![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
It's simple first this list is pretty incomplete secondly it suggest a wrong chronology. Ericd 21:11, 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)
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)
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)
See also Talk:Active_camouflage on discussion about partial merge of content with Active_camouflage. Femto 16:43, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Might this page make a good Featured Article? -- PlantPerson 18:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
It's simple first this list is pretty incomplete secondly it suggest a wrong chronology. Ericd 21:11, 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)
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)
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)
See also Talk:Active_camouflage on discussion about partial merge of content with Active_camouflage. Femto 16:43, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Might this page make a good Featured Article? -- PlantPerson 18:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)