EVALUATION OF FINAL REPORT ON PAR 216

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: NGA Records (Formerly NIMA)
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78B04770A001300010002-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 13, 2005
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: January 13, 1966
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For lease 200/ I~.~RDP78B0477~01300010002-6
13 January 1966
EVALUATION OF FINAL REPORT ON PAR 216
Background
PAR 216 of Contract ~ posed the problem of studying 'the
effects of lasers on photographic materials and techniques. Its broad
objective was to discern and define the similarities and the discrepancies
between the use of lasers and the use of conventional non-coherent
light sources in the photographic processes. u.~dertook
the problem on 6 February 1961+ leted the work on 15 January 1965
at a cost to the Government of Three basic study areas were
to be investigated: (1) film response and resolution, (2) effects
of heat, and (3) photographic processing. (Optimization of the laser will
be considered under PAR 217.) The final report includes both findings
and recommendations in response to our submitted request for research.
Evaluation
1. Probably the simplest way in which to appraise the final report, and
indeed the entire study program, would be to separate the successes from
the failures, the desired ends achieved from the desired ends neglected.
Specific questions posed in our detailed research objective should have
provided with a framework from which to organize their work.
2. Beginning with the area of film response and resolution, the
broadly stated objective was the determination of the manner :in which present
arripredictable future high resolution films are responsive to light energy
? in red and near infrared ranges. Specifically, any unique re:~olution
characteristics were to be investigated and compared with shop?ter wavelength
exposure. Nowhere in the final report is ~ mention made of attacking
this problem, has given us some verbal assurances th~~,t there are
no real problems in this area--that film responds to red and hear infrared
light much the same as it does to white light. However, has not
provided substantive data to confirm these verbal assurances. Their
primary effort was a comparison of coherent and non-coherent radiation,
surely a valid consideration when approaching lasers, but onl~~ a partial one.
Since lasers are, to date, found predominantly in the red end and not in
the actinic end of the spectrum, such a requirement should have been treated
in some detail. Any implications of resolution differences would have
been most crucial to future film development. The contractor regarded
onl;~ radiation of the "same approximate wavelength and energy level."
Although we suggested emphasis at one wavelength of especial interest, that
of the laser enlarger, this stipulation sriould not have been totally
confining.
Declass Review by NGA.
Approved For Release 2005/~''~ ~~DP78B0477q~~~~~g~?~0~~-
25
25X
 Approved For lease 2~#0~/'P~IA-RDP78B0477 01300010002-6
~.
3. A second specific objective was to determine the effects upon
resolution of the interference phenomena resulting from diffractions
caused by the interaction of lasers' coherent beam and a turbid rnedia
such as a silver halide emulsion. Other than mentionen that "if the
light is coherent there will be interference fringes," defines no
quantitative aspects of this problem. Their use of a periodic photographic
input (a scaled rule} in con,Lunction ??rith this objective was a poor
procedure since spurious focusing effects o_b_tained from such repetitive
images void any results obtained. Their contention that dust and
scratches or any other foreign particles in the beam will cause
problematical diffraction patterns is certainly valid; however; this is
not news.
~+. The second broad goal of PAR 216 was a definition of the effects,
? if any, of laser-generated heat upon photographic film.. Verbal assurance
that heat would not play a significant role was received from 0 however,
they neither confirmed nor obviated anal such concern in their final
report. Specific questions involving film dimensionality and plasticity
alteration and increased rates of emulsion deterioration were ignored.
Although undoubtedly difficult to attain experimentally, quantitative
answers are sorely needed if we are ever to promote lasers in photographic
systems.
5. The third and final broad area delineated was that of the photographic
processing of laser-exposed materials--the determination of whether or not
new and different processin techniques must be employed for films exposed
with coherent radiation. ~ treatment of this particular topic
was somewhat more substantial than those previously mentioned. They
investigated the possibilities of a difference in gamma existing between
similarly exposed emulsions, one with coherent light, the other with
? non-coherent light. Their findings of no significant gamma discrepancy .
apparently led to the conclusion that special processing is not necessary
for lasered photo-emulsions, although such reasoning is not explicitly
confirmed in the final report.
6. In all, this project must be appraised as quite inadequate in both
design and experimental procedure. Its results, as reflected in the report,
are too meager to have merited the time and funds allotted. In addition
to substantially oversimplifying the stated objectives, the contractor
has shown virtually no evidence of andawareness of related research
being performed outside his own facilities. .Only as an afterthought
in the final report is any mention made of supportive literature, and nowhere
has any irragination been exhibited in relation to future developments
in the field of laser photography. In conclusion it must be judged that
work on PAR 216 has not been particularly beneficial to the
state-of-the-art or to ti:e Government.
Approved For Release 2005/0~'I~i~~; ~-~DP78B047~~ii6c~?~'~~~O~~OOg~tinued)
25
25