|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 14, 2019 4:32:38 GMT 5
Oh, yeah that was my bad. My device only teporarily saves files and now it's deleted.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 14, 2019 4:34:31 GMT 5
So, have you tried if you can upload the new file? Should work without problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 14, 2019 4:57:54 GMT 5
Yep. I uploaded my Sarkastodon vs Giganotosaurus chart
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 14, 2019 5:03:36 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 14, 2019 5:11:30 GMT 5
Yep. Solved.
Now I can start posting Imgur images
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 15, 2019 20:12:01 GMT 5
I now present, properly scaled and from Imgur, Triceratops vs Mapusaurus!  On top is BYU 12183 (scaled to ~2.7 meters shoulder height) vs MCF-PVPH-108.202 (scaled to 12.23 meters along the centra). On the bottom is UCMP 12861 (~3 meters shoulder height) vs MCF-PVPH-108.145 (scaled to 13.36 meters along the centra). Triceratops skeletal is by Scott Hartman while Mapusaurus skeletal is by Franoys. The scalebar for the comparison on top should be OK to use but I do not advise using the bottom scalebar as I have scaled both animals up. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 15, 2019 20:18:07 GMT 5
What was wrong with that size comparison, theropod? |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 15, 2019 20:29:36 GMT 5
 Your first Triceratops is 17 % too big, that’s wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 15, 2019 20:31:10 GMT 5
No, not back height. Shoulder height.
I was not scaling from the back but rather just behind the area where the neck and chest meet.
|
|
|
|
Post by spartan on Nov 15, 2019 20:36:06 GMT 5
Why are your size comparisons always so blurry?
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 15, 2019 20:37:05 GMT 5
I don't know. Maybe the fact that they're double-screenshots might have something to do with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 15, 2019 22:57:58 GMT 5
No, not back height. Shoulder height. I was not scaling from the back but rather just behind the area where the neck and chest meet. Where exactly? The top of the neural spines? The soft-tissue envelope? What vertebra exactly? Or above the glenoid? Or at the glenoid? You see, this is not reproducible with the information you provided. Anyway, then your figures are oversized (and either way, your scaling is likely oversized as well). While that is not a matter for this thread, that was my basis for assuming you had also measured height to the top of the back. And that still leaves the bottom half of your comparison, the Trike is around 180 px tall, 7% taller than the first one (if the first one is 2.7 m, then this is 2.9 m tall), whereas the Mapusaurus is around 673 px long, just 3% longer than the first one (which would make it 12.6 m long based on the first one being 12.23 m. Something is not matching up here. Obviously. I think the question that was implied was "why are they double-screenshots then"? |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 16, 2019 0:14:49 GMT 5
No, not back height. Shoulder height. I was not scaling from the back but rather just behind the area where the neck and chest meet. 1: Where exactly? The top of the neural spines? The soft-tissue envelope? What vertebra exactly? Or above the glenoid? Or at the glenoid? You see, this is not reproducible with the information you provided. 2: And that still leaves the bottom half of your comparison, the Trike is around 180 px tall, 7% taller than the first one (if the first one is 2.7 m, then this is 2.9 m tall), whereas the Mapusaurus is around 673 px long, just 3% longer than the first one (which would make it 12.6 m long based on the first one being 12.23 m. Something is not matching up here. 3: Obviously. I think the question that was implied was "why are they double-screenshots then"? 1: Looking very closely, at the start of the very first rib 2: Oh. Poop. What you are describing is something I forgot to mention - the 2 comparisons are not to scale with one another. My bad. I should mention that from now on. 3: Because a single-screenshot gives an incredibly tiny image that's just as blurry. So either blurry image or blurry and tiny image. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Nov 16, 2019 0:25:33 GMT 5
Because a single-screenshot gives an incredibly tiny image that's just as blurry. So either blurry image or blurry and tiny image. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 16, 2019 0:30:06 GMT 5
Because a single-screenshot gives an incredibly tiny image that's just as blurry. So either blurry image or blurry and tiny image. 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. |
|
