,V ... 
(214) 
Mr. Corten: I do not know of any data which suggests that the English 
results are incorrect, but I had noticed that the general American approach to 
this point is quite different from the British one. The European procedure 
generally is to avoid airplanes which are too fast. The American view seems to 
be that the image motion during exposure should be as small as possible. 
Therefore they choose either very short exposure time as with the Wilcox 
shutter, or use moving film as in, for example, the Sonne slit camera although 
the use of moving film is not tolerable in photogrammetry. 
In connection with these discrepant views on permissible image motion, 
you may be interested to know that the English experimental results and their 
point of view is presented in the new book by Brock (“Physical Aspects of Air 
Photography”) which was published about two months ago. 
Mr. Cruset: The best solution to the problem of image motion is, of 
course, the provision of a higher speed emulsion. There are now in England 
and in Belgium experimental emulsions which are not much coarser and which 
are two or three times faster than Super XX. 
Session for Resolutions, Saturday, 13 September, 1952, 11.00 am to 12.00 noon. 
Dr. Howlett: Before dealing with resolutions, I would like to make several 
comments with respect to the Report of Commission I which was circulated in 
printed form a few days ago. 
Since its distribution we have received a few slightly querulous complaints 
with respect to the adequacy and the accuracy of some of the material included 
in the national reports from various countries. I wish to make it quite clear 
that the responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of national material 
rests solely with the national reporter of the country concerned. The Chair 
man and the Secretary of the Commission can take no responsibility in this 
regard. Their function was to collect information from the various reporters 
and to present it in what they hoped was a reasonably logical editorial form. 
Some compressions were made when it was felt adequate to refer to the original 
publications, and some additions were made when we were thoroughly familiar 
with some item which had been omitted from the national reporter’s submis 
sion but which we considered important. In making such additions, however, 
we were not implying an intention to correct every omission. In fact, such an 
attempt on our part would have been impossible. 
1 also wish to make a few remarks with respect to the preparation of the 
draft specification with which our first resolution will be concerned. It must 
be emphasized that in carrying out the work of any commission, the Chair 
man and Secretary are completely dependent upon the national reporter for 
each country to deal with the business of the commission within that country. 
All reporters were similarly circularized with respect to the draft specification 
from 17 January, onwards, and there was no way in which we could tell 
whether in each country all authorities who should have been consulted had, in 
fact, been consulted. We could only request that the national reporters make 
very certain of so doing. It was very distressing to find, after the first meeting 
of the Commission in Washington, that this arrangement had not, in every 
case, worked effectively. It is inappropriate in a public meeting to dwell upon