# Why digital camouflage? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 4, 2011, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-digital-camouflage/566336 "2011-01-04T08:30:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-digital-camouflage/566336/1 "2011-01-04T08:30:28Z")
What’s up with the new digital camouflage? I did at least a minimal amount of homework, wiki says: [QUOTE=wikipedia] Digital camouflage (or “digicam”) is a pattern devised by utilizing small micropatterns, as opposed to larger macropatterns for effective disruption. The theory is that large blotches of color with sharp outlines are easier to see, while “blurring” the edges of the colored patches makes the outlines, and thus the objects, harder to discern. [/QUOTE] OK, so I get why they made the pattern more fractal / smaller / inclusive of more colors in the palette, etc. But wiki doesn’t explain, why the pattern was made “digital”, IOW, why was the pattern made into small _rectangles_!? The previous large pattern was super high resolution but not “rectangular”, so it’s not a matter of being convenient for textile manufacture. So why not make a high resolution but also analog/fractal and higher depth color palette pattern camouflage rather than slightly larger color palette camouflage which has higher detail but is still extremely digital (i.e. rectangles rather than fractal shapes at the periphery of the medium resolution depth (thread width). ? ---
**Author:** ![glowacks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/glowacks/32/5548_2.png) [@glowacks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glowacks)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-digital-camouflage/566336/2 "2011-01-04T15:58:57Z")
There are/were studies to see what sorts of patterns blended in with backgrounds the best. Sometimes, the results look very strange when you remove the camouflaged object from its intended environment. I believe that the “digital” camo resembles a natural background more than the traditional when mixed in with their intended environment; the traditional camo would make objects less likely to appear out of place, but the new style actually makes objects look like they aren’t there at all. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-digital-camouflage/566336/3 "2011-01-04T16:13:14Z")
What would the point be of a higher-resolution digital pattern? The resolution they chose works well enough. You only notice the “digitalness” when you’re up close and specifically looking for it. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-digital-camouflage/566336/4 "2011-01-04T17:23:39Z")
Digital camouflage is truly random (or at least, as random as a computer-driven printer can make it) and therefore there are no repeated patterns. Older “analog” camo patterns are repeated in blocks due to limitations in textile printing technology. The human eye is every good at recognizing repetition in patterns, and from thence finding a distinction between the form of those patterns and the surrounding foliage. You could make digital camo with a finer pixel size, but it isn’t really necessary; at the distance where any camouflage is effective at breaking up the body pattern, the human eye can’t distinguish the individual pixels, and in fact that pixelization makes the pattern look slightly blurry; similar to the comparison of a NTSC image on an old cathode ray tube with limited resolution and saturation versus the slightly too crisp looking image on a modern 1080p LED LCD screen. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Enola\_Straight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dec6dc/32.png) [@Enola\_Straight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enola_Straight)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-digital-camouflage/566336/5 "2011-01-04T17:32:27Z")
I figure the digitalness approximates the fractal nature optimal to camouflage; the resolution is apparently more than adequate to the human eye at distance, and is within manufacturing tolerances of the textile industry. ---
**Author:** ![MobiusStripes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@MobiusStripes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MobiusStripes)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-digital-camouflage/566336/6 "2011-01-04T20:29:13Z")
Some anecdotal information: I’ve seen the digital stuff a few years ago while playing paintball in the woods. Most folks were where camo of some sort. Most wore the old fashion used stuff you can get at your local Army/Navy store for a few bucks. While that works, the newer digital stuff was pretty amazing. You could see them move, but when they stopped they’d darn near blend into the background. To my eyes it was much more effective than the older style. It was counter-intuitive to me as well. ---
**Author:** ![Projammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/projammer/32/559_2.png) [@Projammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Projammer)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-digital-camouflage/566336/7 "2011-01-04T21:56:47Z")
My understanding is that it takes advantage of the mind’s tendency to create patterns where none truly exists. The digital pattern is close enough to the background that we involuntarily merge them together. With the fixed pattern of standard camo, anomalies tend to stand out and draw attention. ---
**Author:** ![Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Swallowed_My_Cellphone)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-digital-camouflage/566336/8 "2011-01-04T22:07:14Z")
I have seen a photo [like this one](http://www.hyperstealth.com/digital-design/test-results-3.jpg), but done with real fabric examples of MARPAT, regular camo, and the plain “olive drab”. It really is remarkable how well CADPAT/MARPAT blends in. ETA: Still looking for the photo of the real samples… ---
**Author:** ![Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Swallowed_My_Cellphone)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-digital-camouflage/566336/9 "2011-01-04T22:21:55Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > But wiki doesn’t explain, why the pattern was made “digital”, IOW, why was the pattern made into small _rectangles_!? The previous large pattern was super high resolution but not “rectangular”, so it’s not a matter of being convenient for textile manufacture. It’s not about the human eye or textiles. Canada’s research for creating CADPAT was aimed to help the clothing be difficult to see using night vision goggles. So the CF uniforms were made with the infra-red defeating pattern and material that came out of the research. CF’s CADPAT was copyrighted, but they assisted with the U.S.'s development of MARPAT. > [@](#): > > So why not make a high resolution but also analog/fractal and higher depth color palette pattern camouflage rather than slightly larger color palette camouflage which has higher detail but is still extremely digital (i.e. rectangles rather than fractal shapes at the periphery of the medium resolution depth (thread width). ? MARPAT is based on fractal pattern with a rich palette. From Wiki: _MARPAT has patterns produced by highly complex fractal equations that result in a non-repeating pattern. The purpose of the digitized pattern is to match the visual texture of typical backgrounds. When compared to a white background the MARPAT does look surprising and would seem to catch attention, but when used in an operative environment, its textured appearance and lack of hard edges make it more effective than traditional patterns.[4]_ ---
**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:** [January 4, 2011, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-digital-camouflage/566336/10 "2011-01-04T22:32:06Z")
Its scientific. We were told that the Army ACU pattern was scientifically proven to be effective in all types of terrain from woodland to desert. Those of us using it knew unscientifically that it was bullshit. In Iraq it didn’t matter much. Camo doesn’t mean much in the city. But Afganistan is a different story. After many years the Army admitted that the ACU pattern doesn’t work and troops going to Afghanistan are issued [multicam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MultiCam) uniforms. ---
**Author:** ![AmunRa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@AmunRa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AmunRa)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-digital-camouflage/566336/11 "2011-01-04T22:43:11Z")
> [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](#): > > ETA: Still looking for the photo of the real samples… [Here you go.](http://defensetech.org/2007/07/06/when-you-dont-want-to-take-out-the-trash/) ;)😛 > [@Loach](#): > > Its scientific. > > We were told that the Army ACU pattern was scientifically proven to be effective in all types of terrain from woodland to desert. Those of us using it knew unscientifically that it was bullshit. In Iraq it didn’t matter much. Camo doesn’t mean much in the city. But Afganistan is a different story. After many years the Army admitted that the ACU pattern doesn’t work and troops going to Afghanistan are issued [multicam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MultiCam) uniforms. I think that had a lot more to do with the Army’s attempt to use a single color palette. Do you know of any studies that compare MARPAT to multicam? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-digital-camouflage/566336/12 "2011-01-04T22:56:47Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Its scientific. > > We were told that the Army ACU pattern was scientifically proven to be effective in all types of terrain from woodland to desert. Those of us using it knew unscientifically that it was bullshit. In Iraq it didn’t matter much. Camo doesn’t mean much in the city. But Afganistan is a different story. After many years the Army admitted that the ACU pattern doesn’t work and troops going to Afghanistan are issued [multicam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MultiCam) uniforms. Well, I think part of the problem (according to Wiki) is that of the four patterns tested by the Army’s Natick R&D center, they chose the pattern that tested the worst, for some reason. To answer the OP’s question, I think if you make the pattern finer, the eye can’t see the “dithering” effect between the colors as well.