|
Post by kikimalou on Mar 9, 2009 10:21:47 GMT
Third picture with the same legs scale.
|
|
|
Post by bmknj17 on Mar 9, 2009 14:45:03 GMT
Wow, Christophe, that was a very smart and cool technique.
And I'm not just sayin' that 'cause it supports my position.
Just mostly... ; )
No, just kidding but I bet that that imaging would be very useful for this entire process.
|
|
|
Post by kikimalou on Mar 9, 2009 15:16:44 GMT
Hey, Brett I agree with your position... and I agree with the Jean-Loup Welcomme skeleton because it's the only one which is complete. So it is far more accurate than the Forster Cooper's older one.
|
|
|
Post by bmknj17 on Mar 9, 2009 15:29:48 GMT
Plus the skeleton MC posted kind of got dismissed.
If the length of the legs there is just an illusion due to it not being fleshed out, why does the skeleton appear so tall compared to the sculpt?
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Mar 9, 2009 16:37:34 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. I would have to agree--folks, you are splitting hairs here that are so inconsequential, it's almost ridiculous. Seriously, someone actually thinks that the whole thing should be redone with (marginally) longer legs? Just to satisfy the proportions of a skeleton drawing that is in a different pose, is 2-dimensional, and is not at the same skewed orientation as a 3-dimensional sculpt? Perhaps Malcolm's goal of getting input from interested people is a noble one, but I think we have to give some room for him to do his work. Or, do you want his project to take 50 years? It's not like the head is out of whack, or that the overall body is wrong. It's about a centimetre--maybe, at most--in the legs.
|
|
|
Post by bmknj17 on Mar 9, 2009 17:01:40 GMT
Sean...
This thread, at Malcolm's request, is about getting the figures right.
The important thing that I got from your post is that you think the legs are off by as much as a centimeter. And 1 cm is a lot in a figure this size.
You had several opportunities to note this earlier. I myself asked you specifically. And you wouldn't do it. And I'm assuming he's taking people's silence or noncommittalness as approval.
He's not trying to be noble; he's not soliciting help so that we can feel involved or important. He's not concerned with speed over quality.
He's said over and over that he is trying to get these as accurate as possible. He wants honest feedback.
I'm tenacious here because I can tell many members would still rather withhold constructive input and possibly see his work suffer for it than delay the process or, in their minds, hurt is feelings.
I think the best way we can show our respect and appreciation is to do what he asks, be honest.
And maybe to not tarnish the thread by attacking other members for doing exactly what he asked just because you're not comfortable doing so.
And speaking to the technical aspect, I was referring to CM's photo of the skeleton, not Christophe's drawing.
And there were three people who thought the legs need to be longer. Four if we count you. And some people who don't just seem to want to be agreeable, not offering any rreal observation or reasoning.
And, though I could be wrong here, I don't suppose Malcolm would have to do the entire sculpt over to correct the leg lengths.
Last, if he gets one wrong, he loses sales. So no one's doing him any favors by being sycophantic.
|
|
|
Post by kikimalou on Mar 9, 2009 17:18:52 GMT
Ok, I remember Malcolm changed the parasaurolophus head two times, I remember discussions about the size of the eyes of the parasaurolophus, about his neck, crest... Was it ridiculous ? I don't think Malcolm shared these pics just to hear us applaud blindly. In such a case a finished model would be better. I read every discussions about the muraenosaurus or the shonisaurus and never commented them because this thread is a place for this kind of discussions. Now, I will buy this Indri because I like these kind of animal and I love the art of Malcolm.I also appreciate the way he heard everyone's remarks. Let's Malcolm decide what's appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Mar 9, 2009 17:19:19 GMT
I agree with sbell on this one, I say it's fine
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Mar 9, 2009 17:23:02 GMT
Fine. I still think that it is up to Malcolm in the end. While I think he values input, I don't think dwelling on tiny details (as best as I can tell, the difference is well under a cm) is serving anyone's purpose.
|
|
|
Post by bmknj17 on Mar 9, 2009 17:35:47 GMT
I don't want to argue for the sake of arguing, Sean, but I don't think an otherwise very nondescript animal appearing strikingly short (missing one twelfth its height in your assessment) is a tiny detail. It would be like a 6' foot tall man being depicted as 5'6".
Nor is too large an eye, for instance, a tiny detail.
So I'm not sure what you mean by tiny, nor what type of issue you think is worth IDing as problematic.
It's not like he's going to post something with two heads for us to catch. Barring a rare flat out anatomical mistake, all of the observations are going to be about details and proportions.
And everyone is aware that the final decision is Malcolm's.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Mar 9, 2009 17:47:34 GMT
I really don't want to argue,either, but what good is served by scrapping a sculpt for ~4mm? Is it meant to be a perfect scale replica for a museum? Or a collectible piece for a shelf? Maybe both, but it turns out that even then things aren't perfect.
Besides, maybe this individual, being a female, is smaller. Or is just a shorter overall individual. Malcolm is not sculpting the individual from the skeleton. He's sculpting a representative of the genus; and a female no less. In which case, being somewhat shorter or more lightly proportioned would not only be reasonable, but probably accurate. It is not uncommon among mammals--or animals in general--to have the genders divided along lines of physical proportion. Then, if he decides to do a family (again, based on rhinos, doubtful but why not?) he can make it larger and taller without sacrificing his chosen scale.
|
|
|
Post by kikimalou on Mar 9, 2009 18:39:53 GMT
Sbell, this tiny detail is important for me. This animal is important for me, it is the reason why I joined the forum. I think that Brett and myself have an opinion about this replica and it's a good place to share. I'm not lobbying, I just thought these photoshop would help. I don't want to splitt hairs, I lost mine a long time ago. If Malcolm decide to produce a familly, I hope it will be a long legged familly
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Mar 9, 2009 19:04:36 GMT
Again, I think the difference is minimal and that could be explained by the variations between specimens.
|
|
|
Post by bmknj17 on Mar 9, 2009 19:05:29 GMT
Sean...
Your point re: this possibly being a viable female is better taken. I don't know that any of the big mammals differ as much in proportion (to this extent) so much as in size, but my point is that that's a valid argument.
It's just not the one you were making before when you were saying maybe it's off by a centimeter but pretty much we shouldn't have the right to care or defend it.
Malcolm's not going to get these perfect but he can get them done to the best of his ability, and that might include adding a cm to the legs.
Peace.
|
|
|
Post by kuni on Mar 9, 2009 20:25:49 GMT
I still think the angle of the shot accounts for a large percentage of the leg size, and the fact the legs aren't straight up and down accounts for most of the rest.
If someone wants to bust out ImageJ on that picture, it should be very easy to figure out how much (if any) it's off by - my guess is 2-3mm at most. Brett, were you the one who wanted the animals in very static "portrait" poses? I wonder if that is what's causing you to react to legs in a "walking" pose.
One thing that definitely appears to be a bit off is the "hump" above the spine - it seems that should be a bit higher for muscle attachment purposes.
Also, do we know that the skeletal image used above is from the most recent reconstruction? If Malcolm's used a more up-to-date one for his armature, that will affect things as well.
|
|
|
Post by bmknj17 on Mar 9, 2009 20:38:45 GMT
If you Google Image the species, most representations of the animal show it as far more imposing heightwise.
Also, when everyone saw the Procon Paraceratherium and were thinking it the same as the Indrico, there were many comments that its legs were less bulky than expected, but none that it was too tall. And that figure has imposing height.
Your hump would add height too.
And yes I indicated that I wanted some figures in portrait-like poses but I'm not sure how much height would be added if this guy's legs were perpendicular to the ground.
I could be wrong. But my eye, MC's skeleton, lots of images, and some members agreeing with me make me lean toward not though.
And Christophe addresses the recentness of the two reconstructions up top on this page, but since I didn't know the names I didn't know how to take his post.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Mar 9, 2009 20:40:45 GMT
I think the legs look fine. I also think it would be much to ask him to redo the entire sculpture just to add a minimal amount of length.
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Mar 9, 2009 20:53:17 GMT
I have said before I'm no expert on these prehistoric mammals...but from an artist's point of view there is always going to be something slightly off to someone...we're human, we make mistakes, we're not nature..even she gets things wrong sometimes...lol As I understand it, any full or mostly full skeleton on exhibit is a reproduction..thus man made...usually fossils are so fragile and easily broken they are almost impossible to take casts from...so an artist fills in the gaps...an extreme case is what happened when someone tried to touch up Irritator if I'm not mistaken. Point is these fossil reconstructions themselves more than likely, have minor flaws...add that to the variations between individuals and you just have to accept that your as close as you can be.
Leg length should have sorted out when he first started...at this stage it's prob not worth the trouble, considering all I mentioned above, to either remove the base and feet and start from there or do a whole new one.
The best idea I've heard is to consider this a female since he did mention he might do a family of em' and just do a slightly taller male version at a later date.
|
|
|
Post by kikimalou on Mar 9, 2009 21:00:48 GMT
The skeletal I used to photoshoped is from the 2005's reconstruction. It is the more up-to-date one.
|
|
|
Post by bmknj17 on Mar 9, 2009 21:01:44 GMT
This thread is hopefully going to be here for years. We need to let Malcolm set the rules.
And up to this point, he's requested honest feedback about his work.
Everyone needs to STOP discussing the validity of what he's requested and other members' responses to it, as if those suggesting changes that might be made are causing trouble or being inconsiderate.
We can disagree about the accuracy but there shouldn't be this acrimony about the discussion itself.
Provide honest feedback about the work and let him decide if it's worth heeding.
|
|