Size comparisons

[DinoFan83]

Size comparison of the 2 known specimens of Giganotosaurus, MUCPv-Ch1 (top) and MUCPv-95 (bottom).
Skeletals from GetAwayTrike, weight estimates taken from Greg Paul's Giganotosaurus. (Note that MUCPv-95 is sized up based on dentary depth here; at maximum depth for both dentaries it is 10 percent deeper).

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[Charger01]

4 bovid species

1. Cape Buffalo (150cms)
2. Wild Water Buffalo (178cms)
3. Indian Gaur (196cms)
4. Woods Bison (183cms)  

    Reply

[Charger01]

Some lion and tiger comparisons that I made, scaled according to average heights

1. Asiatic Lion (99cms) vs Bengal Tiger (100cms) 

   

2. Namibian Lion (105cms) vs Bengal Tiger (100cms)

   

3. East African Lion (99cms) vs Bengal Tiger (100cms) 

    Reply

[Shadow]

(12-05-2020, 08:43 PM)Khan85 Wrote: 4 bovid species

1. Cape Buffalo (150cms)
2. Wild Water Buffalo (178cms)
3. Indian Gaur (196cms)
4. Woods Bison (183cms)  

I find this comparison picture odd. You haven´t used averages or biggest possible measurements. This is like some random shoulder heights and then just scaling up some random photo to that height or am I mistaken? When making these comparisons this way it would be interesting to have some idea in what way comparison is made. And good to remember that shoulder height is one thing and body length another. Reply

[Timbavati]

(12-05-2020, 09:05 PM)Khan85 Wrote: Some lion and tiger comparisons that I made, scaled according to average heights

1. Asiatic Lion (99cms) vs Bengal Tiger (100cms) 



2. Namibian Lion (105cms) vs Bengal Tiger (100cms)



3. East African Lion (99cms) vs Bengal Tiger (100cms) 

Awesome! 
The Kgalagadi as the Ngorongoro lions are some of the biggest around Africa. They're incredible powerful lions with muscles and very height males Reply

[Shadow]

(12-06-2020, 01:40 AM)TinoArmando Wrote:

(12-05-2020, 09:05 PM)Khan85 Wrote: Some lion and tiger comparisons that I made, scaled according to average heights

1. Asiatic Lion (99cms) vs Bengal Tiger (100cms) 



2. Namibian Lion (105cms) vs Bengal Tiger (100cms)



3. East African Lion (99cms) vs Bengal Tiger (100cms) 

Awesome! 
The Kgalagadi as the Ngorongoro lions are some of the biggest around Africa. They're incredible powerful lions with muscles and very height males

@GuateGojira has made some nice comparison pictures so, that height and body length are both scaled to right place,  I think that in these lion and tiger comparison only shoulder height was scaled to right place while body length wasn´t.

This kind of picture is good in comparisons, imo. It´s easy to check if body dimensions are as they should be when considering both, body length and shoulder height. If scaling only height, body dimensions can be easily incorrect if other individual is with short body and other one with long body.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[Timbavati]

Yes, I'm very agreed with the comparison of him. I was meaning about lion sizes, The Kgalagadi lions, Are well-known for being one of the  biggest of all. Reply

[Shadow]

(12-06-2020, 04:29 AM)TinoArmando Wrote: Yes, I'm very agreed with the comparison of him. I was meaning about lion sizes, The Kgalagadi lions, Are well-known for being one of the  biggest of all.

Yeah, but scaling only shoulder height with random photos leads to distortions. If you look at posting of @"Khan85" head and body measurements of those lions were approximately 20% shorter in comparison of tiger photo. I don´t think that difference is that big. Usually male lions and tigers have head-body length around 2 meters and difference not more than 10% if at all depending of which populations/subspecies are compared.

Also @OrcaDaBest seems to have been sharing odd looking size comparisons what comes to tigers and lions and then Kodiak and polar bears.

I would recommend, that if not using authentic photos with two animals close to each others, then scaling should be done properly so, that body dimensions are based on some figures (height and length), which are told and can be seen. @GuateGojira has some excellent examples. Reply

[Charger01]

@Shadow If we try to adjust both shoulder height and length, we end up warping the original model. In that case, we are comparing two animals that never actually existed

Also, it is not always possible to find good looking models from perfect angles. Body length is something which can be misjudged based on viewing angle and positioning. Shoulder height can be easily used to scale majority of the times, regardless of angle Reply

[Charger01]

(12-06-2020, 01:06 AM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-05-2020, 08:43 PM)Khan85 Wrote: 4 bovid species

1. Cape Buffalo (150cms)
2. Wild Water Buffalo (178cms)
3. Indian Gaur (196cms)
4. Woods Bison (183cms)  

I find this comparison picture odd. You haven´t used averages or biggest possible measurements. This is like some random shoulder heights and then just scaling up some random photo to that height or am I mistaken? When making these comparisons this way it would be interesting to have some idea in what way comparison is made. And good to remember that shoulder height is one thing and body length another.

Scaled according to average shoulder/hump heights. From the data I collected, cape buffaloes were around 5ft tall at shoulders on average.

Not much was known about water buffalo, its a pretty understudied animal. A good friend helped me, and used an cape buffalo based equation to get an average height of 178cms

Gaurs, 196cms at top of the hump, taken from Guate's data

Wood bison data, again from my friend who helped me earlier Reply

[Shadow]

(12-06-2020, 09:51 AM)Khan85 Wrote:

(12-06-2020, 01:06 AM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-05-2020, 08:43 PM)Khan85 Wrote: 4 bovid species

1. Cape Buffalo (150cms)
2. Wild Water Buffalo (178cms)
3. Indian Gaur (196cms)
4. Woods Bison (183cms)  

I find this comparison picture odd. You haven´t used averages or biggest possible measurements. This is like some random shoulder heights and then just scaling up some random photo to that height or am I mistaken? When making these comparisons this way it would be interesting to have some idea in what way comparison is made. And good to remember that shoulder height is one thing and body length another.

Scaled according to average shoulder/hump heights. From the data I collected, cape buffaloes were around 5ft tall at shoulders on average.

Not much was known about water buffalo, its a pretty understudied animal. A good friend helped me, and used an cape buffalo based equation to get an average height of 178cms

Gaurs, 196cms at top of the hump, taken from Guate's data

Wood bison data, again from my friend who helped me earlier

What comes to your bovine comparisons I saw, that you used with bison almost highest possible shoulder height, with gaurs a bit over average or close to average, with water buffalo then again something which might be close to average or not and now then with cape buffalo you say that possible average. And with body length I didn´t see anything. I find it odd that doing a comparison in which one animal is scaled to  almost biggest possible shoulder height and others  then in different way. If not able to find averages for all, then more logical thing, imo, would be to scale all to smallest or biggest sizes to have a good comparison.

Then again body length, I saw this problem in that bovine comparison and then as said in that lion-tiger comparison, if you want to show size comparison then you should also look at photos in which animals are in same position, like @GuateGojira has done, then you get dimensions right what comes to both body length and shoulder height. If putting shoulder height spot on and then body length not even close it creates distortion. If looking at comparison charts done by guate for instance Namibian lion and Bengal tiger have same head to body length and both are also scaled to same length with good photos to comparison. I would advice people doing comparisons follow his lead and checking both, body length and shoulder height when making comparisons for animals walking on four legs. 

I might have made some sloppy comparison photos myself too in past, but now when I payed attention to problems I will be more careful too :) Authentic photos are one thing, those are always random individuals. But these which are made based on some measurements should be done so, that it is clear what measurements are used and same "treatment" for all animals.

Here comparison pictures of lions by @GuateGojira.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[Charger01]

(12-06-2020, 05:42 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-06-2020, 09:51 AM)Khan85 Wrote:

(12-06-2020, 01:06 AM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-05-2020, 08:43 PM)Khan85 Wrote: 4 bovid species

1. Cape Buffalo (150cms)
2. Wild Water Buffalo (178cms)
3. Indian Gaur (196cms)
4. Woods Bison (183cms)  

I find this comparison picture odd. You haven´t used averages or biggest possible measurements. This is like some random shoulder heights and then just scaling up some random photo to that height or am I mistaken? When making these comparisons this way it would be interesting to have some idea in what way comparison is made. And good to remember that shoulder height is one thing and body length another.

Scaled according to average shoulder/hump heights. From the data I collected, cape buffaloes were around 5ft tall at shoulders on average.

Not much was known about water buffalo, its a pretty understudied animal. A good friend helped me, and used an cape buffalo based equation to get an average height of 178cms

Gaurs, 196cms at top of the hump, taken from Guate's data

Wood bison data, again from my friend who helped me earlier

What comes to your bovine comparisons I saw, that you used with bison almost highest possible shoulder height, with gaurs a bit over average or close to average, with water buffalo then again something which might be close to average or not and now then with cape buffalo you say that possible average. And with body length I didn´t see anything. I find it odd that doing a comparison in which one animal is scaled to  almost biggest possible shoulder height and others  then in different way. If not able to find averages for all, then more logical thing, imo, would be to scale all to smallest or biggest sizes to have a good comparison.

Then again body length, I saw this problem in that bovine comparison and then as said in that lion-tiger comparison, if you want to show size comparison then you should also look at photos in which animals are in same position, like @GuateGojira has done, then you get dimensions right what comes to both body length and shoulder height. If putting shoulder height spot on and then body length not even close it creates distortion. If looking at comparison charts done by guate for instance Namibian lion and Bengal tiger have same head to body length and both are also scaled to same length with good photos to comparison. I would advice people doing comparisons follow his lead and checking both, body length and shoulder height when making comparisons for animals walking on four legs. 

I might have made some sloppy comparison photos myself too in past, but now when I payed attention to problems I will be more careful too :) Authentic photos are one thing, those are always random individuals. But these which are made based on some measurements should be done so, that it is clear what measurements are used and same "treatment" for all animals.

Here comparison pictures of lions by @GuateGojira.

*This image is copyright of its original author

I have seen Guate's comparisons and I know they are very good. I use his when someone asks or they need to be shown.

Quote:If putting shoulder height spot on and then body length not even close it creates distortion.

Distortion will be when you try and change the dimensions of the animals to fit your dimensions. For doing that, I will have to mess with the length and height and end up creating and comparing two animals which never existed and are totally warped. 

I have no problem with Guate's comparisons, I made mine so that I can see what they will sort of look next to each other. 

    Reply

[Shadow]

(12-06-2020, 06:19 PM)Khan85 Wrote:

(12-06-2020, 05:42 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-06-2020, 09:51 AM)Khan85 Wrote:

(12-06-2020, 01:06 AM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-05-2020, 08:43 PM)Khan85 Wrote: 4 bovid species

1. Cape Buffalo (150cms)
2. Wild Water Buffalo (178cms)
3. Indian Gaur (196cms)
4. Woods Bison (183cms)  

I find this comparison picture odd. You haven´t used averages or biggest possible measurements. This is like some random shoulder heights and then just scaling up some random photo to that height or am I mistaken? When making these comparisons this way it would be interesting to have some idea in what way comparison is made. And good to remember that shoulder height is one thing and body length another.

Scaled according to average shoulder/hump heights. From the data I collected, cape buffaloes were around 5ft tall at shoulders on average.

Not much was known about water buffalo, its a pretty understudied animal. A good friend helped me, and used an cape buffalo based equation to get an average height of 178cms

Gaurs, 196cms at top of the hump, taken from Guate's data

Wood bison data, again from my friend who helped me earlier

What comes to your bovine comparisons I saw, that you used with bison almost highest possible shoulder height, with gaurs a bit over average or close to average, with water buffalo then again something which might be close to average or not and now then with cape buffalo you say that possible average. And with body length I didn´t see anything. I find it odd that doing a comparison in which one animal is scaled to  almost biggest possible shoulder height and others  then in different way. If not able to find averages for all, then more logical thing, imo, would be to scale all to smallest or biggest sizes to have a good comparison.

Then again body length, I saw this problem in that bovine comparison and then as said in that lion-tiger comparison, if you want to show size comparison then you should also look at photos in which animals are in same position, like @GuateGojira has done, then you get dimensions right what comes to both body length and shoulder height. If putting shoulder height spot on and then body length not even close it creates distortion. If looking at comparison charts done by guate for instance Namibian lion and Bengal tiger have same head to body length and both are also scaled to same length with good photos to comparison. I would advice people doing comparisons follow his lead and checking both, body length and shoulder height when making comparisons for animals walking on four legs. 

I might have made some sloppy comparison photos myself too in past, but now when I payed attention to problems I will be more careful too :) Authentic photos are one thing, those are always random individuals. But these which are made based on some measurements should be done so, that it is clear what measurements are used and same "treatment" for all animals.

Here comparison pictures of lions by @GuateGojira.

*This image is copyright of its original author

I have seen Guate's comparisons and I know they are very good. I use his when someone asks or they need to be shown.

Quote:If putting shoulder height spot on and then body length not even close it creates distortion.

Distortion will be when you try and change the dimensions of the animals to fit your dimensions. For doing that, I will have to mess with the length and height and end up creating and comparing two animals which never existed and are totally warped. 

I have no problem with Guate's comparisons, I made mine so that I can see what they will sort of look next to each other. 

It´s not easy, but your comparison photos created quite clear distortion too. It´s true that for instance in zoos where lions and tigers are in same enclosures they are often so similars in size that difficult to see differences. Not an easy task to have a decent comparison picture when starting to scale random photos to match with each others, at least when comparing to authentic photos and videos with captive animals and how animals appear in those. Reply

[Shadow]

I made quickly one comparison photo since I haven´t done those in some time. Not the best possible, but maybe interesting for some.

What comes to shoulder height it was tricky because of mane. I marked the spots which I used, in shoulder height tiger has 1,5-2 % more than lion. Then again from tip of the nose to rump lion has approximately 1% more. Tiger in photo is maybe in slightly more diagonal position when looking at hind legs and front legs but not much, if in same position as the lion it might have same nose-rump length or 1-2% more than the lion in the photo. Tigers mouth is open and it makes its head to look bigger when looking briefly.

Anyway, not the perfect one either, but I tried to make a comparison so, that shoulder height and body length same while not changing aspect ratio of original photo in order to maintain natural appearance of these individuals. Lion is Notch so even though not the biggest lion from East Africa, most likely above average even though here scaled very close to average shoulder height in comparison with average shoulder height of Bengal tigers. Average used for Bengal tigers 100 cm while for East Africa lions it as 99 cm and what comes to body length I considered as average 190 cm for Bengal tigers and 184 cm for East Africa lions, all these from charts of @GuateGojira.

And as said, when looking at body length, that tiger suffers a bit from angle, when it should be 3% longer it´s now 1% shorter. With some other photos it would be possible to be more precise, I wanted now to do just a quick photo pair with relative small margin of error in limited time to use.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[Charger01]

I still dont get how my models are distorted when I simply picked them from their backgrounds and scaled them using shoulder height only, without messing with the aspect ratios. 

Trying to get both the dimensions forcefully to adjust to desired measurements leads to creation of warped animals which never existed in real life. Hence, warping is something which I am definitely not going to do. 

Rest, I dont have any problem with disagreement Reply