Special Ops Paintball: ACUPAT vs. Propper Woodland - Special Ops Paintball

Jump to content


  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

ACUPAT vs. Propper Woodland A photographic comparison

#16 User is offline   Jaron 

  • Junior Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 967
  • Joined: 12-May 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UT
  • Brigade Name:Jaron

Posted 08 April 2009 - 11:50 AM

Here's a problem with most of these camo comparisons people do with photos.

One, like Puz said, if you don't color balance the digital image, the color representation is off anyway.

Two, I would hope you wouldn't lay right on a rock or some fallen logs like that. It's usually better to get someone in the camo and then have then "hide" such as in your last four pics. This way the material isn't in a smooth, unbroken surface that reflects the light the same, it contours to the body so you get the proper drop shadows, silhouettes, etc on it.

Three, the range here is far too close. Regardless of camo, you're going to be spotted at twenty feet. And most people just tend to say, "Oh, that stands out way too much," or whatever when looking at the pictures.

Try this instead. Have the person wearing the camo run off about 50 - 60 feet and then take cover somewhere, obviously leaving themselves at least halfway exposed. Then turn around and see how long it takes you to spot them. This will give you a more realistic idea of what happens during a game instead of throwing a jacket over a bush and snapping a shot.
0

#17 User is offline   Fets25 

  • Sophomore Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 20-December 05
  • Brigade Name:Fets25

Posted 10 April 2009 - 10:42 AM

View PostJaron, on Apr 8 2009, 11:50 AM, said:

Here's a problem with most of these camo comparisons people do with photos.

One, like Puz said, if you don't color balance the digital image, the color representation is off anyway.

Two, I would hope you wouldn't lay right on a rock or some fallen logs like that. It's usually better to get someone in the camo and then have then "hide" such as in your last four pics. This way the material isn't in a smooth, unbroken surface that reflects the light the same, it contours to the body so you get the proper drop shadows, silhouettes, etc on it.

Three, the range here is far too close. Regardless of camo, you're going to be spotted at twenty feet. And most people just tend to say, "Oh, that stands out way too much," or whatever when looking at the pictures.

Try this instead. Have the person wearing the camo run off about 50 - 60 feet and then take cover somewhere, obviously leaving themselves at least halfway exposed. Then turn around and see how long it takes you to spot them. This will give you a more realistic idea of what happens during a game instead of throwing a jacket over a bush and snapping a shot.


Not to mention most people don't take into account the difference in focal distance between your lens and the human eye or the variances in DOF between the two. I can make any camo pattern disappear at 50 feet if I shoot with my 10MM lens, since the human eye is closer to 50MM.

This post has been edited by Fets25: 14 April 2009 - 12:51 PM

0

#18 User is offline   Jaron 

  • Junior Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 967
  • Joined: 12-May 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UT
  • Brigade Name:Jaron

Posted 10 April 2009 - 02:31 PM

View PostFets25, on Apr 10 2009, 11:42 AM, said:

Not to mention most people don't take into account the difference in focal distance between your lens and the human eye or the variances in DOF between the two. I can make any camo pattern disappear at 50 feet if I shoot with my 10MM lens, since the human is is closer to 50MM.

Or we could make any camo completely revealed at 100' with a 250mm zoom!
0

Share this topic:


  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users