1
Reprinted from
PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERING
JULY
1964
Automatic Photo gramme trie Instruments
RANDALL D. ESTEN,
U. S. Army Engineer
Geodesy, Intelligence and Mapping,
Research and Development Agency,
Fort Belvoir, Virginia
Abstract: Developments in automatic photogrammetric instruments, as given
in sixteen presented papers, are reviewed for the Tenth Congress of the Inter
national Society of Photogrammetry in Lisbon. These developments include
servo-driven plotting tables, new and improved methods of differential rectifica
tion, computer-driven plotting equipment, automatic mapping from projection
instruments and basic stereometers, and the automation of image registration.
Several trends are noted, particularly the tendency toward large and complete
mapping systems, the increasing importance of numerical photogrammetry,
and the increasing appreciation of human abilities and logical decision.
Introduction
B andwidth, cross-correlation, flying spot
scanners and feedback! New words have
entered the photogrammetrist’s vocabulary
and with them new concepts in the extrac
tion of topographic information from aerial
photography and in the presentation of these
data for human and machine use. It is not by
chance that these words all have electrical or
electronic connotation; for photogrammetry,
long a composite field, now borrows heavily
on electronics and with this investment re
ceives the impelling trend toward automa
tion. Stereo operators, dozing in their booths,
long ago held the vision of automatic photo-
grammetric instruments; and the engineers,
with new tools at their command, have
brought forth many examples of automation
for us to savor and judge. To savor and to
judge; but not to reject completely, because
increasing automation is now a fact of life;
and it must now be a wide-awake photo-
grammetrist who beholds automatic photo-
grammetric instruments in operation.
Man and Automation
In his paper, “The Limits of Man and
Automation in Photogrammetry,” Professor
K. Schwidefsky of the Technische Hoch-
schule, Karlsruhe, investigates the basic
functions in which man and automatic photo-
grammetric equipment compete; optical
perception, memory capacity, logical opera
tions, capability of learning, and capacity for
abstraction; listed perhaps in order of their
degree of difficulty for both competitors. This
analysis affirms the fact that the human eye
and brain are masterpieces of construction
and that artificial systems still have a large
gap to close in most areas of comparison,
particularly in size and weight. But the gap
is constantly narrowed, and a resurvey would
show it to be smaller today than at the time
Professor Schwidefsky’s paper was written.
Neurophysiologists have discovered struc
tural similarities between logical switching in
the nervous system and in technical systems.
Here again engineers would like to approach
the capabilities of the human system. The
technical systems are likewise second best in
the processes of learning and abstracting, but
great strides have been and are being made.
If man generally exceeds state-of-the-art
automation in these basic functions, why
automate? In each project, whether it be
purely scientific, economic or military in
nature, there are certain goals and objectives
toward which we work. Naturally these goals
and objectives differ amongst the categories
mentioned. For a specific project we may be
looking only to advance the state-of-the-art,
or to do something more cheaply, or more
accurately or more quickly, and we must con
sider the degree of automation which will best
meet our criteria.
* Invited Paper No. 11-1 for Commission II, Plotting, Theory and Instruments, at the Tenth
Congress of the International Society of Photogrammetry at Lisbon, Portugal, September 7-19, 1964.
