PAR 242(Sanitized) COLOR DEMONSTRATION MATERIAL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: NGA Records (Formerly NIMA)
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78B04770A000800160002-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 2, 2004
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: June 13, 1966
• Content Type: MFR

SIA-RDP78BO47WO0800160002-6
Approved Fo 0 lease 20~ 6RE
NPIC/P&DS/D/6-1418
13 June 1966
SUBJECT: PAR 242,
0
1. The purpose of PAR 242 was to provide Color Demonstration
Materials to be used in conjunction with briefing boards to brief on
the results of PAR 213, Color Reproduction Systems Review. It is the
opinion of NPIC that the color balance and print density of the
material obtained under PAR 242 covers such a broad range that it is of
little use for briefing purposes.
2. This matter was discussed with the following ersonnel at
their plant on 17 May 1966:
position is
that deviations from ideal color balance and print density are due to
differencies in contrast characteristics of the various materials and
to printing and processing control limitations.
3. Specific cases discussed in detail at this meeting are as
follows:
a. The first item was duplication of SO-121 material directly
on SO-121 by the contact additive printing method. NPIC had
requested five identical prints from a single original frame. One
of the prints produced had a maximum density difference from the
others of 0.38 density units. 0 personnel claimed they had
controlled these prints to a 0.05 filter density. This print
density difference would indicate that this is not so. The
briefing board of stereo duplicates of SO-121 was to show high
color saturation. According t=personnel, this was not the case,
since the color saturation of two SO-121 prints is no greater
than that of one, therefore, this board was intended for comparison
with the one of SO-121 and one SO-108.
b. The next item discussed was the duplication of SO-121 on
S0-108 for use with the briefing board comparing these two materials,
indicating, that one should expect higher color saturation with
the S0-121 printed on SO-121. The difference in the color balance
and print density of the SO-108 produced was so great that little
or no conclusion could be determined regarding saturation. At
this point, the =personnel volunteered the information that
the contact S0-121 printing used the "back-of-the-film flashing"
technique for purposes of reducing haze, and for some unexplained
reason this technique was not used on the SO-108 printing. This
is the first time anything has been said in this project about back
flashing techniques, and there is nothing in the final report on Sim
Approved For Release 2004/07/29 : CIA-RDP78BO477OA000800160002-6 f *' d tk
Declass Review by SECRET 4949"UUM
NGA. ~L
25
25
25
25
 Approved For lease 200 t0f/~p riC~IA-RDP78BO47W00800160002-6
PAR 213 regarding this technique. It was further stated that SO-108
cannot be color balanced to the S0-121 without losing detail.
stated they would be glad to reprint the material (for a price)
if a specific density point or limited density range was determined.
Perhaps one should use color filters over each of these prints
when making a comparison, thereby neutralizing differences in color
balance?
c. The next item discussed was SO-121 contact printed on SO-121
by the additive method and by the subtractive method. This is
another case where difference in color balance makes it difficult
to draw any conclusions from visual comparison. It was intended
that these prints would be used in conjunction with briefing boards
to support the contention that additive printing is-the more
desirable method. Here again it was stated that the additive
printing method used the flashing technique and that it could not
be used with the subtractive printing. Therefore, color balance
could not be attained. It was further stated that if the flashing
technique was eliminated in the additive printing, a better color
balance could be attained but color fidelity and apparent sharpness
of image would be reduced.
d. The next item discussed was the 5X enlargements of SO-121
subtractive printed on inter-negative type 6110 and contact sub-
tractive printed on type 6109. Two identical prints were requested
to be used with two separate briefing boards. One print was to
compare 5X, lOX, and 20X enlargements when produced by the same
method. The other was for comparison of 5X enlargements when the
internegative was made on material other than type 6110. The
maximum density of the two prints delivered had a density difference
of 0.26 units. A meaningful comparison of these prints, with
those made by use of other materials, is hardly possible, due to
the density variation. =personnel claimed they had held their
printing to a tolerance of 0.07 exposure difference, or 9/10 of
one second. It is apparent that, whatever they did, it was not
good enough for the intended purpose.
e. The next discussion concerned a fourth generation, 5X
enlargement on type 6109. In this instance, the original SO-l21
was duped on SO-108 then an inter-negative was made on the type
5270 and finally 5X printed on type 6109. This print was intended
for use with a briefing board depicting comparison of 5X prints
made by various methods. NPIC contends that this print has a major
high-light to shadow density shift resulting in a color shift and
is therefore not suitable for comparison. E :]personnel claims that
the inter-negative was properly exposed and that considering the
type of dupe positive (S0-108 and the fact that the final print is
a fourth generation print, the result is as good as can be expected
with normal controls.
Approved For Release 2004/07/2,R . Cl4-RDP78B04770A000800160002-6
25
 Approved For lease 200929 : IRDP7813047IW00800160002-6
f. Prior to this discussion with personnel on color
duplication results, NPIC had a contact print made on type 6109
from a 5X inter-negative by the PSD Laboratory. NPIC personnel
contend that this print has better color balance than those made
This print was used as an exhibit to show that the
prints did not represent the best that could be produced by the
various methods. admitted that it was a better print but that
color masking made the difference, and if so instructed they could
have done the same. Incidentally, color masking was not used in
the study and was therefore omitted from all the color demonstration
prints.
g. The next item. to come under discussion was contact black
and white prints. Three of these were delivered and were to serve
two purposes in conjunction with several briefing boards; one to
show that by stereo viewing of black and white, with color, high
resolution and color advantage could be combined in a single view.
The other two were to show, by comparison, that printing of color
on black and white film retained a greater amount of detail when the
duplicate negative was made by additive light printing. The
latter two prints, made from the color master, had a maximum density
difference of 0.21 density units. It is the NPIC opinion that
this is too great a density difference for comparison. = claimed
that this density variation was due to the difference in the
contrast characteristics of the materials and that the density
match was close at a limited number of points. It is felt that
the darker of these two prints was over printed and is therefore
not suitable for comparison in its present form.
4+. Conclusions and Recommendations:
a. The color print material received from L ___Jon PAR 2-I2 is
unsuitable for comparison purposes since it cannot support the
implied advantages or disadvantages of the several materials.
as shown by the briefing boards obtained for the Color Reproduction
Study, PAR 213. It is recommended that ^ be required to furnish
a solution whereby the print materials prepared under PAR 242
can be used to support the advantages or disadvantages of the various
materials and methods as shown by the briefing boards prepared by
them under PAR 213.
25
25
25
25
25
25
Distribution:
Original - Project Files/DB(#997376)
2 - DB - Chrono
Approved For Release 2004/07/29 : CIA-RDP78BO477OA000800160002-6
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2004/07/29 : CIA-RDP78BO477OA000800160002-6
Approved For Release 2004/07/29 : CIA-RDP78BO477OA000800160002-6