/k/ - Weapons

All, right now let's take the colors of typical N. American tree bark less foliage and add that so we can make a three tone color using that, the green, and the burgundy.

>>616090

>tree bark less foliage

Like, palms?

>>616103

Na, what >>616106 pictured.

>>616106

I had quite a few forests like that in the image… it's a composite.

>>616106

Remember when "urban" camo was laughed at? Looks like it would fit perfectly there. Gray camo top with brown/desert pants.

>>616089

Disney uses a color in their parks to hid shit they don't want you to see.

It's called "no-see-um green" or "go-away green" IIRC.

It's a medium grey with a greenish tint to it.

I'd imagine it would make an excellent color for the background of a cammo pattern.

>>616112

I know. I'm just thinking of putting those colors on their own so a triple color scheme could be used.

>>616089

It's dark because the images would have included shadow. A light camo will appear dark due to shadows anyway.

Australian DPCU was made in a similar way. Aerial photographs were merged on a computer providing the colours to be used.

>>616089

>and after hours of rendering and extra blending I achieved a near total mix as you see here

Too late, I know but if you're doing similar again - It's a one line script using ImageMagick anon.

Something like:

convert *.{jpg,png,gif} +dither -colors 5 -define histogram:unique-colors=true -format "%c %f" histogram:info: |sort -rnk 1

this gives count of pixels with the colour listed in a text table, with most common near the top. You may wish to resize images to account for any bias due to different image sizes.

*demo output*
    904568: (  8, 10,  6) #080A06 srgb(8,10,6)
    576746: ( 15, 19, 12) #0F130C srgb(15,19,12)
    571073: ( 15, 19, 12) #0F130C srgb(15,19,12)
    333718: ( 34, 41, 26) #22291A srgb(34,41,26)
    326309: ( 33, 41, 26) #21291A srgb(33,41,26)
    138862: ( 42, 33, 24) #2A2118 srgb(42,33,24)
    100960: ( 83, 71, 49) #534731 srgb(83,71,49)
     94282: ( 88, 71, 51) #584733 srgb(88,71,51)

>>616159

>convert *.{jpg,png,gif} +dither -colors 5 -define histogram:unique-colors=true -format "%c %f" histogram:info: |sort -rnk 1

convert - use image magick's convert program

*.{jpg,png,gif} - select any images in the current directory

+dither……info: - blend and pick out 5 unique most used colours and output them in text format

|sort -rnk 1 - take the text output from the previous command and reverse sort by the pixel count, so the colour that appeared the most in the images is at the top.

this is one way of doing it.

Not sure I'd remove the sky though as it is a valid colour in it's own right, and for cresting a hill might be more suitable than olive.

>>616159

Seems pretty fucky, compression would mess with the pixel proportions. Even OPs method probably produces a more accurate result

>>616210

My thought would be this "no-see-um" with khaki and medium brown flecks.

Part of the cammo effect is the dullness as it makes it easy for your mind to just ignore it.

>>616138

Try disguising yourself as a democratic country with large oil reserves to really get a spicy intervention

camo is for rich wanker uni student

just go bare chested, it's cooler, you won't overheat

>>616353

I imagined it with a little less Leaf fuckery.

>>616162

>Seems pretty fucky, compression would mess with the pixel proportions.

Compression isn't required, though if you were treating each image as of equal value you would need to resize them to the same amount of pixels.

> Even OPs method probably produces a more accurate result

kek! It's the exact same process but more 'scientific' i.e. less user bias interpreting each image, since it is a standardized empirical method, and gets more done in a fraction of the time the OP took.

>>616210

>The problem with strong greens and blues is that the human eye can tell them apart pretty well.

So from the RGB dataset, simply ignore values where (G || B) > R. This would ignore any data from the sky or nature greens.

>>616615

>This would ignore any data from the sky or nature greens.

What is "the best camo in the fucking world" for 500 Alex.

>>616615

When you resize an image you get an amount of proportion change. It doesn't go, for example, exactly 400 green & 200 brown to 200 green/100 brown if you resize it by half. Add 5% of a color both ways, account for maximum difference, and in the end you get a color that's 5-10% off, which is the difference between olive green and light green on a color theory wheel. OPs method isn't counting pixels, it's merging color to get an average color, he's blurring together images from presumably from their default size.

>>616856

>not counting colours merely merging them.

Even easier using the automated method I proposed. Ignore pixel counts, extract the colour palette, sort by uniques in the palette, and numerically merge components.

>>616851

>Not reading or understanding the OPs long-winded way of arriving at his point.

What especially interests me is the idea of urban camouflage. There are so many incredibly good patterns, and more and more each day that are exceptional, in the area of forests and deserts and mountains, and other areas, and special ones for rocky snowy places, but there's very little done in the area of urban.

Basically, you have some kind of super dark thing for twilight, and that's the only innovation I've seen in urban.

The two main types of urban are:

1. stuff that looks pretty ordinary, at a glance, like you just might be some guy (literally nobody has gotten past basic solids, in this area) (here, I would like to see something plausibly a hawaiian pattern, but which is actually engineered to be urban camouflage)

2. stuff that makes it obvious you're an operator, but is pretty good at hiding you. There's stuff like this, "urban camo", but it all seems pretty crap, at least for Western urban environments. Just load up a random neighborhood and see what works.

>>617649

>>617666

After some bombardment cities get this "rubble grey" look from the dust, and the camo seems to be very similar to patterns for winter. So I think switching to the winter side of a winter/summer camo smock should be enough. And if the city wasn't bombed previously, then there is no pattern that will truly help you.

>>618351

Because enemy doesnt need to know if something is human or not to open fire

>>618351

It worked on ships because there's nothing ships can camouflage into already and it impaired the ability for the enemy to estimate your heading. You are literally, actually, for real retarded if you didn't know this and if you even would unironically suggest this.

>>618583

The problem is that no one uses eyeballs to spot ships anymore. If two enemy ships today are within eyeball range, they will with 100% certainty sink each other.

>>618599

What's the gun on the pic? Short Sig550 or something?

>polish plate armour to a mirror shine

>instant all season/weather/terrain camo

>Equip multiple people with mirror plate armour

>light from tree hits one set of mirror plate

>reflects to other mirror plates

>invisible camo

>>619455

Here's what would actually happen:

>walk into forest

>instantly set fire to everything

>bad guy sees the huge forest fire and the shiny knight in the middle of it and plinks you in the head

>>618599

I'm unironically going to make one.

>>619705

That actually looks pretty good.

>>619714

Disgusting. Pics or it didn't happen.

>>619705

very nice

>>619739

what the fuck brazil

>>628490

>>619739

Darn that's unhealthy

>>619739

Absolutely /monster/-tier

>>619705

I like it, I'd probably buy some BDUs with that type of pattern.

>>619739

Did it earn its constrictor title?

>>637804

There's something poetic about a human fucking a literal representation of evil. Have we finally conquered all evil in the world?

>>637814

Snakes are not evil. But r*ping one is

>>616851

This is like fudd lore, but for camo and not guns

>>638018

kys t*rk

>>638057

I would if I was. Also thanks for providing a good example of properly used self-censorship for the sake of public dignity.

Get PREDATOR level camouflage.

>>619739

Fyi, that snake died. Source: snakes can't regurgitate without high probability of death.