Therock07,

Theoretically it would be possible to scan the images and run them against know examples/exemplars to get an idea of grade.   There would be challenges but the biggest would be compliling the database with all the exemplars validated with assays.  I suspect in the end it wouldn't be worth the additional costs.

For the most part this is what the geologist is doing is doing with the old eye ball.   The key job of the drill geologist is to try to figure out the controls for the mineralization that will guide.   When we log a hole you make note of the rock type, structure, alteration and mineralization.   

When you join an existing project one of the first thing the project gelogist will do is to run you through the samples to get you up to speed on what you will be seeing.  Its not unusual to have the senior geologist have the newbies relog old holes to get a feel for the rocks. Before very long you know when a hole hits and whether its a good one or a so so.

It might surprise you but the key job of the drill geologit isn't locating the mineralization but to try to figure out the controls for the mineralization that will guide

That said the accuarcy of the eyeball estimates are good enough for guiding field work but no where accurate enough to release to anyone outside the immediate project who may not understand the caveats of eyeball estimates.  For example I might say in a drill log that there is about 1% galena and the assay comes back 0.3% lead.   I'm happy with the accuracys of my estimate but the investor that follows hole by hole would be tciked with my 200% discrepancy and there in lies the problem.