|
Size comparisons
|
 (12-06-2020, 08:04 PM)Khan85 Wrote: 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. In your pictures lions were something like 15-20% shorter than tigers. And when looking at average body lengths that difference is minimal, something like 0-4%. It makes an illusions of quite big tigers when comparing to "shortened" lions. That is the problem which I see there. This difference is based on what I see in charts of @GuateGojira. And also when looking at some other sources, body length differences are usually inside of range 0-10% depending of compared subspecies/populations.  (12-06-2020, 08:09 PM)Shadow Wrote:(12-06-2020, 08:04 PM)Khan85 Wrote: 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. "Shortened" lions. I havent "shortened" or "stretched" anything brother (12-06-2020, 10:13 PM)Khan85 Wrote:(12-06-2020, 08:09 PM)Shadow Wrote:(12-06-2020, 08:04 PM)Khan85 Wrote: 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. I think, that you understand what I mean. If you use in comparisons different kind of photos, then results can make illusions for viewer. Both animals should be in as same pose as possible to have a good comparison. When measuring your lions in comparison photos, as said, they are 15-20% shorter, that´s why I made that comparison picture showing how it looks like, when both animals are in same positions. Naturally animals aren´t always in same positions in photos and that´s why in comparison pictures it´s good to pay attention to photos used. I understand that you did that unintentionally. I still think, that when trying to make accurate comparison photos people want to see such, which are fair for both animals in order to show overall size in comparison with each others. (12-06-2020, 10:13 PM)Khan85 Wrote:(12-06-2020, 08:09 PM)Shadow Wrote:(12-06-2020, 08:04 PM)Khan85 Wrote: 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. I looked a bit closer of photos and how body dimensions change in between indivuals. That tiger you used seems to have ratio 1,85-1,9 when calculating body length divided with shoulder height. Then for instance lion in comparison as Namibian lion is with ratio approximately 1,5. And lion in East African lion comparison with ratio approximately 1,6. When I looked some photos I found also lions with ratios over 1,8. So now in your comparison is a tiger with long body and lions with short bodies. Actually it will be interesting to look a bit closer to measurements and see what kind of ratios are there in measurements, because overall differences look to be smaller. Naturally there are always bigger and smaller individuals and if putting to comparison photos one especially long individual with relatively short ones it creates distortion if thinking about average individuals. Anyway that body length (nose to rump) divided with shoulder height ratio is interesting and something to look a bit closer if it haven´t been checked before. Average ratio would help a lot when looking at possible photos to use in comparison pictures. In that photo which I made both animals were with ratio approximately 1,7-1,75.
One comparison photo of Bengal tiger and East African lion (Serengeti). Both are scaled to same shoulder height because they average so close (100cm-99cm). Both walk in quite similar position and this lion has also long body, body length-shoulder height ratio approximately 1,9.
 *This image is copyright of its original author Second picture showing measurement points.  *This image is copyright of its original author I decided to put third photo so, that showing belly fold of the tiger in this case because this lion didn´t have same, it is loose skin after all.  *This image is copyright of its original author
Neeraj Singh
Forest guard and tiger footprint  *This image is copyright of its original author
  *This image is copyright of its original author Nowadays, size comparisons featuring a number of giant and famous predatory dinosaurs are very popular. However, in these types of comparisons, the most popular of the theropods (eg: T. rex, Spinosaurus, Giganotosaurus) tend to 'hog' the spotlight from less well known but just as large taxa (such as the ones featured here). And as such, I present a size chart of 8 rather obscure but very good sized predatory dinosaurs that are every bit as large as (if not sometimes larger than) and just as deserving of the spotlight as the more famous species. Clockwise from top left, the species in the chart are as follows. Bahariasaurus ingens - IPHG 1912 VIII 62c Restored as a basal tyrannosauroid (Yutyrannus base specifically), this animal ends up at 14+ meters and 8+ tonnes based on the posterior dorsals of a 7 meter long, 1 tonne Yutyrannus (follwing SpinoInWonderland's modified Yutyrannus GDI) sized up to the 22.5 cm measurement given by Mickey Mortimer. Note that this may also be an allosauroid, megalosauroid, or ceratosaur, but would still be very big. Sauroniops pachytholus - MPM 2594 A very little known carcharodontosaurid that is quite possibly among the largest known theropods of all. The frontal is at least as large as that of SGM-DIN 1 (meaning that Sauroniops was likely somewhere in the 13-13.7 meter and 9-9.8 tonne range going by my estimations), but to minimize extrapolating from an extrapolation in and of itself, Giganotosaurus was used as a base. Here, this is a 13.3 meter animal massing about 9.3 tonnes based on the figures SpinoInWonderland has given me for his skeletal used here. Tratayenia rosalesi - MCF-PVPH 418 As was discussed here, this is very likely the biggest megaraptoran specimen we have so far, at an estimated 13.6 meters long and 8.9 tonnes. I am not surprised of this specimen's obscurity considering that not a lot has been found and not a lot has been very extensively figured, but I do think it deserves more recognition. Note, however, that the arms were almost certainly a lot bigger than shown in the megaraptoran composite skeletal used here. Deltadromeus agilis - lost giant femur This one comes out quite a bit larger than most think. Our largest specimen, mentioned in Ibrahim et al. 2020, is a lost giant femur 144 cm long. Quite substantially larger than the 74 cm femur of SGM-DIN 2, this specimen ends up 15.57 meters long and 8.1 tonnes based on the estimate of 8 meters and 1.1 tonnes for SGM-DIN 2 in Seebacher et al. 2001. Note, however, that here I have chosen to go the route of Deltadromeus being a basal tyrannosauroid, which the original skeletal from Sereno depicts. It's also possible it could be a ceratosaur, as per PWNZ3R-Dragon's skeletal. Unnamed giant Tendaguru carcharodontosaurid As stated in this blog post, there is a rather large fibula from the Tendaguru of a seemingly unnamed species of carcharodontosaurid, and it is 91 centimeters long. This is suggestive of an animal approaching the size of some of the later Cretaceous carcharodontosaurids (famous for their giant size). I had chosen Acrocanthosaurus as a base because it is one of the most complete of the basal carcharodontosaurids, and using it as a base for this giant fibula, the owner of the bone seems to end up in the region of 6.5-7 tonnes for mass. Mystery Bahariya theropod fibula - IPHG 1912 VIII 70 One of Stromer's destroyed discoveries, this is a large theropod fibula 115 cm long, which could belong to Deltadromeus, Bahariasaurus, or an unnamed species of allosauroid, ceratosaurid, or megalosauroid. It is tentatively restored as a ceratosaur here based on Gualicho, which yields a mass of 3-3.5 tonnes or so based on eyeballing and isometry of other ceratosaurs. Giant Tendaguru megalosauroid ('Allosaurus' tendagurensis) tibia Discussed previously elsewhere, there is a giant megalosauroid tibia from the Tendaguru, that may be a more familiar form. Here, it is based on Torvosaurus/a composite megalosaurid skeletal, and the 110 cm estimate was used. The skeletal that was used here as a base for it yields lengths of over 12.5 meters and a mass of about 5-6 tonnes. This may belong to Torvosaurus, although that is not certain at this time. It does, however, show that megalosaurids were doing quite well in Jurassic Africa, achieving surprisingly large sizes. Unnamed giant São Paulo abelisaurid - URC R 44 This animal is probably our best evidence for giant abelisaurids at the moment. Its skull is estimated at 120 cm long, and assuming similar proportions to an abelisaurid composite of Abelisaurus/Aucasaurus, it's about 12.2 meters long. Mass is probably in the region of 7.5-8 tonnes. All unspecified masses based on the size estimations for the used skeletals from Greg Paul and SpinoInWonderland. 
Black Caiman.
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
Here is a size comparison between the 2 most famous specimens of Spinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus.
Take note that even when using Franoys' skeletal for Carcharodontosaurus (as was done here), the >13.4 meter and >9.3 tonne size shown is very much possible by using thedinorocker's discrepancy of 26% in size between the holotype and neotype.  *This image is copyright of its original author
(12-17-2020, 06:30 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote: Here is a size comparison between the 2 most famous specimens of Spinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus. Have you combined two different pictures like one in this? I mean 1 meter in that lower picture isn´t same in the picture above. So if trying to compare these two dinosaurs based on that picture, scale doesn´t match. Both pictures are useful on to compare with human figure right next to both dinosaurs. If that is from some book, then odd to have two dinosaurs in different scales like that. Quote:Have you combined two different pictures like one in this? I mean 1 meter in that lower picture isn´t same in the picture above. So if trying to compare these two dinosaurs based on that picture, scale doesn´t match. Both pictures are useful on to compare with human figure right next to both dinosaurs. If that is from some book, then odd to have two dinosaurs in different scales like that. Don't worry, I have taken this into account. Despite the scalebars/people differing for both, the written length figures in the image solve this problem. But if it would be of help to you or others, I can include a person/scalebar consistent for both.
I have looked around a bit to see different kind of comparison pictures and some are even misleading, imo. Like one which I saw quite recently had a polar bear scaled to be the biggest possible with a tiger scaled to be average.
I made this comparison photo just for curiosity to see what it looks like to have one around average polar bear, what comes to the shoulder height in comparison with around average tiger. This photo below is scaled so, that polar bear is with approximately 140 cm shoulder height, while tiger 100 cm. It can be debated for sure what are average measurements of a polar bear, but main idea is to have a comparison in which neither one is the biggest possible. Polar bear walks in the snow and I tried to take it into account in measurement. When looking at nose to rump body length tiger is around 190 cm, maybe a bit more and polar bear seems to be around 240-260 cm, so I think that this comparison photo is quite fair considering it, that it´s difficult to find good photos to use so, that both animals would be close to same posture.  *This image is copyright of its original author
(12-17-2020, 11:50 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote:Quote:Have you combined two different pictures like one in this? I mean 1 meter in that lower picture isn´t same in the picture above. So if trying to compare these two dinosaurs based on that picture, scale doesn´t match. Both pictures are useful on to compare with human figure right next to both dinosaurs. If that is from some book, then odd to have two dinosaurs in different scales like that. So you used two pictures and you scaled those dinosaur figures with each others. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 17 Guest(s) |