Huge Amur Siberian Tiger

[Shadow]

(02-02-2019, 04:18 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(02-02-2019, 04:11 AM)Shadow Wrote:

(02-02-2019, 03:59 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(02-02-2019, 03:55 AM)Shadow Wrote:

(02-02-2019, 03:48 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(02-02-2019, 01:21 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(02-01-2019, 09:58 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: He is about as large as the giant Cave lion from the Ural region.

Anyone minds to give an opinion about this intuitive comparison?

*This image is copyright of its original author

I really don't like to touch comparisons like this but I'll do it for a friend. I matched the lower leg length of the people as a scale but people can modify these two panels as they see fit:

*This image is copyright of its original author

I read that the zookeeper is a tall woman with large frame, and the tiger was also further away.

BTW, I personally think these two animals might have the similar shoulder height.

Is there somewhere more information about that tiger and woman? I looked, that if she is Asian, probably short and that tiger then again quite normal looking. But pretty hard to say when there is no easy thing to compare reliably.

The huge Amur tiger was from a zoo of Central Europe, so the zookeeper was a tall blonde European woman.

Definitely taller than the Russian lady who stands aside of the Cave lion replica.

If that zoo keeper is 170 cm, then that tiger is about 105 cm shoulder height. I look again though and double check my calculations :)

The Russian lady looks noticeably chubbier and shorter in frame than the zookeeper, then the largest Cave lion was only about 105 cm in shoulder?

You have to take these two factors into account; the Amur tiger is farther from the camera, and the zookeeper in comparison was also a taller woman with bigger frame.

I won't be surprise if both stands a little bit over 4 feet tall at shoulder.

I made this calculation in very simple way. First I used ruler to measure height of that woman in screen. On my screen I got 135 mm, because her knees were bent a little bit and she has boots, I used a little bit "violence" and decided, that she is 180 cm in that photo. Then I just did 180:135 calculation so that I got a value, that how much one mm is in centimeters (1,33). Then I took tiger height with ruler in mm and calculated 84 x 1,33= 112 cm. And I think, that that 84 mm was fair for tiger from that photo. 

Then when thinking their position I think, that there might be a few centimeters more, but also less, because I had to make best guess about that paw. 

Of course it is possible, that it could be even 120 cm, but with this information I choose to be quite... is that conservative in estimation, when wanting to avoid exaggeration :) Reply