What's with that pixelated-looking camouflage?

[Loach]

@billfish678

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.

It all becomes clear to me now.

[puppygod]

@Chronos

Quoth Rigamarole: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.

Tell that to this lone scout that just discovered position of tank brigade

[Chronos]

Tell that to this lone scout that just discovered position of tank brigade

Still true. Those systems would only let you become invisible to one tank, and you could kill that one tank with a rocket launcher or the like that was much smaller than the equipment you’d need for “invisibility”.

[puppygod]

I don’t want to hijack, nor do I think that optic camouflage like that linked will be feasible any time soon. But statement like:

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.

is simply untrue. There are dozens of feasible scenarios where you need to remain undetected without immediately engaging in combat.

[Sleel]

@Alex_Dubinsky

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).

That’s the problem. Ghillie suits are incredible camouflage but they’re heavy and hot. You probably can’t get the benefits without at least some of the drawbacks.

Frylock, from runner pat’s cite: “‘Digital’ camouflage is actually a misnomer, based on the superficial resemblance of these patterns to quantized or coarse digital images. In fact, the patterns of squares (or whatever shape we use) is employed to model the texture of typical backgrounds using a mathematical function. We could use hexagons or shapeless blobs as well, except that it is easier to render complex patterns by computer using squares. It is easy to misunderstand the purpose and mechanisms of this kind of design, which is why so many measures that try to use the approach without insight fall short.”

They also talk about using weighted algorithms to determine how the patterns are formed. When you think about it, too random is potentially as big a problem as not random enough in designing camouflage. The dithering effect is deliberate since it breaks up the boundaries between blotches and produces an illusion of depth.

[Loach]

@Sleel

Frylock, from runner pat’s cite: “‘Digital’ camouflage is actually a misnomer, based on the superficial resemblance of these patterns to quantized or coarse digital images. In fact, the patterns of squares (or whatever shape we use) is employed to model the texture of typical backgrounds using a mathematical function. We could use hexagons or shapeless blobs as well, except that it is easier to render complex patterns by computer using squares. It is easy to misunderstand the purpose and mechanisms of this kind of design, which is why so many measures that try to use the approach without insight fall short.”

And this cite shows that they have been experimenting with the digital look long before digital had its current conotations and no one would know what the word pixelated* meant. Both cites show that LTC Timothy O’Neill is the father of this type of camo. Initial work was done in the early 70s. This cite has some good pictures of early examples of this type of pattern.

*A quick search found that the word pixel was coined in 1969. No idea when it came into common usage or when pixelated was first used. Considerably later I’m assuming.