|
|
Post by sumo on Apr 17, 2011 19:31:16 GMT
That was on the skeletal drawing blog, wasn't it? Very informative - I know that's a mistake I've been making a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Apr 17, 2011 19:53:16 GMT
Looks good ! I am curious. Is there evidence yet for the reversed dew claws ? Or is it just to make them more avian in appearance ? As far as I know is widely accepted that theropod hands were positionated like those of birds - which makes perfect sense so yes, it could be considered an evidence.  I think Blade was referring to the hallux toes on their feet.  I notice you prefer drawing them 'reversed', but occasionally you seem to have them both reversed and facing the same direction as the other toes on the same dinosaur.  ;D And I love the recent additions -- especially the Stygimoloch. |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Apr 17, 2011 19:55:44 GMT
Obviously there's a certain amount of stylisation going on, but I'd be wary of making the hands and feet on your dromaeosaurs too 'fat'. This is especially true of the smaller ones like Velociraptor. The hands and feet should be very slim and birdlike (of course). Also, I'm afraid that Velociraptor should definitely have a longer, shallower head. Check out Scott Hartman's skeletal (yeah, him again): skeletaldrawing.com/psgallery/images/velociraptor.jpgOther than that, awesome work. I especially love the Stygimoloch. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Apr 17, 2011 20:55:48 GMT
I think Blade was referring to the hallux toes on their feet. I notice you prefer drawing them 'reversed', but occasionally you seem to have them both reversed and facing the same direction as the other toes on the same dinosaur. ;D D´ Oh! Well, to be honest - And I´m embarassed to admit this  so far I have never payed any attention to which direction is facing the hallux; after all is a tiny, "insignificant" finger ;D. But certainly I will do it henceforward! And yes I´m doing it reversed, I´m not sure if there´s evidence about it but now that you mention it, that strikes me as correct. Obviously there's a certain amount of stylisation going on, but I'd be wary of making the hands and feet on your dromaeosaurs too 'fat'. This is especially true of the smaller ones like Velociraptor. The hands and feet should be very slim and birdlike (of course). Also, I'm afraid that Velociraptor should definitely have a longer, shallower head. Other than that, awesome work. I especially love the Stygimoloch. You´re right, but I have the theory that this animals were proportionally a bit more muscular than modern birds -and smaller troodontids and coelurosaurians for that matter. After all they had to struggle with their prey and weren´t as fast as we used to think, so they need to rely in some physical power. Or maybe some species like Velociraptor were actually weaklings (and that would explain why he could not killed that Protoceratops before being buried with it ;P), but I have some problems picturing a half ton Utahraptor or 50Kg Deinonychus as skinny as an emu or any bird of a similar size. I might be wrong but well....its sort of my personal touch. ;D And you´re absolutely right about the Velociraptor head, I noticed that it was too short just after finishing the upper torso so I covered most of it with feathers to hide the failure... but obviously it didn´t work.  What´s your take on the T. rex? a too dull pose? too Jurassic Park - like? By the way that spines were meant to be quills but at the last moment I chickened out.  |
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Apr 17, 2011 21:54:52 GMT
I'm re-using this little sketch by way of illustration (do please forgive if it's very presumptuous of me for posting it! ). I think upon the whole, the hallux is accepted to be in the same direction as the other toes, although I have on rare occasions seen them depicted reversed. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Apr 17, 2011 22:15:23 GMT
Ok, so I misunderstood you. The same direction hallux is the correct version. I have googled some "professional" paleoart and it seems to be the most uptated and accurate way to represent it.. And you´re not presumptuous, feel free to post any of your great drawings to make your point. |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Apr 17, 2011 22:19:42 GMT
but I have some problems picturing a half ton Utahraptor or 50Kg Deinonychus as skinny as an emu or any bird of a similar size. Skinny in certain places. An ostrich (males reach 100kg+, and are significantly larger than Deinonychus was) looks like it has very skinny lower legs and feet. That doesn't mean it couldn't still kick your arse...quite literally...very hard. In other words, huge drumsticks, muscular thigs, but 'skinny' feet. Slender fingers too. The T. rex was...interesting! Obviously very stylised so it doesn't feel quite right to comment on it from an anatomical perspective so much. Really fantastic drawing mind. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Apr 18, 2011 0:16:43 GMT
but I have some problems picturing a half ton Utahraptor or 50Kg Deinonychus as skinny as an emu or any bird of a similar size. Skinny in certain places. An ostrich (males reach 100kg+, and are significantly larger than Deinonychus was) looks like it has very skinny lower legs and feet. That doesn't mean it couldn't still kick your arse...quite literally...very hard. In other words, huge drumsticks, muscular thigs, but 'skinny' feet. Slender fingers too. The T. rex was...interesting! Obviously very stylised so it doesn't feel quite right to comment on it from an anatomical perspective so much. Really fantastic drawing mind. I´ll bear that in mind. I´m quite used to draw bulky dromaeosaurids... Ironically, long time ago when we all still thought all dinos had smooth skin I used to make all dromies super skinny with croc eyes. My next T. rex will be very, very different. Meanwhile... guess what I´m working on:  Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
|
|
Post by DinoLord on Apr 18, 2011 0:18:03 GMT
Is it Concavenator?
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Apr 18, 2011 0:19:16 GMT
It's got to be! And wow!  |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Apr 18, 2011 0:24:36 GMT
Bingo! Sooo... are those quills too hardcore? |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Apr 18, 2011 0:37:02 GMT
Sooo... are those quills too hardcore? They might be a bit over-the-top for an allosauroid. On the other hand, I don't care... |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Apr 18, 2011 1:08:38 GMT
Yeah they def aren't the general consensus on what the animal looked like. But they are still cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Apr 18, 2011 1:34:38 GMT
I´m convinced that it had at least some medium sized quills all along the back and hump (maybe smaller than I pictured), since the point of the hump seems to be look bigger than he actually was and keep at bay another theropods - apart from mating rituals and stuff- so such covering would have helped to that purpose. We already know he had quills in the arm so why not there too? Because its sure there were quills and not protofeathers or feathers, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Apr 18, 2011 4:59:31 GMT
That was on the skeletal drawing blog, wasn't it? Very informative - I know that's a mistake I've been making a lot. It was either there or re-posted on another blog I watch...but at least you know what I'm talking about.. lol It really stuck with me after reading it. Thanks for the help with hallux toes there Niroot. I don't use proper terms so I can be confusing.. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Apr 18, 2011 10:29:25 GMT
Almost finished bug:  Uploaded with ImageShack.usYou know, I´m sick of drawing chicken legs. Next one will be a sauropod or ceratopsian. |
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Apr 18, 2011 11:40:58 GMT
Thanks for the help with hallux toes there Niroot. I don't use proper terms so I can be confusing.. ;D Not at all! I'm still ignorant of hundreds of proper terms myself. I would have preferred using 'dew claw' in informal instances too. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Apr 18, 2011 12:33:48 GMT
Currently working on :  Uploaded with ImageShack.usScared or pissed Centrosaurus. Any thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Apr 18, 2011 15:38:01 GMT
Looks cool. Again. Regarding the hands and feet: the palms of ceratopsian 'hands'(/forefeet) face strongly inwards. The outermost two fingers on the hand were reduced, did not contact the ground and did not have claws. (Very few toys get this right - ironically the Papo centrosaurines actually do. Check out the new Favorite Desktop Triceratops too www.dinotoyblog.com/2010/12/27/triceratops-desktop-model-by-favorite-co-ltd/.) Ceratopsians were a bit strange in that they retained a rather primitive 'hand' from their ancestors, unlike the thyreophorans and sauropods. On the feet, the innermost toe should be reduced. Sorry about coming across all cold and pedantic like. Those new March of the Dinosaurs shots have given me serious nerd rage. I really love your style. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Apr 18, 2011 16:28:22 GMT
Thanks Horridus!
I´m unacostumed to draw ceratopsians and indeed I didn´t have much idea of how to draw the feet (I suspected there was something wrong with the legs in general, as you can notice there´s a lot of redrawing in that area).
I goggled for some reconstructions to serve me as a guide while I was doing this but as you say, most of them are either outdated or don´t worry too much about get the feet straight.
Either way I´m glad you liked the bug , I was also insecure about the pose or excess of muscle mass.
Once I finish this one I´ll do some duckbill ( I accept requests) ;D
|
|
I notice you prefer drawing them 'reversed', but occasionally you seem to have them both reversed and facing the same direction as the other toes on the same dinosaur. 
;D 
so far I have never payed any attention to which direction is facing the hallux; after all is a tiny, "insignificant" finger ;D. But certainly I will do it henceforward! And yes I´m doing it reversed, I´m not sure if there´s evidence about it but now that you mention it, that strikes me as correct.
