PNSO: New for 2022

[RobinGoodfellow]

@RobinGoodfellow while he was talking about Albertosaurus, he did not specifically said large predators. His point was vibrant color doesnt not mean unrealistic or childish,  and should be portrayed in media more.
Even if he was specific about large theropods, I mean
A) you can be bold-flashy and still camouflage, theres many animals that do that, such as tigers, though the patterns will be different for dinosaurs as grass was more rare in those times.
B) some theropods are so large and might had lived in open  environments with little cover,  and their prey was not blind. So it will be very hard or even pointless to camouflage.

Hello,

I wasn't talking about camouflage but flamboyant colors for very big animals ( especially predators).
And with "flamboyant" I mean colors like cyan, purple, extreme blue and vivid red and so on..

Tiger' pattern is for camouflage:



And tigers are medium sized animals.

For sure vibrant colors do not mean unrealistic (extant birds and lizards have them but they are relatively small creatures ).
But what about very big animals ? And very big predators ?

A flamboyant color scheme means that a creature need to be "over-exposed" to others eyes.
Colors in nature have meanings:  a poison animal, sexual dimorphism, courtship (and camouflage, of course).

Does a very big animal ( especially a giant predator) need a flamboyant color pattern ?
Is it plausible ?
Or is it just to easily sell a toy?

It does not mean that a giant animal has to be grey or monochromatic ( I'm not saying that).
But orange and cyan seem to be quite "extreme" (and not so realistic).

I'm still  believing in convergent evolution.

Regards.

[Leyster]

@RobinGoodfellow tigers are not a good comparison, anyway, because the mammals that are their usual prey lack receptors for those colours. So a tiger looks to a deer like the picture on the left.

We don't have a good comparison of how dinosaurs migh've been coloured sans for the few specimens preserving the melanosomes and modern land birds aren't a good comparison because they live in a world where mammals are their most common predators, so they have evolved to evade their vision like the tiger above. Birds see UV, too, so a lotof birds that are monochromatic for our vision are in fact a loto more colourful to their. Let's disprove another thing: land reptiles such as Komodo dragons and Galapagos tortoises are not a good comparison either, 'cause their modern pattern is often the result of inbreeding due to their limited population (we have prepared Komodos in museum picked when they were discovered and they have a more vibrant pattern than the modern ones).

[RobinGoodfellow]

I talked about tigers just because someone else did a comparison.
Even for me it's not related.

But my question is: could it be a reason because a more than 8 meters long predator need to "over-expose" his body with flamboyant colors like over-saturated cyan or similar ?

I'm watching some "Prehistoric Planet" video promo on Youtube.
I suppose the visual team behind a such expensive work did some research with real paleontologists before starting.
Prehistoric Planet' creatures are not monochromatic or greyish: they look colored and (maybe) "plausible" (of course, no one knows exactly how a long-gone creature may look like really) but I don't see any "extravaganza" on those color patterns (even if it's a TV show); we just see vibrant blue feathered dinosaurs running away from a predators at some point (but they look "normal" as birds-like animals..).

Maybe I'm wrong and they're wrong.
And this was real:




(..but I suppose that there are more commercial motivations behind these patterns )

_

[SenSx]

I think my favorite thing about this Acro is that it looks well fed and beefy when compared to almost every other Acro that I own.  Especially the spine.  A definite improvement over the "sail" of the Papo version.

I find the Rebor also has that "sail" effect sadly.
On top of its other issues: big scales (I don't mind that too much), big feet (that are not enough to make it stable anyway >< ) and overdone head.
But the Rebor has those vibrant colors I expect for an Acrocanthosaurus, that voluminus spine means "see how big and beautiful I look" to me.

So I'm still hesitant, waiting for the PNSO in hand pics, to see if the head is this elongated.
Of course waiting for the GR Toys, they will deliver as for the paint job, hope the rest of the sculpt will be good.

[JohannesB]

@JohannesB Based on the WIP posted, the GR Toys Acrocanthosaurus will easily beat this PNSO one in accuracy and will probably have a similar price, so if you're interested in getting an accurate Acrocanthosaurus instead of one that simply looks cool, you'd be better off with that one instead. The 2012 Safari Acrocanthosaurus is more accurate than this one as well.

Quite possibly it is too early to tell, but I don't find this GR-Toys version (or the Safari one, for that matter) much preferable over the PNSO Acrocanthosaurus. I'll wait a bit and see.

[Leyster]

I talked about tigers just because someone else did a comparison.
Even for me it's not related.

But my question is: could it be a reason because a more than 8 meters long predator need to "over-expose" his body with flamboyant colors like over-saturated cyan or similar ?

Actually a pattern like that, alternating two colours, can break the shiluette of the animal while standing in a shaded area. We often underestimate camouflage because we see these models against a monochromatic background, but ie. it happened to me to lose sight of the Prehistoric Kingdom Tyrannosaurus (the blue streaks skin) or the equally vibrant JFD Yangchuanosaurus in JWE when they were resting in the woods, so I can totally see Safari's Albertosaurus standing unmoving under a tree and being unnoticed. And they're more interesting than the costant overuse of brown.

[Lynx]

Followup since I was gone for the whole argument about the vibrant colors: Yes. Yes, large therapods could be vibrant. However, I never said ALL would be vibrant, just that they could be and the vibrant colors of the Alberto can be plausible.

Prehistoric Planet should also not be taken as an extreme source of information. We don't know what colors most dinosaurs had. Nor does the documentary give perfect examples, though I do appreciate how it isn't just greys and browns.

Edit: I don't mean Prehistoric Planet is inaccurate, just saying that they couldn't do much research on the actual colors

[Bread]

@JohannesB Based on the WIP posted, the GR Toys Acrocanthosaurus will easily beat this PNSO one in accuracy and will probably have a similar price, so if you're interested in getting an accurate Acrocanthosaurus instead of one that simply looks cool, you'd be better off with that one instead. The 2012 Safari Acrocanthosaurus is more accurate than this one as well.

Quite possibly it is too early to tell, but I don't find this GR-Toys version (or the Safari one, for that matter) much preferable over the PNSO Acrocanthosaurus. I'll wait a bit and see.

I think it's way too early to tell if it is more or less accurate. Their Tyrannosaurus seems to be taking steps back from their previous well made and accurate Carcharodontosaurus. Although they could easily go back to their past work and create accurate renditions.

Also, to add to the "vibrant colors on large predators" topic of this thread. I've always found GR Toys Carcharodontosaurus to be plausible. Its colors are somewhat vibrant but they also have the dark blend to the colorscheme making it seem almost lifelike.

I always found PNSO's constant browns and greens somewhat overdone, even if I like those colors portrayed. I would just like some more markings on the figures. Mainly the frill of ceratopsians and head of therapods to have a little more color.

[Darko2300]

I talked about tigers just because someone else did a comparison.
Even for me it's not related.

But my question is: could it be a reason because a more than 8 meters long predator need to "over-expose" his body with flamboyant colors like over-saturated cyan or similar ?

Actually a pattern like that, alternating two colours, can break the shiluette of the animal while standing in a shaded area. We often underestimate camouflage because we see these models against a monochromatic background, but ie. it happened to me to lose sight of the Prehistoric Kingdom Tyrannosaurus (the blue streaks skin) or the equally vibrant JFD Yangchuanosaurus in JWE when they were resting in the woods, so I can totally see Safari's Albertosaurus standing unmoving under a tree and being unnoticed. And they're more interesting than the costant overuse of brown.

The most frightening thing about this is that you're using a video game to illustrate your point instead of a nature documentary or actual personal experience. *sigh* This does not bode well for our species...

[Leyster]

The most frightening thing about this is that you're using a video game to illustrate your point instead of a nature documentary or actual personal experience. *sigh* This does not bode well for our species...

Well, yes but only because with a videogame I have a limited control over the animals and/or the setting, so I can experiment with things like that. I don't remember documentaries with both bold colours and similar scenes, if you mean cgi documentaries. If you mean modern animal documentaries, they're of little use, as I explained above. Sure, I might spend time and money to model a 3d dinosaur and its environment, or even build a life size statue and paint it, but why, expecially when game graphics have reach such a point at which I can do similar experiments with ease? Images like this illustrate quite well what I mean and I think the lightning is realistic enough to consider it an at least plausible simulation of how such a pattern would fare

[Stegotyranno420]

@RobinGoodfellow
Ah,I understand what you mean now by flamboyant colors.

Back to the tiger example, I'm not saying the exact pattern will work, but rather the principle. Even if they can see more colors than us, theres gotta be something that blends in. Tiger colors evolved into what blend the best according to prey, and those dinosaurs with similar strategies will probably had done the same.

Back to the Figure, does anyone know if it will be free shipping on Amazon?

[Shadowknight1]

I think my favorite thing about this Acro is that it looks well fed and beefy when compared to almost every other Acro that I own.  Especially the spine.  A definite improvement over the "sail" of the Papo version.

I find the Rebor also has that "sail" effect sadly.
On top of its other issues: big scales (I don't mind that too much), big feet (that are not enough to make it stable anyway >< ) and overdone head.
But the Rebor has those vibrant colors I expect for an Acrocanthosaurus, that voluminus spine means "see how big and beautiful I look" to me.

So I'm still hesitant, waiting for the PNSO in hand pics, to see if the head is this elongated.
Of course waiting for the GR Toys, they will deliver as for the paint job, hope the rest of the sculpt will be good.

I actually disagree on Rebor having a "sail".  It is clearly thicker than any sail would be and you cannot discern the individual vertebrae like you can in the Wild Safari and especially the Papo, even if it's not quite the muscled hump that we're seeing with PNSO's version.  That said, I do agree with your other criticisms of the Rebor, especially in light of some of their more recent offerings.  Having the Saurophaganax in hand made me see just how much Rebor has grown over time with much more reduced scales and, while still big, not so huge feet.

[Gwangi]

I dunno, I'm not terribly interested into getting in another debate in this thread but I think it's easy to criticize the practicality of something's color when it's against a white background. I could see that Safari Albertosaurus blending into a swampy or marshy habitat with that coloring and patterning. Maybe when I get the toy I'll play around with it in those type of environments and take some pictures.





In fact, the Albertosaurus paintjob kind of reminds me of a marsh with it's blending of those particular colors.


To illustrate my point. Take a look at the spotted turtle against a plain background and its own environment.

Doesn't look like it would blend into much of anything.


But good luck finding it on a dappled forest floor or in a tannin stained vernal pool.


Even here, the turtle is obvious with the shadow cast above it but without that shadow, and the light hitting on it, it would be virtually impossible to see. And before someone reminds me that Albertosaurus was larger than a spotted turtle let me remind you that its environment was also pretty large. 

[Concavenator]

So Dan's has a page up for Acro pre-orders, with a "placeholder" price of $59.99... I think I'll wait until the actual price is revealed.

Indeed: https://stores.dansdinosaurs.com/acrocanthosaurus-by-pnso/

I don't get why he is listing it at that price, the full price of the Acro is 42.99 USD. As to how I know the price if it hasn't been revealed yet, well, Paleofiguras said from 23rd - 27th of May it will have a 20% discount and will cost 34.39 USD. It's the same price range as other big figures in that range, such as Parasaurolophus, Tarbosaurus and such. And Dan is listing it 17 USD more expensive. He had the 2020 Essien for 59.99 USD until recently as well, when the official price of that figure as set by PNSO is 38.99 USD. Doesn't sound like a very good deal to me.

I like what PNSO have done in this case, applying a discount at a new figure's release. Gives you a clear reason to buy the figure at its release, and thereby receiving a figure with presumably better paintjob than later runs. Well done, I hope they keep doing that.

[GiganotosaurusFan]

@Faelrin Sorry, can't share link, but going to the instagram profile of PNSO, and checking between some of the pictures, you can visibly see a difference.

[stargatedalek]

But my question is: could it be a reason because a more than 8 meters long predator need to "over-expose" his body with flamboyant colors like over-saturated cyan or similar ?

Feels great being so completely ignored, love it, great feeling.

See; all of what I said before:

Spoiler

After seeing both promo images and in-hand images, I can say the colors look amazing. Just because something is vibrant doesn't mean it's childish or unrealistic. Lots of birds and reptiles have it. Normalize vibrant color schemes.

..sorry but are you saying that it's plausible for a very giant predator to have flamboyant random colors easily to be seen by everyone (= prey) before an ambush , even on a long distance.. ?

Yes, for a number of reasons.

Dinosaurs had much better vision than mammals, over a certain size you weren't going to be hiding unless you were actively camouflaged (ala wobbegong sharks or many insects). And large animals don't do that as it means they are restricted to hunting in very specific conditions, the largest are the aforementioned sharks.

Ambush hunting is only efficient for animals that can expend small amounts of energy. Lions and tigers are already pushing the size limits of ambush hunting, as they often live on relatively slim margins for food. Yes prey animals were a bit larger proportionally, but most large theropods were lacking adaptations for targeting prey larger than themselves.

Tyrannosaurus was the only serious exception to this and was relatively specialized for hunting adult Triceratops, with adaptations specific to running them down over a long period, hunting and tracking even by night, and snapping the neck by grabbing the frill. And even Tyrannosaurus was in no position to so much as sneeze at a full sized Edmontosaurus let alone if it ever encountered Alamosaurus.

Most of the largest herbivores were essentially invulnerable, and most of the mid sized ones were slow. Nothing was hunting adult sauropods, and most hadrosaurs were much larger than the predators they lived alongside. Due to their massive clutches however, ecosystems would have been flooded with baby dinosaurs, sauropods in particular. This is why we see evidence for what seem to be sauropod hunting features in theropods a 30th the size of the sauropods they coexisted with, there were enough young, slow, sauropods for them to eat. Add to this thyreophorans which had most of the mid sized herbivore niches locked tight, and there really wasn't that much in terms of prey that was actually all that fast.

We don't see cases of any large theropods built for quick bursts of speed, instead we see brawlers and an awful lot of pursuit predators, far more than we see in modern ecosystems.

[close]

We can in fact tell from their fossils the vague methods in which dinosaurs hunted, and the largest ambush predator was Utahraptor. And even it was not particularly specialized like its smaller relatives were. Large dinosaur predators had no need for camouflage, it simply wasn't relevant to them, at all. We see evidence for this in the predators themselves and in the makeup of their ecosystems.

[RobinGoodfellow]

I dunno, I'm not terribly interested into getting in another debate in this thread but I think it's easy to criticize the practicality of something's color when it's against a white background. I could see that Safari Albertosaurus blending into a swampy or marshy habitat with that coloring and patterning. Maybe when I get the toy I'll play around with it in those type of environments and take some pictures.

Same feelings.
So let's back on topic.
 

[stargatedalek]

I dunno, I'm not terribly interested into getting in another debate in this thread but I think it's easy to criticize the practicality of something's color when it's against a white background. I could see that Safari Albertosaurus blending into a swampy or marshy habitat with that coloring and patterning. Maybe when I get the toy I'll play around with it in those type of environments and take some pictures.

Same feelings.
So back on topic.
 

Normally I'd let that go, but you continued debating other people until I gave a bunch of provable examples, then suddenly you "don't want to get dragged into a debate". No, you're just choosing to ignore things you don't like and don't have a counterargument against.

I can't make you respond to my points, but if you're going to continue the same discussion in regards to other people while deliberately avoiding responding to my examples specifically, I'm going to keep bringing them up so other people can see them.

[Sim]

1. The PNSO Acrocanthosaurus might still have the first finger claw as the largest on each hand, the angle might be decieving.

Based on what we have seen so far, no, it doesn't have the enlarged claw. The claws are fairly long, but they appear to be the same length. Maybe it's another case in which some copies have the enlarged claw and others don't, like the Allosaurus, but based on what has been shown so far, that statement can't be confirmed. Of course, we haven't seen in hand pics, I imagine that will answer all of our questions and maybe prove us wrong, but we should be objective with what has been shown so far.

It doesn't appear to have the enlarged claw, but as I said it might still have it with the angle being deceiving.  I was just presenting the possibility, I'm not sure why you felt the need to reply to that as you did.

2. The Eofauna Giganotosaurus is not great when it comes to accuracy.  I'm tired of saying why, long story short the head is messed up.

That and the lack of the enlarged claw are its only inaccuracies. The PNSO Carcharodontosaurus also has the wrong skull and lacks the enlarged claw (same problems) yet you don't mention those. This PNSO Acrocanthosaurus'  head (again, based on what's been shown so far) is also messed up. Actually, even more, because not only the head appears to be too elongated (wrong shape), it's also too big (plus the tail may be too short).

Actually the Eofauna Giganotosaurus has another, bizarre, inaccuracy: the first toe is placed too high up.  I noticed this when Eofauna started teasing this figure and focused on its feet.  It's not quite true that besides the toe inaccuracy the PNSO Carcha has the same problems as the Eofauna Giga because there are two things wrong with the Giga's head: 1. it uses an outdated reconstruction and 2. it shrinks the bones down.  The PNSO Carcha only uses an outdated reconstruction.  In any case I don't see why I should have mentioned inaccuracies of the PNSO Carcharodontosaurus.

But the Eofauna Giganotosaurus is inferior to many PNSO figures in terms of detail (why does it have lines over the antorbital fenestra?), colouration and accuracy.

Saying it's inferior in colouration is purely subjective. I have the Eofauna Giganotosaurus and I can see why it's said its paint app is on the weaker side, but I still consider it superior in this aspect to my PNSO Borealopelta, the PNSO Lambeosaurus and of course is far better than this PNSO Spinosaurus:

Funny you say the Eofauna Giga being inferior in colouration is subjective but then say it's far better than this PNSO Spino because I would say that last opinion is subjective - I find the Spino's colouration superior.  I'm surprised you find the Giga's colouration superior to the PNSO Lambeo's, that is subjective.  But your reply makes it sound like I said the Giga's colouration is inferior to all PNSO models, which I didn't say.  I said it's inferior to many PNSO models.  You only listed three PNSO models you think the Giga is superior to, do you really think there aren't many PNSO models with better colourations than the Eofauna Giga?


With regards to the Eofauna Giga's detail, thinking about it now I no longer think it's inferior to many PNSO figures in this area.

When it comes to accuracy, the Eofauna Giganotosaurus is definitely more accurate than many PNSO figures. If you say the Eofauna Giganotosaurus is inferior in accuracy to many PNSO figures, you should be able to back that statement up. What about these?

The Eofauna Giga is definitely not more accurate compared to many PNSO figures.  As mentioned above the Eofauna Giga has four inaccuracies, while the PNSO figures you listed tend to have one or two inaccuracies.  So that's many PNSO figures more accurate than the Eofauna Giga.

1. The PNSO Microraptor having a feather crest, when we know it didn't have one.

2. The PNSO Carcharodontosaurus having an outdated skull and lacking the enlarged claw.

3. The PNSO Acrocanthosaurus (as of now) having wrong proportions, lacking the enlarged claw and having a too elongated skull.

4. Literally all their theropods (except for the Microraptor and baby Tyrannosaurus) and ornithischians (except the baby Sinoceratops) released in 2020 (12 figures) as well as the first 2 releases of 2021 (Carnotaurus and Pinacosaurus) having oversized scales, and therefore, inaccurate skin texture.

5. All their hadrosaurids prior to the new Tsintaosaurus lacking the thicker neck reconstruction proposed by Filippo Bertozzo, as well as having too spindly forelimbs.

6. These proportion issues mentioned by @Halichoeres , plus also the Yutyrannus, in this case the head being too small.

But they do often have parts that are outsized, like the too-small Tsintaosaurus head, the too-long Eurhinosaurus tail, and the overhyped but, yes, mildly oversized Corythosaurus head.

7. The Tylosaurus lacking the toothless prow on its rostrum, when it's one of, if not the most defining feature of this particular mosasaurid.

8. The Ankylosaurus having an arched tail when it should be stiff. The Ankylosaurus name means "stiff lizard".

9. For learning about the PNSO Helicorpion inaccuracies, read @Halichoeres ' fantastic review of it. He's infinitely more versed on fish than I am.

10. The Carnotaurus having possibly outdated proportions, legs too long (plus the already mentioned scale size issue).

11. The Pachycephalosaurus should have a bulkier tail and wider hips (watch DinosDragons' review, minute 8:55 and forward).

12. The Kronosaurus having a wrong tail design.

13. The Torvosaurus having head crests.

14. The Tuojiangosaurus having outdated proportions.

15. The Spinosaurus being quadrupedal, when it most likely wasn't.

And I'm not even including older PNSO figures, but also worth mentioning are the Amargasaurus missing the single first neck spine, and the Spinosaurus having a misplaced thumb finger.

Thoughts I have in addition to what I said previously - that most of these have only one or two inaccuracies and so the Eofauna Giga is less accurate than them:

1. The PNSO Microraptor is one of their worst figures.  In addition to the inaccurate feather crest, it's tail fan and lack of alula are inaccurate, and its feathers are arranged too randomly, lacking enough of a pattern.

2. It's pointless to say the PNSO Acrocanthosaurus has inaccuracies, as it's not released and as people have said the camera could be distorting it.

3. The 2020 PNSO Lambeosaurus, Corythosaurus, Atopodentatus and Spinosaurus don't appear to have oversized scales to me.  Even if they did they still have less inaccuracies than the Eofauna Giga.

4. The PNSO Tylo lacking the toothless protrusion of its jaws is bizarre, a prototype of it even appeared to have it!

5. The tail bend of the PNSO Ankylo seems to be within possibility, ankylosaurid tail club handles were stiff but they weren't always straight, there was curvature in some instances.  For example the tail handle in Getawytrike's Ankylosaurus skeletal has some downwards curvature.

6. There is nothing wrong with Torvosaurus having head crests as far as I know.

7. I dislike the idea of a quadrupedal Spinosaurus, but I acknowledge that it isn't known if it was or wasn't.  For example Andrea Cau suggested that a Spinosaurus finger bone was typical of a quadrupedal animal.  He reconstructed it as a bipedal tripod though.

8. What's wrong with the older PNSO Spino's thumb?

I know I probably come off as an obnoxious pedant for pointing these out, but they're there. Some of these are minor and wouldn't be deal breakers to me, but I still pointed them out to proof that this statement

But the Eofauna Giganotosaurus is inferior to many PNSO figures in [...]  accuracy.

is false.

As I've established, the Eofauna Giga is inferior to many PNSO figures in terms of accuracy, and you helped show that by listing many PNSO figures with less inaccuracies than the Eofauna Giga.

In regards to groups I would like to see represented from them, definitely more small and/ or feathered dinosaurs. I would love some dromaeosaurids (they're my favorite family of dinosaurs), like Halszkaraptor, Zhenyuanlong or Buitreraptor. But PNSO isn't the only company that focuses on the same groups as ever. For instance, CollectA haven't released another dromaeosaurid aside from the Microraptor in recent years, and apparently they only released that one because it was a comission from a museum, which means they wouldn't have otherwise made it.

CollectA hasn't released a dromaeosaurid other than Microraptor since 2011!  I find CollectA's insistence to keep representing certain dinosaur groups and to ignore others disappointing.  I wonder who at CollectA has been responsible for that.

[Abobo]

the listing for the Acrocanthosaurus on the PNSO store (Aliexpress) :

https://fr.aliexpress.com/item/1005004210420548.html?spm=a2g0o.productlist.0.0.572d41e0HUN9ZH&algo_pvid=7bb4480a-f95d-4727-85e1-441158b81e18&algo_exp_id=7bb4480a-f95d-4727-85e1-441158b81e18-1&pdp_ext_f=%7B%22sku_id%22%3A%2212000028510609776%22%7D&pdp_npi=2%40dis%21EUR%21%2150.89%21%21%21%21%21%402100bde716526442905777774eb88d%2112000028510609776%21sea