Why is digital camo a meme?

Funny because people think that digital camo = pixels. Almost every pattern nowadays is computer generated.
I guess it's mostly caused by woodland's replacement by UCP and so people grew to hate pixelized camos. Shame

>>32922799
Shut the fuck up nigger. Digital camo is pixelated camo retard. No one gives a fuck if it was computer generated, it's because the pixels look like shit and all the retards who switched to it fell for the memes

>>32922832
Wew

>>32922775
Because UCP started a long trend of mediocre/outright bad pixelated patterns.
There are plenty of good digital patterns.
>CADPAT and it's variations (MARPAT, SURPAT, NWU, etc)
>Berezka
>EMR
>M05

>>32922880
Suck my nuts faggot

File: Winter camo large.jpg (601KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

601KB, 2048x1365px

I love this winter camo pic

>>32922775
>Why do people seem to bash on digital camo?
They don't like the way it looks, but non-pixelated fractal designs can and do look cool, see Vegetato

> is there some sort of advantage for other camos that digital doesnt have?

No. Assuming a sensible color scheme, the combination of fractal micro and macro pattern will increase detection time.

>Is digital camo bad?

It's good, with CADPAT or MARPAT (I don't recall offhand) in testing increasing detection time versus the previous woodland king, DPM, by a non-trivial amount.

>>32922910
>>Berezka
I think Berezka was actually hand-drawn like KMLK and other Soviet stair-step patterns before it.

what would be the advantages of a pixelated blocky camo (such as marpat) vs an organic shape camo (such as M81 woodland)?
I'd imagine that organic shapes would blend better in nature and the hard edges of pixels would be easy to pick up with the eye, but I'm not a camo guy.

>>32922775
>Is digital camo bad?
Not inherently, but it is pointless. The much lauded digital camos like Marpat, Cadpat and that desert digital that navy seals use, would all be just as effective without the pixelation effect. The key factors in the success of a camo are color palette and color to color ratio (aka color distribution), so whether individual dots in the pattern are haphazard round blotches or scatterings of squares doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
I guess in that sense they are a meme, since Marpat would still be good if its pattern was a Fleck or brushstroke derivative.

>>32923834
Pixellated != digital

Dual-tex relied on pixels. It was not digital. Vegetato does not rely on pixels. It is digital

>>32922799
Funny because you think that it doesn't.
"Digital" (when followed by the term camo or synonymous concepts) colloquially means pixelated, retard. It does not mean 'digitally generated'. It would be more appropriate to specifically mention that a pattern was made by hand, if that were the case, as this is not common practice in 2017.

You're wrong.

>>32924170
I bet you're the retard that thinks HEAT rounds use molten metal.

>>32922910
UCP did not start the trend.
CADPAT was the first digit camo.

It's not a meme. It has to do with camo working at different distances. Done detailed camo such as hunter stuff works up close, but due to the humans shitty eye, it sort of blurs into one blob at a distance. Also only works in one specific area. The splotchy old woodland works great at distance, but up close sticks out.
Digit camo, and any camo that combines the sharper smaller patterns with bigger ones, works at all distances.

I do not know if their are disadvantages to these styles, specifically the Digi stuff. But that is the disadvantage of either blobs, or super sharp stuff

>>32922775
pros and cons?

>>32923370

why did you post a pic of trees??

File: 9939759.jpg (125KB, 648x679px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 648x679px

>>32923696
OP here, would ESTDCU be considered an ok digital camo? :)