Talk:Camouflage/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2003

I don't like this sentence :

"The idea was quickly taken up by the British, Americans and even the Germans (see, for example, Lozenge), Italians and Russians"

We are refering to1915/1916, they were no Americans. Ericd 17:43, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you correctly. The U.S. didn't have an army in those years or what? --80.108.19.76 17:53, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The US came in Europe in 1917. I think we are talking about the belligerants if not every army in the world has adopted camouflage since. Ericd 18:04, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand this. It says in the text that the French army "invented" camouflage during the First World War, and most, or all, other nations/armies imitated them. I don't know if this is true and correct, but it sounds logical (and camouflage sounds ever so French). Okay. Now what's the problem? --KF 19:28, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's simple first this list is pretty incomplete secondly it suggest a wrong chronology. Ericd 21:11, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If you know more about it, change it. --KF 21:15, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This is done. I've searched for some référence on the Net there was an mess between the use of camouflage and the use of camouflage sections that were largely used by the USA. Ericd 21:42, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This is an interesting article, and the passages you have added certainly clarify a few things. Well, I hope we can leave it for the time being. All the best to you, Ericd, --KF 21:49, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
All the same to you.
Ericd 21:52, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Great pictures on this site - no good for article though . http://www.predatorcamo.com/patterns.html Mark Richards 21:40, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The biological aspect of camouflage needs to be developed. Pollinator 21:56, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Seconded. The article is too heavily weighted in favour of military camouflage. Lee M 19:43, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

The French didn't come up with the idea of camouflage, the British were using it a hundred years before WWI with the rifle regiments! 213.78.183.91 (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

New information added

I added some new information about new camouflage patterns (the RealTree-style and "digital" patterns now used by hunters and the military), and also some information about adaptive camouflage, which should "modernize" this a bit.

I also think this article could use some information on ghillie, which predates any information in this article on the use of camouflage by at least 100 years. Gillie is dyed strips burlap originally used by the Scottish game wardens for which it is named. It is still used by military snipers today and is more effective than any camouflage pattern. (it's also much more bulky)

Merge?

See also Talk:Active_camouflage on discussion about partial merge of content with Active_camouflage. Femto 16:43, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Feature?

Might this page make a good Featured Article? --PlantPerson 18:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If it were made into one. It is still far from it. Richard001 04:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Animal Camouflage?

Where is information regarding camouflage in nature? I really would also like to read about how camouflage actually works. I keep seeing camo and wondering how it actually helps, since it looks as if it would stand out. For example, the malayan tapir is black with a large white "diaper" on, which I would think would make it MUCH easier to spot than the dappled baby tapir, but apparently it helps it camouflage very well (making it appear like a rock when at rest?)... I don't really care to know how it's been used in the military, but all information is good. I just wonder why there doesn't appear to be anything about natural camouflage? 24.82.139.12 07:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Non-visual military camouflage

I think there should be more info on different spectrums concerning military camouflage. It isn't just the visible spectrum, but radar, heat, ultraviolet and infrared also. See for example this article (for the pics, it's in finnish)--Elmeri B. Suokirahvi 20:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Military Camouflage

How about reducing Military Camouflage section to just one paragraph, since there *is* a separate page (Military camouflage) for it so no need to duplicate so much of it. Also, more on animal camouflage would be nice. Shinhan 18:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Digital Camouflage

Any chance on adding a section about digital camouflage? It seems to only have a small mention here, and no article of its own, and I know of several articles attemping to link to it Robogymnast 18:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Deficiencies in definition and theory

The definition of camouflage given in the article is incomplete, because it only covers camouflage designed to blend into the background, and ignores the other aspects. Camouflage's primary purpose is to mislead the observer; it can do this by blending into the background, as stated, or by disrupting the perception of the camouflaged object. Examples of camouflage that merely distrupt are dazzle camouflage, zebra strips, the light undersurface/dark top surface of many animals (designed to reverse the depth cues given by shading and "flatten" the object), and general purpose camouflage patterns that are used against a wide variety of backgrounds. Painting something blue and standing in front of a blue wall, for example, does blend it into the background, but as it doesn't disrupt the shape of the object, and it can still be picked up--the eye is very good at picking out edges and patterns. Cover the object in a random pattern of, say, red and green shapes and the object will stand out, but it will be hard to identify. Cover the object in a random pattern of shades of blue, and then it both blends in and disrupts the patterns of the object, minimizing the chances of detection and identification. Mimics use a combination of coloration and pattern disruption to look like another object; for example, a leaf insect doesn't biologically need to be leaf shaped--the leaf-like shape is provided by extensions of the body that are there specifically to make the shape less like a bug and more like a leaf.

As far as theory goes, there are a number of things to consider when designing a camouflage pattern, including the hue, saturation, brightness of the colors used, and the spatial freqency of the patterns chosen. Fractal camouflage, for example, appears to be an attempt to optimize the spatical frequency of the pattern for a broad range of environments. The modern camouflages also have begun dropping black, as it is darker than the colors found in most environments, and thus stands out.

I'll see what I can do as far as digging up some references for this--if anyone has any that could be of use, post them here and I'll see what I can do with them. scot 21:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, anything you can do you to improve this article would be great. I quickly wrote up the stuff about camouflage in animals just based on an external source -- the flounder picture is scheduled to be Picture of the Day in December and I needed to have a better article than what was here -- and I'm not a biologist so I'm sure what I put in is lacking. howcheng {chat} 23:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference parking

I'm going to start collecting links here for an update--feel free to browse and comment on them while I'm gathering them. scot 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Things to link to: constellations and Rorschach inkblot tests show the human ability to perceive faint patterns (even ones that aren't there). Depth perception to discuss ways of fooling it, such as the Hollow-Face illusion. Dithering is similar to the new digital camouflage, which offers different perceptions at different spatial frequencies.

Let's try to keep the military stuff in the Military camouflage article. Keep the focus here on camouflage as a concept and how it works in nature. howcheng {chat} 21:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Since the military is a big consumer of camo, I think there's going to be some overlap, but I will try to focus on the "why" and "how" of the new military stuff. BTW, I just put together the dragon illusion that's linked to from the hollow-face illusion article. Boy does that ever demonstrate what happens when depth cues are reversed; the face "rotates" a full 90 degrees along horizontal and vertical axes. Pictures coming soon to the hollow-face article... scot 21:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation Removal

The phrase cryptic coloration was tagged as "needing citation". Approximately 2 seconds worth of google provided the following: http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-C/cryptic_coloration.html I assume that collegiate level biology qualifies as an educational source. If that's not enough: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mimicry.html is from a Harvard Professor, and http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-206923 is... Encyclopedia Britannica.

Before you go tagging someone else's work as having inferior sources of information, do kindly take a few seconds to look up info. Simply because you've never heard of something doesn't mean it's false or "made up". CameronB 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Cryptic coloration

Shall we merge this then? I think camouflage and crypsis together are more than enough, and getting these articles up to scratch is the most important thing. (We don't even have a general article on coloration yet!) Richard001 23:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What about animal colouration? There seems to be a lot more stuff in there that could be moved here, leaving more of a summary in the other article. howcheng {chat} 00:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is some material that could be merged here, but this article basically is about cryptic coloration - the only part that isn't is a small section on mimicry, which overlaps somewhat with this topic. And military camouflage is just cryptic coloration used by people (well, more or less - dazzle camouflage would be an exception). Richard001 01:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Alternatively, we could merge/redirect it to crypsis. By the definition given there, which needs a citation badly and I presume is wrong, crypsis is cryptic coloration. If crypsis is evasion of detection and not just visual detection, it's a slightly broader scope (though not giving off smell or sound is a lot easier than not being seen, failing complete transparency with no reflection or refraction, so the scope is very similar). If crypsis is as defined, it also includes mimicry, thus cryptic coloration should be merged there rather than this more narrow article. Richard001 04:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I've redirected it here as there have been no objections and I haven't been able to get any further input. Richard001 04:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Camouflage Clothing

Ignoring the MOS problems, I think this article needs to be merged/redirected somewhere else. I've given some feedback to the creator but (s)he doesn't seem to be active anymore. The problem is it has no need to duplicate any content from camouflage in nature (i.e. this article), and much of the rest duplicates military camouflage. There might be a slim chance of rescuing it but it would need a lot of work. Richard001 04:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Richard001. I'm just doing an edit on the military camouflage entry, then I will work on adding some info and links on Gestalt Perception Theory, an important method of explaining how camouflage works to fool Human eyes.Dom Damian (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move at this time, with the articles in the current state they are in. JPG-GR (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this article covered mainly cryptic coloration, and there are already articles on other forms of camouflage, such as mimicry, countershading, dazzle camouflage, military camouflage, and the new theory of camouflage I finally got around to writing, I think this should be moved back to the title "cryptic coloration", and "camouflage", given its broad scope, ought to be turned into a high level overview, pointing to all the related subtopics. Certainly there's been a lot of ambivalence over this article in the past, and I think that narrowing the focus will help make it into a better article. scot (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking camouflage should be a higher level article, with a brief overview of the topic and then short sections with a summary and "See also" for each article in scope. That would get people quickly to the specific article they need for the information they want. While I was originally intending the "Theory..." article to go here, I think it may be a bit esoteric for the average reader looking for information on camouflage. scot (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose what; the move of the existing "camouflage" to "cryptic coloration", or the merger of "theory of camouflage" and the existing "camouflage"? Or some combination of both? I think we need to do these one at a time... scot (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but I propose that everything be ready to go before the move is done. howcheng {chat} 16:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Alternative It occurred to my that "cryptic coloration" is somewhat more restrictive of a name than needed; "cryptic camouflage" opens the topic up to the other senses as well, such as scent absorbing materials, sound insulating coatings on submarines, etc. After such a move, it would make sense to merge in crypsis, since it's either a subset of or synonymous with cryptic camouflage; I'm still trying to find a solid definition of crypsis so I can establish its scope. scot (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The more common term should be used. Cryptic colouration (which used to be a very short stub about background matching, before I redirected it here) is a subtopic of biological colouration, an urgently needed article, and perhaps of crypsis (if it is not synonymous). Crypsis and camouflage are also very similar, often synonymous. It tends to assumed that visual camouflage/crypsis is the only type, though other types certainly exist. Cryptic colouration could continue to redirect here or to crypsis, or perhaps colouration even (once it exists, that is). Or it could be a disambiguation. I would probably favour moving the redirect to crypsis rather than having this page as the target. Richard001 (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you find a definition for crypsis? This definition restricts it to coloration, and includes both disruptive and mimicry, and restricts it to animals; this, source regards it is completely synonymous with cryptic coloration, includes disruptive coloration, and restricts it to prey animals. This source provides no explicit definition, but the title, "Crypsis through Disruptive Coloration in an Isopod", implicitly includes disruption. I think crypsis is a very poor choice for title because it is so vaguely defined. The theory article, on the other hand, applies to biological coloration, military camouflage, hunting camouflage, mimicry, dazzle camouflage, and a broad range of other topics that touch on deception and/or concealment. Do we merge all of these? The argument applied to cryptic coloration and/or crypsis applies equally well to all of those. scot (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
...and, cryptic coloration is NOT a subset of biological coloration, unless you think the paint scheme of an HMMWV is the result of a biological process. scot (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The definitions out there are often rubbish, such as the one that arbitrarily limits it to 'animals'. One source that comes to mind is the review of mimicry classification by Pasteur (1982; see mimicry for citation), though that would require access to scientific journals which you probably don't have. He talks about crypsis as being distinct from mimicry, and partitions it into eucrypsis and cryptic mimesis. To quote one relevant passage (regarding non-visual crypsis):

The silence achieved by cats and owls when hunting "is to the ear what cryptic appearance is to the eye" (Cott, 1940: 144). It is acoustic eucrypsis, and the only nonoptical example of camouflage known to this writer. But tactile crypsis is not hard to conceive, and is even likely among the guests of ant and termite nests.

What I'm suggesting is roughly that the article theory of camouflage be merged into camouflage and crypsis, the latter being more theoretical. Otherwise I think there will be too much duplication. The merge and move are relatively different things, and where they do overlap I think it's better to discuss them together.

...cryptic coloration is NOT a subset of biological coloration, unless you think the paint scheme of an HMMWV is the result of a biological process.

Of course it's the result of a biological process. Evolution 'designed' humans, which designed HMMWVs. If you want to remove the camouflage of non-living things created by living things from crypsis, you'd have to do the same with things like bird nests and such. Humans are a bit different from birds, but I'm not fond of the dualism that separates us from the rest of the living world. Richard001 (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What about mimicry, military camouflage, dazzle camouflage, and countershading? Why not merge all those together as well? Any argument put forth for merging crypsis with the theory article applies equally well to all the other articles. The reason I wrote the theory article as a separate article is that all the articles on camouflage strategies were lacking in theory. While I could have put a theory section in each, that doesn't leave a logical place to put sections comparing the strategies, and providing examples where the individual strategies are used together to create an overall camouflage scheme. The only logical ways I see to approach the topic is to either put everything in one article, or to break it up into separate articles; the "camouflage" article would be an overview introducing all of the sub-topics, and each subtopic would be a short paragraph with a description and example, then a link to the main article on that specific sub-topic, be it theory of camouflage, military camouflage, crypsis, etc. This also provides a way to fill in holes; for example, there is an article on dazzle camouflage, which refers to a very specific type of naval disruptive camouflage, but there is no article covering other forms of disruptive camouflage, which range from zebra stripes to radar chaff. I have no objection to merging human use and natural occurrences of the different strategies, but I think you're going to find some strong resistance to that in some cases, particularly in the realm of military camouflage. I think there is a valid point there, too, because it is possible to trace the "evolution" of military camouflage very precisely, whereas it is not possible to do that with natural camouflage. Putting, say, an extensive history of Soviet tank camouflage into an article that also covers tigers and flounders is going to result in a very unbalanced article, and in those cases I think separate articles are certainly called for, to prevent undue weight on a given topic, just because that topic is more documentable.
And regarding HMMWV color being a case of biological coloration, I think you'd be hard pressed to add that to the biological coloration article. Humans have to regard themselves as different from animals, otherwise you have to charge the hawk with murder for eating a mouse (the mouse has a right to life, too), or you don't charge the human for murdering their stepchildren (after all, they're competing with their biological children for limited resources). scot (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
These are all specific subarticles of camouflage, whereas theory of camouflage seems to discuss exactly the sort of things this article should discuss if it were any good. If this article isn't going to discuss the 'theory' in any detail, what exactly will it discuss? I'm open to keeping them both, but when you consider that crypsis has to discuss something as well, there seems to be quite a bit of redundancy.
Technically, we probably wouldn't discuss military camouflage under a biological colouration article simply because of the need to erect arbitrary barriers; my point is that they are fairly arbitrary.
I don't think we are going to get many editors commenting on this so maybe we should just call the merge off for a while and work on getting a better plan together for this and related articles. Richard001 (talk) 07:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
As my original point was that your move request is premature, I think we're in agreement; we do need an overall plan to get all these articles into a consistent, logical, useful arrangement. My move request was made because the current "camouflage" article addresses cryptic coloration almost exclusively, and as the other camouflage strategies had their own article, I thought it should be moved or merged into a title that more accurately reflects its content--whether that destination is "cryptic camouflage" (which has the advantage of being very precisely defined) or "crypsis" (which has the disadvantage of having multiple meanings) or some other title is I think the first topic that needs to be discussed. Once that is decided, then the issue of what to put at "camouflage" becomes relevant. If the decision is to move the theory article to here, then I can accept that, though I think a brief explanation of the types followed by a collection of links to sub-articles would be a more usable interface for most users. After all, if the theory is what people wanted when they go to "camouflage", why didn't anyone write that before me? scot (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge camouflage and theory of camouflage

These two articles discuss the same things. This article is not that great but creating a separate one isn't going to fix that. It also wasn't discussed, and though discussion isn't mandatory it probably would have been a good idea.

The relationship between articles should always be clear, and here neither article links to the other. I think that if this article was improved to FA standard there would probably be no need for any such article, although I do appreciate that there is some scope for such material as I have worked on the mimicry article a bit and think there is definitely scope there for more technical subarticles (I have created a few myself).

I don't know that I would create one called theory of mimicry, though it's a possibility. Articles on classification, evolution, genetics, mathematical models etc are all real possibilities, and grouping these together under a single article might not be a bad idea.

I think we need to get this article into better shape first so we can see if there is any need for such an article though, and before we do that we need to begin by outlining what the article is going to be about and how it should be differentiated from others. I think crypsis could be a slightly more technical and biological (excluding humans) article, with this one being more general. I think both should mention non-visual forms of "camouflage", especially so with crypsis. Richard001 (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait until the above move is resolved before you go about trying to merge things, or nothing will ever get resolved. scot (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Frog Camouflage

  • The current image showing the difficulty finding the frog in its wider environment.
    The current image showing the difficulty finding the frog in its wider environment.
  • An alternative showing how a frog can have nearly the same color as its environment.
    An alternative showing how a frog can have nearly the same color as its environment.

With the current image of a frog in camouflage, the frog is a small element and part of it shows how tough it is to find the frog in a landscape, even though the frog's coloration is not as close to the natural surroundings as in my image. I hate to replace the existing one with my (higher quality) image, because it looks bad, but perhaps it illustrates the point better? Or worse? Perhaps someone else can weigh in? -- RM 21:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

astonishing camouflage, could be useful on Wikipedia

Came across this: video (near the end), "underwater accomplishments," showing an octopus which effectively disappears against a complex background. It imitates color, pattern, and texture, all so well that it becomes completely invisible. The video does not show the octopus in the act of hiding, but its appearance when disturbed, which is so fast that I assumed the video had been cut. Grabbing images from this and using them, checking or getting permissions if needed, etc., is well beyond me, but this should be looked at, I think, by someone who can do it. It's deeper camouflage than any current image except maybe the crab hiding in coral, which seems like a fixed effect. This could be useful on Wikipedia. --Abd (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Better version of the video on YouTube. This .mov file is available on Roger T. Hanlon's pages at the Marine Resources Center.] It seems that some rights may be reserved, but linking to his video is obviously okay. Still images from this video are also in a New York Times article on Hanlon's work, which also has a video about Hanlon and his commentary on this specific video. --Abd (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Theory of camouflage be merged into Camouflage. The content of the Theory article, other than its duplicate coverage of the alternative methods of camouflage - disruption, mimicry etc - is very slight, and can readily be placed here, so this article will not get much longer. The basic point is, there's no deep theory to go in another article: Camouflage already explains the theory, and illustrates it throughout with real examples from both nature and the military. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Support – the theory can be largely explained in the process of describing the practice, and there is no need for a separate article --Epipelagic (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Camouflage/Archive_1&oldid=1043868899"