# Talk:Multi-scale camouflage

I have looked for sources, but it seems things have gotten very quiet at the digital camouflage front compared to just a year ago. Thimbleweed (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Older sources will of course be fine. I suspect the issue is whether materials are being published by military researchers; while the stuff put out commercially is of little value, beyond showing that things exist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
A very interesting source corroborating most of what I have used Bradly for in the military camouflage article: http://www.army.mil/article/121866/Army_testing_combat_boots__camouflage_patterns/
Particularly this selection of text is interesting:
The tests are seeking (...) separate patterns designed for arid, transitional semi-wooded, or heavily wooded terrain (which) tend to perform better than a single pattern, which seeks to provide concealment in all three environments. (...) So far, tests show that at a range between 25 and 50 meters, the pattern matters, meaning it is critical for blending in the environment. At distances greater than 50 meters, the pattern itself is less important than the general colors of the camouflage.
Thimbleweed (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Many of the reference links are now out of date. This needs a clean-up.

Sorry about the wonky structuring yesterday. I guess late night edits are a bad idea.
My suggestion for a structuring:

Lede (current one's good in my view)
Use of terms (pixelated, computer generated (fractal) and computer assisted construction) with sources (or at least examples of uses).
Principles (bi- or multi-scale, dithering and the somewhat speculative "edge effect")
History
List of well known patterns
References
Ok, let's try it, we can always adjust it if the material needs a different structure. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion on the UCP really belong in the UCP article. The failure of the pattern had nothing to do with whether it was pixelated or not.

Really? The point that DC only works if basic things like colours and contrast are suitable seems exactly and perfectly relevant to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thimbleweed (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, good point, but it need to be pressneted as such. Thimbleweed (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it should be stressed that the colour blotches in Soviet TTsMKK and other beriozka-type camo patterns looked like pixels, but they were not.Joan Rocaguinard (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: This is a bit jargonesque, even with a link to Fourier. Would a link to Spatial frequency also be appropriate? (Hohum @) 18:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

None of the O'Neill references are valid. These have been flagged. If no legitimate sources to O'Neill can be provided, then the name should be removed as unverifiable. This should be done separately for the 1970 and 2002 claims. Additionally, the general link regarding the 2002-2004 design change is generic, and so has been moved to the place where that design is discussed.

Update: according to the patent, the inventors are Santos et al. http://www.google.com/patents/US6805957 . This dates to 2001. I am unable to find any references to the 1970s claims. (added on 18:22, 28 July 2017‎ by 129.242.183.93)
Thanks. I have replaced the existing references and text, and have linked it to a brief bio at Timothy O'Neill (camoufleur). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Multi-scale camouflage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121130142620/http://www.strikehold.net/2010/04/04/making-sense-of-digital-camouflage/ to http://www.strikehold.net/2010/04/04/making-sense-of-digital-camouflage/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Random internet posts claim that the digital patterns are digital because they are effective against image-processing software. But is this true? This article makes no mention of that. Some claim that the patterns disrupt cameras such as those used in cell-phones (... and drones) is this true or is it bunkum? (I suspect its bunk, but ...!?)
Somewhat related: deep-learning neural nets have been disrupting image processing (e.g. restoring/upscaling old photos, film) What happens to camo, if you use one of those systems? For example, can you build digital binoculars that would be able to see camo (better than plain binoculars)? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Would 60s era soviet kamuflirovannyi letnyi maskirovochnyi kombinezon or KLMK be covered by this?  Should it be mentioned? Fanccr (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)