CONTRACT INSPECTION REPORT PHASE II IMAGE CORRELATION TEST PROGRAM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: NGA Records (Formerly NIMA)
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78B04770A000200010026-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 1, 2004
• Sequence Number: 26
• Publication Date: November 10, 1969
• Content Type: FORM

~' ' ~ SECRETApproved
TASK N0.
CONTRACT INSPECTION REPORT
2
?f0;
DATE
10 November 1969
INSPECTION REPORT N0. (jf final, ao state)
l~+ Final )
' ~
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE
NAME OF CONTRACTOR .
T _ - ,
Phase II Irna e Correlation Test Program .
THE CONTRACTOR IS ON SCHEDULE
THE CONTRACTOR WILL PROBABLY REMAIN WITHIN ALLOCATED
~~
? r
~
FUNDS ?rES ~ No IF ANSWER IS "NO" AD VISE REC-
ES
No
OMMENDATION AND/OR ACTION OF SPONSORING OF FICE, ON
REVERSE HEREOF. IF KNOWN, INDICATE MAGNIT UDE OF AD?
PER CENT OF WORK COMPLETED - 100
DITIONAL FUNDS INVOLVED. '
PER CENT OF FUNDS EXPENDED - lOO f .-~
-~ ~~ ~ -
HAS AN INTERIM REPORT, FINAL REPORT. PROTOTYPE, OR OTHER END ITEM BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE C ONTRACTOR
DURING THE PERIODt ~ YES ? No (If yes, give details on reverse side.) ~ '
HAS GOVERNMENT-OWNED PROPERTY BEEN DELIVERED TO CONTRACTOR DURING THIS PERIOD? ~ rEs ? NO
(If yes, indicate items, quantity, and cost on reverse side.)
INCENTIVES
IS THIS AN INCENTIVE CONTRACT ~ rES ~ No
NOTE: "" "'
IF YES. CHECK TYPE -~ ~
USE REVERSE SIDE~FOR COMMENTS.
? cosT ? AwAao ? PERFORMANCE ~ oE~ivERr ~
FINAL REPORT MUST CONTAIN INCENTIVE EVALUA TION.
FEE
~ OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACTOR
1. ~ OUTSTANDING __,'4? Q ABOVE AVERAGE 7. ~ UNSATISFACTORY
2. ~ EXCELLENT 5. a AVERAGE - - - .. __ ~ _ .
3. Q VERY GOOD _- .. ....__ _.. _... ._. _......
6. Q MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE
IF OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACTOR IS UNSATISFACTORY OR MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE INDICATE
-REASONS ON REVERSE SIDE. ~ ~ ___- --
- RECOMMENDED ACTION ~~y
CONTINUE AS PROGRAMMED ::~ _ ~~ ~ ~ WITHHOLD PAYMENT PENDING _~
SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE
?.CLOSE OUT Q OTHER (Specify) ,.. .-
IF THIS IS A FINAL REPORT PUT~COMMENTS ON REVERSE IN NARRATIVE FORM ON CONTRACTOR'S PERFO RMANCE
.AND CERTIFY THAT ALL DELIVERABLE ITEMS UNDER THE CONTRACT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. THESE INCLUDE; WHERE
APPLICABLE, THE FOLLOWING: _. r ,
ITEM -.
RECD
DOES NOT
~
- ITEM
RECD
DOES NOT
?
APPLY
APPLY
PROTOTYPES ~
MANUALS
x
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS
--
FINAL REPORT
x
PRODUCTION~AND/OR OTHER, ~
~-
SPECIAL TOOLING __
END ITEMS
-
.x
-
OTHER GOVERNMENT PROPERTY
x.
DATE OF LAST~CONTACT WITH CONTRACTOR ~ ~ ~ ~~
2
FORM ~ ~roved a ease 0 - -
':?e' 1897 ED~iiONS ~ UNCLASSIFIED CONFIDENTIAL -
Declass Review by NGA.
Release 2004/07/~:03~EI~FIT8~ 9200010026-~] UNCL
ASSIFIED
 ^ SECRET
? CONFIDENTIAL
Approve Release 2004/07/29: CIA-R
? NA TIVE REPORT
P78B~OA000200010026-2
INTERIM ? FINAL
1. In FY 1865, Contract Q "Multiple Image Integration Study," was
initiated with in two phases. Work effort under Phase I con-
cluded in early 19 7 that a much reduced scope for Phase II was indicated. In
April 1867, three tasks costing Plus award fee) were substituted for Pha~
II, under the heading "Image Correlation Test Programs." These were intended to
support the design of the prototype Automatic Stereo Scanner
In November 1967 the contractor delivered the three final report
for Phase II. ~ i
2. The disposition of Phase I was delayed by contractual discussions and
correspondence concerning allocable charges. In April 1868, the Office of Logistic
informed the contract officer that the funds for Phase II were inadvertantly
deleted as the result of a contract amendment in May 1967. Following resolution of
the contract dispute, in June 1969, this Division made note of this deletion-.iri
NPIC~TSSG~DED-1628-69 to Ch~SC&PS and requested that the contractor be reimbursed
from any available source for the approved invoices.
3. Through oversight during the drawn-out contractual discussions and other
difficulties with the related a Final Inspection Report on 2
was never completed, and the contractor has not received a fee. The con-
tract amendment for Phase II specifies an award fee schedule from 6~ to 10~, with
cost and performance incentives. To the best of my knowledge, no cost overruns
occurred on Phase II. My overall performance award evaluation is GOOD, which
carries a 9/ fee under the contract amendment for Phase II. I certify that all
deliverable items under Phase II were received by NPIC~TSSG~RED on 1 November 1867
and request that the contractor receive an appropriate fee.
~+. The following descri tions summarize in more detail my evaluation of the
three tasks conducted by ~on Phase II: -
-Task 1 - Distortion Feedback Servo Loop Stability, --- ~-
a. This-task employed a set of transparencies (with varying contrast and
image content) and an ~ PDP-1 computer scanner to generate simulated correlatio
error signals. Under this task, a new computer program was developed which was
n operated upon by these simulated signals to reduce the "error" to a negligible
level. ~ ., ..
b. The results of this task were mixed. Measured pull-in ranges in this
simulation varied from lg~ to 100. Since the design goal of 10/ was subsequently
reconfirmed by 0 the usefulness of these simulated results to the stereo scanne
is debatable. A May 1968 0 report on Contract ~ confirms this. Several
other inconclusive results are relieved by one quite useful conclusions namely,
-that a system removing translation errors before acting on the other distortions
would provide greater pull-in range and stability. This sequencing has since been
applied. to the Stereo Scanner and to the High Precision Stereo Comparator correla-
tion system. Finally, the report provides information about the effect of the
raster spot size in the correlation system phototube.
Task 2 - Registration Correction Accuracy
a. This task was intended to derive test data with which to evaluate the
magnitude of "averaging" errors when measuring with an automatic image registratio
system.
b. The results indicated that the registration precision of the experimental
EROS correlator is something better than +7 microns at photo scale; however, the
correlator itself cannot be used as means to derive measurements of building height
when only first order transformation capability is present in the system. Conside
ing the difficulty of implementing the EROS, 0 has done a good job of studying 2
the effects of averaging registration. (continued) _,: ??
^ UNCLASSIFIED - ~ ~CONF(DENTIAL ~ ^ SECRET
Approved For Release 2004/ _ 9 : CIA-RDP78B04770A000200010026-2 --- --
 X1
X1
Approved Release 2004/~~~:~~~~~~OA000200010026-2
Continuation of Inspection Report
Test Program
98+85 (Phase II Image Correlation
Task 3- Image Dissector Scan Distortion
a. This task consisted primarily of the modification of the video
system breadboard previously assembled to aid in the design of the Auto-
matic Stereo Scanner (Contract
b. Preliminary data in this as resulted in an. early decision to
implement the closed loop servo system in the Automatic Stereo Scanner.
5. Total Authorized Funds: Phase II -
plus award fee.
Project Monitor
TSSG~RED~SRB
Approved For Release /~7~ ~~I~Qy-F~t{~~~B04770A000200010026-2
25
25