IEG DECISIONS ON EQUIPMENT SELECTION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: NGA Records (Formerly NIMA)
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78B05703A000100010007-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 9, 2004
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: May 26, 1970
• Content Type: MF

Apioved For Release &/R MPl- B05703A000100010007-7
FROM
DATE
TO
INITIALS
DA E
REMARKS
DIRECTOR
DEP/DIRECTOR
,J
EXEC/DIRECTOR
ore
SPECIAL ASST
ASST TO DIR
Q CC~
G~ O o
44 +am P-p '`
ASSTTO DEP/DIR
CH/PPBS
DEP CH/PPBS
EO/PPBS
CH/IEG
DEP CH/IEG
EO/IEG
10 ~-~i`(.1A6 +~
/
CH/PSG
DEP CH/PSG
c
EO/PSG
CH/TSSG
DEP CH/TSSG
EO/TSSG
CH/SSD/TSSG
PERSONNEL
LOGISTICS
TRAINING
RECORDS MGT
DECLASS REVIEW b
NGA
SECURITY
y
FINANCE
DIR/IAS/DDI
CH/DIAXX-4
CH/DIAAP-9
6.ppr4pyed Fo
Rel
ase 20
4/03/2
: CIA-RDP78B05703A000100010007
 Approved For ase 2004/03/Zfi ; k:f :DP78BO5703 01000100 k ~~ xi- tt
lEG-148/70
26 May 1970
X1
X1
X1
MEMORANDUM FOR: Chief, Planning, Programming and Budgeting Staff
SUBJECT . IEG Decisions on Equipment Selection
1. This report summarizes advantages and disadvantages of the
prototype model 151-0 Split Format Light Tables produced by
and the Model 28 and Model II
for production of the 1540
stereorhomboids. It outlines the path followed in reaching the decision
to purchase the = light tables'and the Model 28 stereorhomboids. The
report includes description of the characteristics of the equipment,
comments on modifications requested and recommends a study of light
sources.
2. 54o split
Format Lig Tables.
a. Based upon the results of technical and operational
suitability evaluations, IEG has selected
light tables.
b. A brief summary of the comparison between the two
prototype tables is provided:
X1
Outstanding film drive
system.
Dry light source.
Outstanding stereo-
scope mount design.
Film threading dis-
play and automatic
Quiet and. cool opera- switching feature
tion. superior.
------------------------
Poor stereoscope mount Poor film drive
design. system.
25
25
25
Approved For Release 2004/03/26 : 4-RDP78BO5703A000100010007-7
qtr t:s^~ ',~
r?,;:?~; ,.yam
 Approved For ase 2004/03/26(~~;1A-Rt P78B05703 0100010007-7
IEG-1+8/70
26 May 1970
SUBJECT: IEG Decisions on Equipment Selection
Counterbalance system
for carriage movement
in "Y" axis inferior.
Other minor design
and human engineering
deficiencies.
Excessive heat from
light source.
Poor history of per-
formance from liquid
cooled light source -
leaks and air bubble
formation.
Recent phenomenon of
green hue in the min-
eral oil.(coolant).
Other minor deficien-
cies and human engi-
neering deficiencies.
X1
c. Both the prototype tables require
rework or modification to several features. The companies
have provided their solutions to each problem in letters of
intent. They presented their methods for solution in general
terms; TSSG/RED analysed each solution and assigned confidence
statements.
d. IEG expresses confidence in
to correct their deficiencies and th e an acceptable
light table. This confidence is based primarily on the
strength of their outstanding film drive system and the cool,
"dry" light source.
e. probably can correct most of
their de iciencies; however, the high degree of uncertainty in
their ability to produce an acceptable dry light source, in a
timely manner, reduces IEG's confidence in their product. The
many problems associated with their liquid cooled light source,
and the history of poor performance of the light source on their
940 Split Format Light Tables, renders the 0 table un-
r9
Approved For Release 0 / 6 : CIA-RDP78B05703A000100010007-7
 Approved For ase 2004/03/28,3: QI
Pie Ulf
RDP78B0570330100010007-7
IEG-1.18/70
26 May 1970
SUBJECT: IEG Decisions on Equipment Selection
f. Cost competitive factors also favor
0
3. Zoom 221-0 Stereoscope System (Model 28 Rhomboids) and proto-
type Model II Advanced Stereorhomboids.
a. Based upon the results of technical and operational
suitability evaluations, IEG has selected the commercially
available Model 28 over the Model II stereorhomboid.
b. A brief summary of the comparison between the two
instruments is provided:
Model 28 Model II
Image rotation in eye-
pieces.
Objective lenses not
parfocal - working dis-
tances not uniform.
Interchangeable objec-
tive lenses.
. Individual focus control
on each objective lens.
0.43X, 1-OX and 2.OX ob-
jective lenses - 3-60X
magnification.
Rhomboid assembly slides
to rear of Zoom 221-0 Pod
to change operation -
stereo to -iaono.
Stereo mode - 10% less
light transmittance
than the Model II.
Image rotation in the
rhomboid arms.
Parfocal objectives and
uniform working distance.
Interchangeable objec-
tive lenses.
Individual focus control
on each objective lens.
l.OX, 2.OX and 3.OX ob-
jective lenses - 7-90X
magnification.
Automatic shift via op-
tical switch - stereo to
mono or vice versa.
Stereo mode - 10% more
light transmittance than
the Model 28.
Approved For Release 2004/0$Y;
25
 Approved For ase 2004/03/I6'f..
IEG-11-8/70
26 May 1970
SUBJECT: IEG Decisions on Equipment Selection
Mono mode - 5 times more
light transmitted than
the Model II.
Optical resolution essen-
tially equal to Model II.
Slightly less "Off axis."
IA (RDP78B05703 0100010007-7
Mono mode - 5 times
less light transmitted
than the Model 28.
Optical resolution essen-
tially equal to Model 28.
Slightly better "off axis."
c. From a subjective standpoint the IEG photo inter-
preters considered the two instruments to be equal in per-
formance in the stereo mode. However, the light reduction
in the Model II in the mono mode is dramatic; the PI's were
unanimous in their preference for the Model 28 for-mono
operation.
d. An experiment was conducted by TSSG/RED/ATB and the
to assess the effect of light loss on interpret-
ability. The experiment, utilizing IEG PI's as subjects, com-
pared the two instruments in stereo and mono modes of operation.
PI performance in the stereo mode was approximately equal when
viewing with the Model II and the Model 28. In the mono mode,
the percentage of confidence in reporting targets was slightly
higher for the Model 28. The significance of this difference
and,the effect it might have on the exploitation process is
unknown.
e. The Model II operational utility is less encumbered
than the Model 28. The physical actions required of the op-
erator to change from one mode of operation to another are
minimized by the parfocality of objective lenses and the
optical switch of the Model II. However, the light loss in
the mono mode of the.Model II, and the psychological effect
this loss has on the PI, make the mono mode of operation of
the Model II undesirable.
Approved For Release 2004/?,3/,2f,,,.
.cIA-RDP78B05703A000100010007-7
 Approved For ase 2004/;CAA-RDP78B05703 0100010007-7
IEG-14+8/70
26 May 1970
SUBJECT: IEG Decisions on Equipment Selection
f. IEG's decision to procure the Model 28'rhomboid
system is based on the following factors :
(1) Approximately equal optical resolution
qualities of the Model II and Model 28.
. (2) Approximately equal performance of each
system in the stereo mode.
(3) Apparent higher performance of the Model
28 in the mono mode.
(4+) Psychological effects of light loss.in
mono of the Model II.
(5) PI preference for the Model 28.
(6) More rapid production of the Model 28.
(7) Cost factors.
4. IEG supports a general research and development effort in in-
vestigation of methods of improving light sources. There may be signif-
icant positive effects on PI performance if more light could be made
available through the lens systems of direct viewing instruments. This
may suggest a point light source or collimated light.
25
Chief, Imagery Exploitation Group
NPIC
Distribution:
Orig. + 1 - Addressee
1 - Ex Dir/NPIC
1 - Ch/TSSG
1 - TSSG/RED
2 - IEG/O/C
1 - IEG/OD
1 -?IEG/OD/TPB
Approved For Release 2004/ aF A-RDP78B05703A000100010007-7