|
|
Post by Grey on May 26, 2015 22:36:21 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on May 26, 2015 23:57:57 GMT 5
This 'T.rex Autopsy' thing sounds like a dinosaur version of Inside Nature's Giants.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist 
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on May 27, 2015 4:30:14 GMT 5
I'm enthusiastic about T. rex autopsy but while do like the level of detail of that model it still has several errors that disappoint me like that clearly Jurassic Park inspired head and that the model is 14m long.
Top 10 biggest beasts ever. Very interesting...
|
|
|
|
Post by spinodontosaurus on May 27, 2015 5:44:13 GMT 5
Wouldn't an actual Top 10 consist of a bunch of ceteceans, C. megalodon and a few sauropods? Doesn't appear to be the case though, as the gallery attached to the news announcement features a bunch of stuff that is none of those things. Which makes it more interesting I guess. There's even a Penguin there for some reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on May 27, 2015 7:45:11 GMT 5
Wouldn't an actual Top 10 consist of a bunch of ceteceans, C. megalodon and a few sauropods? Doesn't appear to be the case though, as the gallery attached to the news announcement features a bunch of stuff that is none of those things. Which makes it more interesting I guess. There's even a Penguin there for some reason. Yeah that's rather the biggest beasts in their own categories, still with an increased sizing. Otherwise that would be rather boring. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on May 27, 2015 7:49:55 GMT 5
I'm enthusiastic about T. rex autopsy but while do like the level of detail of that model it still has several errors that disappoint me like that clearly Jurassic Park inspired head and that the model is 14m long. Top 10 biggest beasts ever. Very interesting... There are three paleontologists involved in this programme, including John Hutchinson and Steve Brusatte so I would be skeptical regarding such errors. There is an official description file of this T. rex and the size was reported at 12m : img.over-blog-kiwi.com/0/87/49/59/20150423/ob_ba8fbc_autopsie-trex.jpgHutchinson will also be guest in the biggest beasts programme, he will describe Paraceratherium. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on May 27, 2015 20:57:32 GMT 5
There were at least twice as many palaeontologists involved in Walking with dinosaurs, doesn’t mean there were no mistakes on that programme.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on May 27, 2015 22:59:35 GMT 5
There were at least twice as many palaeontologists involved in Walking with dinosaurs, doesn’t mean there were no mistakes on that programme. Yes but each part of WWD had only one or two specialist involved. That's rather a matter of the producers liberties. Hutchinson and Pimiento have enthusiastically reported the release of the doc, I don't think the potential errors to be that big... |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on May 27, 2015 23:31:32 GMT 5
Still, while experts may consult models, they don't always know the final versions. There were cases when scientists wrote reviews about documentaries where they were talking heads and they were unsatisfied with the final results.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on May 27, 2015 23:44:24 GMT 5
Well, the comically huge postorbital bosses/horns with the shape of a single large triangle over the eyes looks more like the JP Tyrannosaurus and not the real animal, maybe the basic shape of the model was something the paleontologists didn't have a say on.
I'm reading the articles there, in a section were they mention possible body coverings they have one of them as reptilian scales and a depiction of lizard scales, this is misleading to the audience, bird-like scales and a depiction of reticulate scales would have been much better (and accurate) and there's also a false equivalency about cold-bloodedness, no paleontologist still argues for pure cold-bloodedness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on May 29, 2015 12:09:01 GMT 5
Still, while experts may consult models, they don't always know the final versions. There were cases when scientists wrote reviews about documentaries where they were talking heads and they were unsatisfied with the final results. Sure but do not confuse all the documentaries. For the BBC shows, the researchers have been mostly contacted by phone call and never directly interracted with the production, that's what said Mike Everhart regarding his credits as adviser for the BBC Sea Monsters show. Here in the T. rex autopsy, the guys seem to have been directly involved in the making process. The potential errors are more likely to be found in the post-prod CGI models than in the direct model. Anyway, the feedback of these documentaries will be interesting, I could ask directly to Hutchinson what he thinks the T. rex model. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on May 29, 2015 20:07:36 GMT 5
I wasn't referring to BBC. I was more referring to documentaries where they were talking heads (=directly involved). This was the case in some "legendary bad" documentaries (like COTD or Monsters Resurrected).
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on May 29, 2015 21:07:56 GMT 5
I hope that we can all agree this is still a documentary no matter what, with the default assumption being that it is accordingly (in)accurate. Regardless what the advising palaeontologists express before it is even published (Even Wedel wrote that he was initially optimistic about Clash of the Dinosaurs), that doesn’t say much about its accuracy, and I sincerely hope we won’t come into a habit of citing documentaries as if they were credible sources.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on May 30, 2015 11:57:33 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 2, 2015 12:19:41 GMT 5
|
|
