Zbrush Dinosaurs and 3D Prints

[Gorgonzola]

Wings, is this closer to the mark?  Shifted the chest to be smaller in dimension, so hopefully the shoulder blades can look more convincingly like they could be touching at the front.

[Himmapaan]

I think that looks great myself.

About the hands, Scott Persons maintains that they do indeed have claws, though it's certainly interesting to see what looks very much like flesh extending beyond digit II in that example. I wonder if that could be the spread of the fleshy pad from the fossilization? The unguals would be curiously redundant too if everything was encased entirely in flesh.

[wings]

About the hands, Scott Persons maintains that they do indeed have claws, though it's certainly interesting to see what looks very much like flesh extending beyond digit II in that example. I wonder if that could be the spread of the fleshy pad from the fossilization? The unguals would be curiously redundant too if everything was encased entirely in flesh.

Yeah, I saw that article too from Hone's blog some time ago. As he also thinks that it has a flat and spade-shaped claw (below Figure 1).



I would say it does seem that digit II (far right) and III (centre) might have bore hooves. Since they do have pitted texture on them (especially on the central finger in the picture) while the tip of the second digit is smoother. That is what we see on the bone surface... What I have problem with is when we compare this with some integument impressions. In figure 2 above, the red dotted line indicate the portion of "complete" border of the hand (along the central and the second last finger, Osborn 1912); which probably shows the maximum boundary after dessication in that area. The skin clearly draped over the digit IV (no nail/hoof). We can't pull back the skin on the hand too far and change too much of the contour of the "hand border" otherwise you would not have produce hand print shapes similar to those in figure 3 (above, I highlighted one on each set for clarity). I just can't see the skin on the hand has been displaced that much as we can see part of its border.

Wings, is this closer to the mark?  Shifted the chest to be smaller in dimension, so hopefully the shoulder blades can look more convincingly like they could be touching at the front.

It is closer though I think it is still a tad wide, as you can see from these mounts (http://www.flickr.com/photos/10072627@N04/2583122905/sizes/l/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/arborwin/4528322501/sizes/o/) the chest is very narrow when the shoulder girdle is well articulated. Perhaps something as close as this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dustinholmes/2747751744/sizes/o/)?

As for the "sole" of the front feet the shape is wrong, since it doesn't reflect the shape of the footprints found (see diagram below or figure 3 from above; no "heel" pads and the fingers are not distinct).

[Gorgonzola]

True about the shape of the foot, I'm adjusting that now as I type this.

The whole hoof/claw things, I was always curious about how to go about this.  When I was going about at the start of this model a lot of my reference was, well, going off of other models of more respectable paleoartists, like Shane Foulkes and David Krentz, who both seem to go along with claws present on their recreations (Looking at mine, I think I may not have made mine triangular enough, the toes look like they all have similar size to them, which from what it looks like the middle one is much larger.)  Is this still a debatable topic?  I've been trying to do some searches on my own to see what a few different opinions were.

[Himmapaan]

I suppose you could have only two claws according to Wings' entirely convincing explanation. For my part (and it is merely that), I'm not yet bold enough to argue with a palaeontologist when he made a point of telling me of it directly.  I also think that having that third claw won't prevent the same print shape from being formed, as it would rest in the same position on the back of the hand as the other two.

[Gorgonzola]

Oh for sure.  If it's definitely that way, I'll change it.  At this point I'm more curious about why I've seen enough reconstructions which eschew that and show claws for all the digits.  Just outdated enough by a few years?

[tyrantqueen]

I think now that Wings is analysing these models, they could be among the most accurate on the market

[Gorgonzola]

Made a quick turnaround of the Para...you may have to click on the image to see some of the details better, but he's more or less done (complete with mitten hand, at least for this version of the model).  There's a non-mitten version as well, but besides that the two are identical.  I did end up adding more surface detail to it, mostly in terms of skin folds and some growth blemishes here and there.

I tried to make the chest go a bit smaller, but unfortunately it's impossible at this stage - a lot of the model just gets destroyed as a result and the mesh itself becomes this tangled mess of vertices and screwy geometry.

On the plus side, barring any other glaring issues, I can start to transfer poses over to this model and begin the process of getting them Shapeways ready!

[Himmapaan]

If anything, the completely clawless mitten hand was quite widespread in reconstructions in recent years. It was when I did this for Scott Persons that he informed me that it was a mistake, and explained the claws. You can see my first clawless version here.

With that in mind, for the present, I'm more inclined to continue doing claws on all digits (excepting the 'pinkie', of course). But there is every good reason for you to have just two, given the foregoing discussion.

I'm really looking forward to these models! 

[wings]

If anything, the completely clawless mitten hand was quite widespread in reconstructions in recent years. It was when I did this for Scott Persons that he informed me that it was a mistake, and explained the claws. You can see my first clawless version here.

With that in mind, for the present, I'm more inclined to continue doing claws on all digits (excepting the 'pinkie', of course). But there is every good reason for you to have just two, given the foregoing discussion.

I suppose it has to start somewhere. Perhaps this condition differ between species. As you can see the illustration on the Edmontosaurus (below); the surface of the central digit is quite smooth compare to say the picture from Hone's blog (from previous post). Also I just think that there is not much spacing between the tip of the finger (the central one, digit III) to the border of its hand sheath. This observation was made by Osborn (1912, see below) who's also at the time a palaeontologist. I'm merely looking at what is available. The very same observation was made for "Leonardo" on Murphy, Trexler and Thompson (2007) (also see below):

"...These epidermal impressions appear to show that the phalanges, or digits did not terminate in exposed nails or hoofs,... the integument was loose and drawn over the extremities of the phalanges, that there were nails or hoofs present which have been mechanically removed. This theory is not supported by the condition of the manus as presented..."(Osborn 1912)

"...The lattice structure grades into an integument trace that forms a mittenlike covering over the manus in a manner similar to that reported by Osborn (1912) for Edmontosaurus annectens..." (Murphy et al. 2007)

I'm not sure what kind of evidence that Scott has to support his view so perhaps there actually is a specimen that shows otherwise. I wonder if there is an unpublished specimen somewhere.



References
Murphy, Nate L.; Trexler, David; and Thompson, Mark (2006). ""Leonardo," a mummified Brachylophosaurus from the Judith River Formation". In Carpenter, Kenneth (ed.). Horns and Beaks: Ceratopsian and Ornithopod Dinosaurs. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. pp. 117–133.

Osborn, Henry Fairfield (1912). "Integument of the iguanodont dinosaur Trachodon". Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History 1: 33–54.

[wings]

I tried to make the chest go a bit smaller, but unfortunately it's impossible at this stage - a lot of the model just gets destroyed as a result and the mesh itself becomes this tangled mess of vertices and screwy geometry.

Now that you've shrunken the chest, the width of the hip has became a little too wide now, since if you observe the tracks like the silhouettes from the previous posts; the hand prints are placed wider than or almost to the outer edge of the footprints...

Of course, this is just an idea but it is probably too late (or too messy) to make the change anyway .

Just one last thing, I'm getting a feeling that they might have stood pigeon toed... If you have a look at their tracks, their back feet appear to be pointing "inward" (see below (the Amblydactylus or even the Caririchnium tracks) and previous post). Probably the toes are a tad skinny as well for a hadrosaur.

[Gorgonzola]

Funny you mention the hips, because after I made the chest thinner I thought it looked a bit...wide...on the back end.  Fortunately that can still be fixed, I believe.  The chest is much tougher just because of how the mesh is set up with those forearms.

The feet is actually a real easy thing for me to adjust, especially the pigeon toed stance. The stance can be adjusted quite easily in the posing.  I had a suspicion that I may have modeled the toes too thin, but a lack of reference made me hesitate on it. I tend to be wary of footprints, since who knows how much the mud/dirt deformed the actual footprint (I always think to how wet sand softens and distorts a footprint), but I could just be overthinking it.

Niroot, could you trouble me with what Scott Persons  told you about the hadrosaur manus?  I'd be very curious to know.

[Himmapaan]

Simply that there should be claws on the manus. From our exchange during my tweaking of my Hadrosaur Symposium piece:

Your Olorotitan has no forelimb claws, and it needs them. Hadrosaur hands are tricky and a lot of artists struggle with them. (Again, have a look at the attached image.)

He used the same image of the hand as the one on Dave Hone's blog (which is why I tend to go there when referring to this issue).

He didn't cite any papers or any other material, but then I don't suppose he thought it necessary at the time.

[wings]

He used the same image of the hand as the one on Dave Hone's blog (which is why I tend to go there when referring to this issue).

Probably it would be tricky to come to an agreement on this issue at this point in time, even though that we have Parasaurolophus's hand. I don't think we have any soft tissue found on the digits. While like I said earlier if we are simply looking at the pitted texture at the extremity of the digits (mainly the central one); it's not hard to think of them as bearing hoofs/claws. However, Edmontosaurus (http://dinosaurpalaeo.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/edmoant.jpg) also have digits similar to the one in Hone's (perhaps the expansion on the central digit is less developed than the one in Hone's) but the study on the soft tissue by Osborn on these animals suggests Edmontosaurus does not have any hoofs/claws at all on its hands.  Hopefully one day we are going to get some soft tissue of the animal.

But one thing that I'm certain is that the last comment on the three claws or less is wrong. Here is one example which I've mentioned on another post (http://www.scielo.br/pdf/aabc/v83n1/v83n1a15.pdf, Figure 4) and also this is mentioned on Mallison's blog (http://dinosaurpalaeo.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/more-of-urzeit-park/).

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I know I said it before, but thanks for posting this info guys, been awhile since we had some real dinosaur art discussions. I'm sure this will also help me in upcoming Para model.

[wings]

... I tend to be wary of footprints, since who knows how much the mud/dirt deformed the actual footprint (I always think to how wet sand softens and distorts a footprint), but I could just be overthinking it.

It is so true that it depends on the substrate that animal was in and not all footprints are of good qualities. But some of the well defined one could be very informative (http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/sites/imladris.bio.umass.edu.biology/files/gbi-images/IMG_3485.JPG, I know, I know, it's a theropod print but I suppose hadrosaurs' prints are harder to come by.). I'll try to look for some later.

[Gorgonzola]

Oh wow, that's an incredibly distinct footprint!  Color me impressed.

I also want to thank everyone who has chimed in with info (You especially, Wings.)  It definitely helps with making sure this stuff is right, instead of going at willy-nilly.  I've been soaking up all this info left and right.

So I tried to slim the hips down a bit and...oof, yeah, it didn't quite work out too well.  So I think I'm just going to move ahead with prepping the high-poly poses and getting this moving forward!  I'm still debating if I want to keep the claws or give him mitten forelimbs, since it seems up in the air (or at least still in heavy discussion.)

I'll be posting a shot of all the poses together, including two that I haven't shown yet - grazing and dustbath.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Wow indeed..you don't see well preserved tracks like that very often..is it a Coelophysis ?  I'd heard they had some really good ones for that species.

" Dustbath " sounds really interesting... lol

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Yay, cant wait to see the dustbath pose. Awesome !!!

[wings]

Here is a page on "ornithopod" footprints (http://oficina.cienciaviva.pt/~pw011/jazidas/icnotaxa_ornitopodes_cretacicos.html) though none of them are as well defined as the picture from my last post. But we can kind of see a general pattern on them that none of the digits are divided into segments corresponding to the phalanges (well none at all...) and one central pad which shows a rounded or a slightly indented impression at the back.

The picture from the last post could be a Grallator or Anchisauripus, I'm not too sure since I just found the picture but not the actual page on its description (like its local or the kind of fauna that this associated with...).