New "imaging machines" distinguish between grass and camouflage

While we've got robots that can sniff out faux wine, and cyclops cameras that distinguish between humans and blow-up dolls (saywha?), Dr. Andy Harvey's latest invention could actually prove useful in battle and on the operating table. Although he hasn't tied the latest rounds of DIY artillery to this technology, the camcorder-styled machine can reportedly "distinguish the world's best camouflage from real foliage," not to mention its ability to "spot buried landmines" and "hidden enemies." Developed in Edinburgh, the imaging machine could be toted by soldiers to tip them off to unusual patterns in the grass (like carefully painted iRobots) before they come too close, as it can supposedly "identify 30 times more colors than the human eye." Interestingly, it is possible that the technology could eventually be used to "detect forms of cancer that are currently hard to pick up." While £800,000 ($1.56 million) have already been invested by the Department for Trade and Industry and QinetiQ, we don't imagine this project slowing down anytime soon, and it looks to be just one more reason we ought to simply let robots do all the fighting, anyway.

[Matt Hall @ Dec 12th 2006 9:25PM]

NO!!!!!
What if the enemy gets a hold of this???
How many marine snipers will die because of this?

[Igor @ Dec 12th 2006 10:03PM]

um, wouldn't it be good so you could see the ENEMY snipers too?

[Chris @ Dec 12th 2006 10:01PM]

Just my thinking. But that will only level the playing field. Why should one side have an obviously unfair advantage? So that whatever cause you support can win? How would you like to be on the losing side?

But yes, it does suck for the soldiers. It always has.

[Sinbios @ Dec 13th 2006 3:15AM]

How many marine snipers will die because of... guns?! Let's get rid of that crap and revert back to fistfights!

[Eoin Meehan @ Dec 13th 2006 7:15AM]

For every new weapon, there is a new shield. If this uses a new technology or algorithm, its only a matter of time until it is reverse engineered. Hell, if I developed a new weapon I'd be sure I would ALSO develope a defense against it!

Also, remember the article uses the words "reported". I have lost count of the number of research papers I have read that promise the earth but when you get down to the actual work, its usually pretty limited or "proof of concept".

[MaddMoose @ Dec 13th 2006 4:21AM]

If I'm on the side with the unfair advantage then hey, whats the problem there. I'd much rather have it that they can't see me and I can see them.

[Mike @ Dec 12th 2006 10:19PM]

What's wrong with a good old-fashioned heat-sensing camera? I can't imagine this new technology working very well next to heated explosions either, so that's moot right there.

[grendel @ Dec 13th 2006 12:16AM]

The enemy always eventually gets hold of our tek.....it's just usually(hopefully) after it's obsolete by our standsards.

BTW.....I know some folks who can't distinguish between a blow up doll and a human. There usually the soldiers using this kind of tek(I'm a vet so I can verify first person)

[estel @ Dec 13th 2006 10:25AM]

This may be a repeat of what I wrote a second ago� more or less -- since the internet was disconnected as I sent a message.

Think of the awe-inspiring, naturalistic real-life reflections that can be captured. Medically speaking, it can (and will) affect our health. This new imaging might save my life. . I am all for that!

[ricocool @ Dec 15th 2006 1:29AM]

This tech would be useless for anything that requires human viewing... like hooking it to an lcd screen or taking photographs.
It would presumably take images of more colors than we can see, but then when the photo is viewed, hence, we won't be able to see the extra colors.
For all we know, all cameras can already see more colors than we can.