Apparently, camouflaging oneself with digital patterns rather than nature-imitated patterns functions as a better camouflage within "old-nature" situations. So the digital patterns function as a better camouflage in the analogue world?

Hyperstealth Biotechnology Corp take a very different approach to creating military camouflage uniforms and accessories. Instead of realism, they employ the mathematics of fractals to design patterns. The company developed their patterns by running multiple fractals (graphics with feed back loops) and advanced algorithms through computers in a process they call Camouflage Designated Enhanced Fractal Geometry.

Does this mean that eventually the digital might look more natural than natural?


Enjoying this story? Show it to us!


Share your thoughts and join the technology debate!


  • Are you familiar with the concept of "Dazzle Camouflage"? Some of that is rather more art than nature, though.

    Posted on

  • I've come across some reading that suggests digital camo works better than the smooth loops of standard camo as a form of "pattern disruption," especially on large objects. The effect is not to "blend in" with surrounding, but rather that the object doesn't register as a recognizable object within its context (like the silhouette of a jet against the ground seen from above). In fact, most militaries stopped calling it camouflage, opting for pseudo-acronyms like CADPAT (CAnadian Disruptive PATtern) to describe the way technology aids in disguise.

    Posted on

  • I read about this a while back and basically the old camo was not based on any science at all---not the mathematics of plant life growth nor studies of vision psychology. It was just a guess.

    Posted on

More like this