IMAGE ANALYSIS PROGRAM REVIEW

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: NGA Records (Formerly NIMA)
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79B00873A000100010092-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 1, 2012
• Sequence Number: 92
• Publication Date: July 18, 1968
• Content Type: MEMO

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/01: CIA-RDP79B00873A000100010092-2
25X1
Memorandum for Record
IMAGE ANALYSIS PROGRAM REVIEW
July 18, 1968
25X1
25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/01: CIA-RDP79B00873A000100010092-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/01: CIA-RDP79B00873A000100010092-2
25X1
?
IMAGE ANALYSIS PROGRAM REVIEW
A meeting was held at
for the ?ur ose of reviewing the
the Image Analysis Program.
on July 18, 1968
25X1
portion of
25X1
In attendance were:
25X1
25X1
The following schedule was set, based on the four tasks
defined in the work statement (see contract file):
Task 1: Complete August 31, 1968
Task 2: Complete October 15, 1968
Task 3: Complete November 30, 1968
Task 4: Complete January 31, 1969
Program reviews: 4 September 1968 (tentatively)
30 November 1968 (approximately)
Various comments relating to aspects of the job are listed
below:
1. Manning will consist primarily of
technician, an analyst and some time from
a photo? 25X1
25X1
2. Targets in the replication will consist of medium to low
contrast, using a paired reversed target.
3. An attempt will be made to reproduce exposures in
Task 3 (replicating Task 2). They will probably shoot at f/16
to achieve about 602./mm. Comparisons will include Task 2 to
Task 1, Task 3 to Task 2 and Task 2 to Task 1.
4. John C. suggested that the reports be carefully planned
and worded to avoid the human factors problem. A discussion
ensued in regard to ways of separating the photo and human effects
but no conclusion was reached except to state that a difficult
problem was involved.
5. It was suggested by J.D.F. that the report define carefully
the conditions of replication.
6. Task 2 should produce some estimate of confidence limits
for all the data.
25X1
I Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/01 : CIA-RDP79B00873A000100010092-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/01: CIA-RDP79B00873A000100010092-2
25X1
?
7. The
2
report should be reviewed again by J.D.F.
8. The point was made carefully that a good report is
needed and that money for this purpose should be reserved. The
over-run problem was discussed by John C.
25X1
9. Direction was given that any scheduling problem should
be reported immediately by so that appropriate action could 25X1
be taken by the customer and/or T/0.
10. John C. suggested consider combining graphs
possible to reduce volume of data.
11. John C. suggested that the observers note when a
and a circle become indistinguishable.
where 25X1
triangle
12. We also discussed the use of mensuration microdensitometry
and the establishment of the density point at which observer reads.
? 13. George R. said that some sort of model structure is needed
to explain the data. For example, some circles appear to get
smaller, lines wider. This can be explained to some degree if the
man always reads density points in a particular way. It is worth
pursuing. J.D.F. to do so if time allows, also.
14. A general agreement was made to consider new ways of
presenting data.
The meeting, while brief, served its purpose. A schedule is
established, direction given, objectives .are clearly set, and the
end result is clearly defined. It remains now to review progress.
I expect to travel to occasionally and make an informal
review of progress. It is mandatory that the schedule be kept.
This is a simple program, but by being added to WWM's heavy work
load may result in sporadic accomplishment.
25X1
25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/01: CIA-RDP79B00873A000100010092-2