# Satellite pictures for military intelligence **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 3, 2016, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/satellite-pictures-for-military-intelligence/751129 "2016-04-03T21:22:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2016, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/satellite-pictures-for-military-intelligence/751129/41 "2016-04-10T21:49:38Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > But you wouldn’t be able to tell whether it was a single or double line. You couldn’t tell the difference between a single 6-inch line vs. two closely-spaced 3-inch lines. However, road lines are all approximately the same width, so double lines have more effective surface area and would appear brighter than single lines. You could even determine passing areas from the alternating brightness, though you wouldn’t know which side of the road had the right. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2016, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/satellite-pictures-for-military-intelligence/751129/42 "2016-04-10T22:30:40Z")
Unless the double line were more faded/worn than the single line. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/satellite-pictures-for-military-intelligence/751129/43 "2016-04-11T14:21:24Z")
> [@Melbourne](#): > > Both. When you design a system for 1.6in resolution, your ~probably~ design every part of the system for 1.6in resolution. Because you don’t get a good return for your money if your film is giving you 0.5in resolution, and your optics are giving you 1.6in. But, you get different types of fuzziness from different parts of the system. > > So a 1.6in object might be represented by 1 film grain (not showing shape at all) plus a bit of averaging (not too clear about the actual location), and together, not too clear about the actual size. > > Of course, if you’re limited by technology, you might just spend the money. If you got a really clear sharp picture of the optical artifacts, you could clean it up a bit by guessing the probable conent: that speed sign that says maybe BO probably says 80. > > As a matter of fact, we do that all the time in signal processing: you use known characteristics as well as the raw data. Wouldn’t something under the size of a single film grain or imaging element more or less average out with the other stuff covered by that element/grain? In other words, if your spy satellite was looking at a big area of [this kind of tile](http://www.homedepot.com/catalog/productImages/400/70/70c20278-2274-4e6c-bbc6-ca0409897ef2_400.jpg) with 1" hexagons, wouldn’t you end up with white and gray image elements, as the black ones would be averaged into the surrounding white ones? ---
**Author:** ![Dobbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Dobbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dobbs)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/satellite-pictures-for-military-intelligence/751129/44 "2016-04-11T18:56:14Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > You can’t directly tell what is happening inside a building. > > But if you watched it being built or equipped you can know a lot about what’s inside. An office building and factory will have different fit-outs. > > You can count cars & busses coming and going and establish about how many people work there. On which days and shifts. > > You can observe shipments coming and going. > > etc. Coupled with some HUMINT on the ground to calibrate all this you can learn a lot. Not everything, but still a useful incrememnt of information. My dad was an Air Force photo interpreter, who mostly worked with aircraft photos in the Viet Nam era. He said that the secret to being a good PI was being able to see the story of what was going on, not just seeing what was there. ‘What’ is in the photo is only the first question. You follow up with ‘why’, and then apply a lot of if/then. For a building, in addition to the staff, you can also look at it’s size and shape, windows and doors, security features (fences and guard stations), transportation services (rail sidings or just road, what kind of road) and even what kind of roof (along with roof top facilities). You would also consider the neighboring buildings, as well as the surrounding area in general. The saying is ‘a picture is worth 1000 words’, but any one who says that never met a PI. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/satellite-pictures-for-military-intelligence/751129/45 "2016-04-11T19:30:18Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **bump** : > Wouldn’t something under the size of a single film grain or imaging element more or less average out with the other stuff covered by that element/grain? > > In other words, if your spy satellite was looking at a big area of this kind of tile with 1" hexagons, wouldn’t you end up with white and gray image elements, as the black ones would be averaged into the surrounding white ones? Yes, which is why feature size and contrast are important. If your features are smaller than the resolution, then contrast will be decreased. If your contrast was good enough to begin with, then even the decreased contrast will be enough. If your initial contrast wasn’t so good, though, or if the feature size was enough smaller, then the contrast will end up too low to distinguish. ---
**Author:** ![sitchensis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sitchensis/32/4892_2.png) [@sitchensis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sitchensis)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/satellite-pictures-for-military-intelligence/751129/46 "2016-04-11T19:30:44Z")
A lot of it is cultural as well. Good photo interpretation requires you to be able almost “feel” what’s going on. It’s an art form. In the US, most of our schools are set up with baseball and football fields, and tracks, our shopping malls may look different. Our agriculture, suburban developments, universities, community centers, factories all have some cultural elements in their design that may or may not differ from a different country. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2016, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/satellite-pictures-for-military-intelligence/751129/47 "2016-04-13T15:41:36Z")
[This article](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/02/facebook-makes-a-new-map-of-everyone-in-the-world/470487/)made me think of this thread. Seems to me that a government with enough resources could feed all their recon photos into one of those computer systems and teach it how to recognize things, and set it loose from there to identify things. ---
**Author:** ![kurtisokc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbce88/32.png) [@kurtisokc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kurtisokc)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/satellite-pictures-for-military-intelligence/751129/48 "2016-04-14T15:05:20Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > Probably wasn’t shaved in the 70’s. 😉 Tell that to this lady. [http://trekfoundations.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/illia.jpg](http://trekfoundations.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/illia.jpg)😃 ---
**Author:** ![Grateful-UnDead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ccd318/32.png) [@Grateful-UnDead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grateful-UnDead)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/satellite-pictures-for-military-intelligence/751129/49 "2016-04-16T23:29:19Z")
So was the Russian babe in the woods a natural blonde or not? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/satellite-pictures-for-military-intelligence/751129.md?page=2)