven scales, 55,000 to 262,000, at 34-degree. solar altitude, 0.6 atmosphere, and with. zeromotion, were PI-rated in this experiment To &feet the possible categorical distinction, 197 millimeter lens imageowith 8-micrometer motion were inserted within the context Of zero-motion chips from both lenses. By doing this, observers were presented with several consecutive cases where the larger 13-millimeter lens image was of bower quality than the 5.5-millimeter lens.. • 'The intended effect was to counterbalance a rating bias due to overall image size: The result was.. a linear relationship betWeen rating and log scale. A difference still existed between 60.115,000 and 128,000 scale although the magnitude was half that found in experiment 632-1. In the other 13-4.5-milliMeter overlap, 84,000/77;000 respectively, there was not an abnormal discrepancy in rating. Later experinients. continued to bear out these relationships, which may .imply the lease , is associated with the models. . • . • " • • Experiment 832-5 Experiment 632-1 found optbnum DP and optimum. ON exposure at the 0.6 atmosphere. With reference to the PI bP preferences, optimum policies were chosen for the 0.7 and 0.5 atmospheres by PT rank-order experiments. Experiment 632-5 was a PI rating of the 0.7 and 0.5 atmospheres for the 19- and 5.5-millimeter lenses at the 84,000 and 77,000 scales, respectively.. Densitometric• and resolution measurements had previously indicated the exposures through both lenses to be virtually identical, and the results of this experiment confirmed the optimum exposures to be the same. 4-4 —SEeRETIG/Hilialloti VIA STEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013
    • BIF-059W-15101•79 -6/1EGREWG/H/HANDLE VIA sTENIAN ' C ONTROL SYSTEM Experiment 632-6 Seven scales were rated in this experiment at optimum ON exposure for three aerial contrasts to determine the rate of change of quality with scale. Again, 13-mm chips with motion were inserted to offset a rating bias. Plotting mean rating as a function of scale showed a lillear 'relationshiP with apparently no significant difference in slope for each contrast. Such. a model was.adopted and a linear regression technique using indicator. variables was used for analysis of the data The indicator variable method allows .all the data to be oiled in defining the slope•of the rating/log scale line With the effect of aerial contrast manifested by different intercepts. Three lines result from this method, the differential effects of contrast illustrated by.vertical shifts of the rating/log scale functioni (see Section 8, page 6-43). Experiment 832-11 This experiment generated the data required for the 80-209 exposure motion tradeoff. PI data was obtained at four motion magnitudes (0, 2, 4, and 8 micrometers) across seven exposures (simulation 0'* 2 stops) at the 34-degree solar altitude and 0.7 atmosphere. chi the-bards of the mOtion/exporMre rating values and a statistical model of the system dynamics, an operational. exposure recomMendation was made that compensates for the effect of system motion. • • Optimum ON exposure is found frOm the peak of the zero-motion curve: However,- the rating data was based on a target' of 36 percent reflectance on a 25 percent background, but the average operational target reflectance is 12 percent. The peak exposure determined from the experimental data must therefore be adjusted to account for the target reflectance difference. By characterizing the 3025 percent R AOB by 30 percent average reflectance, the reflectance difference was defined by the exposure difference, A log E, presented to the film•by a 12 and 30 percent reflectance target. Accounting for this shift, the optimum zero-motion expOsire was specified on terms of an aim-developed density of 12 percent reflectance at that exposure, .termed Ds. Another contractor supplied' a recommended Do and the operational exposure times •through solar altitude. Based on the difference in log exposure space of the two Ws, a set of recommended operational 'exposure tunes was calculated. These represent the optimum exposure Of a 11 perCent target. through solar altitude for the zero-motion case. (see Section 8, page 6-105). . •. Information was furnished that characterized the statistical distribution of system motion. :As there is a rating, that corresponds to every motion/exposure combination, the statistical nature of motion dictates.that the rating also be statistical. A computer : algorithm was. developed. to • . incorporate rating values with .the distribution of system motion. Operational exposure .clatk as a function of solar altitude, was supplied to which. simulation exposures were correlated by sensitometric 'considerations. 'Inputting an absolute expoeure into the cOmputer technique .resulted in the expected mean values of rating with motion in terms of simulation exposure. The difference in exposure between this curve's peak and the zero-motion rating curve is the amount of exposure compensation required to optimize rating at that exposure/solar altitude. Repeating this procedure for other exposures characterizes the amount of exposure compensation necessary as a function of solar altitude. With this information, the recommended zero-motion espoiure times were adjusted for motion, and are summarized in a plot of recommended swears, time versus solar altitude for • the zero-mOtion and motion correction cases (see Section 8; page 6-111), 4.2 FILM SO-208 Experiment 632-9 The 80-208 film imagery was produced with only the 13-millimeter lens. As experimental -SEORIEWG/HIAANDui VIA INMA N CONTROL SYSTEM 4-5 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013
    • I , I • 1 ; ; . BIF-059W-15101-79 -SEGRE-TiG/HiNANDLE VIA FORMAN coornica. SYSTEM work had been done in the past with this film, optimum duplication was selected on the basis of PT judgments. Selection of optimum exposure at three aerial contrasts was the •task of experiment. 832-9. Only the 13-millimeter lens was involved, and the 1:37,000 scale AOB was PI rated at seven simulation exposures, a range of four photographic stops, 'across three aerial contrasts. Data reduction wae• straightforward, the mean ratings were plotted as a function of exposure fOr each aerial contrast. Smoothed curves. Were drawn through the points and optimum exposure defined as the peaks of the curves. These results would be applied in =pertnent 632-14, quality comparison among Abu. 4.3 FILM 80-112 Experiment 832-7 • The task of the initial 80-112 film experiment was selection of optimum duplicate policies. Prior PT screening experiments reduced the PI load by' narrowing the range of DP &oleo'. Tell Pro rank-ordered the duplicates and their total set of observations reduced by summing the ranks at each ON exposure. To further lessen the PI burden, the experiment was designed to rank all exposures at the median of the three aerial contrasts, the 0.6 atmosphere, but only one exposure,. Sib( 0, at the 0.7 and 0.5 atmospheres. The same DP was chosen for all three contrasts at SW 0, and with supporting evidence from PT rarddng, the PI selections were extrapolated for all exposures at the 0.7 and 0.5 atmospheres. Experiment 632-10 This experiment was.originally conceived 'to be an optimum ON exposure 'selection across aerial contrasts for both lenses. • HoweVer, as in the Case of .the 80-209 film, denaitometric considerations and.resolution measurements- implied that the exposure was equivalent through each lens. As experiment 632-5 verified that for the 80-209 film the optimuni oposnre for 'the 13-millimeter lens was identical to that of the 5.5-nsillimeter lens, it was decided to testfot only the best 'exposure on 00-112.1film for the 13-milliineter lens and to utilize thatselection as .the . lens optimum exposure as well.. This approach allowed the •ERITO for the 80-112 • film to..be incorporated into the same experiment, substittiallydecreising PI labor and turnaround time, as well as data rediction time and expenses. In total, the experiment consisted of • • 42 chips, with subsets of 21 and 28 . chips constituting the . exposure*determination =TO, • . . respectively. All- observations' were at the .1 :37,000 scale 'and lihdegree Solar altitude with the . . exposure determination performed at all three aerial contrasts .and the EMTO at , only the 0.7 atmosphere with 0, 4, 8, and f16-micrometer image motion. • • • • . . •• , • Reduction of optimum exposure data was straightforward. The mean . ratings .were. plotted . - • as a function of simulation exposure for each aerial contrast aid the peaks. Of the smoothed curves. indicated best exposure. The EMTO analysis was essentially identicalto that Of the 80-209 film in experiment 832-11. - As the • rating data'was obtained using .a 36 peraent reflectance AOB on a 25 percent R background,. an exposure . shift was calculated for the average acquisition refleCtance . • Of 12 percent. Then, the zero-motion aim exposure was charaeterized.bylm . ON downy to which • a 12 percent reflectance should be . taken,' based on the optimum simulation eiposure.shown . by the . PI data and' the A log E shift for the 36/25 percent R to . I2 percent R compensation. ThiarecOm-.j... mended exposit* was converted. to an absolute exposure time by comparison with the Operational .• . exposure time/aim density' data from another contractor.. FOr the zero-motion cue, therecons.:.• mended exposure times as a !auction of solar altitude was generated. • PI ratings were .incorporated. with the system motion statistics to find expected mean values of rating with motion. BY generating . 4-6 SEGRETIG/WHANDut VIA ORMAN CONTROL SYSTEM NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013
    • BIF-059W-1510149 —SEC—HEW/HI /HAMM VIA BYEMAN CONTROLSYSTIM a set of rating/exposure curves at different solar altitudes, the amount of required exposure compensation as a function of solar altitude was determine& This amount of savours correction necessary for motion compensation was used to modify the sero-motion .exposures, which resulted in a plot showing the recommended exposure time versus solar altitude . for the zero-m0tIon case and the motion correction case (see Section 6, page 6-109). • Experiment 623-13 The rate of change.of quality of 80-112 film with scale was determined in thinerPeriment utilizing PI ratings of eight scales, 1:37,000 through 1: 262,000, at three aerial contrasts. . • Optimum eiposures were used in each case. TO offset a rating bias due .to overall image sine, 13-millimeter chips with 8-micrometer motion were inserted into the experiment. The analysis • of rating and log scale was performed as in the 80-209 experiment (632-6). The regreasion.of rating and lag scale was linear and the differential effects of contrast represented by vertical shifts of the rating/log scale functions. (See Section 6, page 6-51). Experiment 632-14 The final experiment of the scale study undertook a quality . comparison among the films. 130-112, 80-209, 80-208,. and 80-315 films were PI rated at three aerial contrasts for the 1:37,000, 1: 55,000, and 1:115,000 scales. Optimum exposures as determined by the preeeding signalmentation were used in all cases.. The individual scale experiments for 80-209 and 00-112 films ' (experiments 632-8 and 632-13, respectively) determined the rate'of change of quality With scale, but comparisonsbetween those films could not be made as the rating values should not be taken ent -ofthecnx pariulemnt.Raivdfercswxamindeprt 632-14, and the third film, 80-208, was included as operational quality levels are known and therefore provided a quality baseline for comparisons. The 80-315 data was not analyzed as • partpf this program, but was included in the PI evaluation to acquire rating information for a • Five-Film study experiment. Data from the individual experiments was combined with that of the manilas experiment. Ratings were averaged over atmosphere for each scale rates. The results of experiments 632-6 and 632-19 were assimulated into those of experiment 632-14, thereby describing the quality change wilkscale of 80-209 and 80-112 films over the 1:37,000 to 1:262,000 range turd the 130-208.* film for the 1:37,000 to 1:115,000 range (see Section 6, page 6-61). • . . . • .• level of performance The composite of data (see section 6, page 6-83) shows a higher for the 90-209 film relative to the 00-112, and for the 80-112 film with respect to the 110-208. It • should be noted however, that the 00-112 film was 'simulated for a 19-degree Solar altitude at which the aerial contrasts are lower than for the 34-degree.solar altitude- of the 80-209 film. The lower solar altitude also causes longer shadows on target, which may affect the . Perceived quality. It is recommended that 80-112 film be analysed under identical illumination conditions. The reader is • referred to Appendix A for an illustrated summary Of the effect al some an quality. Photomicrographs of the 110-209 and 80-112 imagery are positioned on the rating versus • log scale lines resulting from experiment 632-14. . Appendix C examines the rating/log scale results in the domain of a rating versus. leg GM . plot and compares this present work with an existing calibration line.. • 7SEGftET/G/HiHANOLE CONTROL; SYSTEM • -4-7 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013
    • BIF-059W-15101-T9 SEGRETIG/H/HANDLE VIA BYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM 4.4 SMEAR MODEL ANALYSE An additional set of data analysis was performed to supply a contractor with smearexposure bias functions for 80-209 and 80 -112 Slurs. The EMTO experiments, 632-10 and 632-11, provided rating curves through simulation exposure at constant magnitudes of motion.. From these motion/exposure curves, a series of smear rate curves was generated. Along a smear rate curve *the amount of image motion is a function of the exposure time. For example, if there is 16 micrometers of motion et a SUE 0 + 2 stops exposure, there wouldte: 8, 4, 2 . micrometers at .8111 0 + 1, SIM 0, and SIM 0 - 1, respectively. • Two measures were derived from each of these curves. The eiposure compensation to achieve maximum rating with smear relative to the zero-motion curve was computed as was-the magnitude of the smear at theeptimum zero-motion exposure, D. 'From these figures, the amount of log expoeure bias for optimum image quality was portrayed as a function of smear at Do (see Section 6, pages 6-115 and 6-117). The resultant smear-exposure bias functions are then utilized in this contractor's smear-exposure tradeoff study. 4.5 'EXTENDED ALTITUDE AND FORMAT ANALYSIS The exposure/motion tradeoff given an expected. less in quality due to 'motion at the scale of the imagery (1:37,000). The quality loss is considered only at the center of the format, which. * is appropriate for a pointing task. However, as the height is increased, the motion. changes; and. the task changei. Though the motion magnitude is reduced at higher altitudes, the task has become a search task and we are concerned with the entire format. To determine the loss in expected quality at othericales than 1 : .37,000, one needs rating as a function of mOtion and exposure at -each scale. One then takes the motion statistic 'appropriate for that altitude and format position and calculates the expected rating. If the rating/GRD relationship was a linear relationship, we could take the railizyjmotion/ expOsure data at the 1: 37,000 scale and. shift it downward the required amend. However, the • relationship is not linear and interactions between motion/contrast and . exposure exist.. To do the experiment properly, one needs new rating data at the desired scales. However, if we wish to obtain an estimate of the size of the effect, we can ignore the interaction effects and just treat the .. exposure/motion data as if it was obtained at another scale, except for the overall rating level. • A nominal set of conditions were chosen to represent the higher altitude (h 350, 470; .. • 0 sw. 25),:and the smear rates were calculated across the format. At h 350,. the motion smear rates are reduced by a fattor of . 13 from h ma 70, while they are reduced by a factor Of 8 at h 1. 470. To calculate the effects of these smear magnitudes on the rating, exposure/mOtion.tradeoffs were done for BD-209 and 80-112 films at h .as 350,. 0 1. 25, SA 34 degrees,. onazis and at the 50 and 75 percent format positions. The expected less in quality due only. to the motion is shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 — Hating Loss 80-209 50 percent format 75 percent format 4-8 80-112 -0.06 -0.11 -0.05 -0.08 -SEGRETIG/WHANDLE VIA BYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE f DECLASSIFIED BY CilARTI DECLASSIFIED ON 10 JANUARY 2013 9--
    • Ell F-059W-15101 -79 4EGREF/GOWNANDLE VIA STEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM 5. RECOMMENDATIONS Accomplishments of the scale study were: the analysis of the effect of scale on quality, ' and operational exposure recOmneendatIons for two films. This work suggests several analyses that should be conducted to explore Gambit system acquisition utilizing the existing image data. Descriptions of these recommendations are presented in the following paragraphs. 5.1 SOLAR ALTITUDE VERSUS QUALITY. FOR 80-112 FILM In the scale study, 80-112 and SO-299 films were limited to one solar attitude each, 19 degrees for 80-112 and 34 degrees for 80-209. Aerial contrast decreases with sun angle, therefore 80-112 was disadvantaged as its aerial contrasts were lower than those of the 80-209. The results show S0 209 to be the more effective film, but this may be due to its higher contrast. It is proposed to make a direct comparison of the films' performances by including 80-112 at the same aerial contrast/sun angle combinations as the 80-209. This analysis would use scale study imagery presently available, and would be accomplished through subjective rating experiments. 5.2 RECONCILIATION OF Do. DIFFERENCE During both the 80-209 and 80-112 films exposure motion tradeoff studies, the difference in recommended exposure (Aim DO suggested by the rating analysis and presented by a cocontractor became apparent. Although the difference is not large, there will be an effect oil quality as a function of Do since it affects both the motion tradeoff and density level. It is proposed to . investigate the conflict between the two studies by working interactively between groups to scrutinize each other's quality and density measuring procedures to substantiate any difference and to recommend any action that should be taken. 5.3 INTERACTION OF SCALE AND MOTION As a continuation at the Scale Study, a small analytical study was performed to estimate the effect of motion at the . intended acquialtion scales. The shortcoming ankle study was the extra- . potation of quality versus motion data obtained at only one icale. The assumption had to be made . that this data would apply to other Bodes as well.. This implies that there is no interaction between motion and scale, which inay not be true. It is suggested that quality ratings be obthined through motion and scale to quantify any interaction, and to apply this data to define the effect of motion through the appropriate scales. If there is an interaction, we will also investigate 'the possible effect on the recommended exposurejmotion tradeoff point 5.4 INVESTIGATION OF OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE Recent performance history on 80-209 and 80412 films indicated 80-112 to be the preferred material: The scale Addy. indicated the revere* to be trol l, 810-300 being better. It to proposed to intestigate the difference by examining: the acquired data to 'determine why the apparent discrepancy. . • SYSTEM -8EGRIET/G/ II/HANDLE VIA WEIMAR CONTROL 5-1. NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013
    • BIF-059W-15101-79 —SEeRIETIG/11/14ANDLE VIA BYEMAN CONT. 00k9;.STEIN • 5.5 CONTRAST VERSUS QUALITY The scale study did not specifically investigate the effect Of contrast on resultant quality. Because of the high signal-to-noise ratio (R4R). of these materials, it may be thata quality gain. could be achieved at low contrasts. This could be estimated if the data beses werefUrther exploited to include the . 0.6 and 0.5 atmosphere! to complement the 0.7 atmosphere quality data.-. The rate of change of quality as a function of contrast could then be applied to expected acquisition circumstances to estimate 'performance and/or. to extend the possible useful range of lc* contrast acquisitions. 5.6 INTERACTION OF SCALE . AND OBLIQUITY. The scale study data base included only one look ands. Although lock angle affects scale,. the ability to study only the effect of scale change on quality was considered inn this 'experiment . so the data would not be confounded with obliquity effects. It is recommended to study .several scales at different look angles to establish the impact of obliquity on quality... Experiments should be designed to assess the expected performance levels as 's functionof look angle and ...to define the obliquity term. This inforingtion; coupled with the expected ,acquisiaon scenarios,' could be • used to estimate system utility. . • 5 -2 —SEGIRC4/G/H/HANDLE VIA BYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM NRO APPROVE D : FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY C/IART I DECLASSIFI E D ON 10 JANUARY 2013
    • B1F-059W-15101-79 -4EGREWG/H/NANDLE VIA BYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM O. ANNOTATED BRIEFING This Section contains the Scale Study Briefing with annotation for each viewgraph. —SEGREWG/H/HANOLE WASYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM . 6-1. NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: CIIART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013
    • BIF-059W-15101-79 SCCRET/G/H/HANDLE VIA BYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM • .. . . /H/HANDLE 1RABYENAN . CONTROL SYSTINN . • 6-3 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON 10 JANUARY 2013
    • ri r t I ECLASSIFIEDON: R 1 1 ASSI t•I ikOAPF OIVED FOR RELEASE I i DECL FIED By; 9/1ARTICI r 1 ro JANUARY 2013i The Scale Study program began in early 1978 and was completed in early 1979. The initial phase was conducted at the Image Simulation Facility and produced an image data base on three Elms, 80-208, 80412, and 80-209. These films were processed and duplicated operationally and then utiliSing this photography, a series of image quality experiments was performed to analyze the effect of scale on quality and to provide -recommendations for operational exposures. • OBJECTIVES
    • L1-.JJ f 11 1/22/79 9632.LDJ - 2 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE J DECLASSIFIED BY C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON 10 JANUARY 2013 • EXPOSURE RECOMMENDATION FOR S0-112 AND SO-209- . • DETERMINE THE RATE OF CHANGE OF QUALITY WITH SCALE AND 50-209 PRODUCE AN IMAGE DATA BASE ON SO2013, SO-316, S0,112, OW ECTIVES r 7 LJ
    • 1 NRO APPROVED. FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: ClIART [ DECLASSIFIED ON 10 JANUARY 2013 ; I 1 TT 1 rr Is PI 1 1 f- 7 1 11 i 11 1 The Scale Study image data base was produced in conjunction with the Five Film Study. Imaging parameters were varied to simulate acquisition conditions of the Gambit system and to provide a sufficient range of these variables to support image quality experiments. IlliAGE DATA BASE PRODUCTION 1 1
    • (T. —7) . - CONTRAST SOLAR ALTITUDE - MOTION'.. EXPOSURE • - 8 SCALES 5 FILMS'. VARIABLES 1/22/79 L.L_1 LL.:J LL.1 ELLL_J - SUBSET OF IMAGES PRO' ED FOR "FIVE FILM STUDY" IMAGE DATA BASE PRODUCT/0M f • NRO APPROVED FOR. RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY MART I DECLASSIFIED ON 10 JANUARY 2013 j
    • f NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE DECLASSIFIED BY ClIART I DECLASSIFIED ON 10 JANUARY 2013 r n - 1 1' 1 fr•1-1 1 • 'I . • r• •f-1" Simultaneous production of both Scale and Five Film Study data bases was conducted during the first half of 1978. Three films, SO-208, SO-112, and S0-209, were used for the scale work;. and in addition to those, SO-484 and 130-315 comprised the Five Film Study imagery. FILM TYPES
    • 5 FILM STUDY - SCALE STUDY AND 5 FILM STUDY S0209 SO-112 .- SCALE STUDY. 7 SCALE STUDY AND 5 FILM STUDY S0-316 5 FILM STUDY - SO-464 ,S6‘208 FILM. TYPES EJJ f r - 1 ED L____LJ 1/22/79 9632.LDJ - 4 NRO .APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 LLB
    • 0 CD . ' riR9 AippR9vEp FOR RELEASE j- DECLASSIFIED'rE!Y:_,C/IAIRT)DECLASSIFIED: ON: 10 JANUARYI;0114 .ir ' The photographic parameters were designed to simulate Gambit system acquisition. The camera/orientation/loot angle requirements resulted in a net compound angle of 18 degrees. Image smear of five magnitudes was simulated by introducing linear motion at the target plane during exposure. The films were exposed through a range of four photographic stops, with the mean level, SW 0, adjusted to provide the expected optimum exposure. PHOTOGRAPHIC PARAMETERS r. O n. • I
    • EL,J L__i CAMERA/LOOK ANGLE EXPOSURE RANG LINEAR MOTION r T-1 F -1 1 1/22/79 9632.LDJ - 5 L__J L..1 L.il PHOTOGRAPHIC STOPS - 7 LEVELS +2, +1, +1/2, 0, -1, -2 (USING 5/7 IN-TRACK TO CROSS-TRACK RATIO) - 5 LEVELS 0, 2, 4, 8 AND 16 MICRONS AFT CAMERA WITH 10° PITCH AND 15° ROLL (18° COMPOUND ANGLE) • PHOTOGRAPHIC PARAMETERS J NRO APPROVED FOR . RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON 10 JANUARY 2013 L_LI L__J
    • , 1 1--f ' -- 1- if i f r--; JNUA _I' NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE DECLASSIFIED SY: .C/IART I DECLASSIFIED -OW 10 RY 2013. • 1- :rri 1. r r •• : „. . . • . . The aim Illumination conditions were 'Supplied by another contractor based on their SCAT II program. Those .requireinenti translated into determining the proper voltage settings of the sun, sky,. and has "Lights to provide. the correct illuminati". Three quartz-iodine reflector : floodlights were positioned to Simulate three solar altitudes.13ky illumination. was provided by bloke of floodlights surrounding the target area The effect of haze on aerial contrast was controlled by adding unifornt radiance across the format by locating a beam splitter close to the lens and introducing the base energy from a nearby diffuse source. . • .. ILLUMINATION
    • L_i LLD L___1 EL1 L LILJ 0.7 0.6 0.5. THREE ATMOSPHERIC TRANSMISSIONS 45° 19° 34o SOLAR ALTITUDE ILLUMINATION r-r-1 1/22/79• 9632.LDJ - 6 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE DECLASSIFIED BY CRART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 ". •
    • IF ,7• r , NRO APPROVED 1 r" SSIFIED BY: RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED . r WART DECLASSIFIED QN: 10 JANUARY 2013 ; 1 `r 1 f - f r 1 —1 17" 1 " 1 r r The radiant energy produced by the sun, sky, and haze soaves was calibrated as a function of voltage using both a telephotometer and the film as sensors. These relationships were utilized to predict aim voltage settings for given sun/sky ratios and aerial contrasts. Then a set of photography was shot and processed at the simulation facility to check these aim settings and to aid in making voltage corrections. Through iteration of this procedure, the best voltage settings were, established for each illumination condition. This page summarizes the aim and measured aerial contrasts and sun/sky ratios of the scale study data base. ILLUMINATION CONDITIONS
    • I O. 340. SOLAR • ALTITUDE 1.91 1.92 1.63 2.42 2.04 1.70 .6 .5 .7 . .6 .5 1.62. 1.91 2.29 1.62 1.91 2.19 .5 2.27 1.41 1.41 .6 .7 1.66 1.63 1.62 1.63 .5 .7 - 1.91 1.92 .6 2.19 2.27 AERIAL CONTRAST (7:33) AIM (MEASURED) .7 ATMOSPHERIC- • TRANSMITTANCE 2.04 3.77 6.89 1.86 3.39 6.06 .44 1.21 2.55 1.86 3.39 6.06 1.71 4.34 5.30 1.71 3.47 6.19 .46 1.10 2.63 1.91 3.47 5.72 SUN/SKY RATIO AIM (MEASURED) NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON 10 JANUARY 2013 SO-315 SO-112 S0-209 FILM ILLUMINATION CONDITIONS ..1/22/79 9632400 - 7
    • ft: 171-. 14_ • • • • NRO APPROVED .PQR• I sEt CLASSIFIED Ry p IARLI DECIASSIFIEDOW1 .0 JANUARY 2013 i, / --ri i• r- i"s T -1 I- Four hfiG-25 Foxhole were used in the scale study target array. These A013 were painted to achieve a 36 percent reflectance and were located on a 25 percent reflectance background, simulating realistic, aircraft and concrete runway reflectances. Eight simulated scales were attained using 13 and 5.5-millimeter Switar lenses. The image smiles listed are .x 1,000. TARGET ARRAY
    • NRO APPROVED FOR . RELEAS E I DECLASSIFIED BY C/IART D ECLASSIFIED ON 10 JANUARY 2013
    • fr -1 FOR. ReLefnSE IDACLASSIFIED BY: C/IART:ipEO.AssIFIED t I f • r . r '•[---- f ON: 10 -fl r--1 1 JANUARY 2013 All the simulation imagery was produced at . a 20-degree look angle. The points along the vertical dotted line show the scales (in thousands) obtained by photographing the target array with the two lenses. The curves show, for a given altitude (in miles), the equivalent scales simulated at other look angles. For ersunple, 1:55,000 scale at 20-degree look angle simulates the same scale at a 40-degree look angle at 100 miles. APPROXIMATE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIMULATION AND ACTUAL
    • • 100 250 ALTITUDE, MILES 500 5.5= 13imi NRO. APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY CilART1DECLASSIFIED ON 10 JANUARY 2013 • S APPROXIMATE RELATIONSHIP . • BETWEEN SIMULATION AND ACTUAL 1/22/79 9632.LDJ - 9 UC m g • z n., C)
    • RO APPROVED FOR RELEASE. I DECLASSIFIED BY C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON 10 JANUARY 2013 EXPOSURE MOTIONIRADE OFF. ANALYSIS • DETERMINE THE RATE OF CHANGE OF QUALITY WITH SCALE CHANGE 1122/79 9632.LDJ - 10
    • 0 .. • I! , . • • . 1-1I r ri ( S —1 NRO APPROVED POR RELEASE I DEC ASSIFIED BY: C/IART.1 DECLASSIFIED ON 10 JANUARY 2013 L . The image quality experiments in the Scale Study were designed to answer two types of questions. One was to determine the rate of change of quality with scale change; and the other, to provide an exposure recommendation by analyzing the tradeoff between exposure and motion. IMAGE QUALITY EXPERIMENTS Ii
    • r t 1 11. • T " 1 N tO 4PES- OV.Fp FOR pELFASE41 DACLASSIFIE?A3Y: . VIART , DECI*SSIFIED ON:,..10• JANUARY 20 ... . - - Two EMTO experiments were conducted, one each for 80-112 and 80-209 films. In this case, the preparatory experiments involved only optimum duplication selection. Both tradeoff analyses were performed at one aerial contrast for seven. ON exposures and four motion magnibales. The effect of scale on quality was investigated for three films, S0-208, 80-112, and 80-209. To accomplish this, preliminary experiments were performed to select the best duplication printing level per ON exposure and then the best ON exposure for each atmosphere. Following that work, the effect of scale was tested through a range of scales at three aerial contrasts. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
    • ON EXPOSURE CONTRAST (.7 ATMOSPHERIC. TRANSMISSION) NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY C/IART DECLASSIFIED ON 10 JANUARY 2013 1 AERIAL 1:37K SCALE 7 ON EXPOSURES BEST DUPLICATE EXPOSURE PER ON EXPOSURE 50-112, SO-209 EXPOSURE MOTION TRADE OFF (ENTO) 3 AERIAL CONTRASTS (.5, .6, .7 ATMOSPHERIC TRANSMISSION) THROUGH SCALE BEST ON EXPOSURE BEST DUPLICATE EXPOSURE PER 50-20B, S0-112, S0-209 EFFECT OF SCALE ON QUALITY EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN 1/22/79 9632.L0J -.11
    • 11,;-: . : Ch ART ogaosingo :t 1 4' ON 1A: JANUARY 2013; The order of execution is outlined in the experiment plan. Optimum duplication determination serves a dual purpose as it is the first quality experiment for both the scale changes and EMTO analyses. The latter analysis, follows immediately, but in the scale change work, the optimum ON exposure must first be, determined. EXPERIMENT PLAN
    • ATM DETERMINATION DETERMINATION OPTIMUM DUPLICATION 1/22/79 9632.LDJ - 13 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY CilART I DECLASSIFIED ON 10 JANUARY 2013 • r • a • * • r 0 • • r I:1 . a• EXPERIMENT PLAN
    • • •;•.; • • NRO PPROVED OORRELEASEICIECLASSIFIED BY:-..C8ART DECLASSIFIEVQN: 10 JANUARY 2019:; -r: 1 • r -1 • ri ir• . The complete set of scale study image experiments are shown. It is essentially being the flow plan of the previous page replicated for the three films. Alterations to the basic plan are that no EMTO was necessary for 80-208 and the additional EMTO shown for 90- 12 (Esp. 632-12) was performed for the five Film &tidy. In addition, a quality .comparison among e three films was performed (832-14). Where possible, experiments were combined, either by , ending together or by executing in succession, to expedite PI turnaround time. PI EXPERIMENTATION 8 m 01 1 0 0 cn
    • 3 ' • • . • • ' • ill:141tell PI tit 113711=21e ilitti'lirs ca ' 6!°.l_ 1/79 ..•. .• 1 iittlop l. apsrimasts amien1^110413. SO-208. . and Mal at 9 NC, alp4Egip; 632,14 ,se . • WW1 *slily base . neomparisen nap quality Ciaparlioa : 6324 DIretlig (21 chips) aaPtted Ceepleted 1/79 Optima Exposure Detemeination pliSCRIPEOlIbe best ON must be i7eVtell for each (A/C) with re melee at the 1:371 stale lta TAR: MIa i te Policy setae lisOptimiel QUARae *tarsi:ad fele oak la ansposors of the 3611A08 at the 34° S. A. across 3 A/C with the 13 me lees. PT reek Camp *tad 12/78 1 rSO408DATA 11=1 SE eletom lootandeat IT . .•0„ 41/ Determine rote of asap of guilty with scale tlmede IESCRIPTIOR: Rate 8 scales at Sett al eoposore, 19° S.A.. 3 A/C. with me notion D32-13 ri resin, (38 chips) admitted 3/79 Completed 1/79 INSIM% 632-10 •. ra •• (21-ehipsi Solaitted 12/78 ampleted-12/711 o The SMCIAttpesuremast be selected for the lima lane at . each A/C (3) with no motion. • • 1 sittiao 1 aperimeat Dalto S.A.; 14S 1108. 1.92 A/C; and 0-16r Wien T 632-12. .112RWIL8 • • istegitri)une S Exposere/Metion unde-off Duplicate Policy Deteneleatiee DESCRIPTION: Optima DP mustbedetermined for WA al of the 36 S Wrath, 19° S.A. across 3 A/C and 2 lenses. MUMMA: 632..7 WISP (45 chips ) admitted 9/78. Completed 11/78 . SO-112 DATA ME . •- Exposure/Iletion trade-off DESCRI►TIal: ENTO at the 1:3/11 scale; 1r S.A.; 36S 008. 1.92 A/C; and 0-168 motion • UMW: 632-10 111 chips) Submitted 12/78 Completed 12/78 9632.103 la 1/22/7a NRO. APPROVED FOR .RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY C/IART •DECLASSIFIED ON 10 JANUARY 2013 : • Waled 10/78 . mama jai . Opttews_°_itionre Ostend °°"° MEM TM but .011ant be al se= for sack ilia in at sash A/C ( WARD' meta.) ratio° 2 esperimon ..., F Oetermlie rate of °INN of poll ty with sale cheep • •na Tlinte.7 scales •a t OR aspeenr4. LA.. 3 A/C. 1116.811 aet1M• 631-6 ) CeepOstad Ur: /VMM6 aln)at the i. Ian sale; MG S.A. • 361I All. . 2.2711/C; 0-8 r Mae 632-11 22 6113M EePosowaibtimi ••••• 632-1 order (33 chips) &mitted 7/78 Camoleted 7/78 al: DapHuta Policy latermiestion Optimum OP MUM: be detelmined far. sub OR IM M the 36 S =L 34* S.A. across 3 A/C led 2 leases. ) 504011 DATA BASE PJ EXPERIMENTATION •
    • r- CO 0) I 1 r-- 1 r C NRO APPROVED FA IIR RELEASE D CLASSIFIED BY: CIIART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 _ The components of the 90-209 and 90-112 films scale change experiments are shown schematically on the opposite page. Seven scales were rated across three aerial contrasts with the 90-209. The largest scale available, 1:37,000 was omitted in this experiment, as it was felt the apparynt high quality of 90-209 images might cause, a truncation at the maximum available rating. This did not turn out to be so, and that maximum scale was included in a later expert- meat. The 90-112 experiment was conducted with all eight scales and three contrasts. THROUGH SCALE PER FILM - •
    • • EXP.632-13 EXP.632-6 1/22/79 9632.LDJ - 20 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 THROUGH SCALE PER FILM co i co co
    • r r —1 r f`. 1 -1 r r-- is r'r - r." n 1 NRO APPFtOVED..f_CDR RELEASE [DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 The analysis model anticipated a linear relationship between rating and log scale, based on experience with rating and log GED. If the atmosphere (aerial contrast) affected rating independently of scale, its effect would be realized as a vertical displacement of the rating/log scale function resulting in a set of parallel lines. Similarly, film type could also influence the functions by vertical shifts. ANALYSIS MODEL
    • z SHIFT. K3 ADDITIONAL . TYPE FROM FILM DIFFERENCE • NRO APPROVED'FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 SHIFT K2 = ADDITIONAL FILM BETWEEN ATMOSPHERES K2. ATMOSPHERE + K3 K1 = CALIBRATION RATING = K1 LOG SCALE + ANALYSIS MODEL 1/22/79 962. LDJ - 21
    • 8 z et I F . n r r- r r "1 fi I F. :1 ArFTIOVER. F R RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED. ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 The analysis model on the previous page made the assumptions of no interactions between the factors; the full equation considers two of the possible interactions, that of film and atmosphere and atmosphere and scale. The first would manifest itself if the vertical shifts of the rating/log scale lines, due to abnospbere, varied in magnitude for different films. If the second interaction were present, the atmosphere differentially affecting low and high scales, the slope of the rating/log scale lines would vary with aerial contrast. FULL. EQUATION
    • 8 3 F FULL EQUATION 1/22/79 9632.LDJ r 22 • NRO APPROVED. FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 Ks* - THE ATMOSPHERE EFFECT NAY BE DIFFERENT FOR LOW SCALES AND HIGH SCALES K *- 1 FILM IS MORE AFFECTED BY ATMOSPHERE THAN OTHER FILM 4 R 7 Ki LOG SCALE K- ATMOSPHERE + K 3 FILM TYPE + * (FILM X ATM) + Ke (ATM X SCALE) L__Li L_Lj 1.11j L---4
    • r cr. r NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 r r c 1 n ir Nil I Er 1 r - 1 r---, Two lenses were used to produce eight simulated scales using. four AOB targets. Preliminary comparisons had shown the lenses to be nominally equivalent. Resolution readings of the final photography sets were made for each of the films and indicated that the lenses were operating equivalently. LENS QUALITY COMPARISON
    • 100 200. -2 -1 EXPOSURE • ♦1 13 AN SWITAR 5.5 MN SWITAR +2 9632:60-209 12/.6/340 A/C=1.92:1 1/22/79. NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 1-4 300 400* LOG RESOLUTION VS. SIPOSURS LENS QUALITY COMPARISON 9632.LDJ - 23
    • fr - z I. ao CD 1 CO _ EAS r . NIRO t PPTOVF? _FCA ftit IE I DECLASSIFIED BY: cncr I DECLASSIFIED ON00 TIANII.IARy 2013 Linear regression fit to rating/log scale for 80-209 at the 0.7 atmosphere. The circles represent the actual data points. 80-209 AT 0.7 ATMOSPHERE .
    • , II: BIF-059W-15101-79 rrEeR'EF/G/H/HANDLE VIA SIMIAN CONTROL 3 • 'nerEeRETIG/FiblANDLII VIA IMAM comm. avant 8-37 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013
    • r 8 g A. r C) 1--k . f 1 • "1 r r- - rr---1 . 1-r-- 1 f 1 " • " • • NRO. APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 Linear regression tit to rating/log scale for 80-209 film at the 0.8 atmosphere, with data points shown as circles. The starred, point at log scale equals 176 was not used in the regression as that image was partially obscured due to dirt being on the beam splitter during that set's photography. 80-209 AT 0.6 AT31108Plieltit •- 1 s
    • LL—J N a 37 55. 77 84 SCALE 115 126 0 S0-209 A .6 ATMOSPHERE 175 262 1/22/79 9632.1.0.1 - 25 NRO APP OVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED : C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 . R A L__i L.L.1
    • 11 -1 f - ri f . .1 1 —1 • . f f 1 . r I .1 1—. 1 1 - r r -i . t NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I. DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 Linear regression fit to rating/log scale for 80-209 film at the 0.5 atmosphere. The circles represent the actual data points. 80-209 AT 0.5 ATMOSPHERE 1
    • BIF-059W-15101-79 SfeRErIG/H/HAN9LE sTinsaN 0 •C -SECRET/GM /tumour *-11 at CONTROL SYSTRII co VIA Arrow comvivx. smug 6-41. • NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 1 DECLASSIFIED. BY: CilART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013
    • 2 z r , ON: NI O ArPROVE? FC)Ft RiElrEASEripeicutssifisorpyi:i cnITITA DECIASSIFIED0 110 JANUARY 2013 i Summary of experiment 832-6 results, showing rating as a ftmctlon of log scale for three aerial contrasts. RATING VERSUS SCALE FOR. SO-209
    • R 37 55 LOG 77 84 E 115 126 175 262 1/22/79 9632.LDJ - 27 NRO APP OVED FOR RELEASE r DECLASSIFIED : C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 I N 6. A FOR SO-209 I'
    • I 1 1 .1 F1 11 CI- :1 ' •Ni NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 Linear regression Et to rating/log scale for 80-112 at the 0.7 atmosphere. The circles indicate the actual data points. 80-112 AT 0.? ATMOSPHERE
    • BIF-059W-15101-79 "ECRET/G/H/HANoti VIA 10111MAN cottrio. SiSTEIA .0 a I eg 8-4; CO leeRETIG/HillANOLII INA CONTNOL SW= 8-46 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013
    • r 1 n fl fl, r-- r • n r 1 r- T. -1 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 . Linear regression fit to rating/log scale for /30-112 at the 0.6 atmosphere. The circles indicate the actual data points. 80-112 AT 0.6 ATMOSPHERE - '1 m ti z o. X C)
    • R T •• LOG SCALE 184 111 ¶26 17 • 212 1/22/79 9632.L04 - 29 LLD NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED : C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 . 6 I A 112 AT _16 ATMOSPHERE 1) ILO L--J 0 I C)
    • ' f r 1 •1 r 1 r-- r 11 fr 11 c--1 r- r NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 1, Linear regression fit to rating/log scale for 8O-212 at the 0.5 atmosphere. The circles indicate the actual data points. 80412 AT 0.5 ATMOSPHERE .1
    • BIF4:159VV-15101-79 ele eREF/G/H/NANDLE VIA 'TRIP/AN CONTROL AMEN r • 0 • • ag — I-4 w C11. SECRE9F/G/H/NAsots VIA STRAW CONTROL ennui 6-49 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013
    • fi n r NROAPPROVED FOR RELEASE . I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 1 1 1 1 . 1 - fl 11 n r ot no Summary of experiment 632-11 results, showing rating as a function of log scale for three aerial contrasts. RATING VERSUS SCALE FOR 90-112 8 m 4. z 0
    • CP dlr 37 55 LOG 77 84 115 126 175 262 1,22/79 9632.LDJ - 31 NRO APP OVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED : C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANU RY 2013 R A T I N 6 DM 6 -13 RATING VS SCAL FOR S0-112 iLL)
    • r i 8 5 a - r. _sspiEp NRO pPROVIED_ORp!LfAsp RECL.A Cil!rt17 I DECLASSIFIED 0Ni: 10 ...JANUARY 2013 The results of the 80-112 and 80-209 scale change experiments cannot simply be combined to compare the mine performances. Variations in the absolute rating levels could exist between experiments. Experiment 832-14 provided the framework within which relative comparisons among the film could be made. Four films were rated at three scales and three atmospheres within the context of this one experiment. With that information, the prior scale experiment data could then be assimilated into the results of experiment 632-14. RELATIVE COMPARISON AMONG FILMS
    • SO-208 50-209 EXPERIMENT ATM 632-14 -4 1/22/79 9632.LDJ - 32 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 FILM 50-112 SO-315 SCALE RELATIVE COMPARISON AMONG FILMS L.11 X C)
    • 1- r - 1 ril f r- -p rr r r NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 r., 1 Reedit; of experiment 032-14 for 80-208, 80-112, and 80-209 at the 0.7. atmosphere. EXPERIMENT 632-14
    • 37 55 50-208 • SO-112 50-209 112, 50-209 .7 TNOSPHERE SO 208, 32-14 L 1/22/79 9632.LDJ - 33 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED : C/IART DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 N I A T R LL_J C)
    • I r 3 S s. 1 p* f" r-- Tr-7n NRO APPROVED 1 RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON 10 JANUARY 2013 FOR F11 • 1 .1 Results of experiment 632-14 for S0-208, 80-112, and 80-200 at the 0.8 atmosphere. EXPERIMENT 632-14
    • R 37 55 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED T I N A 1/22/79 9632.LDJ - 34 C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 SCALE 116 S0-208. SO-112 a SO-209 .6 ATMOSPHERE S0-112. S0-209 632-14
    • r I A z .1 .41 APPROVED rNRO I-1 F- FOR RELEASEr [DECLASSIFIED-BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 1 r- • p f- r---) r7 r Results at experiment 632-14 for 80-208, 80-112, and 80-209 at the 0.5 atmosphere. EXPERIMENT 632-14 m O co z
    • L_1_J 37 55 LOG • SCALE 115 50-208 • SO-112 O50-209 .5 ATMOSPHERE 208, 50-112, 50-209 632-14 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 1 DECLASSIFIED : CHART 1 DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 N R A T. 4_1 L.L_J 1/22/79 9632.L111- 35 3 C)
    • n f11 I 8. m NRO A -i rF - -T-1 r r-- r rr ;-- r-- 1 n PPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 The results of each scale experiment, 632-6, .632-14, and 632-14, were summarised by . averaging across atmosphere. Time each film's rating/log scale retationship was represented by a single line- for an "average" abnoephere condition. The earlier 30-209 and 30-112 lines were put into the context of the experiment 632-14 results by shifting them to coincide in the region overlapped by 632-14. COMBINATION OF INDIVIDUAL AND MULTI-FILM EXPERIMENT DATA ;1 1
    • a 3 R I N 6 A. 50-209 J Ui LI) ffl :13 262 R G I N A • 50-n2 COMBINATION OF INDIVIDUAL A MULTI-FILM EXPERIMENT DATA LLJ 15 1 632-14 1/22/79 262 632-13 9632.LDJ - 36 LL_Li NRO APP OVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANU RY 2013 U 8 m a
    • I '7 1 fl z 3 fj FOR NROAP-PROVED LEASEJ DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: - I - 1 • r r- rr :71 f 1 10 JANUARY 2013 r' • .7 1 The final assembly of carves from the scale experiments shows the rate of change of quality with scale for 80-209, 80-112, and 80-208. The 80-208 provides a quality baseline for comparison as operational quality levels are known for that film. It should be noted that the 80112 was simulated at a 19-degree solar altitude at which the aerial contrasts are lower than for the 34-degree solar altitude of the 110-209. 80-209 AND S0-112 AVERAGE ATMOSPHERIC RELATIVE TO 80-208
    • 37 55 115 126 LOG SCALE 77 84 SO-208 175 262 SO-112 SO-209 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED : C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 I N 6 R A TIVE TO S0-208 VERAGE ATMOSPHERE SO-209 SO-112 1/22/79 9632.1.0.1 - .39
    • CO 11 -1 r 17-1 rri r r-- r- .1 r- 1 F 11 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE [ DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 The interaction of film and atmosphere was studied to a limited extent using data from experiment 632-14. Ratings were averaged over the three scales of that experiment for each film and plotted as functions of atmosphere. The difference in the curve shapes suggest that the interaction does exist; aerial contrast effecting rating more with 80-208 and 90-112 than with 80-209. • F1LMAT7e1OSPRERIS INIRRACTKIN A 0
    • La_.1 .5 L.11.3 11.. ' • 3.. OVER THREE:SCALES AVERAGE RATI P 632-14 E INTERACTION PIMA [ 0 SO-208 • SO-112 CI SO-209 1/22/79 9632.LDJ - 40 iLL3 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED : C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 6 I R. A. LL1
    • r . 11— "1 11- 1 I 1 .r-- 1 r- -1. r -- I-7 r' 1 NRO APPROVED FOR-RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: CRART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 Exposure/motion tradeoff analyses were performed for 80-112 and SO-209. PI rating experiments were conducted to generate rating data as functions of exposure level and motion magnitude. Then, based on a statistical model of the system Motion, exposure recommendations were calculated which compensated for the system motion and yielded the max:imam quality rating. ElITO ANALYSIS
    • z. 3 L_L4 TRADE OFF • NOTION ANALYSIS EXPOSURE ANALYSIS PI RATING SO-112 & SO-209 EHTO ANALYSIS L 1/22/79 9632.LDJ - 41 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 L._1 2 5 0 C)
    • r- 8 z 3 a NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE.' DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: .10 JANUARY 2013 r. r-r1 7 71 r ► ft: 1 "1 r-- 17-1 The EMTO experiments were each conducted for one scale and one atmosphere. The images were rated through seven exposures and four magnitudes of motion. PI EXPERIMENTS 71
    • 0 • NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 - SO-209 (0, 2, 4, 8 um) - S0-112 (0, 4, 8, 16 um) ',MOTION 7 EXPOSURE LEVELS (+2 to -2 STOPS LOG E) 1 AERIAL CONTRAST 1 SCALE (1:37) ft SO-112 & S0-209 PI EXPERIMENTS 1/22/79 9632.LDJ - 42
    • - r17 1 FT -1 - (7--- . 1 ( 1 1 r- 7-11 f r - 1 r t _ NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE" DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 An exposure/motion tradeoff analysis determines the effect if system motion on mean rating. To accomplish this, the results of the simulation imagery must be placed in the content at operational parameters. Simulation exposures are correlated With system exposure times by comparison of aim density, De, with developed densities on the simulation imagery. The system motion statistic describes the distribution of image motion at a given amount of exposure. The P1 rating data is then used to traneform the disfribution of image motion into a distrilxition of ratings, from which an expected mean rating is to for that exposure.
    • o NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: CHART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 RATING AS A FUNCTION OF MOTION/EXPOSURE SYSTEM MOTION STATISTIC EXPOSURE FOR AIM D AIM D o - DETERMINE EFFECT OF SYSTEM MOTION ON MEAN RATING EXPOSURE/MOTION 1/22/79 9632.1DJ - 43
    • 1 71 7 --1 • r . L-71 r rE 1 ) rr rut f . r 7) NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I...RECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 . The reqtdred rating data was generated for 80-112 in experiment 632-10. Illumination conditions simulated a 19-degree solar altitude and a 0.7 atmospheric transmittance, which yields a 1.91 aerial contrast. The 1:31,000 scale AO/3 target with 0, 4, 8, and 16 micrometers of image motion was rated by 10 Pre. The solid curves are the resultant smoothed rating curves for each motion magnitude. 80-112 PI EATING —TECROUGH MOTION AND EXPOSURE -71 T-1
    • -2 +1 SIMULATION EXPOSURE (STOPS) 0 16a 810 0 4pim 1/22/79 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 I N 6 R A TIM MOTION AND EXPOSURE PI RATING S0-112 9632.LOJ - 44
    • f r r;r11 r I . NRO APPROVED_,F9R IWI.EASE LD CLASSIFIED Ey: C/IART DECLASSIFIED. ON:10 JANUARy 2013 it Simulation exposurea are described by the number of stops above or below a "simulation zero" =possum level. This SIM 0 exposure was chosen to approximate the aim exposure for that fibn, which is described by the developed density of a 12 percent reflectance object. The prediction of that exposure is based on comparison between the characteristic curve from operational processing and the densities developed by processing abthe simulation facility. The operational exposures are specified by the developed density of a 12 percent reflectance and by the exposure time (as a function of solar altitude) necessary to achieve the aim density, D. The equivalent operational exposure, EOE, can be located on the simulation sods by finding the difference in log exposure for the aim Da and the density of a 12 percent reflectance at SIM 0. Knowing this and the exposure time at EOE, each of the simulation exposures can be defined by their equivalent operational exposure times. 80-112 SEN8ITOMETRY 1 o. 2. 0
    • .2 - .4 - .6 - .8 - 1.0- 1.2 - 1.4 - 1 .6 - RELATIVE LOG E SO-112 SENSITINETRY NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 I D E N 1.8 - 2.0-1 =MI 1/22/79 9632.LDJ - 45 O
    • I - 1 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 r -1 f f r -t. • r- 1 r - • The expected mean rating is calculated separately for each exposure. For example, at SIM + 2, rating is known at 0, 4, 8, and 16-micrometer motion. The equivalent operational exposure time can be determined, and the system motion statistics describe the distribution of motion. Combining this information yields a distribution of ratings, from which the mean rating is calculated for SIM + 2. This procedure is repeated at halt-stop increments through exposure. EFFECT OF MOTION ON QUALITY 3 I 26 0 •••.„,
    • R I N A N C 0 C C U R R RATING TIME C U R R E N C NOTION/ET 1/22/79 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 NOTION 1 { EXPOSURE] 0 EFFECT OF NOTION ON QUALITY 9632.LIM - 47
    • 8 f I-1 1 -1 . 1. 1 1 I I r r - 14 1 1 - 1 r' NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 The results of the 80-112 EMTO are shown on the opposite page. The zero-motion CUrve is the ratings obtained through exposure if there was no image motion. The lower curve represents the expected ratings at a 20-degree solar altitude accounting for the on axis image motion. The peaks of the comes are not at the same exposure, less exposure being required to optimize rating with motion. Had the zero-motion exposure been used for the motion case, less than the maximum possible rating would have been achieved. That optimum rating can be attained by less exposure, and consequently less motion, and is the optimum tradeoff point of exposure and motion. 80-112 EXPOSURE MOTION TRADEOFF -il
    • 1 -2 EXPOSURE (STOPS) I 0 ► +1 +2 200 SA ON AXIS 0 MOTION 1/22/79 90324.1)..1 - 48 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 N R A T I E 0 C X P EXPOSURE MINION TRADE OFF SO-112 )
    • is NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: CRART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 1" 1 1 1 1 f • — 1 1 r 1 1' "1 1 -1 In experiment 632-11, the 1:37,000 scale AOB on 80-209 was rated by 10 Prs. The illumination conditions simulated a 34-degree solar altitude and a 0.7 abnospheric transmittance (2.19 aerial contrast). Prior indications were that little system motion existed, therefore the rating experiment was conducted with motion magnitudes of 0, 2, 4, and 8 micrometers. However, analysis of the motion statistics demonstrated that motion had to be considered beyond 8 micrometers. It was necessary to extrapolate the existing data to the 18-micrometer case, and is shown by the dotted line. 80-209 — Pi RATING THROUGH MOTION AND EXPOSURE 1 -
    • 1 -2 s r2 SIMULATION EXPOSURE (STOPS) +1 I 1 +2 1/22/79 9632.1.DJ - SO NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: CHART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 • al 6 R A T I THRU NOTION AND EXPOSURE PI RATING SO-209
    • r r"-1 r f - 1' f f -1 r 1: • r - 1 1 • • T • NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE !DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 The characteristic curve of the 80-209 film was utilized to calculate the difference in exposure between SIM 0 and the equivalent operational exposure. This enables the relative simulation exposures to be defined by equivalent operational times. 80-209 BENSITOWSTRY -11
    • BIP-059W-15101-79 --SeeRIFF/G/WHANDLE VIA BYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM rci m A CI 41 tot)II 3.; SEGRISF/G/HAANOLE VIA BYEMAN CONTR SYSTEM . OL . 6-8 3 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON 10 JANUARY 2013
    • 8 3 CD .1E 11 - T i. 111 IFIE NROArPROVER FOR RELEASEI DEICLASS D r BY:1C/IART . DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 SE The results of the 80-209 EMT() are shown on the opposite page. The zero-motion curve is the ratings obtained through exposure if there was no image /notion. The lower curve represents the expected ratings at a 36-clegiree solar altitude in the presence of on axis image motion. The shift in the peaks signifies the exposure compensation required to account for system motion and optimize performance. 80409 laws= MOTION TRADEOFF .} 0
    • NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED a I •N R A E 0 C E X P EX +2 35° SA ON AXIS ---"*•••n 0 NOTION : C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 EXPOSURE (STOPS) I 0 NOTION TRADE OFF SO-209, 1/22/79 9632.1.0J - 52
    • --1 1- -1 r -I f 1 f 1 f ; - 1 f ; I" NRO APPROVED FORRELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 I The 80-200 exposure motion tradeoff was performed for the case of a 20-degree solar altitude. The rating data and motion model were the same, but the distribution of motion changed due to the change in energy and therefore, exposure at that solar altitude. The loss in rating at the 1:37,000 scale is shown by the squares. The 80-209 is a slower film and requires more exposure, thus its distribution of motion extends to greater magnitudes than does the 80-112 distribution. Consequently, the 80-2011 experiences a greater loss in rating. As scale increases, the magnitude of image motion decreases, and the expected loss in rating would also decrease. The dotted lines illustrate the approximate trends of expected ratings for these films, but are not representative of actual data. EXPECTED RATING WITH EMTO AT 20-DEGREE SOLAR ALTITUDE 1 :1 *1 n z
    • I 37 n NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED R A T I N 6 ENTO) 0:14T0P+,. % 115 126/ 1715 $0-112 0 MOTION 50-209 0 MOTION 1/22/79 9519.LDJ - 54 : ChART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 LOG SCALE islm, 7 14 .S0-208 0 MOTION EXPECTED TINS WITh ENTO AT 20° SA
    • r 8 3 1 F. NRO A PPROVED rp_RovER 1111C11111:11-1 RY 013 REELEASEi 1 FIED Sr. C/ ART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUA 2 rIDECLASSI I Recommendations for operational exposure times were made for SO-200 and SO-112 films. To do tide, the differences between simulation and operational parameters had to be specified and the required adjustments made. This entailed relating simulation target reflectances to the average acquisition reflectance and converting simulation exposures into operational context. OPERATIONAL EXPOSURE RECOMMENDATION 1 3 oA Al T. 0 0
    • NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 OPERATIONAL EXPOSURE CONVERT OPTIMUM SIMULATION EXPOSURE TO ABSOLUTE DEFINE OPTIMUM EXPOSURE WITH REFLECTANCE ADJUSTMENT AVERAGE ACQUISITION REFLECTANCE SIMULATED TARGET REFLECTANCES MUST BE RELATED TO OPERATIONAL EXPOSURE RECOMMENDATION 3/19/79 9632.LDJ - 55
    • O I.. a O ao - • 1 1 -1f1r1r1r.-11•11111. 111•*1 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: CHART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 • The average acquisition reflectance equals 12 percent. The scale study target, upon which the PI ratings were made, was a 36 percent reflectance AOB situated on a 25 percent reflectance background. The peak of the rating versus exposure curve indicates the optimum exposure for the 36/25 R target. Obviously, a darker target, 12 percent reflectance, would require more exposure. To calculate the necessary increase in exposure, the 36/25 R target was characterised by 30 percent average reflectance and then, the difference in expOsure presented to the film by 12 percent and 30 percent reflectance targets was calculated. TARGET REFLECTANCE ADJUSTMENT 0 CA
    • NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: CHART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 30% REFLECTANCE TARGET DIFFERENCE (slog E) PRESENTED TO THE FILM BY A 12% AND DEFINE EFFECT OF REFLECTANCE DIFFERENCE BY THE EXPOSURE • AVERAGE ACQUISITION REFLECTANCE = 12% CHARACTERIZE TARGET BY 30% AVERAGE REFLECTANCE PI RATING DATA BASED ON 36% AOB ON 25% BACKGROUND TARGET REFLECTANCE ADJUSTMENT 3/19/79 9632.LDJ 56
    • 8. 3 f NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2012. , s r• - I . r - r- 1 - 1 1---) - 1 The first method of calculating the exposure shift used simultaneous equations. The illumination received by the film is the sum of the sun and sky 'energy reflected by the target plus a constant hose component. The aerial contrast is known and is defined by the ratio of the energy from a 33 percent and 7 percent reflectance. The absolute exposure values of a 30 percent R and 12 percent R target need not be found, but rather just their difference in exposure, slog E. Therefore, the 12 percent exposure was set to equal 1, yielding two equations, (1) and (2), and two unknown, S and H. The unknowns were solved for, a 30 percent exposure (30 percent Exp .30 (S) + H) calculated, and the difference in exposure found. EXPOSURE sinFT CALCULATION 3 At 31; in 0 0
    • .12 (S) + H (log Ens) -_(log E12%) NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED. ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 CALCULATE A log E •• SOLVE FOR 30% EXPOSURE THEREFORE, 2 EQUATIONS, 2 UNKNOWNS AERIAL CONTRAST KNOWN LET 12% EXP. 1 H HAZE WHERE S SUN + SKY AERIAL CONTRAST s .33 S + H 12% EXP. METHOD OF SIMULTANEOUS. EQUATIONS EXPOSURE SHIFT CALCULATION 3/19/79 9632.LDJ - 57
    • r • , r 1 f f 1 I— r ; r 1 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 n A second method to calculate the exposure shift was based on film sensitometry. The developed densities were plotted against the log of their respective reffectances. The difference in exposure of 12 percent R and 30 percent R was found by transferring their densities through the. characteristic curve Into the exposure domain. EXPOSURE SHIFT CALCULATION 1 i1
    • 8 L___J / LOG REFLECTANCE 30% 1 12% sae nn•• n•• ONO MIN ••• REL. LOG EXPOSURE e . log E —1.1 3/19/79 9632.LDJ - 58 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED. BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 E N S I T o SOLVE FOR -a log E GRAPHICALLY o PLOT DENSITY AS A FUNCTION OF LOG REFLECTANCE AT IEXP • SIM 0 o CONSTRUCT COMPOSITE CHARACTERISTIC CURVE • SENSITONETRIC METHOD EXPOSURE SHIFT CALCULATION L_._) LL.3
    • r__ f s j 8 m if z • 1..-1 1 - 1 1 -1 1- 1-1 r• r- •1 n 1f i- • • fl • NRO APPROVED. FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 The results of the two methods are summarised on the opposite page. it can be seen that the procedures are in excellent agreement, ivithin 0.01 log exposure units for both films. REFLECTANCE ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY •
    • 3 z N C) .18 .18 .186 1.91 .23 .23 .223 2.19 S0- 209 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 Tro—to log E SENSITONLTRY A A 1011 E SINUL. EQ. AERIAL CONTRAST S0-112 REFLECTANCE ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY 3/19/79 9632.111J - 59
    • n r I F-1 P --1* 1 1 • r . r r•-• r 1 1*-- 1 r • 1 1 . iT NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE1 I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 The previous pages , calculations .are now used to correct -optimum exposure. The peat of the rating vs. exposure curve indicated the best. exposure for a target of 30 percent average • reflectance. Por the avenge acquisition reflectance of 12 percent, the optimum exposures are increased to account for the reflectance difference and are defined. by the additiOnal log exposure relative to the SIM 0 exposure. This recommendation is placed in absolute terms by defining the developed density,. Do, a 12 percent reflectance would have at thisexposure. OPTIMUM SIMULATION EXPOSURE AND Do RECOMMENDATION :1
    • O. 5 L-U .31 1.33 12% D ANNE B+F 8+F -1 1.64 uo IN 04.05 logE S0-209 1.36 .22 1.58 50-209 SIN 04..32 1ogE SIN 01..28 1ogE IN Of .14 logE SO-112 121 DENSITY 12% R 36/25% AOB OPT. EXPOSURE OPTIMUM SIMULATION EXPOSURE & D o RECOMMENDATION F-1 3/19/79 9632.LDJ - 60 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 LL-1 LL) 0 3 m z C) 4 0 w
    • f-' NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE [DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 a -1 r r 1 f ---) 1- 1 1 1 1 r r-- • r- r The 80-112 Do recommendation of the rating analysis was compared to that given by R.S. and the difference quantified by the A log exposure between the two.. For the zero motion case, the rating analysis indicates an exposure that is 0.24 kig B units greater. 12 PERCENT REFLECTANCE AIM DENSITIES—ZERO-MOTION CASE I tug 8 x.
    • • 1.0- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1•1 1.0 RELATIVE LOG EXPOSURE 2.0 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE ( DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 T I S D E N 2.0- ZERO MOTION CASE 12% REFLECTANCE AIM DENSITIES 3/19/79 9632.LDJ - 61
    • 17-- 1 ao r- -1 - 1 r 1 11.1 fl f I 11-1 1' NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 The 80-209 D, recommendations were compared and the difference calculated, in the exposure domain. For the zero-motion case, the rating analysis recommends a higher density and therefore an exposure that is 0.27 log Z units greater. 12 PERCENT REFLECTANCE AIM DENSITIES—ZERO-MOTION CASE
    • L_JJ CO t. 0 LU E ie. .27 A logE L•1111....n 1.0. RELATIVE LOG EXPOSURE R.S. D RATING ANALYSIS Do ---••-o • 2.0 SO-209 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 Y I ` N 1.07 D 2.0 ZERO NOTION CASE . 12% REFLECTANCE AIM DENSITIES 3/19/79 9632.LDJ -62 L.13 - -.3
    • 1":"--1 • 8 z O i I-7-1 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: CilART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 f- 1 r 1 r --1 1 r- r- r--- 1 - 1 - *1 1 r- Along with their Do recommendation, R.S. supplied the system exposure time through solar altitude. As shown on the previous two pages, the rating analysis has suggested a greater optimum evosure for both films. This exposure increase modifies each R.B. exposure time by a factor of the Do log E difference raised to a power of ten. RECOMMENDED EXPOSURE TIME — ZERO-MOTION CASE 1
    • 10 . SOLAR ALTITUDE (°) R.S. DATA E.T. 3/19/79 9632.LDJ - 63 l og E_) (E T ' 'R .S. DATA ) (1 °A log E• RATING ANALYSIS RATING ANALYSIS ZERO NOTION CASE RECOMMENDED EXPOSURE TINE L__1 L J LuJ [ —1 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 MOE 4E4 L__1
    • O CA r NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY:- CIIART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 r- • r • 1 r•-• IT n- 1 1 - • '1 1 1 r -- r • r The exposure motion tradeoffs had been performed for only 20 and 34-degree solar altitudes.• Their impact was to specify the optimum decrease in exposure from the zero-motion case which would maximize rating in the presence of motion. The analysis was extended to the other. solar altitudes and the exposure corrections, A log E, were calculated for the other sun angles. These corrections modify the zero-motion exposure time by a factor of the log exposure raised to a power of 10. EMTO COME CT/ON • a 1 a C) Ca
    • do I N R A WOW L-11.1 NOTION ul ETZERO 1" E • ADJUST RECOMMENDED ZERO MOTION .EXPOSURE SIMULATION EXPOSURE WO CORRECTION -1 3/19/79 9632.LDJ - 64 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: CHART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 i 0 z 8 z 5 z
    • 0 ww z in • 0 z n•,„. O NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 if-1111.1111-1111.11.1".1 r --n --) . r r The summation of the exposure recommendations for SO-112 are shown opposite. The RA. data was modified for the optimum zero motion exposure as indicated by PI ratings, and this curve was then corrected for system motion. RECOMMENDED EXPOSURE TIME VERSUS SOLAR ALTITUDE-80-112 ;1 cn co
    • 8 2 3._ 10 — 20 — 30_ I '1 SOLAR ALTITUDE 10 20 30 50 60 • SOLAR ALTITUDE (°) 40 70 .80 90 R.S. DATA RATING ANALYSIS, MOTION CORRECTION 1 3/19/79 9632.LDJ - 65 L___J L___J L___J RATING ANALYSIS, ZERO MOTION VS -itlirl; . A. S0-112 RECOMMENDED EXPOSURE TIME L___J L___J L__LJ LJ NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 l___J • L__JJ an 8 z z
    • 1 C r=2 1-1 AB_C) APPRQVEQ FQR RfLEASE LDECLASSIFIED BY: C/IARTIDECIASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 1 - 1 F-1 r 1 The summation of the exposure recommendations for SO-209 are shown opposite. The R.S. data was modified for the optimum zero-motion exposure as indicated by Pr ratings, and this curve was then corrected for system motion. RECOMMENDED EXPOSURE TIME VERSUS SOLAR ALTITUDE-30-208 " -; • si 3 0
    • m N § tS 5 L---U 5 — 10 20 — 70 I 1 20 ♦ L___J ► 30 1 1 50 60 SOLAR ALTITUDE (°) 40 1 70 I 80 R.S. DATA RATING ANALYSIS, MOTION CORRECTION RATING ANALYSIS, ZERO MOTION S0-209 RECOMMENDED EXPOSURE TIME VS SOLAR ALTITUDE 3/10/79 9632.1.0,1 - 66 L__-3 L,-11 L___J NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE r DECLASSIFIED BY: C/1ART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 '10 8
    • 0 wt 1- 1 -1- ' 7:1 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 1 1 - ' ) r ) 1--- r- - 1) 1-1 ET 1-'• "1 An additional set of data analysis was performed to supply a co-contractor with smearexposure bias functions for SO-209 and SO-112 films. The EMTO data provided rating curves through simulation exposure at constant magnitudes of motion. From these curves, smear rates were generated. Along a smear rate curve, the amount of image motion is a function of the exposure time. As in the illustration, starting with 18 micrometers at Mkt 0 + 2 stops, there would be 8, 4,and 2 micrometers at SIM 0 +1, SID[ 0, and SUE 0 -1, respectively. Two measures were derived from each smear curve. The exposure compensation to achieve maximum rating with smear relative to the peak of the zero-motion curve was computed as was the magnitude of smear at the optimum zero-motion exposure, Do. SMEAR MODEL ANALYSIS '1
    • .e RELATIVE LOG EXPOSURE N=0 4A • 16u 4-SMEAR RATE CURVE %. 8A . • ‘• • • (2) MOTION AT D = SD Do CALCULATIONS: (1) log E BIAS FROM D o A log Es e • .e• 3/19/79 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED. BY: CHART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 I N 6 R A log Es GENERATE SMEAR RATE CURVES FROM MOTION/EXPOSURE CURVES SMEAR MODEL ANALYSIS 9632.LDJ - 67
    • f . t i - - NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 The results of the smear rate analysis are shown here for 80-112 film. The amount of log exposure bias for optimum image quality is plotted as a function .of smear at D,. The chart values of A log E and smear are the actual points, not the smoothed curve. SMEAR-EXPOSURE BIAS FUNCTION—SO-112 ,
    • L1 L.-1 r 2 • 1 10 SMEAR (u) AT Do . 10-112 SMEAR-EXPOSURE BIAS FUNCTION L SMEAR (P) 2.1 5.5 7.8 10.9 15.5 21.8 30.8 43.6 log E 3/19/79- 9632.LDJ - 68 .045 .084 .135 .195 .285 .375 .525. .630 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 .7- 1.-.-11 0 3 C) •
    • L 8 P F Ll NRO AppRovED f I • r i ir FOR RELEASE DECLASSIFIED lar..C/IART DECLASSIFIED . ON: 10 ,JANUARY .2013 The results of the smear rate analysis are shown'here for SO-209 film. The amount of /og exposure bias for optimum image quality is plotted as a function of smear at Do. The chart values of A log E and smear are the actual points, not the smoothed curve. SMEAR-EXPOSURE BIAS FUNCT1ON-8O-209 of cn .co to
    • BIF-059W-15101-79 —SeeFIEWG/WHANOLE VIA IMBRUE CONTROL SYSTEM a. OC to . V kr • 0 4 I,. of LSI ••• .. . CO i••• n• 111 0J IO0 O 111 oI 01 CV 03 in m cv 1 • . _ _ ;1.1 O SVIII 3 60I. V -SEeR'ET/G/WHANDLE VIA BYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM 6417 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: CRARY I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013
    • I •f r 1. - r" C 1 n ti - 1 1" t ; NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 The exposure/motion tradeoffs performed in the scale study considered only the motion at the center of the format, which was appropriate for a pointing task. However, as the height is increased, the motion magnitude is decreased, but the task becomes a search task and the entire format should be considered. To properly analyse the effect of motion at other altitudes, new rating data should be generated at the appropriate scales. Interactions exist between motion/contrast and exposure, and the existing rating data cannot simply be scaled downward for other altitudes. However, to estimate the effect of format and height, the interaction was ignored in this present work, and the exposure/motion data treated as if it were obtained at another scale. A nominal set of conditions was chosen to represent the higher altitude and the smear rates were calculated across the format. EFFECT OF MOTION FOR DIFFERENT HEIGHT AND FORMAT
    • NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 a n 25 350, 470 CHOOSE A NOMINAL SET OF CONDITIONS CALCULATE SMEAR AT EACH FORMAT POSITION TO BOUND EFFECT USE OF SYSTEM AMMETERS TO DEFINE MOTION STATISTIC EFFECT OF MOTION FOR DIFFERENT H. AND FORMAT 3/19/79 9632.LDJ - 70
    • s. 8 z z a 0 0 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 r 1 " 1. _ if — 1 1 f , fi .1 An example calculation is shown on the opposite page, for H= 250 and a.25-degree obliquity. For each scan orientation, the on axis and field contributions are added to find the total contribution. The total intrack and crosstrack calculations are then vector summed to specify the total smear. EXAMPLES. 1
    • lea L—i 80 AXIS CONTRIB. h - 70 r/s .19 .19 (Vcn/h) 15.2 17.9 r/s on AXIS n CONTRIB. 50 50 FIELD POINT 16.7 59 r/s 31.9 76.9 r/s FIELD TOTAL CONTRIB. CONTRIB. 83.25 TOTAL NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY' 2013 50% PERCENTILE EXAMPLES. 3/19/79 9632.LDJ - 71 0.37u/ms SMEAR 0 z 3 5 a
    • BIF-059W-15101-79 , SECRET/G/H/HANDLE VIA BYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM RATE OF MOTION FOR 50 and 90 PERCENT FOR THREE DIFFERENT HEIGHTS The rate of motions are shown for three altitudes at a 25-degree obliquity as functions of format position. At each altitude, the rates were calculated for the 50 and 95 percentiles of the smear distribution. These percentiles mean that 50 and 95 percent of the smear is less than that rate. 6-122 "SEefiffiG/WHANDLE VIA BYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART f DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013
    • 81F-059W-15101-79 -SEGRET/G/H/HANDLE VIA EYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM 9632.L01,1 72 3/19/79 RATE OF MOTION (p/MS) FOR 50 895% MOTION FOR THREE DIFFERENT h 0 NI 25° 95% 70 Nag. 50%. j ,::: •• 1.0 350 Rau. • .350/50% 470/95% / 470M.HI.. 4e.0' .470/50% ‘°. FORMAT POSITION • . 0. 1 I a 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 • 90 100 4EeREF/G/111/HANDLE VIA BYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM 6-123 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013
    • 91F-059W-15101-79 —SEVIEFIG/WHANDLE VIA BYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM 95 PERCENT MOTION MAGNITUDE ACROSS FORMAT BY MATERIAL AND SOLAR ALTITUDE FOR TWO DIFFERENT HEIGHTS The mounts of motion across format are shown for 50-209 and 80-112 films at altitudes. 350 nautical miles for various solar altitudes. of 70 and 8-124 "SeeltefiG/WHANDLE VIA BYEMAN.CONTROL SYSTEM NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON 10 JANUARY 2013
    • Blf.OS9VWI8101.79 liteRellIGAVIIANDIA VIA MUM CONTROL MUM 9632.LDJ - 73 3/19/79 100u - 95% MOTION MAGNITUDE ACROSS FORMAT BY'MATERIAL AND SOLAR ALTITUDE FOR TWO DIFFERENT h 30 50 60 70 80 90 100 6-125 - sviiiime rBEGRET/G/HANsout va avemAN coma, NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: CilART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY. 2013
    • NRO APPROVED FOR RELEAS E DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED1 ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 1 1 Air',1* 1f ls 1! f r With reference to the raviolis page, it is shown that the motion magnitudes are large for both Rims at 70 miles and reduced by a factor of approximately 8 at 350 miles. 80-209 has more motion than-80-112 to longer exposure times, and at 350 miles the worst condition for 80-209 is at the 75 percent rmat with 95 percent of the motion less than 12 micrometers. Looking at a 34degree so altitude and at 50 percent of the format., 95 percent of the motion is lessthan El micrometers r 80-209 and 2.5 micrometers for 80-112, MOTION AT HEIGHT OVER FORMAT
    • 3/19/79 9632.LDJ - 74 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: CRART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 LESS THAN 611 FOR 209 and 2.50 FOR 112 AT 34° SA, AND AT 50% IN FORMAT, 95% OF THE MOTION IS 95% OF THE MOTION IS LESS THAN 12p THE WORST CONDITION FOR 209: 20° SA, at 75% FORMAT AT h n 350 THE MAGNITUDES ARE DOWN APPROXIMATELY 5 TIMES -THE MAGNITUDES ARE LARGE AT h' • 70 MOTION AT HEIGHT OVER FORMAT L:21; LL:12 I
    • r 1 1C-1 NRO APPROVED . FOR RELEASE DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 ir; i I 1 To gauge the effect on rating of the off-axis motion rates, EICTO's were performed at an altitude of 350 miles, 34-degree solar altitude, and 25-degree obliquity. As stated previously, the existing exposure/motion data was treated as it was obtained at this scale. To properly estimate the expected rating, new PI rating data should be generated for the appropriate scale. EMT° a C)
    • n 340 25° NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 WORST CASE OFF AXIS RATES SA a- h a 350 THE CHOSEN CONDITIONS WERE: AT THREE DIFFERENT FORMAT POSITION FOR EACH MATERIAL EXPOSURE/MOT/ON TRADE-OFFS WERE DONE AT ONE h, MTh 3/19/79 9632.LDJ - 75
    • 1 3 I 1 11 1 1 — r f- 1 -1 11 / t I NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 The expected ratings are shown for 80-209 on-axis and at 50 and 75 percent of the format. The rating axis is a relative scale and is intended to show the rating loss that could be expected for the off-axis cases. At 75 percent of the format, a loss of 0.11 rating would be incurred. EMTO FOE 80-209 1
    • SA 340 1 +2 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: -MART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 EXPOSURE (STOPS) h 350 env FOR S0-209 3/19/79 9632.1.00 - 76
    • C f NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART . I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 f' 1 1 8 1 r 1 • 1 1 IT 1 f The expected ratings are shown for 80-112 on-axis and at 50 and 75 percent of the format. The rating ads is a relative scale and is intended to show the loss in rating that could be expected for the off-axis cases. The drop in rating is slightly less for the 80-112 than for 80-209, and is approximately 0.08 rating units at 75 percent of the format. EMTO FOR 80-112 z X
    • •1 34° EXPOSURE STOPS • " 0. +1 n71•PrI,R=FPn SA . +2 011~1 0.075. NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 -2 15....0••n••••• 350 INT9 FOk.S0-11; 3/19/79 3432.1.0J • 77
    • 1 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: CHART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 I 1 flit 11)r;(11Thill,1 1f1 f s ii The expected rating losses are summarized for 80-112 and 80-209 at the 50 and 75 percent format positions. There is no appreciable shift in the peak exposure for these two format positions, therefore the optimum exposure remains at the on-axis exposure point. EMTO RESULTS 1
    • -0.11 75% FORMAT -0.08 -0.05 SO-112 NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE I DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART I DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 -0.06 50% FORMAT S0-209 RATING LOSS • EXPOSE FOR OPTIMUM ON AXIS QUALITY *CALCULATION OF LOSS IN RATING DUE ONLY TO MOTION BITO RESULTS 3/19/79 9632.LDJ - 78
    • 12F-059W-16101-79 —1681111,03/14/Nimeti VIA Wm* comma'. ram APPENDIX A SCALE STUDY IMAGERY The following pages illustrate the results of the 80-112 and 80-209 scale study work. Photomicrographs of the simulation imagery are positioned along the line showing the change in rating with scale. The magnification from the duplicate positives to the prints is approximately 128x. Photographic scale and the approximate corresponding altitude for a 20-degree look angle are shown along the horizontal axis. c L.. For these illustrations, the relationship of rating and scale is described by the average rating per scale from three atmospheric transmittances, 0.7, 0.6, and 0.5. Averaging all three conditions was chosen to summarize the results of the scale work as all the PI data is utilized to represent the effect of scale on quality. The photomicrographs are copies of the imagery produced at the 0.7 atmosphere, which is considered to be the average atmospheric condition. It should be noted that the simulation of these films was for different acquisition periods, and that although atmospheric transmittance was equivalent, aerial contrast was greater.for the 80-209 imagery. A-1 Th 4EGREF/WWWANDUI VIA WOWS C041716:EVETEI NRO APPROVED • • IP • ' 10 JANUARY 2013
    • el% ilitS411 e' get 55 I 126 115 f 263 LOG ALTITUDE, NAUTICAL MILES 84 I 192 400 I 175 .598 I 262 Nal NRO APP OVED. FOR RELEASE J DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART f DECLASSIFIED ON: 10 JANUARY 2013 frrn Orrthi terra frxi a 1iCara gari str-A 1 85 37 LOG SCALE (X 1,000) SO —209 fret rntt
    • r NRO APP OVED FOR RELEASE 3; 85 192 126 115 175 263 400 I DECLAbefiltbWAJOHARSYFILWL‘alli gaD ON: 10 84 55 LOG SCALE (X 1,000) JANUARY 2013 598 • 262 SO - 112
    • INF•0511W•18101•79 ligeRIFM3/F1/14ANOLI VIA WOMAN CON71101. avows Appendix B SCALE STUDY. TARGET ARRAY 411EGRETIG/Hhumom Ina NRO APPROVED I IIMAN CONTROL irt;!ina I • B-1 10 JANUARY 2013 .
    • 31P-059W-151 01 -79 SECT1CT/G/H/ HANDLE VIA BYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM NRO APPROVED FORSIEGRATWahliEMBNIOAART4SettAbSeIRIEWONFAO JANUARY 2013
    • BIF-059VV-15101.79 —SEGRWG/HitiANDLEyta wham CON11101. SYSTEM Appendix C RATING/LOG GRD The scale study results were summarized by illustrating the NIERS ratings of 80-209 and S0-112 relative to 130-208 as functions of log scale (Section 6, page 6-63). The object rated was an AOB model of 36 percent reflectance on a 25 percent reflectance background. The ratings were an average for the three illumination conditions (0.7, 0.6, and 0.5 atmospheric transmittances) and were acquired for the case of zero motion and optimum ON exposure. In this section, the same results are described by a rating versus log GRD plot. GRD was calculated at an aerial contrast of 1.91:1 for all three films. 81z tri-bar resolution targets surrounding the target array were read by three readers at three replicate exposures. Peak resolution was converted into ORD for given scales, and with the corresponding ratings at the 1.91:1 AC, rating/log G for each film. There is a slight convergence in the lines, but at a ORD in nge, 110-209 would give approdmately a half a rating unit increase in quality ove - 80-112, the increase would be about 2/10 of a unit greater than 80-208. The dotted line is an existing system calibration line. The experimental results have nearly the same slope as this line and are within a quarter rating unit of the calibration line at a given ORD. Fig. C-1 — Rating versus log (RU), 1.9:1 contrast NRO APPROVED F , G H 'lookout vutINIMANIX1101101.01411111 10 JANUARY 2gral