Talk:Active camouflage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

I had an idea a while ago for this kind of thing, something made where on one side there was a tiny pinhole camera, and on the other side an lcd. These camera / lcd combos would cover the object at around 1 camera/lcd combo per centimetre. [maestro] 08:30, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Merging 2 octopuses/octopi (and chameleons) 2.1 Invisibility and holodeck technology are one and the same thing, but at different perspective viewpoints 3 Humans Didnt invent active camo 4 Philip K. Dick's role

[edit] Merging

I disagree that this should be merged into camouflage. However, I think optical camouflage should be merged into here. Thoughts? -Joseph (Talk) 03:07, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

I think active camouflage should be kept seperate, but linked, of course. Optical camouflage, OTOH, should be merged and redirected to active camouflage. The article includes early experiments into the concept, while the later includes the Japanese experiments with X'tal Vision into developing optical camouflage. Optical camouflage should be included as a title, as the experiments use the name as the concept.--YoungFreud 05:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, the main article on camouflage as it is now is quite brief and could be expanded nicely with this section. The main article already discusses adaptive camouflage, so this article could fit right in. Also, I think people looking for information on adaptive camo will go looking in the camouflage article, as there is no consensus really about naming this technology. If someone has a good idea of how to expand this article further then it might be good to keep it seperate, but right now I feel camouflage is shorter than it should be, especially if we remove the currently double information on active camo. -- Solitude 07:40, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. camouflage should have a linked reference to active camouflage and optical camouflage should be merged with active camouflage. I mean it's the same thing unless optical camouflage is considered a specific form of active camouflage. Either way I don't think they are distinct enough to warrant separate articles and they both cite the same fictional examples --FlooK 07:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Another vote that active/adaptive/optical camouflage would make a nice subsection to the main page, which can only benefit from structuring it into sections of history / military / biological / active camouflage. It would be easier to manage the duplicate content. The active camouflage section should only contain the concrete or historical uses (and maybe their fictional equivalents) of active camouflage. Related technology demonstrations (such as the invisibility cloak, recent experiments, art projects, augmented reality, etc.) should have their own page where they can be discussed in depth and with pictures as they advance, without giving too much bulk to the main page. For example, I don't consider the surveillance suit image really essential to this article, but it would do nicely on a separate "computer mediated reality" (or whatever named) page, linked to from an introductory paragraph in the main article. Femto 13:05, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] octopuses/octopi (and chameleons)

Here I am, trying to come up with a witty but non-insulting remark about being misconceived or pedantic (their words, not mine, I swear), and you just tell me you were wrong (which it not necessarily wasn't, just unusual). Come here to be slapped in the face with a wet octopus!

By the way, the "Did you know..." section on the Main_Page suggests that chameleons change color to blend into their surroundings, which is another misconception, according to their article. Instead of change color and blend... like chameleons it should be change color like chameleons and blend... Can someone change it or tell me where to do it? Femto 15:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nice spotting that error, I've fixed it. For next time, editing the main page can be done here: Wikipedia:Editing_the_main_page. -- Solitude 15:26, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Femto 16:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Invisibility and holodeck technology are one and the same thing, but at different perspective viewpoints

I discovered that invisibility and holodeck type technology are both inverse forms of each other based on a well defined shared geometry. I have a webpage on Yahoo Geocities that details my work and explains what I am talking about,but i'm also new to Wikipedia.

Is posting personal webpages allowed in this forum?

No. And it's not a forum. It's a collaborative writing project. What's the address of your Geocities webpage? Arbo 17:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not selling anything on it I just explain my own contributions to the field of adaptive camouflage and immersion technology(as a by-product of adaptive camouflage)of which i've had figured out for over ten years now. I also developed a concept that I call Light-Interfacing, which I believe will make possible invisibility and holodeck type immersion technology.

Have you read the research done by MIT's Media Lab that gives astronomically-high (terrabit) figures for the data required just to create a single moment or frame for one hologram of one life-size person? I read this in Scientific American 15 years ago. The amount of data required for an active hologram of a moving human-sized figure is so great that even a roomfull of the processor and memory technologies we have now are inadequate for more one second of active movement, and the texture maps could not be generated on-the-fly; every possible rendering of 3D attitude and lighting angle would have to be ray-traced and stored in advance, with very efficient caching. You need a room full of Cray XM-P's for just one human figure, and any unexpected data to be simulated would be out of the question, ie: not generatable in real time. Even if you had all that, the hologram isn't going to look realistic as it does in Star Trek, where it is simply faked by actors. Instead it will look like your typical unconvincing flat-rendered textures in video games.

Data is just data, the storing and retrieval of which is subject to Moore's Law. What requires a room of Crays today will require a PalmPilot in a few decades. -Toptomcat 18:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with your work. Arbo 17:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humans Didnt invent active camo

animals didn't invent it animals don't invent they adapt Dudtz 8/25/05 4:18 PM EST

Animals adapt to their environment/surroundings, and the cumulative process is known as evolution. I have changed "invented" to "evolved". Arbo 17:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philip K. Dick's role

The scramble suit, as presented in 'A Scanner Darkly', does not seem to actually be a form of active camoflage. When I read it, the focus seemed to be on keeping the wearer's identity completely anynomous rather than actually keeping them from being seen, making them 'vague' rather than invisible. This established, what IS the first appearence of proper active camoflage in science fiction? -Toptomcat 14:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to say it was Neuromancer, but Gibson doesn't go into too much detail about it (from what I remember), although I remember it was an outgrowth of the same fabric Peter Riviera wears. I know the Ghost in the Shell manga was the first major work that demostrated it visually and broke it down somewhat technically, thanks to Shirow's footnotes. --YoungFreud 23:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Predator demonstrated it visually before GITS, I think. Dosboot 21:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)