|
|
Post by bmknj17 on Mar 9, 2009 21:12:41 GMT
Blade...
I appreciate your argument but the logic is faulty in parts.
People's reasons for not changing the figure are mostly:
1) It can't be perfect.
No one is saying it can. Some are just saying something in particular might warrant changing.
and
2) that it's already made this way so leave it.
That flies in the face of the whole point of what M's doing. The real question isn't should he change it. That's for him to decide. The real question isn't does it look right because many will say it does just to be nice.
The real question is if this figure was offered along with a figure with longer legs at the same time, which would most say is more correct.
And so far, no one has said anything to indicate that they would objectively answer the current one.
This discussion needs to get objective.
|
|
|
|
Post by kikimalou on Mar 9, 2009 21:27:18 GMT
When he first started, the problem was the running position...  We know Malcolm changed the Para head one more time because he thougth it was too small... I think he knows what he wants to do. About my pictures, the third one show that the legs scale and the body scale seems to be not actually the same. On the first one, I choose to give the indri body and the skeleton the same scale and the legs are too short I think. But if Malcolm think that the piece is finished, the piece is finished.  I will buy it and nickname it Johnny short-legs. ;D or Daisy, it's a female. |
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Mar 9, 2009 22:38:38 GMT
Blade... I appreciate your argument but the logic is faulty in parts. People's reasons for not changing the figure are mostly: 1) It can't be perfect. No one is saying it can. Some are just saying something in particular might warrant changing. and 2) that it's already made this way so leave it. That flies in the face of the whole point of what M's doing. The real question isn't should he change it. That's for him to decide. The real question isn't does it look right because many will say it does just to be nice. The real question is if this figure was offered along with a figure with longer legs at the same time, which would most say is more correct. And so far, no one has said anything to indicate that they would objectively answer the current one. This discussion needs to get objective. My logic might be faulty..but I'm no Vulcan... ;D Really, I'm not going to be buying it so it doesn't really matter to me to be honest...I never collected prehistoric mammals at all...so I also have no expertise when it comes to them, what's good,bad,ect.. in a model or figure...so I can't be objective from a fossil evidence standpoint..just an artistic one. I do some 1/1 scale pieces based on JP or what I see, I also like Dragons...all of which lean toward giving an artist a lot of leeway as far as design...a sculpting project like this would drive me crazy..I would be off to Walgreens for more blood pressure meds in a milli-second..so that's why I say what I do..I sympathize a lot. I have commented on the Para and recently the Mureanasaurus..both a lot of time to get the head right. If you guys that will be buying it think it's off then he might change it I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by bmknj17 on Mar 9, 2009 22:52:54 GMT
I totally get not wanting to drive the guy crazy and I sympathize if he changes this one. My take is that it's still the right choice.
I was just asked to write an article for a local newspaper and I got the whole thing pretty much finished last night only to realize this morning that there is a No Trespassing sign preventing people from accessing a huge part of the wetlands I'm encouraging them to visit.
I have to go back and rework it now. Not just mention the sign but change the tone throughout; it sucks.
But would I even consider not doing so? No. I want it right.
He wants it right. Everyone who is projecting how they'd feel badly if put in a similar situation on Malcolm is doing just that.
Give him credit for what he's doing and for knowing what he can handle and for valuing a job best done over avoiding extra work.
And remember again that while many of you may be more easily pleased (Procon, anyone?), there are buyers out there who might not buy a piece that you would if they feel it is inaccurate.
Malcolm's methods make sound financial sense as well.
Oh, and Blade, A+ for good nature...
|
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Mar 9, 2009 23:23:48 GMT
Might be easier to get the sign removed eh ? I've said it before, these pieces made me ditch Procon this year altogether...( not that I don't like some of their stuff.. ;D ) Maybe we tend to fall into discussions moreso than just posting our opinions.. |
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Mar 9, 2009 23:35:18 GMT
 But the shortish legs aren't inaccurate. I'd imagine that some individuals could have had shortish legs, longish legs, bigger heads,... |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Mar 10, 2009 0:55:02 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. I basically agree with Kuni about the leg length. And I think their should be a hump. White Rhinos have humps that are muscles that are used to support it's 500 pound head. Indricotherium has a long neck unlike the short necks of rhinos. However it had a big head, 4 feet long, and may have had the same thing. I think if you bring the back up to match the Vertebra then Indricotherium will also look taller, and he will be at the shoulder. I think this might be easier to do then lengthening the legs. |
|
|
|
Post by bmknj17 on Mar 10, 2009 1:27:40 GMT
Look back at the skeleton photo on p 56. It is taller than it is long from tail to shoulder. M's figure is nowhere near those proportions and fleshing the fossil out would only make the animal even taller.
And Blade, don't think getting rid of that sign wasn't my first thought...
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Mar 10, 2009 1:42:39 GMT
Possibly the large amount of fat is covering up the upper portions of the leg?
|
|
|
|
Post by bmknj17 on Mar 10, 2009 1:47:18 GMT
But the skeleton is taller.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Mar 10, 2009 1:49:32 GMT
Look back at the skeleton photo on p 56. It is taller than it is long from tail to shoulder. M's figure is nowhere near those proportions and fleshing the fossil out would only make the animal even taller. And Blade, don't think getting rid of that sign wasn't my first thought... The best picture on page 56 is the top one. However Indricotherium is not completely horizontal. The head is at an angle closer to the camera. So the length is decieving. Indricotherium stood 18 ft. tall at the shoulder. He was also 28' long. It looks pretty good to me. Remember the head is 4 ft. long. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by bmknj17 on Mar 10, 2009 2:01:48 GMT
Now we're getting somewhere!
If those measurements are correct, then the neck, twice as long as the head in M's sculpt, is 8', which means from the shoulder to the tail is 16'. Since the height at the shoulder is 18', it proves my point. The animal should be two feet taller at the shoulder than it is long from shoulder to tail.
M's is nothing like that!
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Mar 10, 2009 2:34:22 GMT
Now we're getting somewhere! If those measurements are correct, then the neck, twice as long as the head in M's sculpt, is 8', which means from the shoulder to the tail is 16'. Since the height at the shoulder is 18', it proves my point. The animal should be two feet taller at the shoulder than it is long from shoulder to tail. M's is nothing like that! ;D That doesn't prove anything. The picture is at an angle. You can't even line up the skeleton. The front of the Indricotherium is closer to you and looks longer therefore then the rear. Beside Indricotherium weight estimates vary widely. So that would change how fleshed out it was, changing the length of the legs according to body fat. We need a perfectly horizontal figure to judge it and I don't think that would be conclusive. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by bmknj17 on Mar 10, 2009 2:36:53 GMT
My response (clearly) had nothing to do with the photo.
It was simple math based upon measurements you provided.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Mar 10, 2009 2:53:08 GMT
My response (clearly) had nothing to do with the photo. It was simple math based upon measurements you provided. ;D Well if your response has nothing to do with this photo, then what are you measuring it against thin air. Also estimates vary. The length is given anywhere from 26-28ft. The height at the shoulder is given at 16-18ft. Weight is estimated fron 10-30 tons. Maybe this was a 28' Indricotherium that was 16' high. Some people are the same height but have different leg or torso heights. Some really tall people have small feet. So your worried about 1 cm. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Mar 10, 2009 2:55:03 GMT
Now we're getting somewhere! If those measurements are correct, then the neck, twice as long as the head in M's sculpt, is 8', which means from the shoulder to the tail is 16'. Since the height at the shoulder is 18', it proves my point. The animal should be two feet taller at the shoulder than it is long from shoulder to tail. M's is nothing like that! ;D That doesn't prove anything. The picture is at an angle. You can't even line up the skeleton. The front of the Indricotherium is closer to you and looks longer therefore then the rear. Beside Indricotherium weight estimates vary widely. So that would change how fleshed out it was, changing the length of the legs according to body fat. We need a perfectly horizontal figure to judge it and I don't think that would be conclusive. ;D Exactly what I stated. The body fat would vary according to weight, therefore visibly shortening the legs. |
|
|
|
Post by bmknj17 on Mar 10, 2009 2:57:16 GMT
So when measurements you provide work against you you take to more laughy icons and go back to saying I'm too particular?
And 1 cm equals 3.5 feet of animal.
|
|
|
|
Post by bmknj17 on Mar 10, 2009 2:59:13 GMT
It is not about the appearance of the length of the legs. It's about the actual length.
The animal is taller at the shoulder according to these numbers, and the skeleton, and the Procon figure, and virtually all models I've seen.
|
|
|
|
Post by bmknj17 on Mar 10, 2009 3:18:08 GMT
Malcolm is telling me that, despite how it appears in his top and bottom photos (The others are too poorly angled to use to judge.), the height of the figure at the shoulder is actually greater than the length from shoulder to tail. If this is the case, then it meshes with the math I just did without looking so. If true, and I assume it is if he says so, then I'm right about what the dimensions should be, wrong about not seeing from his pics that they are what I've been saying is right.
Waiting to hear from him.
BTW, he can see the board but can't post for some reason. Mods??
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Mar 10, 2009 3:39:11 GMT
So when measurements you provide work against you you take to more laughy icons and go back to saying I'm too particular? And 1 cm equals 3.5 feet of animal. ;D Your math is way off! Maybe thats the problem. 1 cm in1/40 scale =40 cm 1/1 scale. 40cm = 1.3 feet. ;D |
|
![[][][]cordylus[][][] Avatar](http://files.sharenator.com/Troll_Face_U_MAD_RE_wrestling_1-s407x405-126802.jpg)
But the shortish legs aren't inaccurate. I'd imagine that some individuals could have had shortish legs, longish legs, bigger heads,...
