|
|
Post by Pangolinmoth on Mar 22, 2011 19:43:20 GMT
Rader: now that's how you reply to artistic criticism... Thank you! I like to think that I do pretty well is these regards, as I am actually in a graduate program studying biomechanics, and functional morphology of vertebrates. I'm fact, I'm working on a side project to my thesis that may end up revolutionizing the way dinosaurs are restored. It turns out that no one (including myself) has been doing it right. I can't spill the beans on the idea yet, but it's going to have profound impacts on interpretations of locomotory abilities, as well as the outward appearance of dinosaurs. I'm hoping to get it published in about a year. -Jon Way to drop a bombshell on us... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Mar 22, 2011 19:56:38 GMT
I tend to compare sauropods to elephants... Ack, no, don't do that. Sauropods were very different to elephants. It would be interesting to bring someone like Mike Taylor into this and see what they think. He's also commented on the craziness of A. excelsus' cervical vertebrae before: svpow.wordpress.com/2008/05/13/seriously-apatosaurus-is-just-nuts/Ugh, I meant to type " I know it's NOT right " ...from an artistic stand point I think they seem similar . Jorge's seems to me to just be a healthy and well-fed individual. Lacking the knowledge you guys have I can only speak as to what looks " right " to me. I can't think of a single living animal that really compares to your sculpt Jon...no insult intended..it prob just shows my lack of information again. There really is very little we can use I guess to compare to these unique animals. |
|
|
|
Post by raderstudios on Mar 22, 2011 21:12:03 GMT
Ugh, I meant to type " I know it's NOT right " ...from an artistic stand point I think they seem similar . Jorge's seems to me to just be a healthy and well-fed individual. Lacking the knowledge you guys have I can only speak as to what looks " right " to me. I can't think of a single living animal that really compares to your sculpt Jon...no insult intended..it prob just shows my lack of information again. There really is very little we can use I guess to compare to these unique animals. No insult taken at all. I am just trying to provide the scientific basis for the way that I have restored the animal. Please understand that I don't consider what I do to be art, it's merely 3 dimensional scientific illustration. The Blanco's and Krentz's of the world have me beat hands down on artistry! You are absolutely right, though. There aren't any modern animals that you can look at as an analogue for sauropods. That's one of the biggest challenges to studying them. Normally, paleontologists will look to modern animals to figure out what paleo animals were doing, but that's just not possible with sauropods! |
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Mar 22, 2011 21:12:59 GMT
Thanks for the explanation radar, regarding bison and other mammals. However, I still think it looks too skinny for a healthy animal. If a reptile or bird looked like that I would consider it to be very underweight. I disagreeumption has always been that a sauropod's tall neural spines were to support the huge muscles needed to keep these animals on their feet!
|
|
|
|
Post by simon on Mar 22, 2011 21:44:58 GMT
Thank you! I like to think that I do pretty well is these regards, as I am actually in a graduate program studying biomechanics, and functional morphology of vertebrates. I'm fact, I'm working on a side project to my thesis that may end up revolutionizing the way dinosaurs are restored. It turns out that no one (including myself) has been doing it right. I can't spill the beans on the idea yet, but it's going to have profound impacts on interpretations of locomotory abilities, as well as the outward appearance of dinosaurs. I'm hoping to get it published in about a year. -Jon Way to drop a bombshell on us... ;D Jon - Could this have anything to do with the recent article demonstrating that dinosaur tail muscles had a MAJOR part to do with locomotion (particularly in Theropods), hence all dinosaur tails need to be reconstructed much more heavily, particularly near the base of the tail where the huge "propulsion muscles" were attached? The conundrum of "How could an animal the size of TRex run?" has just been solved - that "missing" extra muscle mass needed for a quicker stride was there all along - IN THE TAIL. Am I right? |
|
|
|
Post by raderstudios on Mar 22, 2011 23:01:45 GMT
It will be a similar type of paper, but it will not focus on the tail. It's funny, though, I was restoring theropods with fat tails LONG before Scott Persons' fat tails paper came out, and that was my biggest criticism of the John Hutchinson "T. rex couldn't run" paper that came out in Nature, years ago. You HAVE to consider the caudofemoralis longus (big muscles on each side of the tail) muscles in archosaurs any time you model hindlimb locomotion. The sole function of that muscle is to retract the femur. In other words, it provide forward propulsion from the hindlimbs. Birds have mostly lost this muscle, and rely on a gluteus-like structure, similar to what mammals have.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Mar 23, 2011 1:23:54 GMT
Please understand that I don't consider what I do to be art, it's merely 3 dimensional scientific illustration. Oh right, merely...anyway, like it or not, this type of restoration is art - it's palaeoart! |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Mar 23, 2011 15:07:58 GMT
Rader: now that's how you reply to artistic criticism... Thank you! I like to think that I do pretty well is these regards, as I am actually in a graduate program studying biomechanics, and functional morphology of vertebrates. I'm fact, I'm working on a side project to my thesis that may end up revolutionizing the way dinosaurs are restored. It turns out that no one (including myself) has been doing it right. I can't spill the beans on the idea yet, but it's going to have profound impacts on interpretations of locomotory abilities, as well as the outward appearance of dinosaurs. I'm hoping to get it published in about a year. -Jon  Does this mean all my toy dinosaur restorations will become dinosaurs, I mean obsolete? |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Mar 23, 2011 15:33:18 GMT
Thank you! I like to think that I do pretty well is these regards, as I am actually in a graduate program studying biomechanics, and functional morphology of vertebrates. I'm fact, I'm working on a side project to my thesis that may end up revolutionizing the way dinosaurs are restored. It turns out that no one (including myself) has been doing it right. I can't spill the beans on the idea yet, but it's going to have profound impacts on interpretations of locomotory abilities, as well as the outward appearance of dinosaurs. I'm hoping to get it published in about a year. -Jon Does this mean all my toy dinosaur restorations will become dinosaurs, I mean obsolete? If you look over a collection from oldest to newest figures, you can already see that happening (think Marx figures or Starlux vs Invicta vs. JP/Carnegie of the 90s vs Battat vs current WS). So it really isn't a surprise that the way the figures look will reflect older interpretations--they are working with what they knew at the time. After all, how many bald dromaeosaurs are out there? Even now! |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Mar 23, 2011 16:43:23 GMT
After all, how many bald dromaeosaurs are out there? Even now! Not just bald dromaeosaurs, but bald maniraptors in general. I think that the inaccuracies of vintage figures can be part of their appeal - by building up a collection of dinosaur toys as time goes by, you can get a three-dimensional gallery of how dinosaur science has changed, and how these changes have filtered down to pop culture. That said, I am not a fan of figures released today that are 'retro' as they are not genuinely so. For example, much praise is heaped on the Wild Safari Velociraptor. Detailed it might be, but it just doesn't look like how we now think the real animal looked at all. For a figure released only a few years ago, that's not good. |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Mar 23, 2011 16:47:41 GMT
After all, how many bald dromaeosaurs are out there? Even now! Not just bald dromaeosaurs, but bald maniraptors in general. I think that the inaccuracies of vintage figures can be part of their appeal - by building up a collection of dinosaur toys as time goes by, you can get a three-dimensional gallery of how dinosaur science has changed, and how these changes have filtered down to pop culture. That said, I am not a fan of figures released today that are 'retro' as they are not genuinely so. For example, much praise is heaped on the Wild Safari Velociraptor. Detailed it might be, but it just doesn't look like how we now think the real animal looked at all. For a figure released only a few years ago, that's not good. I think I share a similar mind--although not a fan of really retro figures, I don't mind them. But when a current company makes current figures that look like something from the mid 1960s (looking at you, Schleich T.rex) it just seems pointless. |
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Mar 23, 2011 23:24:02 GMT
I like really nice detailed retro-designed figures..like the Schleich Apato :  The WS Velociraptor can be customized...and I grew up with them lacking feathers..or at least most of them...so I'm not too put off by it. |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Mar 23, 2011 23:33:43 GMT
I grew up with them lacking feathers too, but we now know that's just as outright wrong as tail-dragging sauropods. The simple fact is that the animals just didn't look like that at all. That's why I'm put off by them, unless they are genuinely retro figures from the '90s or before. But it's all personal preference  |
|
|
|
Post by DinoLord on Mar 23, 2011 23:36:30 GMT
Mind giving us a few teasers, Jonathan?
|
|
|
|
Post by darko2300 on Apr 3, 2011 17:20:37 GMT
Horizon Models Jurassic Park Velociraptor (Modified):
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Apr 3, 2011 17:34:51 GMT
Awesome paint job, obviously, but weird, weird model. It seems to be halfway between the JP creatures (broken arms, fat head) and the real thing (feathers on areas besides the head)...
|
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Apr 3, 2011 17:38:13 GMT
I'm as.suming that Martin may have added the feathers? I can't imagine the original kit coming with them, being a JP and all...
|
|
|
|
Post by darko2300 on Apr 3, 2011 19:56:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Apr 3, 2011 19:59:26 GMT
The JP3 Raptors had proto-feathers..but this being the Horizon kit was the species fro mthe 1st and 2nd films. Here's my build up of the same kit. no mods :  Garret mentioned he built this ones before the whole pronated hands deal really was well known. Looks much more bird like..maybe a glimpse into JP4 ? |
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Apr 3, 2011 20:00:55 GMT
All the Horizon JP kits were cast from an orig maquette by SWS..one reason they are so popular. |
|
Does this mean all my toy dinosaur restorations will become dinosaurs, I mean obsolete?
