# What's with that pixelated-looking camouflage? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 12, 2009, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-that-pixelated-looking-camouflage/485569 "2009-02-12T18:30:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Vox\_Imperatoris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Vox\_Imperatoris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vox_Imperatoris)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-that-pixelated-looking-camouflage/485569/21 "2009-02-13T05:04:54Z")
> [@Tool\_of\_the\_Conspiracy](#): > > If you’re close enough to see the pixels, you’re close enough to see what they’re hiding. This. No camouflage is going to work if the guy is right in front of you. Valete, Vox Imperatoris ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Sensitive](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/58956e/32.png) [@Darth\_Sensitive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Sensitive)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-that-pixelated-looking-camouflage/485569/22 "2009-02-13T05:27:56Z")
[This](http://krackin.net/couch.jpg) sums it up nicely! 😃 EDIT: Dang it **J Cubed**! You beat me, except I can’t get your link to work, but you win. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-that-pixelated-looking-camouflage/485569/23 "2009-02-13T06:44:47Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > It’s actually called Marpat which stands for MARine PATtern. Per their studies, at longer distances, it’s more effective than your normal run of the mill camo. This is incorrect. I’m looking at my uniform right now. It is not MARPAT. MARPAT is \*only \*the pattern used by the Marine Corps. It is a patented design. You can buy similarly patterned camo elsewhere but it is not MARPAT. If you look very closely at the MARPAT patern (I mean within inches) you can see tiny Eagle, Globe and Anchor symbols worked into it. The first military to use a digital pattern was the Canadian Army (they called it CADPAT). The US Army uses a pattern called Universal Camouflage Pattern on the ACU uniform. Its universal because the color is supposedly effective in all environments (MARPAT comes in a woodland and a desert color pattern). The Air Force uses a digital tiger stripe design. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-that-pixelated-looking-camouflage/485569/24 "2009-02-13T06:58:19Z")
> [@Alex\_Dubinsky](#): > > Digicamo has a richer spacial frequency content than older camo. Basically, instead of large blotches, it also has many kinds of smaller details. Even the corners of the pixels count as especially fine details. > > That doesn’t mean digicamo is ideal. It just means it sucks less than the older kind. Frankly, I’m stumped why a good exhaustive can’t find the ideal camouflage that is natural-looking at close and distant range, incorporates patterns at all spacial frequencies, and has good diversity in color as well. > > I guess either noone’s tried to find the ideal camo, or form takes precedence over function, or camouflage doesn’t really matter much either way in conflict, or an army actually DOESN’T want especially effective camouflage. It would increase friendly fire and be mean to the enemy. If the US wanted all its soldiers to have really great camo, they could glue plastic grass and other such things to themselves like ambush teams do (hopefully without affecting weight all that much). I do not know the actual science behind it, if there is any. I do know what we were taught in the military. The point is not to have natural looking camouflage. It is to break up the shape of the body so that when the enemy is looking your way their brain does not see “human”. You blend in, you don’t have to look like a tree. For instance when we would camouflage our faces the point was not to make your face look like a bush, it was to make it not look like a face. We would uses muted natural colors and make the dark areas(shadowy like the eyesockets, under the cheeks bones) light and the light areas dark. Anyone you see with tiger stripe face camo is trying to look cool, nothing else. And the glueing of grass idea is not a good one. Unless they can come up with a chameleon suit it won’t work. There has to be some compromise due to diversity of terrain. They do not purposely make camouflage less effective due to fratricide. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-that-pixelated-looking-camouflage/485569/25 "2009-02-13T12:31:44Z")
> [@Alex\_Dubinsky](#): > > I guess either noone’s tried to find the ideal camo, or form takes precedence over function, or camouflage doesn’t really matter much either way in conflict, or an army actually DOESN’T want especially effective camouflage. It would increase friendly fire and be mean to the enemy. If the US wanted all its soldiers to have really great camo, they could glue plastic grass and other such things to themselves like ambush teams do (hopefully without affecting weight all that much). Like **Loach** said, the latter is impractical since the soldier moves around and sometimes has to move against another background – it would only work if they’re going to be sitting still in a shrubbery all day (which is why snipers use ghillie suits). Yes, you would attach some _light_\* foliage to your web gear and helmet cover if you’re in the woods, but that was meant more to break up the obvious non-natural shapes of the equipment. (\*The training sergeants would have a hearty laugh at privates who tried to do full topiary arrangements on themselves.) Until someone patents some sort of low-maintenance, wash-and-wear thermoptic invisibility cloak or light-bending chameleoflage, you go for the best average you can afford, and every so often make incremental improvements according to the marginal efficiency of your technology. (You don’t pay $500 for a pair of pants that’s only 10% better than a $150 one. You wait until you can get that better pair of pants under $200, or until you can get it at leat twice as good for the $500). ---
**Author:** ![Anthony\_N](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/858c86/32.png) [@Anthony\_N](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anthony_N)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-that-pixelated-looking-camouflage/485569/26 "2009-02-13T17:54:39Z")
While I have no cite for this, I believe that the distinct MARPAT pattern is also designed to be difficult to “counterfiet” by an enemy nation. Loach’s post above supports this by noting that civilians cannot buy the exact pattern used by the Marine Corps. ---
**Author:** ![I\_of\_the\_Tiger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/53a042/32.png) [@I\_of\_the\_Tiger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_of_the_Tiger)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-that-pixelated-looking-camouflage/485569/27 "2009-02-13T19:48:48Z")
> [@Anthony\_N](#): > > While I have no cite for this, I believe that the distinct MARPAT pattern is also designed to be difficult to “counterfiet” by an enemy nation. Umm, no. It shows up in photographs quite easily, so any fabric manufacturer would be able to copy it fairly easily. It’s not like it has hidden watermarks like cash… ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-that-pixelated-looking-camouflage/485569/28 "2009-02-14T01:36:01Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > This is incorrect. I’m looking at my uniform right now. It is not MARPAT. MARPAT is \*only \*the pattern used by the Marine Corps. It is a patented design. You can buy similarly patterned camo elsewhere but it is not MARPAT. If you look very closely at the MARPAT patern (I mean within inches) you can see tiny Eagle, Globe and Anchor symbols worked into it. The first military to use a digital pattern was the Canadian Army (they called it CADPAT). The US Army uses a pattern called Universal Camouflage Pattern on the ACU uniform. Here: > **[Universal camouflage pattern](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Camouflage_Pattern)** > > The Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP) is a digital camouflage pattern formerly used by the United States Army in their Army Combat Uniform. > Laboratory and field tests from 2002 to 2004 showed a pattern named "All-Over Brush" to provide the best concealment of the patterns tested. At the end of the trials, Desert Brush was selected as the winner over 12 other experimental patterns.\[e\]\[f\]\[g\] The winning Desert Brush pattern was not used as the final Universal pattern. Instead, U.S. Army leade... ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-that-pixelated-looking-camouflage/485569/29 "2009-02-14T03:23:49Z")
> [@Vox\_Imperatoris](#): > > This. No camouflage is going to work if the guy is right in front of you. Good camo can be amazingly effective if you sit very still. On one occasion I had to speak up for fear of getting pissed on. ---
**Author:** ![Rigamarole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rigamarole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rigamarole)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-that-pixelated-looking-camouflage/485569/30 "2009-02-14T04:49:25Z")
> [@Alex\_Dubinsky](#): > > I guess either noone’s tried to find the ideal camo, or form takes precedence over function, or camouflage doesn’t really matter much either way in conflict, or an army actually DOESN’T want especially effective camouflage. It would increase friendly fire and be mean to the enemy. If the US wanted all its soldiers to have really great camo, they could glue plastic grass and other such things to themselves like ambush teams do (hopefully without affecting weight all that much). There’s always [optical camo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKPVQal851U). ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-that-pixelated-looking-camouflage/485569/31 "2009-02-14T14:42:17Z")
> [@I\_of\_the\_Tiger](#): > > Umm, no. It shows up in photographs quite easily, so any fabric manufacturer would be able to copy it fairly easily. > It’s not like it has hidden watermarks like cash… Sometimes I wonder if the volume is down on my keyboard. As I mentioned before, MARPAT has little Eagle, Globe and Anchor symbols scattered through the pattern. It is impossible to see unless you are within inches of the fabric. Not a watermark but serves the same purpose. [Cite](http://www.magnafabrics.com/images/invprints/836.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-that-pixelated-looking-camouflage/485569/32 "2009-02-14T15:31:40Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Sometimes I wonder if the volume is down on my keyboard. As I mentioned before, MARPAT has little Eagle, Globe and Anchor symbols scattered through the pattern. It is impossible to see unless you are within inches of the fabric. Not a watermark but serves the same purpose. > > [Cite](http://www.magnafabrics.com/images/invprints/836.jpg) Yes, so the enemy can’t fake the “watermarks”. But more than a few feet away the watermarks don’t make a damn bit of difference as to the effectiveness of the camo. Now, if say Iran was printing up fake camo uniforms and selling them on Ebay as authentic marine camo I guess the watermarks might come in handy… ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-that-pixelated-looking-camouflage/485569/33 "2009-02-14T15:43:04Z")
> [@Tool\_of\_the\_Conspiracy](#): > > If you’re close enough to see the pixels, you’re close enough to see what they’re hiding. > I’m not an expert, but I think that the only reason it’s made of pixels is that it was designed using a computer. I think that if a pattern was that detailed and that random without having square edges, it would work just as well. I was wondering about this as well. Are the pixels incidental or necessary to the effectiveness of the camo? Could you have something more like old fashioned camo but with a more detailed pattern, and would that work just as well as the digicamo? -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2009, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-that-pixelated-looking-camouflage/485569/34 "2009-02-15T06:02:17Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Yes, so the enemy can’t fake the “watermarks”. > > But more than a few feet away the watermarks don’t make a damn bit of difference as to the effectiveness of the camo. > > Now, if say Iran was printing up fake camo uniforms and selling them on Ebay as authentic marine camo I guess the watermarks might come in handy… Never said they made the camo more effective. The Marines didn’t want anyone else using their stuff. Not Mattel, not the US Army, not Iran. I have never heard or claimed that it was for tactical reasons. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2009, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-that-pixelated-looking-camouflage/485569/35 "2009-02-15T13:24:12Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Never said they made the camo more effective. The Marines didn’t want anyone else using their stuff. Not Mattel, not the US Army, not Iran. I have never heard or claimed that it was for tactical reasons. Like the other poster said, take a few pics of the stuff, or get one measely uniform and you can copy it to your hearts content. I think even terd world countries are capable of that feat. The “watermarks” are like copyrighting your battle plan. “Take that now, you big bad enemy! You can’t use that information. It’s copyrighted!” :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2009, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-that-pixelated-looking-camouflage/485569/36 "2009-02-15T13:34:43Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Like the other poster said, take a few pics of the stuff, or get one measely uniform and you can copy it to your hearts content. I think even terd world countries are capable of that feat. > > The “watermarks” are like copyrighting your battle plan. “Take that now, you big bad enemy! You can’t use that information. It’s copyrighted!” :rolleyes: I have no idea what you are talking about. You can copy movies even though they are copywrited. Should they stop copywriting movies? I already said it was not for tactical reasons. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2009, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-that-pixelated-looking-camouflage/485569/37 "2009-02-15T15:59:02Z")
Cpyrighting MARPAT/Universal Pattern/whatever is not so any enemy can’t copy it. It’s so that no merchant may supply the same material for commercial sale w/o getting the proper permissions/licenses (and paying the proper royalty), and if caught doing so then the government can nail him. One element behind it is the proliferation of commercial sale of the products created at Natick (e.g. Woodland Pattern BDU’s for hunting gear, AG Class B shirts for Mall Security uniforms, etc.) w/o the service getting their due. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2009, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-that-pixelated-looking-camouflage/485569/38 "2009-02-15T16:46:11Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > I have no idea what you are talking about. You can copy movies even though they are copywrited. Should they stop copywriting movies? I already said it was not for tactical reasons. Somebody made the point that the pattern had watermarks so that it would be difficult FOR AN ENEMY nation to counterfiet it. I Tiger made the point that any idiot COULD counterfiet it for all practical purposes, marine watermarks not withstanding. I agree with I Tiger. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2009, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-that-pixelated-looking-camouflage/485569/39 "2009-02-15T21:24:33Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Somebody made the point that the pattern had watermarks so that it would be difficult FOR AN ENEMY nation to counterfiet it. That was **Anthony N** , who admitted he had no cite for it, but then he immediately mentioned **Loach** ’s first post as a reference on its commercial nonavailability; thus creating confusion as the one thing got mixed in with the other. ---
**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:** [February 15, 2009, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-that-pixelated-looking-camouflage/485569/40 "2009-02-15T21:56:32Z")
Quoth **Rigamarole** : > [@](#): > > There’s always optical camo. In the military, if you know precisely where your enemy is, the easiest way to make sure he can’t see you is to just shoot him. It’s both easier and more effective than projection systems like that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-that-pixelated-looking-camouflage/485569.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-that-pixelated-looking-camouflage/485569.md?page=3)