Personally, I think the chances are not good that the NY Times will provide accurate and timely information about camouflage gear.
Still, this is an interesting article about deer perception research and camouflage development:
At Dr. Neitzs laboratory, he tests some animals vision by training them to press touch screens, but the deer werent quite ready for the computer age. He and researchers at the University of Georgia showed them three cards at a time and rewarded them with food pellets when they picked out the right pattern by pushing a button with their noses.
We can measure in animals anything you can measure in a human being and every bit as accurate, Dr. Neitz says. The difference is that a vision test that might take 10 minutes in a human can take six months. The research revealed that deer vision is a little blurrier than human vision about 20/40 and that deer see the world roughly like a human with red-green colorblindness. Their eyes have only two color receptors (unlike the three in the human eye). Fortunately for hunters, they have a hard time seeing blaze orange.
Well, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. One of the people in the story helped to develop the army’s new pixelated camouflage pattern. So here’s where the article ends up:
Getting soldiers, at least the male ones, to switch to digital camouflage wasnt easy, Dr. ONeill says, because for many men camouflage is less about invisibility than fashion. Some soldiers hung on to the old-fashioned designs because of what Dr. ONeill called the C.D.I. factor: Chicks Dig It.
If male hunters feel that way about their old overalls, there may still be lots of shrubs and trees toting guns and bows during hunting season.
Now, see, that falls in the category of “how the NY Times would be clueless about camouflage clothing.”