(Sanitized) ELECTROCOLOR PRINTER - PROCESSOR

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: NGA Records (Formerly NIMA)
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78B04747A000500220009-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 1, 2001
• Sequence Number: 9
• Publication Date: September 20, 1965
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2001/0 n P78B04747AGN500220009-1
UJ REI
PSD/NPIC-176-65
20 September 1965
MEMORANDUM FOR: Assistant for Plans and Development
SUBJECT: Electrocolor Printer-Processor
REFERENCE: NPIC/P&DS-308-65
DECLASS REVIEW by NIMA/DOD
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
1. The purpose of the evaluation was to compare the ^ Electrocolor
System to present conventional color systems for limited print production
on a daily basis.
2. The installation of the machine was fully completed on 29 April
1965. The discrepancy between the dates as stated in the referenced
memorandum was due to the necessity to add more deionization tanks to the
water system.
3? arrived on 12 April 1965 and was
assigned to asses lm in the assembly of the machine. After the machine
was assembled, instructed - in its operation. The assembly
consumed approximately two days and the instruction approximately one and
one-half days. left the afternoon of 15 April.
25X1A 4. and two other Lab technicians, whom he instructed, began
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/08/13 9IA-?T04747A000500220009-1
61P-1i L
on 10 April to produce prints. They had gathered together a package of
various types of negatives which had previously been used in the Lab;
these included portrait, landscape, aerial and copy negatives. Also
included in the package were some color test targets. During the first
two weeks the productivity of the machine was limited because of the lack
of hot deionized water. This condition was corrected by the installation
of the three additional deionizatior tanks on the 29th of April.
5. During the month of May, - spent fall time testing the machine.
He was assisted on a part time basis by
The results obtained from their efforts were frustrating and unsatisfactory.
During this period was in almost constant contact with the
situation. He, as a result of his observations, decided to call in technical
help from -
6. On 7 June, reported and spent the next three
and one-half days making various adjustments and re-checking procedures with
our people. During - stay, he had several conversations with
LN10nkt3
IlCY pg7pui4;
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13: CIA-RDP78BO4747AQ00500220009-1
PSD/NPIC-176-65
Page 2
in which he emphasized that this was an experimental machine and that
we were expecting too much of it; that he was surprised that it was
installed in a production laboratory.
7. After - departure on the 18th of June, we continued to
try to use the machine. We finally shut it down on 9 July and have not
attempted to run it since that date.
8. Conclusions
A. The repeatability from print to print made from the
same negative at identical exposure settings and magnifications
was inconsistent.
B. The resolution produced is less than that presently
produced by existing color systems.
C. The limitations of negative and print sizes fail to
meet our requirements.
D. The physical design of the machine does not allow the
use of local print control such as "dodging" and "burning-in",
necessary functions when producing good quality prints.
E. The color rendition is not yet comparable to that of
Ektacolor Professional Print Paper. The overall color quality
seems to be effected by the minimum density areas; this is to
say that the whites are muddy and lack brilliance.
F. Humidity and room temperatures greatly effect the
sensitivity of the print during exposure.
G. The present design is not practical for production use.
9. Recommendations
A. That the separation of the printing and processing
functions into two separate mechanisms be suggested to -
Approved For Release 2001/08/16= qI RSI 78BO4747A000500220009-1
 %
Approved For Release 2001/bs 4S:g~kLDP78BO4747A&W500220009-1
PSD/NPIC-176-65
Page 3
B. That ^ consider a better optical system in future
design.
C. That the present contract be terminated and the
machine be returned to ~
D. That future prototype equipment be tested by some
facility other than the PSD Photo Lab whose mission is one of
production.
Chief, Production Se?ices Division,
NPIC V
Approved For Release 2001/08/13 --9IA-RDP78B04747A000500220009-1