nm 
D LAS I IPR UR 
model deformation may be dangerous. Mr. Mott 
intervened by saying that, if the film shrinkage 
is negligeable, the model should not be deformed. 
Mr. J. Thorpe (South Africa) did not agree with 
Mr. Mott and said that lens distortion correction 
is essential. 
Messieurs Roos and Klaver spoke on model 
deformation and on various possibilities of 
correcting it. Dr. E. P. Welander (Sweden) 
pointed out that the radial distortion of — 2 um 
for modern cameras can be ignored today, but 
the refraction and earth curvature have to be 
corrected. What is still needed from the camera 
manufacturers is a sensitometric control by 
means of a step tablet built into the aireal 
camera. In that way the processing and the 
exposure can be matched. Dr. Ghosh stressed 
that there are many systematic errors that must 
be corrected. Dr. Welander spoke on the pos- 
sibilities of ameliorating photographs. 
Panelists Dr. Ghosh represented the users and 
Mr. Klaver the builders in the discussion on 
equipment that directly generates information, 
i.e., on question number five. 
Dr. Ghosh pointed out that there are users 
who need direct information concerning things 
such as velocity of object point, angles between 
crystal surfaces etc., and observed that this is 
a new field in which much can be accomplished 
with the help of photogrammetry. Dr. Gamble 
intervened to say that a non-photogrammetric 
method, involving electrical and mechanical 
engineers, already existed for the direct ge- 
neration of the types of information mentioned 
by Dr. Ghosh. 
In the course of the ensuing general discussion 
Dr. Meier said that the question is how the 
photogrammetric information is processed; there 
are a lot of interfaces for the processing on- 
line or off -line: for the decision a careful system 
analysis must be done. Mr. Z. Jaksic requested 
that the question be better formulated. Dr. 
Makarovic, in turn, supported the formulation 
of the question, pointing out that the generation 
of direct information involves the presentation 
of information in the way desired by the user. 
Panelist Mr. Ducher (users) opened the discussion 
on the adequateness of photogrammetric equip- 
ment for map revision. He spoke about the in- 
struments used in map revision, such as the 
E.T.S. of Bausch & Lomb and the Stereo Facet 
of OMI. He listed the requirements set for 
instruments suitable for map revision. He also 
gave a list of the specifications that have to 
be taken into account, such as stereoscopic 
vision simultaneous with the vision of the map, 
a good range of enlargements, easy super- 
imposition of the facet on the map, good illumi- 
nation, low cost, and so on. 
Dr. M. Tienstra (Netherlands) of the audience 
was of the opinion that simple instruments 
require difficult methodology, and that it is better 
to use more sophisticated instruments with 
which it is possible to use simple and well- 
known procedures. He also spoke of the use of 
orthophoto in map revision. Mr. Ducher was not 
convinced about the use of orthophoto. 
Further on, Mr. J. I. Davidson (U.S.A.) observed 
that map revision is rather a cartographic 
problem than a photogrammetric one. Dr. 
a ar asta rani ea rr EP EAA 
Macarovic pointed out that an updating system 
should be flexible. An efficient way is to apply 
digital mono-plotting which comprises of digi- 
tizing on original photographs, and transfor- 
mation of the data (including DTM) into the 
map. For this an affine transformation with 
linear prediction is feasible. 
The chairman thanked all who had participated 
in the panel, both panelists and audience, and 
closed the session. 
Thursday, July 22, 1976, from 15.00 to 15.45 
Session 7 of Commission Il 
Topic: Business Meeting 
Chairman: Dr. G. Inghilleri (Italy) 
The chairman opened the session by saying 
that the only point remaining on the agenda 
was the final drafting of the proposed Reso- 
lutions. He explained that eight Resolutions had 
been set forth by the Committee established 
at the first Business Meeting of the Commission. 
Dr. Inghilleri thanked the Committee for its work 
and asked Dr. B. Makarovic (Netherlands) to read 
the drafted Resolutions. Dr. Makarovi¢ pre- 
sented the Resolutions to the meeting, which 
then gave its unanimous approval. Dr. Inghilleri 
remarked that all of the proposals would be 
submitted to the Resolutions Committee, which 
has the responsibility of presenting the drafted 
Resolutions to the Plenary Session for its 
approval (see Part | page 76). 
Dr. Inghilleri extended his sincere thanks to all 
those who had contributed to the successful 
work of the Commission during the past four 
years and at the Congress. He urged the 
members of the Commission to give the same 
kind of support to the newly elected President 
of Commission ll. 
The meeting then adjourned. 
Friday, July 23, 1976, from 9.00 to 10.30 
Session 8 of Commission lI 
Topic: Standard Tests 
Chairman: Dr. K. Szangolies (G.D.R.) 
The chairman opened the session, recalling the 
ten years of activity of Working Group 11/2, which 
had been chaired first by Dr. R. Burkhardt (F.R.G.) 
and after him by Dr. M. Dóhler (F.R.G.). He also 
mentioned the report presented at the Ottawa 
Congress. During the past four-year period the 
Working Group was to probe the Standard Tests 
in practical applications and was to make an 
effort to improve and simplify them. 
Working Group Paper 
Author: Dr. M. Dóhler (F.R.G.) 
Title: Standardtests für photogramme- 
trische Auswertegeräte WGR 11/02 
Mr. H. D. Janssen (F.R.G.) read the Report pre- 
pared by Dr. Dôhler who could not attend the 
Congress. 
Mr. K. Grabmeier of |I.T.C. (Netherlands) and 
Dr. H.-K. Meier of Carl Zeiss (F.R.G.) commented 
on the Report, making some remarks concerning 
the software and the complexity of Standard 
Tests. 
95