AN EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS FOR ACCOMMODATING WIDE FILM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: NGA Records (Formerly NIMA)
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78B04747A002100050006-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 52
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 18, 2001
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: August 30, 1965
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2001/,
78B04747A002100050006-8 of--
0
DECLASS REVIEW by NIMA/DOD
 ---Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78B04747A0021000d oora-8' vi=
August 30, 1965
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78B04747A002100050006-8
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The possibility exists that future acquisition systems may
utilize a film in excess of 9-1/2 inches wide. Many items of
equipment necessary to the exploitation process are limited to the
acceptance of films no greater than 9-1/2 inches in width. The
introduction of a wider film would,. therefore, impose serious
exploitation problems which should be recognized in advance of
the event.
In recognition of this possibility, the present study was
undertaken to investigate the problems associated with the
introduction of a wider film and to evaluate alternative solutions.
The objectives of the investigation were stated in the Request for
Proposal R-34-65 as being to provide the following information:
a. A brief description of the alternatives available to this
office to accommodate film widths from 9-1/2 to 24 inches,
such as adoption of a chip system, splitting film at the
processing site to provide film widths no wider than 9-1/2
inches, or modifying all exploitation equipment to accommodate
the wide film,
b. Suggestions for film handling component redesign,
c. Cost to provide the suggested modifications,
c. Estimate time to accomplish the suggested modifications.
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78B04747A002100050006=8
2.0 STUDY CONSIDERATIONS
Many factors must be considered in determining the impact of
a wider film on the exploitation system. The problem goes somewhat
deeper than merely the factors of time and cost. The conduct of the
study was influenced considerably by the assumptions made and by the
somewhat subtle complications resulting from the possible multiplicity
of widths. Before embarking upon a discussion of the specific
factors investigated it is necessary to establish the framework
within which the investigation was made.
The problem of accommodating film widths from 9-1/2 to 24 inches
can be viewed in different ways. The solution may be different
for each. If the problem were to accommodate a single width
between these values one solution may suffice. If, however, more
than one wider film is possible, the single width solution no longer
holds. In the course of the study it was assumed that more than
one wider film is possible and that it is desirable to consider
this contingency.
In the current situation several film widths are already in
use at the same time. As new acquisition systems are developed it
is likely that one or more new widths, lesser or greater than 9-1/2
inches, may be introduced. It is doubtful that a new system would
completely replace a current one, at least until sufficient experience
has been gained to warrant complete confidence. It seems quite
possible, then, that a wider film will be in addition to the present
widths rather than as a replacement of, and that the exploitation
system should be prepared for this eventuality.
0
18BO4747AO02100050006-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78B04747A002100050006-8
This leads 'to the question of quantity. A new acquisition
system could increase materially the input quantities. In fact,
it seems logical that increased coverage would be a prime objective
in developing a new system. To investigate all of the ramifications
of this aspect in the brief period of this study, however, did not
appear justified in view of the other important considerations to
be pursued. For this reason, quantity was assumed to remain
constant for purposes of evaluating alternatives simply to avoid
further complications. While this would affect cost estimates in
an abbsolute sense, it does not alter the relative considerations
among alternatives.
Several assumptions were made about the characteristics of a
wider film. Scale and quality, for instance, are not expected to
be significant factors. While either may be somewhat better than
at present, the changes will not influence or restrict the results
of the study.
It is also assumed that PI tasks will remain the same and
that present methods and procedures will remain in effect. Thus,
equipment requirements are considered unchanged except with regard
to film width requirements.
Before considering the major factors in the exploitation
process it is necessary to examine briefly some basic considerations
regarding the processing site. Despite the obvious fact that a
wider film would also affect the negative processor, the scope of
this study was interpreted to extend only to the second generation
prints. Concern about a suitable processor to accommodate a wider
Approved For Release 2001/08 3~gs9_ B04747A002100050006-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78B04747A002100050006-8
a3 Z
negative is assumed to be the responsibility of someone else.
Whatever lead-time applies to the negative processor would, presumably,
also apply to the exploitation process equipment.
There are several alternative ways in which film might be handled
at the processing site which are pertinent to the problem. The
impact on the exploitation process must be viewed in terms of the
most probable alternative among the following:
1. The original negative and prints are both provided in a
width which can be accommodated by present equipment,
2. The original negative and prints are both provided in the
original width,
3. The original. negative is provided in the original width
and prints are provided-in a width which can be accommodated.
by present equipment.
Intuitively, there would seem to be some reluctance to cut or
otherwise alter the original negative. Discussions within the
building and with knowledgeable contractors substantiate this belief.
The probability of the loss of information by slitting the original
negative is too great to risk such an approach. The first
alternative is, therefore, discarded as an unlikely event except
in extreme emergencies. It is most likely that the primary film
record would always be handled in its original form.
Which of the remaining alternatives is the better, then becomes
the subject of this study. In view of the complexity of the
problem and the many variables which could affect it, the study
Approved For Release 2001/0 A ' . V8B04747A002100050006-8
 Approv_ed_For_Release 20.01/08/13: CIA-RDP78-304747AO02100050006-8
was broadly based. Emphasis was given to considerations of efficiency
and permanence of the solution which extend somewhat beyond a strict
interpretation of film width requirements. The major factors
considered in analyzing the impact of a wider film were:
1. the items of equipment affected,
2. the functions performed in the exploitation process,
3. the alternatives open to examination, and
4+. the cri-::eria by which alternatives could be evaluated.
2.1 Equipment.
Obviously, not all equipment presently in use would be affected
by the introduct-ion of film wider than 9-1/2 inches. Only those
items which require roll film for efficient operation should be
considered in evaluating alternatives. Microscopes, for instance,
are not affected by changes in film width. Viewers, on the other
hand, are. In general, the types of equipment whose performance
would be directly influenced by a wider film are processors,
printers, enlargers, light tables, viewers, comparators and some
evaluation equipment.
The characteristics of all equipment in use or to be delivered
during Fiscal Year 1966 were examined. Table I indicates those
items which were, by virtue of physical characteristics, selected
for further consideration. It became evident at this stage,
however, that other factors must be considered in making a more
precise determination of equipment which actually would be affected
in the event of a wider film. Results of the analysis are only
5
Approved For Release 2001/0 78B04747A002100050006-8
 ..-Approved-For-Release 20111108/13 .;-CJA-.RDP_78.BO4747AO021-00.050006-$
SECRET
meaningful if the equipment considered is essential to the exploitation
process. Certainly not all equipment which might be affected meets
this criterion.
One important aspect of essentiality is the use rate or potential
use rate of the equipment. It would not be realistic to consider
that all equipment, merely because it is on hand, is in regular use
or would be used in the event of a wider film. Certain equipment,
for one reason or another, has not found application in the
exploitation operation and is seldom, if ever, used. Such equipment,
naturally, should not be considered in determining the impact of
a wider film.
Another factor affecting use rate is the quantity and capacity
of the equipment with respect to input rates. When it comes to
,estimating costs of modification or replacement it is necessary
to know how many items are actually required to handle the load.
This presents a certain amount of difficulty. The exact usage
factor of present equipment isn't readily available and the quantity
of future inputs is uncertain. Rather than embark upon a detailed
study of this aspect of the problem it was felt adequate to assume
that all items of any type of equipment now in regular use would
also be similarly needed in the future. Otherwise, the comparison
of alternatives becomes unduly complicated by having to consider
costs of conversion as a function of various quantities of equipment.
This way, comparisons are made on a uniform basis of the present
quantity even though exact future quantities are not known.
On the basis of the above considerations the equipment which
might require alteration or replacement to maintain exploitation
Approved For Release 2001 /08/ ' 8B04747A002100050006-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78B04747A002100050006-8
operations in the event of a wider film was selected from among
all those of Table I. The items indicated by an asterisk represent
the most essential instruments in supporting the exploitation
operation. Other items are either not used sufficiently often to
warrant further consideration or their future use is sufficiently
speculative to make it rather doubtful. By taking this approach
the costs of modification and replacement, dealt with later, tend
to be conservative.
2.2 Exploitation Functions
In the course of this study it has been assumed that the
functions, tasks, methods, and equipment in the exploitation system
will remain essentially the same as at the present time. In other
words, it is not: expected that the introduction of a wider film
will change the basic responsibilities within the exploitation
system. As indicated in Table I, the equipment which would be
affected by wider film falls into three major functional areas:
reproduction and processing, interpretation, and measurement. A
brief review of these. functions is necessary to establish the basis
for selection of equipment in Table I.
2.2.1 Reproduction and Processing
It is not anticipated that a wider film would alter the
responsibilities and tasks with respect to reproduction and-processing.
It is expected that a sufficient number of positive transparencies
would be provided by the processing site as promptly as possible
Approved For Release 2001/08/13 CIA-RDP78B04747A002100050006-8
 Approved For Release 200-1108/13 'CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006-8
after each mission. The original negative would usually follow
somewhat later when the requirements of the remainder of the
community were satisfied.
Thus, the major burden of processing and printing is expected
to remain with -the processing site. The in-house requirement for
reproduction and processing is not really for a production function,
but rather for a job shop operation. The major effort is in response
to requests for paper prints from partial rolls and single frames
and for Vu Graph materials. If, as it appears, the original negative
is not essential to the building reproduction and processing tasks,
the impact of a wider film on this function is considerably less
than were the original negative required.
2.2.2 Interpretation
In the event of an acquisition system using a film wider than
9-1/2 inches it is assumed that viewing and interpretation tasks
will remain essentially the same as those currently employed. The
objectives of the missions are likely to remain the same even
though-the equipment and capabilities may be improved. One subtle
difference may occur. The current condition of exploitation might
be-described as steady-state. The same areas of the world have
been under surveillance for some time. The targets remain pretty
much the same and changes are generally evolutionary. Such a
condition could, and probably will, change rather quickly with a
shift in locality of cold war emphasis. Such a change would again
focus greater attention on location,.detection, and identification
Approved for Release 2001/08 B0474ZA002100050006-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13 CIA-RDP78B04747A00210005000b=S
of significant new targets rather than changes in old familiar ones.
Nevertheless, interpreter requirements as well as methods and
procedures are expected to remain essentially unchanged.
The basic ;photo interpretation tasks considered in determining
the impact of a wider film are still considered to be:
1. Immediate Reports,
2. Mission Coverage, and
3. Detailed Reports.
These tasks and the methods in'use largely determine the equipment
and its importance. No matter how costly or seemingly sophisticated
an equipment might appear its essentiality is really determined by
the extent to wizich it is employed in current operations. Thus,
many of the items listed in Table I should have little influence
on decisions for the future. In the absence of any other measure
of utility, there is little choice but to resort to current usage
as the best indicator.
A wider fi:Lm appears to have no intrinsic characteristics
which would significantly affect interpretation methods. Examination
of the,film on :Light tables, with and without magnification aids,
and on projection viewers is expected to continue with the bulk
of the work still performed in the former manner. The major
considerations, then, from the interpretation standpoint are light
tables and projection viewers, and the impact of a wider film on
these items.
 Approved For-Release 20UT/08/13 : CIA-RDPT8BO4747AO02100050006--S-
2.2.2 Measurement and Evaluation
The principal measurement tasks are expected to remain largely
as at present. Any new acquisition system using a wider film,, it
is assumed, would not introduce any new or basically more difficult
problems than now exist. It is also assumed that measurements will
be initiated mainly as a result of MC and detailed interpretation
requirements utilizing the same positive transparencies used for
interpretation or similar ones from another roll.
I?
25X1A
This raises the question of whether or not a roll film capability
is really essential to the measurement function. Even though there
are a number of equipment items which do accept roll film, only the
"Dual Screen Measuring Projector" and the yet to be delivered "Stereo
Point Transfer :Device" require rolls for manipulation. Unless many
measurements per roll are contemplated a roll film capability-is
open to some question. Since this matter is beyond the scope of
the present study, it had-to be assumed that whatever'exists is, in
fact, required and must be reflected in considering a wider film.
With regard to evaluation, the situation is somewhat different.
The original negative, and hence a roll of film, is required in
making densitometric traces. The question here is the extent to
which such readings are currently justified. Whereas, some such
evaluation is desirable for quality control purposes, there are
practical limitations. The utility of edge traces in image quality
evaluation has been cast in considerable doubt by recent work
sponsored by your organization. In view of this, the essentiality
"Report on the Image
Quality Evaluation
10
Approved For Release 2001/08/= VBB04747A002100050006-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006=
ET
0
of the _ 1032T Microdensitometer is open to serious doubt. It
has not, therefore, been included among the items considered
essential to wide film considerations. The 20 densitometers
were given the benefit of the doubt.
2.3 Discussion of Alternatives
Basically there are but two approaches to accommodating a wider
film within the center: convert the equipment to. fit the film or
convert the film to fit the equipment. Within each of these
alternatives are several other options to be considered. Table II
lists each alternative which was selected for evaluation and
indicates the possible application to various film widths between
9-1/2 inches and 24 inches. An X denotes that the alternative
offers the possibility for that particular width. It does not mean
that it is'necessarily a desirable approach. A question mark
indicates there is considerable doubt about the practicality of
that alternative for that width. A blank indicates the alternative
to be, intuitively, impractical.
25X1/.
2.3.1 Equipment Conversion
Two possibilities are evident in considering the conversion-
of equipment to accommodate, a wider film, the equipment may be
modified or it may be replaced entirely by a new piece.
The notion of modifying current equipment (alternative la Table II)
to accept a wider film is straight forward. This alternative
considers physical alterations of the film holders, transport
SECRET
 1-Convert equipment to fit film
la-Modify present
lb-Develop new
2-Convert film to fit equipment
2a-Split film
2a1-9-1/2" widths ()=#rolls
2a2-8"
2a3-6 .6"
2a4-5"
2a5-70mm widths (2.76")
2a6-Other
ALTERNATIVES FOR ACCOMMODATING
WIDE FILM
16" 17" 1811 19" 20" '':21" 22" 23" 24"
X(2)
X(3)
2b-Contact prints
2b1-Normal direction(with overlap) X X X X X X
2b2-Right angle to original x X X X X X
2c-Reduce image size x X X
2d-Chip system x X X X x x
X X X X X X X X X
11
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13 CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006-8
mechanisms, platens, stages, and similar aspects which would permit
handling a wider film in the same manner as widths up to 9-1/2 inches
are now handled. In other words, modification is considered to
include alterations to existing equipment short of a redesign.
Rather than modifying the present equipment, it is also possible
to consider replacing it entirely in whole or in part, with equipment
which would accommodate a wider.film. (Alternative lb Table II)
Were equipment to be built specifically to accommodate wider film
formats, it is quite likely that entirely new design concepts
would be in order in many cases. It is unlikely that the new
equipment would resemble the present except in a very general way.
Much of the present equipment provides little or no margin for
improvement in Input quality and has other shortcomings limiting
its usefulness. It therefore, seems rather logical that the
necessity to provide for the.capability to handle a wider film
would also'be an opportunity to obtain improved performance in
other ways. Replacement would, then, probably be the signal for
wholesale changes .in equipment design.
2.3.2 Film Conversion'
A number of possibilities exist for converting a wider film
to a size which can be accommodated by present equipment. This
set of alternatives (2a,.2b, 2c and 2d of Table II) considers the
various ways in which film widths might be altered to come within
the 9-1/2 inch limit of much of the equipment currently in use.
~____,o pproved For Release 2001/ 78BO4747AO02100050006-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13 CIA-RDP78B04747A002100050006=8-
0
I?
I
.The most obvious method of converting a wider film into widths
which can be readily accommodated would be to split the film into
one or more equal widths. Table II indicates the almost infinite
variations possible by this alternative. The number of rolls.which-
.'would be produced in five of the more or less standard widths from
various original. widths is.shown. Quite obviously, any given
width can be cut to produce two or more rolls of an acceptable size.
Another possible method of producing compatible widths from
a film wider than 9-1/2 inches would be to produce contact prints
from only a portion of the original width (2bl). As with splitting
above, two or more rolls of 9-1/2 inch or less in width could be
produced from an original of any given width. Although this method
produces a result similar to alternative 2a, Table II merely indicates
that it does in fact apply, in some fashion, to any film width. It
is obvious that this method, as the one above, is likely to lead to
the introduction of one or more film widths different from those
which are now common.
A somewhat novel alternative is indicated as 2b2, In this
0
method-contact prints would-be produced at 90 to the normal
direction of the original material. In concept this is the same
as the idea of the "Turn-Around Printer", except for being vastly
simpler. Neither magnification nor re-sequencing of scenes is
contemplated. A step and repeat type printer, of course, would be
required. This alternative provides the opportunity to preselect
the most desirable film width for use in the exploitation process
and.convert any or all original materials to this width. It does,
13
10 Approved For Release 2001/0
Approved 78B04747A002100050006s8.T_~~
 -Approved, For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78B04747A002100050006 8'
of course, alte:^ the normal relation of flight path and long
dimension of the roll and the sequence of frames.
A still different alternative is, to resort to optical reduction
.of the image to produce a width which could be accommodated on
'present equipment. (Alternative 2c)
The final film conversion alternative, 2d, concerns the
possibility of a chip system. In this approach, positive transparencies
in the form of chips rather than a roll would be printed from the
original negative. This method, however, is not directly comparable
to the other forms of film conversion. The objective of the others
would be to produce prints in a form compatible with present
equipment. The objective of a chip system would be to improve the
efficiency of the exploitation system.,
Departing from a strictly wide film viewpoint, the use of chips
could also. be achieved in a hybrid system of exploitation. For
example, roll film might be used in the immediate report and mission
coverage situations and chips used in detailed analysis. Such a
system would, of course, require printers and processors for both
types 'of transparencies. Before embarking on the development of
the equipment and facilities for a chip system of any type, a
thorough, development'of'the concept of operation is essential.
Intuitively, there would be certain advantages inherent in a
chip system, toi:al or hybrid. To the extent that chips are adopted,
a, uniform forma-: would prevail. In addition to economies in
equipment which could result, chips offer opportunities for automated
handling, storage, and retrieval. The problem of storage is likely
 Aprove-cLFnr Ieace20Dl/O-8L'3 1A: D-P-7 04 7AO02100050006-8
to become more acute with time. Chips afford the possibility of
reducing bulk by discarding most of the film which, does not contain
useful information.
'.2.4 Evaluation Criteria
To select one or more alternatives as being superior to the
others assumes a uniform basis for comparison. The statement of
the problem on which the study was based suggests two criteria for
evaluation, cost: and time. Both of these factors are appealing
because they provide a quantitative basis for comparison. In
practice, however, there are some shortcomings. Neither cost nor
time is subject to estimation with the precision desired within
the time frame of the study. More importantly, though, cost and
time to modify or develop. new. equipment accommodating a wider film
are not the only considerations which are necessary to evaluation
of alternatives.
In.the course of the study it became evident that certain
alternatives would not be acceptable no matter how appealing they
might be from a cost and time standpoint. Quality and information
content for example, cannot be compromised. The possible impact on
manpower requirements also must be considered either as part of
the cost or as a separate item. Equally important in the long range
view is the flexibility or permanence the alternative provides. Is
it a temporary solution or will it serve for an extended period of
time?
MAE
Approved For. Release 2001/0
8B04747A002100050006-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78B04747A002100050006-8
SECS
Unfortunately these latter criteria are not readily subject
to expression i:;i numbers. Manpower, per se, is certainly a matter
of numbers. The problem in this regard is estimating the effect on
manpower which a particular alternative might have.. Would its
introduction result in more or fewer personnel?
.The only measures which currently exist relate manpower to
film quantity. Since none of the alternatives considered in
themselves alter the input quantity, it might be too readily
.concluded that there are no differences among alternatives. Manpower
requirements, however, depend on factors other than quantity. The
information content and the rate of information extraction must be
considered. Assuming that any significant reduction of information
content is intolerable, only extraction rate remains to be considered.
This is a factor which can't be ignored. The rate is almost certainly
affected by the varying degrees of difficulty in film manipulation.
For example, heavier rolls might require more time simply by virtue
of increased time and effort in the physical aspects of film handling.
On the other hand, a chip system might be almost completely automated
and, thereby, greatly reduce handling.
The kind of a detailed analysis which would be required to
develop reliable manpower information is somewhat beyond the scope
of the present study. Manpower as a criterion for evaluating
alternatives, therefore, is only considered qualitatively in light
of the possible influence of the manipulation factor.
Another'important consideration in evaluating alternatives is
the possible influence on image quality and information content. It
16
SEC
RET
 Approved For Release 2001/g8 CIA- P78BO4747AO02100050006-8
is desirable that any method for accommodating a wider film lose
as little as possible of the information contained in the original
negative. This factor also cannot be assessed quantitatively
without considerably more effort than was warranted by the level of
the present study. However, it is possible to determine intuitively
whether a particular alternative is inherently better than, equal
to, or worse than the present situation. It is on this rather
gross basis that quality is used as a measure for evaluating
alternatives.
The final factor considered in evaluating alternatives is that
of the flexibility or permanence of the solution. Certain methods
of accommodating wider film are more limited than others. Since
it is assumed that relatively little control over the acquisition
process may be exerted, the prospect for more than one wider film
is always present. A short term solution, even though desirable
from other standpoints, may be negated by a subsequent requirement
which imposes new demands for even wider film capability.
In summary, the alternative methods for accommodating a wider
film were evaluated on the basis of five criteria: cost, time,
manpower, information loss, and flexibility. Costs are best estimates
obtained in most cases directly from the manufacturers of equipment
affected. Time, similarly derived, is the number of months necessary
to accomplish t:he particular alternative. Manpower and information
loss are intuitive estimates of whether the method is better or
worse than that resulting from present practices. Flexibility is
SECRET
 jproved For Release 2001/08/13: CIA-RDP78B04747A002100050006=8--.
SECRUN
an indication of whether the alternative is a "one-shot" solution
for a single width, a.limited range, or solves the problem once
and for all. 'Cable III summarizes the evaluation criteria.
TABLE III
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES
Criterion
Terms
1.
Cost
dollars
2.
Time
months
-'more personnel than now
3.'
Manpower.
0 same as present
4.
Information loss
lower than present
one time solution
5.
Flexibility
+ permanent solution
78 BO4747AO02100050006-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006-8
3.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Once the framework for the study was established, as described
in the previous sections, the principal remaining task was to
compile information concerning the cost, time, and feasibility of
various alternatives. A major aspect of this phase was direct
inquiry to a number of companies whose equipment would be most
affected by a wider film format. From the list of Table I those
equipment items which are either in use currently or are likely
to be in the event of a wider film were selected for further
investigation. The companies which produced these items were then
contacted to obtain answers to the following questions:
a. What is the cost and time to modify or replace equipment
as a function of film widths from 9-1/2 inches to 24 inches?
b. What are the practical limitations on film width capacity
for modifying? Replacing?
c. What are the added costs to produce an item to handle a
range of widths rather than a single width?
Those, companies capable of producing a printer of the type required
by alternative 2b2 were asked the additional questions:
d. Is it feasible to develop a right angle printer?
e. What is the time and cost?
The possible costs of a chip system were not investigated in
depth since any meaningful attempt would have to be preceeded by a
rigorous analysis of the problem and development of a detailed
design concept. The results of the survey of manufacturers is
contained in Apg)endix A. `
ELI
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006=
Concurrently with the survey of equipment manufacturers a
review of operating procedures in the areas which would be affected
by a wider file. were made., Published reports and discussions with
center personnel were the major sources of such information. From
the information gathered it was possible to evaluate each alternative
on the basis of the criteria of Section 2.4. The results. summarized
in Table IV are discussed in detail in the paragraphs which follow.
COMPARISON OF ALTERNAITVE METHODS
25X1A cCOST LYEARS MANPOWER QUALITY FLEXIBILITY
1-5
2b 1
2d Complete
Hybrid
4-5
1-2
1-2 + 0 +
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006-8-
C
3.1 Convert Equipment to Fit Film
There are several basic disadvantages to converting the
equipment to accept a wider film. In general, this approach is
limited in range and, therefore, could never seriously be considered
for use with 24 inch wide film. There are practical limitations
on increasing the film width capabilities of much of the interpretation
and measuring equipment. Problems of illumination, magnification,
film drive, and strength of materials make it impractical to
consider handling films beyond about 12 to 15 inches wide.
In addit.on, the relation of cost to film width is not a
linear function. For the same reasons there are practical limits,
the cost per inch increases with width. For example, the 940 MC
light table which costs about per inch of width at 9 inches
2
is estimated to cost about =per inch at 18 inches. The
additional cost in this case is largely a matter of the strength
of materials. Increasing the size requires a disproportionate
increase in the structural members and, hence, in cost.
A wider film also poses a question of the roll size or length
of the film. A 1000 foot roll 24 inches wide would'weigh over 100
pounds. Obviously either the rolls would have to be smaller or
additional manpower and machinery used to aid in handling such rolls.
Provided these precautions are observed converting equipment to
accommodate a wider film could be accomplished but at a certain
price in dollars and efficiency.
Equipment conversion is either lacking in flexibility or
efficiency. If equipment were modified or replaced to accept some
specific width, say 12 inches, the problem would be created anew
--Approved.-For-Reiease--2f f /9 - 6FA-RDP78BO4747AGO-2.15005O006-8 - --
 Appcoved-For Release 20111L08/13 :.DIA-RDP78B04747A002100050006-8
Aft
were a 15 inch film to be introduced subsequently. If all
equipment were designed to handle the maximum width possible, a
costly capability would have been achieved which might never be
needed. Finally, since a 24 inch wide capability is impractical
from a technical as well as cost standpoint, this method can never
offer any assurance of preparedness for possible future input demands.
Of the two possibilities for converting equipment, modifying
present equipment (la) is the more limited. It simply is not
practical to consider modifications, except very minor ones, to
the viewing and interpretation equipment. Much the same limitation
extends to measuring equipment as well, though the latter problem
might be circumvented to some extent by cutting frames or chips
from a wider fi:Lm. This, of course, would be departing from the
objectives of the basic alternative and entering the realm of the
chip system which is discussed later.
Several schemes for modifying light tables are fairly obvious.
For example, reel brackets could be mounted on the sides rather
than the ends, as at present, which would provide for. film at least
up to 18 inches in the case of 918's and 40 inches in the case of
940's. Altering the MC model, however, would offer a bit of a
challenge.
As an alternative, reel brackets accommodating a film wider
than the tables is possible. The film could overhang a few inches.
A rackover device could make it possible to shift the film sufficiently
to illuminate all of the image area-by sliding the film back and forth.
Once again the microscope mount would offer a more severe problem
and the danger of film damage is increased by the overhang.
8BO4747A002100050006-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78B04747A002100050006=8--
C ' T
At the very best these modification schemes offer only
temporary makeshift solutions.
Neither is it practical to modify the present rear projection
viewers. The performance level of the equipment
discourages any serious thought of alteration to accept wider film.
Any investment in viewers would be better made on equipment which
provided at least a higher level of quality and illumination.
Measuring equipment could accommodate up to.18 inch wide film,
although there is some question about the advisability of accommodating
rolls so long as a frame or portion of it can be cut out. The
added weight, and particularly the imbalance, resulting from roll
film adversely affects the accuracy of instruments of the _ type.
The situation with reproduction equipment is even worse.
Modification of processing, printing, and enlarging equipment is
simply not feasible. The changes required to accept a wider film
.require redesign of the equipment. As an example, the stage transport
is the critical problem in an enlarger. The cantilever construction
common to most enlargers would probably have to give way to another.
method.
Developing new equipment to accommodate wider films suffers
from many of the same disadvantages as modification. Even though it
may be possible to design equipment to handle 24 inch wide film the
larger film introduces problems of viewing which alter the basic
methods in use i:oday. Such problems can-only be treated superficially
in this study.
SECREITE
23
04747A002100050006-8
 Approved-For Release-20D1/08/13: CIA-RDP7$BO4747A442J-440504 $
AMM
L
Examination of roll film with a light table and microscope
becomes more awkward as the film increases in width. Left to his
devices it seems apparent that the PI would alter his technique if
it becomes too difficult to lean over a wide film, or too. troublesome
.to reverse sides to cover.the entire image with the microscope. A
rather obvious alternative would be to turn to a single frame or
chip for everytzing except a quick scan. This takes the problem
into an entirely different realm again, a matter discussed in
greater detail in considering a chip system.
Light tables, of course, need not be confined to a horizontal
position. It is entirely possible to develop one which would
operate normally in a vertical position. The efficiency with
which a microscope could be used on such a device is another matter.
A fairly elaborate instrument would be required to provide the.
adjustment needed to avoid awkward positions for the PI.
Obvious problems are also encountered in accommodating wider
films in rear projection devices. Either the equipment and optical
system become larger or a lesser portion of the film is viewed at
one time. Perhaps, if the scale were increased with.increases in
width, less magnification would be necessary. This is not, however,
an assumption which can be made with any assurance.
In summary,, the development of new equipment to accept wider,
film does not offer the prospect of substantial rewards. In fact
it raises the question as to whether the point of diminishing returns
has not already been reached, or passed. Even to the extent that
it is technically feasible to consider developing equipment capable
24
Approved For Release 2001/06JE8B04747A002100050006-8
 "Approved For Release 2001108/13 -: CIA-RDP78B04747A0021-00050006=T-
SEA E
of handling film up to 15 inches or so wide, both the cost and
inconvenience would be great. It is doubtful whether the estimated
development costs would be. justified in view of the existence of
other alternatives which are less costly, have no adverse effects
.on manpower requirements, and offer more permanence.
3.2 Converting Film to Fit Present Equipment
The idea of converting a wider film to a width compatible
with present equipment is generally more appealing than converting
equipment. As :Indicated in Table IV the costs of each of the
several such alternatives is less than either modifying or replacing
the exploitation equipment. This is a matter of simple arithmetic.
In the latter instance many more items of equipment must be altered
or replaced.
The time factor would be about the same in either case assuming
simultaneous development of all items required. The scope of the
effort which would, in all likelihood, be created by the advent
of a wider film would be something of a major national undertaking.
Were this to be the case, a priority effort diverting manpower from
other activities could reduce the development time.
Converting film to fit present equipment would not, in general,
affect manpower requirements as compared to present operations: The
chip system is possible exception. It is conceivable that automated
film handling, storage, and retrieval might reduce the manpower
necessary for current production levels. Whether such reduction is
significant in the overall depends on how much time is currently
Approved For Release 2001/08 8B04747A002100050006--8_.
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006-8
consumed by these tasks and the reduction achievable by alternative
methods.
Most: importantly, film conversion offers two approaches which
have distinct advantages of flexibility and permanence. Adoption
of either a right angle printer or a chip system provides a solution
to the film width problem once and for all. Furthermore, they both
provide the advantages of a single uniform film size for center
operations.
Film conversion, of course, does not avoid completely the need
for equipment c;langes. It does greatly reduce it, however, Since
the conversion would take place at or after the printing stage, a
new negative processor and printer are required at the very minimum.
To the extent that the original negative is required at the
exploitation center for evaluation and second generation copies of
any kind, equipment changes there are also required. Nevertheless,
the total costs of accommodating a wider format by converting the
film are substantially less than converting the equipment.
Alternative 2a is an approach both appealing in its simplicity
and its relative economy. Prints from any given width of original
negative would be slit into two or more rolls of a width compatible
with present equipment. This, of course, still requires that a
negative processor and printer-processor capable of the wider
original be made. available, presumably at the processing site. To
take full advantage of this alternative the negative processor
and printer-processor should,be capable of inputs up to the maximum
width which could reasonably. be expected. Equipment of lesser
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78B04747A002100050006--8-
capability might solve an immediate problem but would be obsolete
were an even wider film to be introduced.
The major disadvantage of this otherwise appealing approach
.is the very real concern that slitting is likely to divide target
areas and even obscure some information. This possibility alone
would seem to rule out this alternative on practical grounds.
Another disadvantage stems from introducing still additional film
widths to a situation which could benefit from greater uniformity.
It would be quite a coincidence if a new acquisition system with
wider film resulted in a split which would be the same width as
one of the present sizes. The possibility of more than one merely
adds complexity.
A variation on splitting film in compatible widths is a contact
printer which produces compatible widths, alternative 2b1. This
of course, still requires a negative processor to handle the original
material. And, it requires development of a special printer which
would reproduce some portion of the width of the original negative.
There are several options available in contemplating such a printer.
It might be designed for fixed or variable widths (within some
limits) and it may or may not produce some overlap in the prints.
For any one: particular negative size, a printer producing a
fixed narrower width would be a fairly straight forward development.
Some overlap in the prints would be desirable to decrease the
chances of bisecting targets. The utility of such a printer would
be pretty much limited to the particular width negative for which
it was designed. If it were designed to accept a range of negative
SEC
~4pprev 94747A00-2:1-00050006 8--
 --Approved For Release 2001108/13 : CIA-RDR78B04747A002100050006-8-
SEVICIRET
widths, it would produce prints with greater or lesser overlap
depending on the input. Negative widths other than the one for
which it was designed would, thus, result in prints which were
something less than ideal from an efficiency standpoint. And,
except for the fortuitous circumstance of a wider film close to an
even multiple of one of the present widths, a printer of this type
would produce another non-standard width output. While,this printer
would be one of the simplest possible designs for handling wide film
it lacks-flexibility and contributes to the proliferation of film
widths to be handled.
A variation of this basic idea which offers somewhat greater
flexibility would be an adjustable width printer. Such a device
would make it possible to limit overlap to the amount desired for
a range of original negative widths. The development of this
printer would, of course, be considerably more difficult than a
fixed width model. It, too, would very likely result in a print
width different from any now common. It is doubtful that the
limited advantages of this approach would justify the effort
required to develop such a device.
Alternative 2b2, a right angle or "turn-around" printer
affords all of ?:he advantages of the adjustable printer above,'
plus that of uniformity of output. Like 2bl above, the printer
would accept a range of negative widths up to 24 inches. However,
instead of producing a print from a portion of the width of the
negative, it would print a strip across the width. The strip
would be of a uniform width irrespective of the width of the original
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13 CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006-8
negative although, of course, the length of the frame would vary
with the negative width.
This:device may be looked upon unfavorably because of a
previously unsuccessful development of a "Turn-Around Printer".
The two ideas are not the same. The previous device was to enlarge
the image approximately 2-1/2 times and rearrange the sequence of
frames on up to 15 different rolls of film! The equipment contemplated
for a wider film is a relatively simple contact printer which would
reproduce each crosswise slice in. regular sequence.
The advantages of this approach are, on the whole, considerable.
No other alternative provides the flexibility and permanence of
this solution with so little disruptive affect on operations. For
the short term any wider film may be accommodated on present exploitation
equipment. For the longer term, new equipment development could
proceed based on a single uniform film width.
The present generation of exploitation equipment already has
a considerable flexibility built in. Much of it is capable of
accepting film from 70mm to 9-1/2 inches wide. This has been
achieved at a price in dollars and efficiency. There is no question
that a piece of equipment designed to accept only 70mm film is
less costly than one built for 9-1/2 inch film and they are both
less expensive than one accommodating the range from 70mm to 9-1/2
inches. For example, rear projection viewers accepting 9-1/2 inch
film are some 4 to 5 times more costly than similar equipment
accepting only 70mm film. The situation is similar with other
equipment. One wonders whether the extra cost of equipment to,
accept wider film is money well spent.
Approved For-Release-240408 3.
M'-TW 7.8 "747A009100
05-0006-8 - - -------
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDR78B04747A002100050006=a
It is assumed that most of the present generation of exploitation
equipment, particularly that pertaining to interpretation and
measurement, is nearing the end of its useful life. This is not
.necessarily a result of wearout but of technological obsolescence.
.The next generation is in, or soon to be in, the development stage.
The opportunity is present in the concept of a uniform film size to
develop more of:'icient and less costly equipment for those future
generations five and ten years hence.
It is not meant to imply that this alternative is without its.
shortcomings. The order or sequence of the frames produced by a
right angle printer is going to be different from that of the
original. Whether or not this will impose any serious problems
depends largely on the sequence of frames on the original. Judging
from at least one current acquisition system which produces an
unorthodox sequence, the problem is trivial. The PI's appear to
adjust quite readily.
Possibly more of a problem, but no worse than with a chip
system, is the affect on measurement. A right angle printer would
very likely not include a fiducial mark on each printed frame
unless the acquisition system made provision for it. If this were
not possible some means of accurate position location would have to
be provided as is being done in the chip printer currently being
developed by
A right angle printer would also have to be of the step and
repeat type. Whereas this approach holds promise of high quality
results, it lacks the speed of a continuous printer. Obtaining
25X1;A
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13: CIA-RDP78B04747A002100050006=8"
the rate of throughput required to expeditiously print the original
negative may be difficult to attain. Separating rolls into shorter
lengths and inc:ceasing the number of printers is, of course, a
possibility for achieving the necessary processing rate.
Possibly the least desirable alternative, and'one that is only
mentioned in passing, considers optical reduction of the original
negative, alternative. 2c. Positive transparencies could be
produced by an optical printer of some flexibility. The limitation,
of course, would be the point at which information loss due to the
reduction becomes significant. In view of the other simpler and
more promising alternatives this one was not given serious considera-
tion.
The chip system, alternative 2d, offers all of the advantages
of the right angle printer plus the possibility of the benefits of
automation. The latter is only possible, though, by a redesign of
much of the present system and development of the concepts of
operation to take full advantage of it. As was indicated in the
earlier discussion of this alternative two different options are
available, either a partial or complete chip system. The
equipment requirements would be different depending on which
approach was chosen.
This alternative represents the most radical departure from
present operations. And, it is not an alternative so completely
confined to converting film to fit present equipment. Much new
equipment would have to be developed to accommodate chips, the
exact amount depending on the extent to which chips would replace
Approved For Release 2001/08TT3' OTAIRMM8B04747A002100050006-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006-8
rolls in center, operations. Thus, the concept of chips requires a
greater prepara.tional effort than most other alternatives, not
merely from an equipment but also from a methods and procedures
standpoint. The benefits of automated film handling,. manipulation,
storage, and retrieval are not likely to be fully achieved without
a thorough analysis of system requirements. Embarking on a chip
approach piecemeal will only provide an efficient system by accident
rather than by design.
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006-8
SECRET
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To review the situation, some form of film'conversion emerges
as superior to the idea of converting equipment to accept a wider
film. There is already some question as to whether the point of
diminishing returns has not already been reached, or passed, at
the 9-1/2 inch width. To resolve the issue among the several
possibilities for film conversion it is necessary to refer to an
earlier assumption that alteration of the original negative is
unacceptable. This means that the negative is processed in its
original form and conversion takes place at or after the printing
stage. All of the film conversion alternatives, therefore, require
the development of a new negative processor and printer. The cost
differences among these alternatives is not sufficiently great and
the estimation error too large to base a decision on this factor
alone. The choice of approach to what to do about a wider film
must depend on other considerations.
It must be assumed that any move to a wider film format will
be accompanied by sufficient advance notice to allow the center a
certain amount of preparation time. The processing site would also
have to prepare for any wider film. The development time for
equipment to accommodate film widths up to 24 inches has been
estimated to be 4 to 5 years. A high priority program could
possibly cut this in half. The point is, however, that a reasonable
time would probably be available to develop the necessary equipment
to satisfy exploitation requirements, provided objectives and
requirements were prepared in advance. It is the objective here
define the steps which should be taken in this direction.
33
proved -For-Release-2001108143- ClA-RDP78B04747A0O2-10005AOO6-8--
 Approved For Release 2001/08/1IQ; 04747A002100050006-8
If it can be assumed that only one wide format film is likely
to occur in the next five to ten years and that a variety of film
widths results in no loss of exploitation system effectiveness,
alternative 2bl, the development of a continuous partial width
printer offers the simplest solution. Both of these assumptions,
however, are open to question. Nevertheless, if the introduction
of a wider film were to become imminent this approach would provide
a satisfactory solution at a cost at least no greater than any
other solution. There are.questions to be resolved before such a
project could be instigated. Should the printer accept the specific
width then expected to materialize or should it accept any width
up to 24 inches in expectation of further changes? Should the
printing width be fixed or variable? What should the limits of
variation be? Flow much overlap in printing should be provided? In
short, a more thorough hardware-oriented analysis is necessary to
establish requirements and feasibility.
Under the assumption that more than one wider film is
possible over the years_and that there is a loss of effectiveness
.created by a variety of film widths, it is necessary to look to
other alternatives for the longer term. The right angle printer
and the chip printer. both hold forth the prospect of a permanent
solution to the uncertainties of film width and the benefits
accruing from uniformity. Each is worthy of further serious
consideration, however, for differing reasons.
A right angle printer has the obvious advantage of providing
material completely compatible with present exploitation equipment.
Since the prints produced are in the familiar. roll form no changes
SEA
34
`r ~_~,.
 Approved For Release 200-1/08/13 : CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006-B--
in method, procedure, or equipment need be made. The sequence
of frames on the roll, on the other hand, is not so familiar.
Herein lies an avenue for further investigation. Furthermore,
is necessary to determine, if such a development were to proceed,
the extent of the loss of effectiveness due to providing for several
film sizes. It is also necessary to investigate whether there is
an optimum films size and, if so, what it is. Similarly, the
feasibility of successfully developing an instrument capable of
the necessary speed must be investigated.
The alternative of resorting to chips presents the most
problems of all, not because of the printer but because of system
considerations. Full and effective use of a chip system requires
large scale replacement of present equipment. A partial chip
system does not completely resolve the wide film issue. Thus,
operational requirements must be investigated more rigorously and
trade off considerations examined in devising the most effective
chip system within the constraints. For instance, it is necessary
to know which tasks now consume significant amounts of time with
respect to total system processing time in order that intelligent
use of machines and automation may be made. The size of the chip
itself is a decision not to-be made casually. The distribution of
target sizes, scale of photography, and equipment design considerations
are among the items to be taken into account.
In view,of the information developed within the scope of this
study and the questions which remain to be resolved, the following
recommendations for further action are offered:
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006-8
1. make a comprehensive analysis of the exploitation system
to identify and evaluate the critical problem areas so
that development action may be devoted to those most
significant to overall performance,
2. make a study to establish design objectives for a partial
width printer and right angle printer,
3. make a study of the feasibility of developing one or both
of the above printers,
.4. make a conceptual design study of the application of chips
in the entire exploitation process.
SUR
3&
--- Approveo For-Rele -2001/08 CtA-RDP78B04-747A,0&2tOGO5004G=8----------
 -Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78B04747A002100050006--8
ESTIMATED COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE EQUIPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Estimation of costs for the various alternatives cannot be
made with any great precision. First, the figures are no better
than the educated guesses which the manufacturers could provide.
There are a great number of uncertainties regarding the details of
design which make the process hazardous. Consequently, there
should be no thought of holding the sources of these numbers to
them, should future development actions evolve. Estimates which {
the suppliers would
be obligated to stand behind are only possible
on the basis of more specific design requirements.
A second factor in. a cost comparison of alternatives is the
absence of a direct relationship between the items of equipment
in use now and those which would be necessary were a wider film
to come into being. In several instances there are a variety of
equipment models performing a similar function., though possibly
for different reasons and to different standards. For instance,
there are a number of different printers and enlargers in use. It
simply was impractical to consider each type in replacement of
of each one with a wide film version. Rather, equipment was
grouped, insofar as possible, into general types for estimating
purposes.
Thirdly, there are many assumptions which might be made
regarding which specific items. of equipment and how many would have
to be replaced in the event that a. wider film would have to be
accommodated by the center. This matter was discussed at some
length-in the main body of the report. The costs of Alternative 1
IS D
37
---ApprovedFer.Release-290-1-108/-13 RDPT8BO4747A4024000500O6-$--
_-1r
 `Approved For Release 2001108/13: CIA-RDP78B04747A002100050006-8--
SEC
for various film widths is particularly sensitive to this factor
since this is the only instance in which a large number of items
enters into the evaluation. In preparing the tables which follow,
was assumed that all, or most all, items of each type of
equipment affected would be replaced. The total costs involved
would be scaled up or down in keeping with any desired change in
quantity.
Table Al presents a summary of the cost information obtained
from equipment ;manufacturers. The costs indicated are those for
a single item. In the cases where more than one item is contemplated,
the estimated cost reflects both development and production
considerations.
SEC
38
 25X1A Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006-8
 Approved For Release 2001/S08J13ECRET:
Based on the information of Table Al and the above assumptions,
the costs of the various alternatives were determined as discussed
in the following paragraphs.
Alternative la. Modify Equipment. Although some companies
discussed the feasibility of modifying their equipment, most
claimed it could not be done. None was willing to even guess at
the costs or consequences. Therefore, it was not possible to
compile any cos-_ figures related to this alternative. The guess
might be ventured, however, that even?for the small range of
widths (up to about 12") that modification could be considered for
any equipment, the costs would not be much less than those of
replacement.
Alternative lb. Replace Equipment. The costs of this alternative
are based on the assumption that one printer must be provided the
processing site and that the quantities of each type of item
required at the center are as indicated. Costs may be adjusted
to suit other assumptions regarding the,quantities needed. The
table reflects the assumption that nearly all equipment currently
in frequent use is replaced or duplicated. Table'A2 indicates the
cost of exploitation equipment necessary to accommodate several
specific film sizes. The cost of other sizes can be obtained by
interpolation.
The site printer assumed in Table A2 would be a continuous
contact printer capable of about 100 feet per minute. The 3 film
and print processors assumes the Eastman Kodak PAR 215 can be
SIECRET
rproved- For Release e!A-RDP781304747AO02100050006-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13: CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006-8
readily adapted for roll film and would replace the for
any wider film. The processing chemistry would also have to be
developed. The correcting printer is a machine, it
being assumed gnat the enhancement feature is still desirable. No
evaluation equipment has been considered essential. There are a
number of densitometers of sufficient flexibility to handle
the situation. Only the _ type comparators are considered in
replacing measuring equipment.
SECRET
25X1A
 25X1A Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006-8
 Approved-For -Re l ease-2001108/ 13---? IA-RDP78B04747AOO21
Alternative 2a. Slit Film in Widths Compatible with Equipment.
The film would ::)e printed and processed in the same width as the
original negative, then slit in widths compatible with present
exploitation equipment (9-1/2 inches or less). This requires the
same printer-processor at the site as Alternative lb, which
represents, for all practical purposes, the total cost of this
alternative. The cost to slit would be trivial compared to the
development costs of the printer-processor. No equipment changes
..would be required at the center, except of course, if a second
printer-processor were essential for additional prints, a condition
which does not currently obtain. It is assumed that all center
responsibilities may be fulfilled utilizing the second generation
positive transparencies.
Alternative 2bl.- Contact Prints Less Than Full Width of the Negative.
This alternative: requires development of an-unusual printer which
presents some problems. It is very likely more difficult than
printing the entire width of the negative. For this reason the
cost of the printer is somewhat higher than the continuous printer
indicated in Table A2. It was assumed essential to maintain
current quality standards and printing rates. ..Since the prints
produced would be compatible with all.other equipment, development
of the printer is the only cost of this alternative.
Alternative 2b2.. Right Angle Printer. As with the previous
alternative the cost, assuming the center does not need to work
with the original negative, would be entirely concerned with
SECRET
43
Approved For Release 2001/08/13: CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006-8
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78BO4747AO0210005000
development of the printer. A step and repeat type printer appears
to be the only answer at this time. Whereas the cost of developing
one such printer does not appear too great, about the
slow speed apparently inherent in such a device would require a
number of them to produce the same volume of material as one
continuous printer. The exact number depends on the relative speeds
of the two printers,. claimed by some to be a factor of 100: If this
is the case the whole idea of a step and repeat printer is subject
question. It has been assumed here that a step and repeat
printer capable of 1/10th the speed of a continuous printer is
possible. Table A3 reflects the quantity in estimating the cost
of this alternative.
Alternative 2c. Reduction Printer. Because of the doubt concerning
the practicality of this alternative no cost information was obtained.
Alternative 2d. Chip System. As discussed in the main body of the
report, the use of chips could be either complete or partial. In
the event of a wider film the cost of the two different concepts
would not be the same. A complete system in which all PI tasks
use chips would require development of new equipment for the
immediate and mission coverage tasks. Detailed analysis could be
performed with present equipment. A hybrid system in which roll
film is used for everything but the detailed analysis would, for
wider film, require'a roll printer as well as chip printers. Thus,
there are two cost estimates for this alternative, one for the
complete system and one for the hybrid.
v,edn : CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006-8
25X1/
 -`Approved- For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78B04747A002100050006 8
The speed of the chip printer was not considered as a factor,
although it should be. A comparison with a roll printer requires
a much more detailed study than was possible here. The quantity
and distribution of targets on the film as well as the characteristics
of the printer influence the rate of production. Finding the
targets on the roll may well be more time consuming than making the
chips.
Each of the above alternatives presents a problem in mensuration.
In every case it is necessary to provide for position location marks
on the prints. The exact methods may well vary depending on the
characteristics of the printer. Except for the case of the chip
printer, this factor has not been included in the cost estimates.
45
Approved For Release 2001/0!c
 25X1A Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006-8
 Approved For Release DP78BO4747AO02100050006-8
Sim"
Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006-8
Next 2 Page(s) In Document Exempt
STATINTL
Approved For Release 2001/08/13 : CIA-RDP78BO4747AO02100050006-8