PNSO 2016 releases

[stargatedalek]

They might as well rename the 1/20 figures "The Ely Kish Tribute Line". Some of those are dead ringers for Kish paintings, what with those bones sticking out all over the place.

Any of those minis 1/40-ish scale?

Most are either much smaller or much larger (assuming these are all the same general size as the baby dinosaurs), but I think Kentrosaurus and Proceratosaurus should be close to 1:40th.

Great thoughts stargatedalek. I agree that the shrinkwrapped models from the first one were offputting; this is why I only got the Huanghetitan, Mandschurosaurus, and Shantungosaurus.

The latest models definitely seem to be a step up in terms of consistent accuracy. From what I can tell (the angle of the stock photos make this a bit difficult) the Chungkingosaurus' thagomizer isn't too far off. The last pair of spikes is more horizontal than the others which matches the literature. I wonder if the smaller stegosaurs may have had thagomizers oriented more vertically than Stegosaurus, the largest of the stegosaurians. I can imagine Chungkingosaurus using more vertical spikes to get all stabby in the face of an approaching Yangchuanosaurus if need be.

I hadn't actually thought of their relative sizes. I always picture how flexible Stegosaurus tail was but the smaller animals (especially those with more spines) may not have needed to be so aggressive in the first place.

[tanystropheus]

Forget Rebor, PNSO is the rising star of 2016

Meh.Some models are indeed awesome,but others are pretty bad in that matter.The Tyrannosaurus and Lufengosaurus come to mind.Though the Chungkingosaurus,Huanghetita and Nyctosaurus are great.

Say what you want about the PNSO Tyrannosaurus but at least it looks original, unlike the "Jurassic Park" ripoff inspired T. rex by Rebor.

That's probably what I like best about this line thus far, how unique they are. And in a scale typically reserved for very small animals or model kits! Perfect for someone like me who mostly focuses on modern animals, unless I'm displaying them next to rorquals there really isn't much for modern fauna in the typical dinosaur scales.

Forget Rebor, PNSO is the rising star of 2016

Meh.Some models are indeed awesome,but others are pretty bad in that matter.The Tyrannosaurus and Lufengosaurus come to mind.Though the Chungkingosaurus,Huanghetita and Nyctosaurus are great.

The Lufengosaurus seems to get a lot of hate. I think it is a wonderful model that stands out quite a bit in PNSO's original set. It looks goofy in a charming way (the same way Gekkos look goofy, not that it is supposed to emulate a Gekko or anything), and the pose is one-of-a-kind. It's easily as interesting as the Yangchuanosaurus model by Safari Ltd. for the Dinosaurs of China series. 

the Mamenchisaurus is probably going to be regarded as the new 'Holy Grail' by collectors. Hopefully, they announce a 1/20 PVC version before someone makes an impulse buy.

All their core models are excellent, imo. Some of the minis have questionable (CollectA style, sometimes Kinto) paint jobs (e.g.Ouranosaurus, Wuerhosaurus comes to mind)

I'm still not really sold on the idea of Basilosaurus as a snake whale instead of, well a whale, to me it feels like a remnant from a bygone age when it was thought of as a reptile. Admittedly the little change in the size of the vertebrae along the back does indicate it was doing something unusual with its movement, so by no means am I saying the snake whale is implausible, just seems a tad bit wishful as if deliberately trying to make it more unusual than it needs to be. Similarly the hind flippers need not be quite so pronounced as they are here, they were already long vestigial by this point. Hopefully I will never need to utter these words again but; I wish it was more like the ARK: Survival Evolved version. https://hydra-media.cursecdn.com/ark.gamepedia.com/5/5a/Basilosaurus_Dossier.jpg

When I first saw the picture of the Basilosaurus, it reminded me of one of those long-snouted dolphins, something like an Amazon River Dolphin...for some reason or another, the image of the snake didn't come to mind. The hind flippers also don't seem to bother me all that much. I think it looks about right judging from the available paleoart.

[The Atroxious]

Unpopular opinion here, but I actually like shrink-wrapping. It makes the dinosaurs seem more elegant and beautiful than the pudgy, dumpy look that's popular nowadays. I like my wild animals to look lean and mean rather than like some pampered house pet. Admittedly PNSO does take it a bit far at times, such as when you can see every vertebra through the skin, but I don't think it detracts too much from the whole. I don't think shrink-wrapping is that unrealistic within reason either. Even in wild elephants, which are massive, bulky animals with thick skin, you can usually see bony protrusions of the pelvis and spine underneath. They have loose, wrinkly skin on other parts of their bodies, but where the skin lies fairly close, they too look a bit shrink-wrapped.

[Flaffy]

Mammals are not a good comparison to dinosaurs.

[RobinGoodfellow]

Mammals are not a good comparison to dinosaurs.

I'm in the same idea with The Atroxious.
Actually big mammals are the only possible comparison to huge dinosaurs.
And even big reptiles (like the Komodo Dragon) are quite skinny (and they are not close relative to dinosaurs..).
What's the idea of a pro paleontologist about that?

[Silvanusaurus]

Whether an elephant is a mammal or not, if you shrink-wrapped it's skeleton in the same way a lot of dinosaurs have been depicted, it wouldn't look like an elephant any more, it would look horrifying, as I imagine would many similarly depicted dinosaurs. Theres a big difference between the kind of shrink-wrapping employed in dinosaur art, and simply being able to make out some of the bone structures under the flesh.
I get that 'shrink-wrapping' can be a stylistic choice, but so is covering dinosaurs in unnecessary and ridiculous amounts of spikes and protrusions, and it's such styles that contribute to the perception of dinosaurs as extra-ordinarily monstrous creatures, not to mention being incredibly unimaginative.

[The Atroxious]

Mammals are not a good comparison to dinosaurs.

I wholeheartedly concur, but when you consider birds, they're even more shrink-wrapped than mammals. I don't know if you've ever held a bird, but underneath the feathers they're as bony as you can get, and except for the breast and legs, they feel like latex gloves stretched over so many twigs. I mentioned elephants in an attempt to be conservative about the potential boniness of a dinosaur. The Euhelopus isn't too far off from the shrink-wrapping that occurs on modern birds today. This is also partially why I prefer shrink-wrapped dinosaurs to the fleshy ones: it gives them a birdlike vibe, which visually ties them in with their avian lineage.

I get that 'shrink-wrapping' can be a stylistic choice, but so is covering dinosaurs in unnecessary and ridiculous amounts of spikes and protrusions, and it's such styles that contribute to the perception of dinosaurs as extra-ordinarily monstrous creatures, not to mention being incredibly unimaginative.

Incidentally, I also like the look of spiky dinosaurs. That's one reason I like therizinosaurs so much. Giant, blade like claws, and at least one genus had long quills bristling out of its feathers.

[Silvanusaurus]

Mammals are not a good comparison to dinosaurs.

I wholeheartedly concur, but when you consider birds, they're even more shrink-wrapped than mammals. I don't know if you've ever held a bird, but underneath the feathers they're as bony as you can get, and except for the breast and legs, they feel like latex gloves stretched over so many twigs. I mentioned elephants in an attempt to be conservative about the potential boniness of a dinosaur. The Euhelopus isn't too far off from the shrink-wrapping that occurs on modern birds today. This is also partially why I prefer shrink-wrapped dinosaurs to the fleshy ones: it gives them a birdlike vibe, which visually ties them in with their avian lineage.

It doesn't make any sense to use a modern bird as anything but a very nebulous point of comparison for a sauropod... one wouldn't look to the anatomy of a bat to help reconstruct a prehistoric elephant.

[DinoLord]

This is a great discussion on shrink-wrapping, but perhaps it would be more appropriate in the existing thread. 

For what it's worth I do think it's important to consider the size of the animal being considered. With naked birds, a quail looks much 'skinnier' than a chicken, which looks skinnier than a duck, which looks skinnier than an ostrich.

[ItsTwentyBelow]

PNSO sure is grabbing my attention lately, especially since they are all available on Amazon for decent prices now. Makes them a bit more accessible. I might have to get that Shantungosaurus at some point since it's close to 1:40 scale. That new Basilosaurus looks great too.

These new mini figures are also well-sculpted and there is already great species diversity. My favorites are those ichthyosaurs. I'd love a 1:40 version of that Himalayasaurus.

[pylraster]

That's a very rough shark.

[Silvanusaurus]

I'm selling off a couple of high-value pieces in my non-dinosaur collection in aid of getting one or two of these... just can't blooming resist, they're such imposing and unique looking figures.

[Silvanusaurus]

That's a very rough shark.

Yeah, he'll surely rough you up if you look at him the wrong way. 

[Sim]

The response of a fish's skin to turbulent flow can sometimes be difficult to understand. The placoid scales of sharks create tiny vortices that shield the surface of the body from interaction with water flowing smoothly, at a slightly greater distance, around the body. Rough textures can be surprisingly hydrodynamic (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8571218, which is open access at least in the US, but I don't know about elsewhere--PM me your email address if you want the pdf). That said, I think these figures are covered with grooves mostly to make them look more "detailed."

Only the abstract of the paper you linked to was available for me to read, but it was very interesting and informative!  Though, just how visible would these rough textures that are hydrodynamically advantageous be at the scales these figures are made in?  Photos of different extant sharks made the same size as the megalodon figure don't show them to be almost entirely covered in conspicuous grooves like the megalodon figure.  The skin detail on the megalodon figure looks like it's exaggerated to me.

[Silvanusaurus]

I think the exaggerated texture on the Megalodon has been used to create the illusion of a large scale animal in miniature, it does work for me in an aesthetically 'cool' way, but I guess it doesn't make much sense.

[The Atroxious]

This is a great discussion on shrink-wrapping, but perhaps it would be more appropriate in the existing thread. 

For what it's worth I do think it's important to consider the size of the animal being considered. With naked birds, a quail looks much 'skinnier' than a chicken, which looks skinnier than a duck, which looks skinnier than an ostrich.

Not to completely derail this discussion, but to be fair, that ostrich is seen at an angle where the most muscular part of its body is the focus. As it is, you can still see the bird's trachea through the skin. From other angles however, ostriches look rather bony too, as here:

You can also see ostrich anatomy quite well in the following image, but BE WARNED! This image is somewhat graphic, as it shows dead ostriches in a slaughterhouse. Click at your own discretion: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/03/01/09/3196DE1200000578-3465802-The_ostriches_are_plucked_after_which_their_valuable_skin_is_rem-a-14_1456823069565.jpg

Also, I don't think ducks are a great example, since they are particulrly fatty birds. I believe they'd be better compared to other semi-aquatic animals that float instead of diving or swimming underwater. But I digress.

[stargatedalek]

It's already been suggested we take this elsewhere, but perhaps if we're going to remain so specific to this line we should take it at least to the main PNSO thread?

Those ostriches are still not nearly as shrink-wrapped as these dinosaurs. Yes you can see the trachea and the leg muscles, but you can't make out individual vertebrae or ribs. In addition ostriches are very lithe animals in general, they have a very long neck and their hind limbs need to be especially mobile for running.

As for ducks I think they're probably among the best comparisons we actually have, at least for large dinosaurs. Most of our modern flightless birds are actually very specialized, they run fast and have long and (perhaps more crucially) highly mobile necks. Large waterfowl such as geese don't fly except for traveling, they walk at a moderate but respectable pace, and the only specialization they have that affects their appearance and movement is their webbed feet. Large ducks and geese are as close to a "vanilla dinosaur" as we can get.

[The Atroxious]

It's already been suggested we take this elsewhere, but perhaps if we're going to remain so specific to this line we should take it at least to the main PNSO thread?

Those ostriches are still not nearly as shrink-wrapped as these dinosaurs. Yes you can see the trachea and the leg muscles, but you can't make out individual vertebrae or ribs. In addition ostriches are very lithe animals in general, they have a very long neck and their hind limbs need to be especially mobile for running.

As for ducks I think they're probably among the best comparisons we actually have, at least for large dinosaurs. Most of our modern flightless birds are actually very specialized, they run fast and have long and (perhaps more crucially) highly mobile necks. Large waterfowl such as geese don't fly except for traveling, they walk at a moderate but respectable pace, and the only specialization they have that affects their appearance and movement is their webbed feet. Large ducks and geese are as close to a "vanilla dinosaur" as we can get.

As far as I can see, the Lufengosaurus is the only one whose vertebrae are visible through the skin. In the image behind the link, the ribs are in fact visible because neither the legs nor the wings are obscuring them. In fact, if you remove the fur or feathers from most animals, the ribs will be visible if the limbs are stretched out, as depicted in the Euhelopus.

Still, even though ducks and other anseriformes are the closest known living relatives to non-avian dinosaurs, they are waterfowl designed specifically to stay afloat while swimming. Unless we're talking about Spinosaurus, I'd argue that ground fowl are a better analogy, seeing that there's really no evidence that any non-avian dinosaur besides Spinosaurus had any adaptations for swimming.

[Bokisaurus]

Beautiful models! I just got these guys from Amazon

I was really impressed by the figures and by how quickly they arrived! I was expecting maybe 3 weeks, but I got them in one week and a half!
I can't wait for the new batch of minis to arrive!
Although they say the minis are 3" , they are a lot smaller, at least the first wave of babies. They are more around the size of Kaiyodos.
The booklets that came with the figures, both the babies set and large figures, are beautiful, love the artworks, too bad the text are all in Chinese.

[DinoLord]

The minis' packaging makes it look like they are intended for wider distribution in retail stores, etc. If this line had come out 10 years ago I would have loved finding these figures on my family visits to China. I wonder if the rest of the minis will also have booklets and stories to go with them.

Regarding the bird comparison, I just happened to bring up birds I've eaten and or butchered. But the discussion of soft tissue analogues would be most productive in the thread I linked to earlier.