Detail or accuracy?

[Concavenator]

I was going to create a thread about this, but I found this old one, so there was no point in doing that.

So then again-what do you prefer? Detail or accuracy? ( You can only choose one  )
6 years later, my pick is still accuracy.I appreciate the work behind researching and studying  to create an accurate representation of a dinosaur so people can change their perception about dinosaurs, from being scary monsters , to a more realistic one,that is, to portrait,them as simple animals, exactly like today's.

That comment from C @comandantedavid nailed it.That's the reason why actually, Carnegie, Battat and Eofauna ( which are similar in the way they give detail, adding wrinkles and very subtle scaling ) have  better detail than Papo.Papo has better texturing and you could say they have a more lifelike appearance, though that's subjective.

The Papo Allosaurus, Apatosaurus and Dimetrodon are stunners, credit where due is due.But I noticed a rather subtle detail that is somehow significant.They're re-releasing their Allosaurus as a repaint, but that sculpt is 11 years old now.And I don't think it necessarily needed a resculpt, it's fairly accurate (although still having several flaws).But the most evident one is the pronated hands one.They could perfectly have fixed that with its upcoming release ( and that's the most glaring one) .So,after 11 years, there's absolutely nothing to improve?

Take a look at the old CollectA Deluxe Baryonyx, that thing looked pretty bad,right?Now, 11 years after, take a look at their 2019 Baryonyx. That is  an improvement attitude.And that's one of the main reasons of their great progress ( this also applies to Safari as they have improved a lot since the days they were overshadowed by the Canegie Collection) .Doug is doing a great job.

[stargatedalek]

I don't prioritize either of these, but rather overall design. Some designs warrant taking liberties with accuracy, especially if they commit fully to that, and others feel like they are being inaccurate solely for the purpose of mass market appeal.

An otherwise accurate sculpt is probably going to look bad with massive texture, but a sculpt that commits to being inaccurate, and uses that texture in interesting ways to accentuate those features might look quite impressive.

These also aren't mutually exclusive. Something can be accurate and detailed if it's in a small scale, and something can be inaccurate for reasons besides scaling the texture larger than it should be on the animal.

[Syndicate Bias]

I was going to create a thread about this, but I found this old one, so there was no point in doing that.

So then again-what do you prefer? Detail or accuracy? ( You can only choose one  )
6 years later, my pick is still accuracy.I appreciate the work behind researching and studying  to create an accurate representation of a dinosaur so people can change their perception about dinosaurs, from being scary monsters , to a more realistic one,that is, to portrait,them as simple animals, exactly like today's.

That comment from C @comandantedavid nailed it.That's the reason why actually, Carnegie, Battat and Eofauna ( which are similar in the way they give detail, adding wrinkles and very subtle scaling ) have  better detail than Papo.Papo has better texturing and you could say they have a more lifelike appearance, though that's subjective.

The Papo Allosaurus, Apatosaurus and Dimetrodon are stunners, credit where due is due.But I noticed a rather subtle detail that is somehow significant.They're re-releasing their Allosaurus as a repaint, but that sculpt is 11 years old now.And I don't think it necessarily needed a resculpt, it's fairly accurate (although still having several flaws).But the most evident one is the pronated hands one.They could perfectly have fixed that with its upcoming release ( and that's the most glaring one) .So,after 11 years, there's absolutely nothing to improve?

Take a look at the old CollectA Deluxe Baryonyx, that thing looked pretty bad,right?Now, 11 years after, take a look at their 2019 Baryonyx. That is  an improvement attitude.And that's one of the main reasons of their great progress ( this also applies to Safari as they have improved a lot since the days they were overshadowed by the Canegie Collection) .Doug is doing a great job.

Papo does have the more lifelike dinosaurs, that's not subjective. Eofauna has made an amazing Giganotosaurus but in terms of the overall figure it's clearly more of a toy than lifelike. Look at papo's newest models like their spino with resin kits. Pretty lifelike to me if you want honesty.  Now Rebor is another story because of their stamped scales and such

[Derek.McManus]

Are the two mutually exclusive? After all how accurate can you be about animals that vanished millions of years ago?  However based on physical remains it should be possible to be detailed.

[Jose S.M.]

I prioritize accuracy but I do look for reasonably detailed figures. Collecta and Safari are my go to mainstream companies these days as I think they have sculpts that range from good to beautifully detailed.
I know that other companies prioritize textures, stilization and paintjobs rather than accuracy and are superior in that respects to Safari, battat or collecta and that's great because those companies have customers that search for that precisely.

[ITdactyl]

Can't believe I missed this thread.

I wanted to vote detail, my sentiments being swayed by my recent interest in the Paposaurs - but on checking my current collection, 95% are of the "conservatively accurate but lacking details" variety.

[Ravonium]

Most of my figures are in the category of 'not necessarily hyper-detailed, but reasonably accurate', so I picked accuracy.

[Shonisaurus]

I choose the precision of a dinosaur and if it can be based on the latest scientific findings much better. I like super-detailed prehistoric animals such as Nanmu Studio but I like more figures that approach the real creature examples, Safari, Collecta, Favorite or PNSO for putting four examples.

[John]

Accuracy automatically includes the proper detail by nature.

[Shonisaurus]

@John Unfortunately the answer you give is true. The question is honestly a little misleading because without the detail a figure can not be exact. Agree with you.

[Concavenator]

Accuracy automatically includes the proper detail by nature.

Exactly.Though most people don't understand that, they believe that just because a figure has more texture to it they're more detailed whereas it's the complete opposite.

[Faelrin]

I feel like Safari Ltd is at a good standard right now with their figures having both accuracy and detail. One does not have to compromise one for the other. But I do still like some Papo models for example (I still don't have any yet, but soon enough), like their Allosaurus, even if it has some things wrong with it, etc, and they have been getting a little better in some areas. I guess it just depends on what I like more (usually comes down to color scheme, maybe pose, etc), and what I can afford when it comes down to getting a figure.

[Halichoeres]

I make fun of Papo sometimes, but on balance I think their contribution to the toy market has been positive. Compared to what other companies were putting out when they started making dinosaurs in earnest (2004-2005 or thereabouts), there really wasn't anything to compare with the production values. In particular, the paint application--at least on initial runs--was and probably still is the best around. Other companies have really upped their game in response, but those companies (e.g., CollectA, Safari, even Schleich) have also gotten more accurate (Schleich is a frequent exception). Papo has gotten a little more accurate too, but in a really uneven way--the JP compy came out two years after their first feathered dinosaur. In short, I think Papo has made other companies better, and has, I think, inspired additional companies to enter the market. And most years they have at least one really inspired piece (I'd say it's the Spino this year, which is one of the 2 or 3 nicest versions of the quadrupedal reconstruction). But in the end I usually prefer accuracy to detail, especially since, as has been pointed out, the detail is often extraneous to the point of making it less accurate. I'm pretty tolerant of scales that are too big but at least give an impression of the roughly correct texture, but there are other liberties that Papo takes that I find less pleasant to look at.

Anyway, I don't think being a collector requires that you be an expert in anatomy or paleontology. Sometimes hobbies are more fun when you're something of an amateur. But this is a peculiar hobby in that it tends to inspire people (or at least me) to read up more on the animals depicted, which eventually makes you something a little more than amateur. This tendency has gradually diminished the number of Papo figures in my collection.

[Delisaurus Steven]

While I love a high level of accuracy overall, detail is where it's at for me. I just see the inaccuracies as a representation of what the general scientific consensus was at one time or another.

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

Papo does have the more lifelike dinosaurs, that's not subjective. Eofauna has made an amazing Giganotosaurus but in terms of the overall figure it's clearly more of a toy than lifelike. Look at papo's newest models like their spino with resin kits. Pretty lifelike to me if you want honesty.  Now Rebor is another story because of their stamped scales and such

I strongly disagree with the bolded statement. I can't see many Papo dinosaurs as lifelike because to do that I'd have to see them as an animal (or plant etc), and between the unnatural impractical poses, glaring inaccuracies and monstrous features, I can't see many Papo figures as lifelike creatures, just monsters, (some very beautifully sculpted monsters to be sure, but not lifelike animals).

[Shonisaurus]

I prefer, as I mentioned, the scientific precision, although I do not have any prejudice in buying figures of non-scientific dinosaurs provided they are well detailed, example Nanmu Studio. 

[Halichoeres]

I think lifelike and accurate can be different things. Fantasy art by people by Julie Bell or James Gurney is anything but realistic, but the luminosity and attention to detail make their work very lifelike. I think it is fair to call Papo's figures, however inaccurate, pretty lifelike in general. But I also think that's a subjective appraisal.

[Syndicate Bias]

Papo does have the more lifelike dinosaurs, that's not subjective. Eofauna has made an amazing Giganotosaurus but in terms of the overall figure it's clearly more of a toy than lifelike. Look at papo's newest models like their spino with resin kits. Pretty lifelike to me if you want honesty.  Now Rebor is another story because of their stamped scales and such

I strongly disagree with the bolded statement. I can't see many Papo dinosaurs as lifelike because to do that I'd have to see them as an animal (or plant etc), and between the unnatural impractical poses, glaring inaccuracies and monstrous features, I can't see many Papo figures as lifelike creatures, just monsters, (some very beautifully sculpted monsters to be sure, but not lifelike animals).

Read what Hali said.

Also can you explain to me what you mean by monster? I see this being thrown around easily and would like to know what you mean.

[Patrx]

I mean, it's definitely subjective. Approximately everything is 

[stargatedalek]

Papo does have the more lifelike dinosaurs, that's not subjective. Eofauna has made an amazing Giganotosaurus but in terms of the overall figure it's clearly more of a toy than lifelike. Look at papo's newest models like their spino with resin kits. Pretty lifelike to me if you want honesty.  Now Rebor is another story because of their stamped scales and such

I strongly disagree with the bolded statement. I can't see many Papo dinosaurs as lifelike because to do that I'd have to see them as an animal (or plant etc), and between the unnatural impractical poses, glaring inaccuracies and monstrous features, I can't see many Papo figures as lifelike creatures, just monsters, (some very beautifully sculpted monsters to be sure, but not lifelike animals).

Read what Hali said.

Also can you explain to me what you mean by monster? I see this being thrown around easily and would like to know what you mean.

I think lifelike and accurate can be different things. Fantasy art by people by Julie Bell or James Gurney is anything but realistic, but the luminosity and attention to detail make their work very lifelike. I think it is fair to call Papo's figures, however inaccurate, pretty lifelike in general. But I also think that's a subjective appraisal.

Read what Hali said.