EVALUATION OF FINAL REPORT ON PAR 216

Document Type: 
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
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
January 13, 1966
Content Type: 
REPORT
File: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP78B04770A001300010002-6.pdf168.05 KB
Body: 
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