2. MilestoneDate Compiling Orders for Final ImageryAugust/September 2012 DAT ReviewSeptember/October 2012 Final Imagery in WMSNovember/December 2012 Delivery of Final, DAT-approved Ortho- imagery Tiles December 2012

3. As of 7/31, all interim imagery is available in the WMS Service: “DRCOG 2012 DRAPP – In Progress”

4.  Status:  Interim  Delivered on 4/24; Loaded to WMS on 5/1  Pilots (3)  Aurora – Delivered on 7/3; loaded to WMS on 7/6; resubmitted 8/14  Golden – Delivered on 7/9; loaded to WMS on7/12  Centennial – Delivered on 7/9; loaded to WMS on 7/12  Final Imagery –  Waiting on DEM update completion and pilot approvals.  Expected delivery 10/31

5.  Building lean –  Most cases identified can be corrected.  Road and Building distortion –  Most cases identified can be corrected through DEM refinement.  Dark Shadows –  Some adjustment to reduce contrast and lighten shadows may be possible.  Color Anomalies (Blue tint/saturated rooftops)–  Can and will be addressed  Blurring -  Small areas observable under higher magnification - this we believe was due to turbulence at the time of the flyover and may not be able to readily fix.

6.  Status:  Interim  Delivered on 4/12; Loaded to WMS on 4/17  Pilot  Delivered on 5/15 and again on 6/6 after adjustments  Pilot approved on 6/7  Final Imagery  Delivered on 6/20  Reviewed on 7/9  Waiting on Kucera to resubmit – Expected 8/31  Expected in the WMS by October

7.  From IntraSearch  Overall the data looks good. The color and density is consistent throughout the area. The color and density matches the pilot area.  There were only a few errors found.  7 tiles (0.5%) had some blurry areas on them.  1 tile (0.07%) marked with a distorted bridge.  11 tiles (0.8%) marked with minor cloud shadows on them.  GCPs Evaluation  9 of our ground control points fall on the Eastern Plains 1 foot data.  3 of the points were less than.6 feet off and the other 6 GCPs were on.  4 of Kucera’s ground control points were identifable on the imagery. 1 point was 1.3 feet off, 1 was 2.6 feet off and the other 2 were on.  Overall the data meets the project specifications.

8.  Status:  Interim  Delivered on 7/23; loaded to WMS on 7/25  Pilot  Delivered on 8/3; loaded to WMS on 8/13  Reviewed by IntraSearch on 8/13  Waiting on Kucera to resubmit  Final Imagery  Not started. Waiting on pilot approval.  Expected delivery on 10/31

9.  Review of the Mountain Pilot  Overall the data looks good.  The color, contrast and density looks good and is consistent overall.  Building distortions on 4 tiles.  Review of the Mountain Interim  Overall color and density looks OK and is consistent.  This is an interim product with a generic DEM so we found some errors.  32 tiles (1.8%)with double images.  7 tiles (0.4%) marked with DEM errors.  5 tiles (0.3%)had cloud shadows on them.  43 tiles (2.4%) with seam lines.  2 tiles (0.1%) marked as color anomaly, their color didn’t match the rest of the tiles.  2 tiles (0.1%) had a blurry area on them.  7 tiles (0.4%) with black null areas on them, these could be gaps in the flight line coverage.  1 tile (0.1%) was marked with a building distortion.

10.  Status:  Interim  Delivered on 5/1; loaded to WMS on 5/15  Pilot  Delivered on 6/29; loaded to WMS on 7/6  Resubmitted on 8/8  Final Imagery  Not started. Waiting on pilot approval (expected 8/15)  Expected delivery on 9/30

11.  Review of Weld County Interim  Slightly flat and heavy, but the final density and contrast will be determined with the pilot areas.  Some cloud shadows  GCPs  IntraSearch had 11 GCPs on this set, 1 was 3 feet off and the rest were all less than 2 feet off.  Kucera had 5 GCPs that fell on the data that were all between 2 feet and 3 feet off.  Review of Weld County Pilot  Overall the contrast and density looks good. The color is starting to shift to yellow in the Northwest quarter and would caution on letting the imagery go to yellow as the rest of the area is processed.  There are density mismatches between 2 sets of tiles that are marked with the seam line shape file.  6 buildings that had some distortion to them from DEM errors, one was a cutline error.  There are cloud shadows on the eastern side of the pilot area and I marked 2 areas where the shadow diminishes the clarity of the image.  1 foot bridge with distortion

12.  We did not ask for “true orthos” so much of the building lean that’s been identified is actually within spec.  Local color/contrast preferences are noted but will only be addressed if adjustment blends with the region as a whole.  Blurriness may not be fixable in all cases. This was caused by heat and turbulence during the flight – conditions that could not be controlled.

13.  Contact Ashley via phone or email to choose (see next slides for options) :  Format  Projection  Resolution  Extent  Note that the deliveries are in PLSS tiles, not mosaics.  Note that the final imagery is 4-band only.

14.  Resolution Options  6-inch in Area 1 and 4  1-foot in Areas 1, 2, 3, 4 (we can resample up if you prefer)  Format Options  Compressed GeoTIFF  Uncompressed GeoTIFF  JPEG2000  Mr. SID

15.  Projection Options  State Plane Colorado Central, NAD 83 (US Survey Feet)  State Plane Colorado North, NAD 83 (US Survey Feet)  State Plane Colorado Central, HARN (US Survey Feet)  State Plane Colorado North, HARN (US Survey Feet)  UTM Zone 13 North, NAD 83 (Meters)  Extent  Send an AOI  Delivery will be in PLSS tiles (shapefile on website)