|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 16, 2019 0:30:15 GMT 5
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?
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Nov 16, 2019 0:33:18 GMT 5
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. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 16, 2019 0:45:37 GMT 5
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 |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 16, 2019 0:54:36 GMT 5
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? |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 16, 2019 1:34:22 GMT 5
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. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 16, 2019 1:48:32 GMT 5
1: This one?  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? |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 16, 2019 1:55:12 GMT 5
1: This one? 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. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 16, 2019 1:58:05 GMT 5
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 2:04:01 GMT 5
1: Well, it is there. I will see what I can do to point it out.
2: I can't erase scalebars for images
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 16, 2019 2:17:43 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
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.  |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 16, 2019 18:24:46 GMT 5
What was wrong with this one? I included both's dimensions and they're scaled directly to one another
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 16, 2019 18:27:46 GMT 5
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 16, 2019 18:34:19 GMT 5
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.
|
|
