1: You cannot even see that in that picture, way too blurry. 2: Still doesn’t match up. If the second Mapusaurus is 13.36 m and the first one 12.23 m, that makes it 9% bigger than the first one, whereas if the Triceratops is 3 m vs 2.7 m (irrespective of whether they are actually scaled that way in the comparison) that makes is 11% bigger. So scaled at 1.11 vs 1.09 respectively, a 1.7% difference. But the real difference as of your scaling is 3.9%. Of course if it were actually possible to measure the distance you describe consistently in the figures, that would make explaining this to you easier. 3: Yes, I am fully aware of the problem, I think I was the one to point it out to you. The question is, why do you make them this way then?
So, wait, is it the screenshot's fault that they are so small or did the images you scaled have a poor resolution to begin with? The former is hard to believe and the latter contradicts your wording.
Neither. When I directly zoom in on my document the resolution gets very poor and the functions hard to use, so I screenshot with no zooming in, upload, reshoot (which is less blurry than the former method), and re-upload.
That sounds like the pictures you used were small to begin with which is exactly what I meant by having poor resolution.
1: You cannot even see that in that picture, way too blurry. 2: Still doesn’t match up. If the second Mapusaurus is 13.36 m and the first one 12.23 m, that makes it 9% bigger than the first one, whereas if the Triceratops is 3 m vs 2.7 m (irrespective of whether they are actually scaled that way in the comparison) that makes is 11% bigger. So scaled at 1.11 vs 1.09 respectively, a 1.7% difference. But the real difference as of your scaling is 3.9%. Of course if it were actually possible to measure the distance you describe consistently in the figures, that would make explaining this to you easier. 3: Yes, I am fully aware of the problem, I think I was the one to point it out to you. The question is, why do you make them this way then?
1: You can - however, it's very hard to see even in the best resolution images. Along the scapula, look for a very small point where it looks like a rib is just starting. 2: Maybe I ought to post different comparisons separately then, to avoid confusion. 3: Creature, this is your answer as well as theropods: The images are often too large so I need to shrink them at which point they get blurry
1: No you cannot. I know what a rib looks like. But all that can be seen in the picture you posted is blur.
There’s no way that could have been measured accurately. You still haven’t told me up to were exactly you measured btw. Top of spine? Top of soft tissue? Margin of scapula?
2: I’m not confused, I was only saying that you might be confused by how I had to put it, because there is no other way to do it. Assuming the first two pictures are scaled correctly (no way to confirm that) as to your 2.7 m shoulder height figure, then the second set of pictures cannot possibly be scaled correctly.
3: Yes, if you shrink images they get blurry. Do you know what the solution to this problem is?
1: No you cannot. I know what a rib looks like. But all that can be seen in the picture you posted is blur.
There’s no way that could have been measured accurately. You still haven’t told me up to were exactly you measured btw. Top of spine? Top of soft tissue? Margin of scapula?
2: I’m not confused, I was only saying that you might be confused by how I had to put it, because there is no other way to do it. Assuming the first two pictures are scaled correctly (no way to confirm that) as to your 2.7 m shoulder height figure, then the second set of pictures cannot possibly be scaled correctly.
3: Yes, if you shrink images they get blurry. Do you know what the solution to this problem is?
1: That very, very small lump. Also, I scaled to the top of the soft tissue. Will mention that too. 2: I meant to prevent confusion among other people. 3: I have to shrink them or I cannot make the size comparison.
Seems kind of random (that’s clearly no more "shoulder" than any other point along the scapula. Also, clearly not the first dorsal rib), but ok. If you use skeletal landmarks impossible to identify, I think you’ll need to include a measurement bar to show what exactly you measured.
2: The issue is not that your comparison is confusing, the issue is that it is wrong. And there more confusing things than simply that you stack two comparisons on top of each other as well, e.g. that you leave inapplicable scalebars in the picture. But let’s take it one step at a time, ok?
3: You don’t have to shrink them to make a size comparison. At least not this much. Do you see me shrinking my images down to thumbnail size in order to make size comparisons?
Seems kind of random (that’s clearly no more "shoulder" than any other point along the scapula. Also, clearly not the first dorsal rib), but ok. If you use skeletal landmarks impossible to identify, I think you’ll need to include a measurement bar to show what exactly you measured.
2: The issue is not that your comparison is confusing, the issue is that it is wrong. And there more confusing things than simply that you stack two comparisons on top of each other as well, e.g. that you leave inapplicable scalebars in the picture. But let’s take it one step at a time, ok?
3: You don’t have to shrink them to make a size comparison. At least not this much. Do you see me shrinking my images down to thumbnail size in order to make size comparisons?
1: No, not that one. The very first one in the series of ribs. 2: Completely unrelated, but that reminds me: Do you know of any comparison from anywhere on the internet where Franoy's Mapusaurus has the scalebar cut out? That would help solve the problem, and I can scale and include a second one. 3: Ah, okay. I'll shrink less.
1: OK, sorry, really can’t see anything there. Make the comparison with a less blurry image, or at least include a pointer/measurement bar to show what you scaled to, otherwise it’s irreproducible. 2: Just erase the scalebar, where is the problem?
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 16, 2019 17:55:04 GMT 5
Holotype of Tyrannosaurus rex (11.9 meters axial length) vs paratype of Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum (~35 meters total length). Scalebar is 1 meter, skeletal credit goes to Hartman and Greg Paul respectively.
Mamenchisaurus is 1084 px in axial length, T. rex is 329 px. If the T. rex is 11.9 m, the Mamenchisaurus is 39 m, and if the Mamenchisaurus is 35 m, the T. rex is 10.6 m.
Being off by over 10%, translating to over 4 m for the Mamenchisaurus, just isn’t good enough, sorry.
The Mamenchisaurus could be accurate with regard to the scalebar (which I cannot measure very accurately because it is too blurry, but seems to be about 30 ± a few px), so I’m assuming the scalebar came with the image, but the T. rex is undersized. That could be easily remedied if you simply used the scalebar in Hartman’s skeletal (lin) and scaled it to exactly the same length as the one in the Mamenchisaurus skeletal.
Last Edit: Nov 16, 2019 18:29:37 GMT 5 by theropod
The Mamenchisaurus could be accurate with regard to the scalebar (which I cannot measure very accurately because it is too blurry, but seems to be about 30 ± a few px), so I’m assuming the scalebar came with the image, but the T. rex is undersized. That could be easily remedied if you simply used the scalebar in Hartman’s skeletal (lin) and scaled it to exactly the same length as the one in the Mamenchisaurus skeletal.
Yes, I tried to scale the 1-meter scalebars to equal lengths. However, it's a bit tricky to scale images when one dwarfs the other. I'll rescale and repost another.
Post by creature386 on Nov 16, 2019 18:34:42 GMT 5
I've just measured the scalebars and Mamenchisaurus' is about 33 px long and Tyrannosaurus' is more like 30 px long. While it's a good idea to use scalebars for both, your margin of error is too big.
Supercommunist: But I assume that in practice it doesn't happen because most other animals don't have jaws nearly as long and can't be grabbed as easily.
May 3, 2024 5:16:50 GMT 5
Supercommunist: It's common knowledge that the opening jaw muscles of crocodiles and alligators are weak. But does anyone know if other animals could have their jaws held shut by tape/a human grip/ I suspect other animals also have weak opening jaw muscles.
May 3, 2024 5:16:17 GMT 5
Supercommunist: The claims aren't crazy but I just find it a bit annoying how some of the most popular animal youtubers tend to have a pretty medicore grasp of the subject.
Mar 29, 2024 10:39:45 GMT 5
tyrannasorus: Tbh it’s nothing crazy coming from him
Mar 29, 2024 9:57:13 GMT 5
Supercommunist: He also claimed that corvids cannot reliably kill anything larger than an insect.
Mar 29, 2024 1:42:13 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Tier zoo repeated the myth that birds have weaker, hollow bones in their most recent video.
Mar 29, 2024 1:39:49 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Anyone know any accounts or rabbits straight up killing stoats/weasels? Also, any accounts of stoats attacking and killing hares?
Feb 7, 2024 3:48:35 GMT 5
dinosauria101: I will never understand the purpose of dishonest streaming services that list full seasons and episodes of shows there's no option to watch.
Feb 6, 2024 4:28:05 GMT 5
Shri devi: It's def a bit slow for me, sometimes doesn't work
Feb 1, 2024 15:40:43 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: I haven't tried an article in a bit.
Feb 1, 2024 7:45:59 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Has sci-hub been slow lately, or is it just me?
Feb 1, 2024 7:44:14 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: Indeed it will be (I remembered that I'll be turning 25 this year), so I think this would be a perfect opportunity.
Jan 30, 2024 7:25:59 GMT 5
Exalt: Seems it aired in October and November, so close.
Jan 30, 2024 6:35:44 GMT 5
Exalt: Wait, isn't this the 25th anniversary of wwd anyway, if it aired in 1999?
Jan 30, 2024 6:35:11 GMT 5
Exalt: I've pondered the idea of doing it myself, there's stuff to comment on, but I've not seen much in the way of reviews for it. Weirdly, WWB seems more popular to do.
Jan 30, 2024 6:30:46 GMT 5
Exalt: I'm not going to push you either way, just an observation that I made.
Jan 30, 2024 6:29:38 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: I first started doing reviews as a means to celebrate an anniversary (like the 20th anniversary). Then I started being less stringent on that, so if I wanted, I could review WWD.
Jan 30, 2024 6:23:11 GMT 5
Exalt: Also, it sure is crazy how despite how limited the fossil record is in the grand scheme of natural history, we're still making discoveries on a relatively frequent basis.
Jan 25, 2024 4:55:00 GMT 5
Exalt: I just looked through the documentaries board and if I've not missed it, nobody has actually done a review for WWD. Huh.
Jan 25, 2024 4:53:47 GMT 5