Blade-of-the-Moon's Art

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Wow, the raptor looks great! The eye makes it look alive. Are you going to add feathers?

Thanks , the taxidermy eyes are a big help there.  Yeah, probably ones made from vinyl like the Struthiomimus has since this guy is going outdoors.

[wings]

The antorbital opening (the opening in front of the eye socket) should be slightly "bulged out". Whether this area houses sinus (Witmer 1997) or the jaw closing muscles (Molnar 2008); these studies indicate that the area in question is occupied and bulged out (Bakker 1986; Paul 1986) rather than forming a depression on the surface when fleshed out.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

It's not in very far..just the bone ridge above it makes it look deeper I think.  I had also read something posted recently where it said they could be sunk in completely..I just opted for a middle ground.

[Patrx]

Wow, the raptor looks great! The eye makes it look alive. Are you going to add feathers?

Thanks , the taxidermy eyes are a big help there.  Yeah, probably ones made from vinyl like the Struthiomimus has since this guy is going outdoors.

It is looking promising! I hope your plan for the animation works out, that'd be really cool! One thing to keep in mind when adding feathers to the face is that they probably covered everything but the tip of the snout, apparently.

[wings]

It's not in very far..just the bone ridge above it makes it look deeper I think.  I had also read something posted recently where it said they could be sunk in completely..I just opted for a middle ground.

The "ridge" above the opening isn't really that thick as seen in figures 1, 2, 3 and 5 (figure 1 is from this link http://www.oldearth.org/curriculum/dinosaur/Velociraptor_skull.jpg). The distance between the antorbital fossa (in red on figure 1) and the elements of the mouth roof (in green in figure 1) isn't that deep. This can be seen in figures 2, 4 and 5 (though these skulls are distorted but the width of the skull hasn't change too drastically). Considering the thickness of the skin and the depth of the depression you've added to the skull; to me it almost like the skin is touching the mouth roof elements which implies this area is kind of "hollow out". If that is the middle ground then it would be hard to imagine when you have the depression sunk in completely... 

Do you mind telling me where did you get your references from (...I had also read something posted recently where it said they could be sunk in completely...)? I've never seen this study before and I'm interested to know.

BTW it's kind of odd that you would choose that skull sculpture to model over and have problem with the Tyrannosaurus skull prototype... 

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

The thickness of the ridge is a completely artistic choice, it looked good in art I had seen so I went with it. No telling just what ridges, scales, scutes, ect..looked like on these..just look at modern birds. The skulls almost never show some of the really odd skin elements. It's certainly not touching the roof of the mouth I can say. 

I probably read the same thing you did..no idea where it was though now..maybe another member can shed some light there ?

I don't understand.  This piece is supposed to be accurate, 1:1 scale ( though it's smaller than another Velociraptor skull I have. This one is 7 and half inches long the other is closer to 9 ) and it was pretty cheap.  The only problems I had was it did not match up to the diagram I was using which I consider to be the basis for my piece, even if it was off only a bit.  My other issue is I did not have it in hand to look at personally. I was trying to procure a more accurate version but I had to wait for restock on it.  Of course ideally a life size skull even a skeleton is the best to work from...but that's pretty much impossible in most cases.

[wings]

The thickness of the ridge is a completely artistic choice, it looked good in art I had seen so I went with it. No telling just what ridges, scales, scutes, ect..looked like on these..just look at modern birds. The skulls almost never show some of the really odd skin elements. It's certainly not touching the roof of the mouth I can say. 

I probably read the same thing you did..no idea where it was though now..maybe another member can shed some light there ?

I don't understand.  This piece is supposed to be accurate, 1:1 scale ( though it's smaller than another Velociraptor skull I have. This one is 7 and half inches long the other is closer to 9 ) and it was pretty cheap.  The only problems I had was it did not match up to the diagram I was using which I consider to be the basis for my piece, even if it was off only a bit.  My other issue is I did not have it in hand to look at personally. I was trying to procure a more accurate version but I had to wait for restock on it.  Of course ideally a life size skull even a skeleton is the best to work from...but that's pretty much impossible in most cases.

As for the "ridges"; I was referring to the surface indicated by the arrows (red and white arrows on image below):



I'm not concern with the shape or size of the lacrimal horns or what they should look like? You must have misunderstood what I said.

If you did read the same articles that I've mentioned (similar to this study http://www.oucom.ohiou.edu/dbms-witmer/allosaurus_mechanics.htm , the green area in the video labelled "antorbital air sinus") then I just don't see the reasoning of why you would have created such a depression.

As for the shape of the actual skull; you can find it in this paper (http://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app44/app44-189.pdf) there is no need for me to get into the details. The skull that you've used does remind me of this (http://www.bhigr.com/store/product.php?productid=196 ) and if it is then the skull is sculpted based on scientific literature rather than cast off any original materials... In this case being 1:1 doesn't imply it's accurate  .  One very noticeable different is the unusual "kink" on the skull roof slightly after the eye sockets which was never existed on any of the fossilized materials.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Okay, maybe I did.

I didn't say I read everything you did..I just said we must have read that same article on having them sunken in, but I don't recall either where it was.

A " kink " ? Looks pretty good to me, other than being a little smaller I believe. Mine came from here : http://www.prehistoricstore.com/item.php?item=609 I also went by Scott Hartman's new skeletal : http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2013/069/d/e/speedy_plunderer_by_scotthartman-d5xl8sl.jpg

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Ankylosaurus happy and healthy in the Park :



He's also eating well :

[wings]

I probably read the same thing you did..no idea where it was though now..maybe another member can shed some light there ?

Okay, maybe I did.

I didn't say I read everything you did..I just said we must have read that same article on having them sunken in, but I don't recall either where it was.

A " kink " ? Looks pretty good to me, other than being a little smaller I believe. Mine came from here : http://www.prehistoricstore.com/item.php?item=609 I also went by Scott Hartman's new skeletal : http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2013/069/d/e/speedy_plunderer_by_scotthartman-d5xl8sl.jpg

Did you not make the above comment (see highlighted text)? So I assume that if you didn't read all of them you would have at least read some of them and none of them talks about having the area sunken in...



more examples





There are more differences but I think you can check back to the paper.

I still don't get how you gauge your standard though...

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Geez..you said here that you read the article somewhere on the sunken in area :

Do you mind telling me where did you get your references from (...I had also read something posted recently where it said they could be sunk in completely...)? I've never seen this study before and I'm interested to know.

I just said I must have seen the same article but I can't recall where it was mentioned either.  I never said I've read EVERYTHING you have. Oy vey. 

The little bump or ridge ? Eh, it's not a problem. When covered with " skin " you can't even tell it.

My standard ? Not sure, but my process is  first I find the most current skeletal diagram I can, then I do searches for skeleton photos that looks right, add fleshed out images from various popular artists for inspiration, then if at all possible I look for a 3D model to work from and get more of an idea where 2D fails.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Here's a pic from yesterday showing the body frame and motor in the Velociraptor :



It's only a prototype so things may charge..but I hope it works !

[wings]

The "bump" was pointed out because you did not see it (that is why you said it looks good to you). Perhaps it's just me seeing it even with the skin over it. If that is your reasoning (...Eh, it's not a problem. When covered with " skin " you can't even tell it...) then I don't see why the accuracy of the tyrannosaurus skull is so important... It is just like you would question about one skull's (tyrannosaurus) accuracy but not another (velociraptor); There are elements that aren't about personal taste and it's wrong but you would choose to ignore; and that is the only reason I would question your standard.

As in regard to the shape of the skull; the biggest problem is not the "bump" but it the shape/width of the snout... which I would expect you to see it from the link I sent earlier. The first two skulls are form the paper whereas the the third (right) is very similar to what you have.



more examples

I just said I must have seen the same article but I can't recall where it was mentioned either.  I never said I've read EVERYTHING you have. Oy vey. 

Did you see the previous comment at all? All I said is that I would assume that you must have read "at least some" of them because you said "...I probably read the same thing you did...".   

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

It depends if I can see identify it and see the issue in the final piece. My problem mainly is that any issues need to sorted out before a project started, when a piece like this is so far along it can't be changed like with a 2D drawing or a computer model. What's done is set in stone as it were. The time to post helpful feedback is when I mention a  project or show the early stages of it.  Sometimes like all good artists and scientists I make a judgment call, especially if I can't find something I need.

The third to the right skull is from Witmer's collection right ? That one looks more accurate to me, the others shown on his page seemed to suffer too much from compression which made them look too " flat " and thin but then those are casts from actual fossils which makes sense they look like that.

Did you see the previous comment at all? All I said is that I would assume that you must have read "at least some" of them because you said "...I probably read the same thing you did...".   

I did. I think we're going to have to chalk this one up to a communication error. Your not getting what I'm saying and I don't think I'm understanding the issue here from your point.  All I know is that is sounded like we both saw some mention of the possibility the dinosaurs had the sunken in area around the face. I agreed we had. You said it you didn't know where you saw it and I said I didn't recall either.  No problem there.  Then you asked if I had read what you did I would know better, siting some articles about how the sunken idea was incorrect, I admitted to never having read those particular articles..only the one regarding the sunken area as correct.   Now I had read an article before saying to fill the area out, even to the point of making it invisible in the past, however the article I saw saying there was some dip there was more recent, I just can't recall where I saw it. If that doesn't explain it, let's just drop it.

[wings]

It depends if I can see identify it and see the issue in the final piece. My problem mainly is that any issues need to sorted out before a project started, when a piece like this is so far along it can't be changed like with a 2D drawing or a computer model. What's done is set in stone as it were. The time to post helpful feedback is when I mention a  project or show the early stages of it.  Sometimes like all good artists and scientists I make a judgment call, especially if I can't find something I need.

The third to the right skull is from Witmer's collection right ? That one looks more accurate to me, the others shown on his page seemed to suffer too much from compression which made them look too " flat " and thin but then those are casts from actual fossils which makes sense they look like that.

Unfortunately I don't check up on this site everyday... and yes the third skull is from Witmer's (which is a sculpture). However, that one is incorrect since we do have enough of the palate to roughly reconstruct the mouth roof of the animal, which also allow for an estimate the base of the skull and the width of the snout. If you take a look at figure 2a from the paper you would also notice that yes the skull is compressed on the side but not so much (since the back of the skull isn't really that distorted apart from the jaw/mandibles) and I highly doubt that the front end (snout, unlike the lower jaw the inside of the snout was supported by the palate) would be compressed too much more than the back.

Making judgement call is fine but it's just the double standard that I find odd.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Alright, just don't be upset when I can't fix everything is all I'm saying.

Eh, I'm still not 100% convinced..I guess looking at the brightside it's not naked and 6' tall right ?

There is no double standard really, what works in one case may not work in the other is all. You can use a can opener to open a variety of cans but it doesn't help when applied to a bottle.  If you can provide me with absolute , 100% accurate fossil replicas to work from then you will get exactly that fleshed out. if not which is usually the case, I make do with what I have and I'm as accurate as I can be.

[wings]

Alright, just don't be upset when I can't fix everything is all I'm saying.

Eh, I'm still not 100% convinced..I guess looking at the brightside it's not naked and 6' tall right ?

There is no double standard really, what works in one case may not work in the other is all. You can use a can opener to open a variety of cans but it doesn't help when applied to a bottle.  If you can provide me with absolute , 100% accurate fossil replicas to work from then you will get exactly that fleshed out. if not which is usually the case, I make do with what I have and I'm as accurate as I can be.

To blame it on the model is just unfortunate. You are the modeller and you should be able to modify and correct distortion of it to as close to the actual animal as possible. That is where the scientific literature comes in (in this case, not too hard to find either). To think that a sculpture is more accurate than a CT scan print out is just absurd (and that is what I was referring to as double standard, you are happy with the sculpture (Velociraptor) while question about a CT scan print out ("Stan")). I don't see how your "can opener" example would apply to this. If that is how you think of this (...Eh, it's not a problem. When covered with " skin " you can't even tell it...) then there is no point in being accurate to begin with. I guess that's the kind of cans that you are after (more about personal preference rather than true to the form).

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Alright, just don't be upset when I can't fix everything is all I'm saying.

Eh, I'm still not 100% convinced..I guess looking at the brightside it's not naked and 6' tall right ?

There is no double standard really, what works in one case may not work in the other is all. You can use a can opener to open a variety of cans but it doesn't help when applied to a bottle.  If you can provide me with absolute , 100% accurate fossil replicas to work from then you will get exactly that fleshed out. if not which is usually the case, I make do with what I have and I'm as accurate as I can be.

To blame it on the model is just unfortunate. You are the modeller and you should be able to modify and correct distortion of it to as close to the actual animal as possible. That is where the scientific literature comes in (in this case, not too hard to find either). To think that a sculpture is more accurate than a CT scan print out is just absurd (and that is what I was referring to as double standard, you are happy with the sculpture (Velociraptor) while question about a CT scan print out ("Stan")). I don't see how your "can opener" example would apply to this. If that is how you think of this (...Eh, it's not a problem. When covered with " skin " you can't even tell it...) then there is no point in being accurate to begin with. I guess that's the kind of cans that you are after (more about personal preference rather than true to the form).

I really don't see why everything must everything turn into an argument with you ? I'm not looking to argue here at all.

I'm starting to feel quite insulted really. I don't see you creating anything like this myself, when you do then we'll discuss it.  I don't mind " help " but this isn't helping it's hindering at this point.  So it's my fault that a piece advertised as accurate isn't by your research ?  It's further my fault that having no previous knowledge of this research I soldiered on and applied time and money to it. It's again my fault that these materials aren't as easy to " fix " as erasing a line here or there, once used ? That's it and they cost money.

It's not like anyone can tell you any dinosaur is 100% like THIS..it's impossible. You can make guesses and that's about it. Even your CT scans are of fossil material, not real bone.   Now f you prefer to simply wrap your bones in skin that's fine too..there's no art or love in it by my estimation, but if it's what you want you can do it. I've admitted to being completely self taught, I do what I can with what I've learned.   I've never asked but it seems a pretty high horse on which you ride.  What exactly are your credentials ? It's hard to lend merit to someone's opinion you know nothing about as far as I'm concerned. You do seem to be quick at researching the articles but I really don't know much else about you other than a tendency toward being argumentative.

It's up to you whether you choose to continue " helping " me or not, but I'm not answering anymore of these flammable posts.  This kind of arguing just kills my creativity that I try so hard to foster and keep up. I won't do it. 

[wings]

Yes, I don't create sculptures (I honestly don't have the interest, the patience or the skill to make them) . However, there is no reason for not being able to make comparison by looking at articles, specimen photos, cast of the specimen or even the actual specimen in order to make sounded judgement calls. This is just like if you are not a cook, and under normal circumstances you would still be able to tell when the food has gone bad. I don't need to know how to cook but all I need to know is the taste and smell (even the look). In this case, looking at someone else sculptures all you need to do is being observant (I don't think I would really need to know how to build them).

To be fair, even if a piece is advertised as genuine I would still like to suss it out first (this is not an argument but that's something that I would try to do).

I never said it was your fault but rather thinking why you would query on certain elements but not the other.

Perhaps one point or another I've said this that I have no credential at all and that is why I mainly use someone else'(more established) studies to present ideas. I only point out what seems to me being obvious like forms and structures. If I'm on such a high horse then I would present my thoughts with no backing materials. Most of these aren't my personal opinions at all but rather based on others researches and evaluations. I never ask anyone to lend merit to myself and all I did is making the viewers of what resources are out there just in case if they weren't aware of them. Hmmm... come to think of it; why was my credential even be an issue when mainly what I've presented are works from other researchers? 

Just to clarify, with CT scan prototype; accuracy wise we are referring to the dimension of the elements being reproduce (as this method does retain the ratio of the scanned elements) but not replicating the actual material as the original object.  I honest don't see why you would think that we need the actual material to build an accurately dimensioned model. Lastly I didn't say the line about skin on bone; that was actually paraphrasing one of your earlier comment...

The little bump or ridge ? Eh, it's not a problem. When covered with " skin " you can't even tell it.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Yes, I don't create sculptures (I honestly don't have the interest, the patience or the skill to make them) . However, there is no reason for not being able to make comparison by looking at articles, specimen photos, cast of the specimen or even the actual specimen in order to make sounded judgement calls. This is just like if you are not a cook, and under normal circumstances you would still be able to tell when the food has gone bad. I don't need to know how to cook but all I need to know is the taste and smell (even the look). In this case, looking at someone else sculptures all you need to do is being observant (I don't think I would really need to know how to build them).

You can compare and research all you want you will still end up with differing views , concepts and ideas about size, shape and look and in the end applying that to something three dimensional is different. The tools and materials behave in ways you can't control all the time. I'm acutely aware of this. Sometimes the look of food can seem disgusting, even the smell or taste but that doesn't mean it's bad. It's personal taste.

I never said it was your fault but rather thinking why you would query on certain elements but not the other.

This earlier comment sounds a lot like finger pointing :

To blame it on the model is just unfortunate. You are the modeller and you should be able to modify and correct distortion of it to as close to the actual animal as possible.

Especially as I explained above there are so many chaotic and unknown factors to deal with. I'm still learning with each piece I create, pushing blame like that is like slapping the hand of the kid who missed the problem in school.

Perhaps one point or another I've said this that I have no credential at all and that is why I mainly use someone else'(more established) studies to present ideas. I only point out what seems to me being obvious like forms and structures.

Never said anything here that I could find, perhaps an introductory thread is in order ?   Obvious to some may not be obvious to others. To me it's obvious T-Rex was a hunter and a scavenger, to others it's one or the other. Drawing conclusions and forming opinions is a personal matter. There is always going to be this paper or that article saying the opposite of what you think is correct.

If I'm on such a high horse then I would present my thoughts with no backing materials. Most of these aren't my personal opinions at all but rather based on others researches and evaluations. I never ask anyone to lend merit to myself and all I did is making the viewers of what resources are out there just in case if they weren't aware of them. Hmmm... come to think of it; why was my credential even be an issue when mainly what I've presented are works from other researchers? 

It's an issue because it let's others know how you've interpreted the data. Would you take the advice of a paleontologist or grade school teacher ? Stating something as fact when it's only a theory or an idea is a problem. I always thought everything about dinosaurs was pretty much concrete..but it's not at all. If it has a bump on it's skull maybe it was hit on head.. If all your doing is re-posting others papers and articles then present both sides..they're certainly out there.

Just to clarify, with CT scan prototype; accuracy wise we are referring to the dimension of the elements being reproduce (as this method does retain the ratio of the scanned elements) but not replicating the actual material as the original object.  I honest don't see why you would think that we need the actual material to build an accurately dimensioned model.

It doesn't matter . Your scanning a crushed and damaged rock, not a living animal's skull so some elements are going to be put back with guess work..especially since we don't have a living specimen to compare with. If you restore a fleshed out version based on the scan alone it will look a bit odd I'd wager.  Never said it was needed, but it would be the best way to go about it and be as accurate as possible to the material your using. But even then if the skull or whatever was restored exactly it wouldn't come out perfect.

Lastly I didn't say the line about skin on bone; that was actually paraphrasing one of your earlier comment...

The little bump or ridge ? Eh, it's not a problem. When covered with " skin " you can't even tell it.

I know that. I'm saying if you only follow the skeleton you miss some of the artistry in the final piece. Adding bumps, scales, scutes, dewlaps, even bone where it's missing or damaged is art. Following only the bone can be as incorrect as not.

If the Velociraptor skull sculpture there is so incorrect and no chance it's right.. then why keep it in a scientific collection ? Note that according to some there are tons of incorrect pieces in museums everywhere as well. It all depends on your views. I'm still catching flak on the Ankylosaurus's width even though I did follow a paper.