|
Post by bmknj17 on Mar 9, 2009 1:46:06 GMT
They really look short to me...even moreso when clear of the foreshortening.
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Mar 9, 2009 1:54:58 GMT
I say the legs are fine
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Mar 9, 2009 2:28:14 GMT
I'm not into mammals really... but it looks good to me...the legs when covered with skin and fleshed out would be shorter i appearence...you have to look where the flesh would be when attached to the animal. Looking at only bones, the legs do appear longer...but that would also mean they start right below the spine... lol
|
|
|
Post by bmknj17 on Mar 9, 2009 2:28:23 GMT
Does anyone happen to have a photo of the life-size metal profile of the Indrico at the American Museum of Natural History in NY?
When I saw it in person years ago, I remember being extremely struck by its size and height (and I'm rarely surprised by anything in nature).
I could well be wrong about the legs. It's a strong feeling. Is DTF a mammal expert or just dinos?
Sean...what do you think??
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Mar 9, 2009 2:34:14 GMT
If you had one of those little 1/40 scale people to check against..that would be superb...I don't think I have any spares though.. :?
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Mar 9, 2009 2:42:11 GMT
It looks pretty good. It seems to me you should make the male to go with it eventually. Then you could have a family. I don't think there is anything wrong with showing male body parts on an animal.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Mar 9, 2009 2:48:28 GMT
She'd be a great one to give a baby, btw. Yes it is a female - it was a male originally and was obviously so- but i castrated it as I thought that might be too much accuracy-lol A baby would be cool- These aren't toys for children though. I don't think sexual organs would ruin one of your sculptures! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Mar 9, 2009 2:55:55 GMT
People are animals too..why should it be wrong at all ?
Really.
I don't see a real issue either way though... :?
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Mar 9, 2009 3:19:38 GMT
^ Animals pertain to species other then humans. But yes, if we don't think technically by what the word means, yes we are animals.
Looks very good!
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Mar 9, 2009 3:38:34 GMT
I've always looked at thus...humans are just another species of animal on this planet... And I do think it looks rather good..been looking it over again...it is very rhino-like..since that was the goal..I believe it's a successful piece.
|
|
|
Post by Meso-Cenozoic on Mar 9, 2009 3:47:02 GMT
Does anyone happen to have a photo of the life-size metal profile of the Indrico at the American Museum of Natural History in NY? When I saw it in person years ago, I remember being extremely struck by its size and height (and I'm rarely surprised by anything in nature). I could well be wrong about the legs. It's a strong feeling. Is DTF a mammal expert or just dinos? Sean...what do you think?? Do you mean this metal outline.....
|
|
|
Post by bmknj17 on Mar 9, 2009 3:53:25 GMT
Oh, well that's just way off then, isn't it. Not like I was recalling at all. But it was made probably around 15 years ago.
Thanks for posting it, MC.
|
|
|
Post by Meso-Cenozoic on Mar 9, 2009 3:59:52 GMT
HaHaHa! I didn't think so. But, that's what came up on their site.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Mar 9, 2009 4:10:16 GMT
Does anyone happen to have a photo of the life-size metal profile of the Indrico at the American Museum of Natural History in NY? When I saw it in person years ago, I remember being extremely struck by its size and height (and I'm rarely surprised by anything in nature). I could well be wrong about the legs. It's a strong feeling. Is DTF a mammal expert or just dinos? Sean...what do you think?? The legs are more-or-less fine I would say. And DTF is a marine reptile specialist (plesiosaurs).
|
|
|
Post by bmknj17 on Mar 9, 2009 4:38:27 GMT
Sean...what's more or less mean? Do you think the legs could be longer but just don't want to say or do you think they're right to the best of what you can determine? Do you think the legs in the skeleton appear longer because the body is not fleshed out?
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Mar 9, 2009 5:12:46 GMT
It means that if we don't have any evidence, then proportions based on known rhinos (and other perrisodactyls) are a best indicator--so it looks about right, but only an arrogant fool would claim to actually be able to say one way or the other for sure.
As far as I'm concerned, it looks good.
|
|
|
Post by bmknj17 on Mar 9, 2009 5:25:18 GMT
Sean...I'll take that to mean that you're answering yes to my third question.
Malcolm...that being the case, and thus assuming the legs are right, or that at least no one's going to argue the point, the only thing I don't love is the heaviness, the thickness of the wrinkles on the side of the face--particularly the right side.
I Google Imaged rhino head and looked at a lot of pictures. Those that showed a lot of wrinkles showed them to be smaller and finer. But most were much smoother around the sides and away from the eyes and mouth especially.
That's my final.
Really love this guy. Er, girl.
|
|
|
Post by kikimalou on Mar 9, 2009 9:16:15 GMT
Here is some photoshops of your indri with the baluchitherium skeleton. Baluchitherium is now widely regarded as a synonym of either Paraceratherium or Indricotherium. Here is also a link To pics of Baluchitherium skeleton and reconstruction. www.stephanecompoint.com/11,364.html I hope it could help.
|
|
|
Post by kikimalou on Mar 9, 2009 9:27:45 GMT
After the pics, here is my opinion : I think the legs need to be a little more taller; but I like the way you made them thick and strong. It's a huge mammal and i'm always surprised with some reconstruction with very thin legs. And yes, even with short legs this animal is beautiful.
|
|
|
Post by kuni on Mar 9, 2009 9:45:24 GMT
I think the shortness just comes from the fact that neither leg is completely perpendicular to the ground, honestly. If it's off, it's off by a very small amount.
|
|