U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

Post by yencabulator » Wed, Aug 03, 2022, 9:38 PM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #244

s1artibartfast wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That still doesnt answer the question of why pixels. You can scale invariance and fractals with squares, triangles, or whatever shape you want.

Pixelation by itself does not produce any camo effect. It just happens to be easier and cheaper to produce fractal camo patterns on clothing out of pixels - it can be literally printed. And at any range at which the pattern is likely to work anyway, the individual pixels aren't really visible. More modern (and expensive) patterns like Multicam or A-TACS do the same thing without pixels, e.g.: https://www.camopedia.or…

Post by yencabulator » Wed, Aug 03, 2022, 9:43 PM UTC

rcurry wrote: post #152

hinkley wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During the I-for-get-which war, the army hired color-blind spotters because the enemy camo turned out to be fooling fully sighted people but was less effective with red-green color blindness. I don't recall if it was texture or contrast issues but they stood out against the trees and shrubbery enough to locate. So we not only have to worry about invisible spectra, but some filters on visible light may reveal the targ…

That’s kind of like hunters who buy expensive camo and then their wife washes it with laundry detergent that contains brightening agents. To human eyes it still looks like camo, but to the deer you end up looking like Barney the Dinosaur.

Post by yencabulator » Wed, Aug 03, 2022, 9:53 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #57

denton-scratch wrote: post #37

I was hoping to learn why the pixelated designs started appearing. Author says they work; but what led anyone to think that those designs might work? Why did they try them in the first place? And actually, why do they work? I find it bizarre that this is all done by private companies, competing in public competitions, with royalties to be paid for the chosen design. And I'm quite surprised that some designs were foun…

The answers to your first paragraph is in another part of the series: > Now we can address the Micropattern - digital pixels. These are required to add background noise and texture matching with the background and this is designed to fool with the focal area of the eye - when you are looking directly at or close to the target to make it more difficult to recognize what you are looking at.

Post by yencabulator » Wed, Aug 03, 2022, 10:00 PM UTC

fho wrote: post #266

fho wrote: post #177

Question (from somebody who only skimmed the article): how much variance exists of that fabric? Is that pattern repeated after x meters if fabric? If so: wouldn't knowing what to look for greatly increase the ability to automatically extract the pattern from image data? (Like how it is possible to extract signals from below the noise floor in LoRa communication?)

Or ... just detect this specific patch that seems to on every variation of the pattern: https://www.hyperstealth.com/camo-improvement/cadpat-us-vari... :-)

Post by ncmncm » Sat, Aug 06, 2022, 8:13 PM UTC

bumby wrote: post #297

ncmncm wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then ask them . If you really honestly think that whether NASA launched any of a certain specific sort of mission is a matter of opinion, I don't know what to say.

The issue I'm pointing to is the veracity of your claim that they did not. You stated it with certitude that, by the very nature of it being classified, you likely do not have. So either you're out over your skis regarding your certainty or the person you talked to willfully disclosed classified information. It's no different than if somebody on here said with certainty that there was a second gunman on the grassy kn…