Xref: utzoo sci.space:4339 sci.crypt:768
Path: utzoo!linus!necntc!ames!lll-lcc!lll-winken!uunet!cos!howard
From: howard@COS.COM (Howard C. Berkowitz)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Beating the diffraction limit (was Re: satellites)
Summary: Recon camera backs DO move
Message-ID: <830@cos.COM>
Date: 21 Jan 88 21:09:23 GMT
References: <2456@orca.TEK.COM> <8801192122.AA06886@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems, McLean, VA
Lines: 23

In article <8801192122.AA06886@ames-pioneer.arpa>, eugene@PIONEER.ARC.NASA.GOV (Eugene Miya N.) writes:
> Bruce, you made some excellent comments about this problem!
> However, I would like to add one comment about what you said about
> removing motion blurr.   Rather than do it computationally or
> optically, it's just much simpler to move the recording instrument or
> media. (If I had a quarter for every roll of film I've hunched over,
> I'd be rich.)



A number of photorecon satellites do exactly that, according to Dino
Brignoli, a retired senior CIA recon expert who has a rather interesting
"road show" on photoreconnaissance and history.  I heard him a few
years ago at the Washington chapter of the Society for Photographic
Scientists and Engineers.

He said that one of the major breakthroughs in imaging satellites,
which was classified for some time, was using moving backs both
to cancel motion and allow much longer exposure times.    
-- 
-- howard(Howard C. Berkowitz) @cos.com
 {uunet,  decuac, sun!sundc, hadron, hqda-ai}!cos!howard
(703) 883-2812 [ofc] (703) 998-5017 [home]
DISCLAIMER:  I explicitly identify COS official positions.