Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Thanks again Alexander,

I gladly accept any information I can get and am aware that you do not intend to tell me what to do artistically.

The scleral rings dont fit as snug into the orbita as in your gecko, but I made them bigger.

Except for eaier printability I consider my Hupehsuchus completed now. And printing will indeed wait till after my homework.1.png.d1f0e2df84e9e7a9142a1d7f73f96a9e.png

2.png.11ba3af73fd4412ed73025492688b2ea.png3.png.7cba5ad647611dd0cb54d140894c9a27.png

4.png

5.png

Bildschirmfoto zu 2021-02-02 12-03-38.png

Bildschirmfoto zu 2021-02-02 11-09-06.png

8.png

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon

Hi Jan,
 

1 hour ago, Mahnmut said:

I gladly accept any information I can get and am aware that you do not intend to tell me what to do artistically.

Cool! Just wanted to make sure you didn't feel pressured by my comments in any way. For, having studied graphical design and 3D modelling myself, I know others always know better how to improve your designs, and this can sometimes get very annoying ;)

 

1 hour ago, Mahnmut said:

Except for eaier printability I consider my Hupehsuchus completed now. And printing will indeed wait till after my homework.

While I still find the deal with the osteoderms rather surprising, them being stacked like that (are you sure this is not an artefact of preservation?), I'd say you've got yourself an excellent and very realistic looking model of Hupehsuchus here! And considering how little is actually known about this animal, possibly a model with scientific merit other than what you created it for! Well done! :Smiling:

 

Can't wait to see how it will look in real life!

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

While I still find the deal with the osteoderms rather surprising, them being stacked like that (are you sure this is not an artefact of preservation?), I'd say you've got yourself an excellent and very realistic looking model of Hupehsuchus here! And considering how little is actually known about this animal, possibly a model with scientific merit other than what you created it for! Well done! :Smiling:

 

Can't wait to see how it will look in real life!

Well, how can I be sure? That stacked arrangement seems to be the accepted reconstruction for now, and as far as I can see from the fotos and drawings the pieces of the fossil fit together puzzle-like. The surface texture of my versions osteoderms is fantasy though, but that will not matter unless I find a possibility to print it in life-size.

Yes, I also thought that at the moment there wont be much better 3d models of this critter in the world, although that can change overnight looking at  the incredible speed some chinese cg-artists achieve.

I really wonder how close or far Hupehsuchia  are from Ichthyopterygia, at least Eretmorhipis looks different and stranger yet.

Aloha!

J

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon
1 hour ago, Mahnmut said:

Well, how can I be sure? That stacked arrangement seems to be the accepted reconstruction for now, and as far as I can see from the fotos and drawings the pieces of the fossil fit together puzzle-like. The surface texture of my versions osteoderms is fantasy though, but that will not matter unless I find a possibility to print it in life-size.

Good question! Unfortunately, I'm not sure whether I can be of too much help here... It's mainly a question of taphonomy: the way in which biota from the layers Hupehsuchus is found in are preserved, and how closely adjoining plate-like structures might be modified or compressed into a two-dimensional plane. A potential analogue that comes to mind are the Steneosaurus marine crocodiles found in the Posidonia Shale. Unfortunately, however, it seems not too many of them have been preserved laterally - presumably because the crocodylomorph body-plan is vertically compressed, rather than horizontally as in ichthyosaurs, thereby causing their carcasses to sink to come to rest on the seabed either dorsally or ventrally, rather than laterally.

 

I did find one specimen amongst my reference photographs that does appear to have been at least partially preserved laterally (picture below), but I'm not sure how useful this example is, as the skeleton is rather jumbled up. One thing it does seem to show, however, is that the scutes from one side of the body overlie those from the other side. However, as the scutes from both sides are positioned upright, this raises questions as to what might have caused this, seeing as the spine underneath is still fully associated. Could it be that all scutes come from the same side of the body, but have been moved by e.g. wave-action after the carcass came to settle on the seabed? Or are they truly the scutes from two sides of the body that somehow folded in on one another? In case of the latter, could this have been due to the explosive release of gasses built-up in the dead body? This doesn't sound likely, as there's obviously not enough displacement in the scutes to argue that the gasses would've escaped at the ocean surface, yet the scutes would've remained so well associated after descent to the sea floor (although the amount of scutes present seems rather a small)...

 

IMG_0660_resize_41.thumb.jpg.fa68d75d51862d05a5a95202eae6c858.jpgThoracic section of a laterally preserved Steneosaurus sp. at the Fossilienmuseum Dotternhausen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If we now turn to Hupehsuchus, lets start with the holotype, of which I've included a higher quality image from Wikipedia below:

HupehsuchusNanchangensis-PaleozoologicalMuseumOfChina-May23-08-recompressed.thumb.jpg.dc80020e4b057ce207233043cf737272.jpg

 

Indeed, as in the interpretive drawings provided by Carroll and Zhi-Ming (1991), it does appear that the bigger osteoderms consistently lie on top of the smaller ones. The smaller osteoderms are significantly so, however, and are much more numerous, so that, apart from the biggest osteoderms, it's very difficult to say where the one osteoderm stops and the other begins. Please note, though, that the density of osteoderms above the pelvic girdle is significantly lower than in the dorsal region anteriorly, whereas the osteoderms are completely missing in the pectoral region.

 

If we look at the other specimen - the one I've been referring to mostly above - then you'll note that it does have osteoderms along the full length of its back. However, the density of osteoderms appears greatest above the pectoral girdle. Yet, while one may think this could be due to the osteoderms more posteriorly having been washed or eroded away, this does not seem to be the case. Instead, the direction of preservation of the osteoderms in these parts seems to gradually change, most noticeable in the largest osteoderms that gradually become less tall, until all that remains of them is a thin stripe that would've been equal to their original vertical thickness. Now while the density of the osteoderms around the pectoral region in this second specimen is similar to that in the dorsal section of the holotype, I think the most telling section would be the dorsal region of the second specimen, where the direction of preservation of the osteoderms seems to have shifted.

 

Hupehsuchus-osteoderms.jpg.d63a7005fa4b1c11c8c550e186aed7a8.jpg

 

The big question, however, is: what does it tell us? One is reminded of the case of Atopodentatus unicus, which bucal morphology when first discovered could not and was not correctly interpreted due to flattening and deformation of the bones. For, as far as I'm aware, there are currently no extant animals that carry multiple layers of stacked osteoderms in their skin. We've also seen that depositional and taphonomic processes may lead to superimposition of osteoderms, and there are currently no dorsally preserved Hupehsuchus specimens available for study. As such, it'll be difficult to determine whether the smaller osteoderms underlying the bigger ones in Hupehsuchus is an artefact of preservation or was their actual configuration in life. However, since the bigger osteoderms consistently seem to be superimposed on top of the smaller ones - irrespective of the density of osteoderms or orientation in which the osteoderms were preserved - I think, this would argue against this being due to depositional conditions. Instead, it looks like the smaller osteoderms were used to extend the neural arches to form a foundation for the outer layer of osteoderms. And while it might be the case that the larger osteoderms might have been held in place by skin tissue of exactly the same thickness as the smaller ones were wide, this seems unlikely.

 

An investigation later, and long story short: your model appears to have gotten its osteoderms correct ;)

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the plausibility check!

Your taphonomic comparison supports my impression (that was based mainly on staring intently at what I now know to be  Carroll and Zhi-Ming (1991) and derivates).

 

As it is often the case with fossil reconstructions, I can only repeat my outcry of "how can I be sure" without saying "how could I ever know".

 

Salut,

J

Link to post
Share on other sites
pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon
36 minutes ago, Mahnmut said:

As it is often the case with fossil reconstructions, I can only repeat my outcry of "how can I be sure" without saying "how could I ever know".

That, I guess, is what makes palaeontology - and any field of science, really,  including that of palaeoart and palaeoreconstructions - so exciting! :b_wdremel:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear fellow forum members,

I am of two minds concerning this last model.

On the one hand I consider it one of the best I made so far, concerning the level of detail. Digital modelmaking offers possibilities that I simply do not have in the real world, and 3d printing, though relatively expensive, makes it possible to make as many  material copies of this model as anyone could want, it will also be easier to take this as a basis for other, similar models. While most of my models until now where one of a kind, handmade, unique.

On the other side, I started making models with my hands among other things as a substitute for collecting real fossils outside, and it felt good. Now I spent hours and hours in front of the screen, and though I really like the result, I do not like much how it makes my neck and head feel. Well, it is a bonus not to drill into my fingers while trying to attach the 21st mm-thick rib, but still...

Looking at the Placodonts further up this thread, well, its something else.

After all I think I will go on using both methods,

but I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

Aloha

J

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon

Since you're mainly doing this for yourself, I'd say you should do what makes you happy. Though I work as a computer programmer again now, I can completely relate to the need to do something creative, to work with your hands. It's because of this I initially followed a course in multimedia design, and later entirely switched to archaeology (in which, unfortunately, utter turns out there's little demand for people having studied Native American cultures). As such, I can completely understand that creating these models by hand would be way more satisfying (if not just cheaper), and would, moreover, result in much more unique pieces.

 

I guess the only reasons I can come up with for all the same creating 3D-models would be:

1. If you were to enjoy making them

2. They're easier to adjust and update, allowing for more discussion in their original conception, updating as new literature comes out, as well as reporting and mass-production

3. If you intend to share them

 

Ultimately it can only be up to you to decide what to do, as you need to decide for yourself why you are creating these models, how much time you want to invest in them, and what is good enough for you...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Ahoi.

Because I have nothing else to do ^^

and because I planned to spend more time in front of the screen^^

I flattened and broke my model in Blender, put it in a Terragen-terrain and rendered this deconstruction of my reconstructed fossil. Added some noise in gimp to.

I should get one of these pencils  @LabRatKing mentioned.

Went hiking yesterday though.

hupehfoss2.jpg

  • Enjoyed 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon
9 hours ago, Mahnmut said:

Ahoi.

Because I have nothing else to do ^^

and because I planned to spend more time in front of the screen^^

I flattened and broke my model in Blender, put it in a Terragen-terrain and rendered this deconstruction of my reconstructed fossil. Added some noise in gimp to.

I should get one of these pencils  @LabRatKing mentioned.

Went hiking yesterday though.

hupehfoss2.jpg

I think it could be brightened a bit, a least on the screen of my Windows laptop. But pretty cool render :D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon
2 minutes ago, Bob Saunders said:

done and very nice.

hupehfoss23.jpg

 

Not sure if you altered any colours as well, but this looks very realistic :tiphat:

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

 

Not sure if you altered any colours as well, but this looks very realistic :tiphat:

I saved it to my desktop and clicked auto adjust color, saved and sent. It was to dark to know what is the original colors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Bob Saunders and Alexander!

Ok, here is more or less what it looked like to me when I made it sitting in a relatively dark room at night. The eye is a wonder.

hupehfoss3.jpg

  • Enjoyed 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon
7 minutes ago, Mahnmut said:

Thanks Bob Saunders and Alexander!

Ok, here is more or less what it looked like to me when I made it sitting in a relatively dark room at night. The eye is a wonder.

Although it looks a bit better, brightened up, I think it's still a bit on the dark-side over on my end - though the colours could probably be toned done from the auto-correct/auto-colour version as well...

 

Anyway, just watched this interesting video yesterday explaining just how the eye works with regards to the effect we're seeing here:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mahnmut said:

Thanks Bob Saunders and Alexander!

Ok, here is more or less what it looked like to me when I made it sitting in a relatively dark room at night. The eye is a wonder.

hupehfoss3.jpg

Is this computer generated art and what type please? Looks like you may have sculpted a material. I have never tried auto cad or other computer art. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

Although it looks a bit better, brightened up, I think it's still a bit on the dark-side over on my end - though the colours could probably be toned done from the auto-correct/auto-colour version as well...

 

Anyway, just watched this interesting video yesterday explaining just how the eye works with regards to the effect we're seeing here:

 

I have taken some painting and drawing lessons. In art club one teacher said that in art their is not pure black, just a shade. Lamp black being the closest. During a couple of cave tours the guide turned off the lights and said, this is pure black. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon
5 minutes ago, Bob Saunders said:

I have taken some painting and drawing lessons. In art club one teacher said that in art their is not pure black, just a shade. Lamp black being the closest. During a couple of cave tours the guide turned off the lights and said, this is pure black. 

Pure black is the absence of light. But as the video illustrates, light is relative. A white light can appear black if surrounded by a stronger light, while paint pigments typically absorb light to the extent that a colour may look black (subtractive colour mixing) but is actually a very dark shade of white (additive colour mixing). Whether something looks black, grey or white is all dependent on the strength of the light emitted relative to the ambient light.

Link to post
Share on other sites
IsaacTheFossilMan
On 2/2/2021 at 11:47 AM, Mahnmut said:

Thanks again Alexander,

I gladly accept any information I can get and am aware that you do not intend to tell me what to do artistically.

The scleral rings dont fit as snug into the orbita as in your gecko, but I made them bigger.

Except for eaier printability I consider my Hupehsuchus completed now. And printing will indeed wait till after my homework.1.png.d1f0e2df84e9e7a9142a1d7f73f96a9e.png

2.png.11ba3af73fd4412ed73025492688b2ea.png3.png.7cba5ad647611dd0cb54d140894c9a27.png

4.png

5.png

Bildschirmfoto zu 2021-02-02 12-03-38.png

Bildschirmfoto zu 2021-02-02 11-09-06.png

8.png


AWESOME!!! Honestly no words for this... It's beautiful, can't wait to see it printed! Are you using blender to sculpt them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I remember a geology course in a mine. After some time, your eyes start making things up.

Concerning pigments, there are now nanotech things like "vantablack" that reflect close to nothing, but thats not half as impressing as what our eyes can do.

The moon is a good example too, its about as dark as a tarred street on average (albedo 0,07), but a sunlit piece of tar looks bright in the night.

To answer your question @Bob Saunders, yes it is computer generated, maybe its also a bit of art.

As you can see at the beginning of this thread, I started with handmade models, and will surely come back to them. At the moment I use the free 3d modelling software Blender, that is an extremely versatile program, I have not learned 5% of what you can do with it. The main goal was the Hupehsuchus model you see on top of this page 3, a 3d print of it is now in the making. While further avoiding to work, I played around with blenders options to simulate fractures and distortions to make it look more like a fossil again. The render is made in a program called Terragen that is mainly used for landscape simulation, simply putting the flattened model in a relatively flat grey landscape for matrix.

Aloha,

J

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
IsaacTheFossilMan
Just now, Mahnmut said:

Yes, I remember a geology course in a mine. After some time, your eyes start making things up.

Concerning pigments, there are now nanotech things like "vantablack" that reflect close to nothing, but thats not half as impressing as what our eyes can do.

The moon is a good example too, its about as dark as a tarred street on average (albedo 0,07), but a sunlit piece of tar looks bright in the night.

To answer your question @Bob Saunders, yes it is computer generated, maybe its also a bit of art.

As you can see at the beginning of this thread, I started with handmade models, and will surely come back to them. At the moment I use the free 3d modelling software Blender, that is an extremely versatile program, I have not learned 5% of what you can do with it. The main goal was the Hupehsuchus model you see on top of this page 3, a 3d print of it is now in the making. While further avoiding to work, I played around with blenders options to simulate fractures and distortions to make it look more like a fossil again. The render is made in a program called Terragen that is mainly used for landscape simulation, simply putting the flattened model in a relatively flat grey landscape for matrix.

Aloha,

J

Ah, yay! Blender is very very good, I've been using it for a year or so now, and every day I discover some new cool tool or way to use tools in it. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mahnmut said:

Yes, I remember a geology course in a mine. After some time, your eyes start making things up.

Concerning pigments, there are now nanotech things like "vantablack" that reflect close to nothing, but thats not half as impressing as what our eyes can do.

The moon is a good example too, its about as dark as a tarred street on average (albedo 0,07), but a sunlit piece of tar looks bright in the night.

To answer your question @Bob Saunders, yes it is computer generated, maybe its also a bit of art.

As you can see at the beginning of this thread, I started with handmade models, and will surely come back to them. At the moment I use the free 3d modelling software Blender, that is an extremely versatile program, I have not learned 5% of what you can do with it. The main goal was the Hupehsuchus model you see on top of this page 3, a 3d print of it is now in the making. While further avoiding to work, I played around with blenders options to simulate fractures and distortions to make it look more like a fossil again. The render is made in a program called Terragen that is mainly used for landscape simulation, simply putting the flattened model in a relatively flat grey landscape for matrix.

Aloha,

J

Thanks for the explanation and I have deleted your image. I'm still trying to figure out how to crop and image. That is with Windows Vista I can hold down the mouse button and make the box for what I want to keep, hit enter and it goes away. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...