REBOR 1:35 Tyrannosaurus rex museum class replica official photos updated!

[tanystropheus]

We discuss this before, and the answer is "you have to hold rebor model in your hands to find the answer" because someone who hold the figure will know the reality of rebor model shape itself

What is it about "holding it in your hands" that makes it so different than looking at a picture? Photos don't lie.

You have 3D visual, photo is 2D.

Unless you have difficulty in perceiving depth, I'd say the difference is negligible.

And here is another example (another angle) in addition to the 2 links I've posted on the last page:

https://picasaweb.google.com/VikingSpawn/TYRANNOSAURUSREXKINGTREX#6160374316115960306

Again, what direction are the Rex' eyes facing?

[Dinoguy2]

We discuss this before, and the answer is "you have to hold rebor model in your hands to find the answer" because someone who hold the figure will know the reality of rebor model shape itself

What is it about "holding it in your hands" that makes it so different than looking at a picture? Photos don't lie.

On the contrary, photos do lie, indeed.

Binocular Vision of REBOR T-rex :Definitive Photographic Proof

https://picasaweb.google.com/VikingSpawn/TYRANNOSAURUSREXKINGTREX#6160374591801550706

https://picasaweb.google.com/VikingSpawn/TYRANNOSAURUSREXKINGTREX#6160374653539008418

What direction is the T-rex' eyes facing in the above photos?

Maybe at a slight forward angle, but see pics above for how they should be. All I really see is the pupil facing forward, which was impossible, and all it would see in that direction is the side of its nose without forward facing eye sockets.

[tanystropheus]

We discuss this before, and the answer is "you have to hold rebor model in your hands to find the answer" because someone who hold the figure will know the reality of rebor model shape itself

What is it about "holding it in your hands" that makes it so different than looking at a picture? Photos don't lie.

On the contrary, photos do lie, indeed.

Binocular Vision of REBOR T-rex :Definitive Photographic Proof

https://picasaweb.google.com/VikingSpawn/TYRANNOSAURUSREXKINGTREX#6160374591801550706

https://picasaweb.google.com/VikingSpawn/TYRANNOSAURUSREXKINGTREX#6160374653539008418

What direction is the T-rex' eyes facing in the above photos?

Maybe at a slight forward angle, but see pics above for how they should be.

It is binocular vision. The ridges over the eyes casts a strong shadow in a lot of photos. And yes, you have to hold it an at an angle, because the "angry eyebrows" obscures the iris.

[Simon]

Cue music: "One of these things is different than the other, one of these things is clearly wrong:"




All clear now?

[Dinoguy2]

We discuss this before, and the answer is "you have to hold rebor model in your hands to find the answer" because someone who hold the figure will know the reality of rebor model shape itself

What is it about "holding it in your hands" that makes it so different than looking at a picture? Photos don't lie.

On the contrary, photos do lie, indeed.

Binocular Vision of REBOR T-rex :Definitive Photographic Proof

https://picasaweb.google.com/VikingSpawn/TYRANNOSAURUSREXKINGTREX#6160374591801550706

https://picasaweb.google.com/VikingSpawn/TYRANNOSAURUSREXKINGTREX#6160374653539008418

What direction is the T-rex' eyes facing in the above photos?

Maybe at a slight forward angle, but see pics above for how they should be.

It is binocular vision. The ridges over the eyes casts a strong shadow in a lot of photos.

It's nothing to do with shadows. If you look at it nose on and don't see the eye sockets facing directly towards you off to the sides of the snout it's not the kind of binocular vision T. rex had.

[tanystropheus]

Cue music: "One of these things is different than the other, one of these things is clearly wrong:"




All clear now?

So, you are the saying that the T-rex does not have binocular vision in the photo, here:

https://picasaweb.google.com/VikingSpawn/TYRANNOSAURUSREXKINGTREX#6160374591801550706

Okay, if you say so 

[Dinoguy2]

Cue music: "One of these things is different than the other, one of these things is clearly wrong:"




All clear now?

So, you are the saying that the T-rex does not have binocular vision in the photo, here:

https://picasaweb.google.com/VikingSpawn/TYRANNOSAURUSREXKINGTREX#6160374591801550706

Okay, if you say so 

That photo is in side view, so it's impossible to tell. The pupil facing forward is not binocular vision. Even sheep can do that (though, again, dinosaurs can't. The pupil was held in the center at all times by the sclerotic ring with only a little wiggle room).

This pic shows the difference between binocular and non binocular. Which looks more like Rebor, from the front, where it counts?

[Simon]

Ummm ... Tanystropheus ... the link you keep posting is showing the SIDE of the TRex head.  You might want to go change that.

The HEAD-ON photo clearly shows NO "binocular vision", in fact if an animal looked like that, you could be standing directly in front of it and it wouldn't see you.

"Binocular vision" means "stereoscopic vision" which means overlapping fields of vision between the two eyes.  An animal such as the one sculpted would be like a Triceratops - it would see sideways, but have no overlapping "3D" or "binocular vision"....

bin·oc·u·lar vi·sion
noun
noun: binocular vision

vision using two eyes with overlapping fields of view, allowing good perception of depth.

[Tyrannosauron]

Let's keep two things in perspective if this is going to get carried on much longer.

First: a lot of this debate trades on standards of accuracy that clearly aren't shared. I can see two operative definitions of "accurate" in play: meaning "recognizable to a reasonable observer as the reconstructed animal" or meaning "measured to statistical significance." (The new flare-up resulted from an equivocation of the two; more on that below.) Regarding the second definition: unless someone has done some quantitative work that they aren't sharing, it's fair to say that there are parts of the model that look like they're "off" from actual specimens, and enough so that we should expect statistical significance. Regarding the first definition: yes, Stan Winston has influenced how the public sees T. rex, but it's also true that no reasonable observer would have looked at his model back in 1993 and asked, "what the heck is that?"

Second: this latest round got started by the claim that if you cheat with statistics then the model would be an accurate reconstruction of a phenotypic mutant. Is that really the argument anyone wants to have?

[Simon]

You know, I finally figured out what's been bothering me about that head-on photo of the "King TRex" - it looks a little like the eye-less "Alien" from the movie of the same name ...

[Simon]

Let's keep two things in perspective if this is going to get carried on much longer.

First: a lot of this debate trades on standards of accuracy that clearly aren't shared. I can see two operative definitions of "accurate" in play: meaning "recognizable to a reasonable observer as the reconstructed animal" or meaning "measured to statistical significance." (The new flare-up resulted from an equivocation of the two; more on that below.) Regarding the second definition: unless someone has done some quantitative work that they aren't sharing, it's fair to say that there are parts of the model that look like they're "off" from actual specimens, and enough so that we should expect statistical significance. Regarding the first definition: yes, Stan Winston has influenced how the public sees T. rex, but it's also true that no reasonable observer would have looked at his model back in 1993 and asked, "what the heck is that?"

Second: this latest round got started by the claim that if you cheat with statistics then the model would be an accurate reconstruction of a phenotypic mutant. Is that really the argument anyone wants to have?

OK, I'll play.  The "King TRex" is CLEARLY recognizable as a "TRex" from the side of the head, but NOT recognizable as a "TRex" from the front of the head.  So then its accuracy quotient appears to be ... 50%? 

[tanystropheus]

Ummm...the link you keep posting is showing the SIDE of the TRex head.  You might want to go change that.

The HEAD-ON photo clearly shows NO "binocular vision", in fact if an animal looked like that, you could be standing directly in front of it and it wouldn't see you.

"Binocular vision" means "stereoscopic vision" which means overlapping fields of vision between the two eyes.  An animal such as the one sculpted would be like a Triceratops - it would see sideways, but have no overlapping "3D" or "binocular vision"....

bin·oc·u·lar vi·sion
noun
noun: binocular vision

vision using two eyes with overlapping fields of view, allowing good perception of depth.

I understand what you are saying (I am from a healthcare profession, after all ). However, if you shaved off the angry eyebrows, the REBOR T-rex would have eyes that resemble the first photo posted by Dinoguy2

[Dinoguy2]

Let's keep two things in perspective if this is going to get carried on much longer.

First: a lot of this debate trades on standards of accuracy that clearly aren't shared. I can see two operative definitions of "accurate" in play: meaning "recognizable to a reasonable observer as the reconstructed animal" or meaning "measured to statistical significance." (The new flare-up resulted from an equivocation of the two; more on that below.) Regarding the second definition: unless someone has done some quantitative work that they aren't sharing, it's fair to say that there are parts of the model that look like they're "off" from actual specimens, and enough so that we should expect statistical significance. Regarding the first definition: yes, Stan Winston has influenced how the public sees T. rex, but it's also true that no reasonable observer would have looked at his model back in 1993 and asked, "what the heck is that?"

Second: this latest round got started by the claim that if you cheat with statistics then the model would be an accurate reconstruction of a phenotypic mutant. Is that really the argument anyone wants to have?

Yes. If you say the model is of a certain animal it should have the key features that make that animal different from similar animals. A model of a lion that has a mane and tan color but also stripes is no longer a tiger. A model of a T. rex with a wide square snout and eye horns is no longer a T. rex.

The fact that the public tecognizes this animal as a T. rex doesn't make it one, it just makes this a piece of pop culture art rather than paleoart, which, again, is fine, but people seem to be trying to tell others this is actually accurate (see binocular vision stuff above) which it is obviously not.

[Simon]

Yes. If you say the model is of a certain animal it should have the key features that make that animal different from similar animals. A model of a lion that has a mane and tan color but also stripes is no longer a tiger. A model of a T. rex with a wide square snout and eye horns is no longer a T. rex.

BINGO.

[Dinoguy2]

Ummm...the link you keep posting is showing the SIDE of the TRex head.  You might want to go change that.

The HEAD-ON photo clearly shows NO "binocular vision", in fact if an animal looked like that, you could be standing directly in front of it and it wouldn't see you.

"Binocular vision" means "stereoscopic vision" which means overlapping fields of vision between the two eyes.  An animal such as the one sculpted would be like a Triceratops - it would see sideways, but have no overlapping "3D" or "binocular vision"....

bin·oc·u·lar vi·sion
noun
noun: binocular vision

vision using two eyes with overlapping fields of view, allowing good perception of depth.

I understand what you are saying (I am from a healthcare profession, after all ). However, if you shaved off the angry eyebrows, the REBOR T-rex would have eyes that resemble the first photo posted by Dinoguy2

I'm not sure you're seeing what I'm trying to show. Look at the T. rex vs. Allosaurus photo I posted above. The Rebor figure has basically flat sides on its face. A real T. rex has a back part of the skull that is twice as wide as the front, allowing the eye sockets to point forward.

[tanystropheus]

Ummm...the link you keep posting is showing the SIDE of the TRex head.  You might want to go change that.

The HEAD-ON photo clearly shows NO "binocular vision", in fact if an animal looked like that, you could be standing directly in front of it and it wouldn't see you.

"Binocular vision" means "stereoscopic vision" which means overlapping fields of vision between the two eyes.  An animal such as the one sculpted would be like a Triceratops - it would see sideways, but have no overlapping "3D" or "binocular vision"....

bin·oc·u·lar vi·sion
noun
noun: binocular vision

vision using two eyes with overlapping fields of view, allowing good perception of depth.

I understand what you are saying (I am from a healthcare profession, after all ). However, if you shaved off the angry eyebrows, the REBOR T-rex would have eyes that resemble the first photo posted by Dinoguy2

I'm not sure you're seeing what I'm trying to show. Look at the T. rex vs. Allosaurus photo I posted above. The Rebor figure has basically flat sides on its face. A real T. rex has a back part of the skull that is twice as wide as the front, allowing the eye sockets to point forward.

My personal REBOR T-rex is 'forward-seeing'. If someone could mod their model to not include the 'angry eyebrows'...that would certainly resolve this debate.

[Simon]

My personal REBOR T-rex is 'forward-seeing'. If someone could mod their model to not include the 'angry eyebrows'...that would certainly resolve this debate.

No, it wouldn't, because the head would still be too wide in the front, as dinoguy2 pointed out above ...

[Arul]

My personal trex is forward-seeing too, as i said we have to hold the figure in our hands hehehe

[tanystropheus]

My personal REBOR T-rex is 'forward-seeing'. If someone could mod their model to not include the 'angry eyebrows'...that would certainly resolve this debate.

No, it wouldn't, because the head would still be too wide in the front, as dinoguy2 pointed out above ...

Yes, that would make the head metrics wrong, but it will not affect the orientation of vision. It will appear 'forward-seeing' without being altogether obscured by the bony protuberances above (and in front of) the eyes. You guys are overlapping apples and oranges...

[stargatedalek]

For the love of god please let this be the last time but forward facing eyes =/= binocular vision! Its eyes are both looking forwards sure, but the snout is so wide that with or without the angry eyebrows the lines of sight would not meet meaning it can not have binocular vision. Imagine if your nose was a foot long and the entire width of your head, you wouldn't have binocular vision either. It's not about forward facing eyes.