Images of Prehistoric Creatures

Dimorphodon

INDRICOTHERIUM (This guy knew all along that he was going extinct)

bimp

I used a new function of ImageShack which makes it quicker to upload images. Unfortunately it seems to lack the option of specifying the display size (and I was too lazy to fix them).

I promise to be less lazy in the future (unless I'm too lazy to be less lazy).

Better?

dO YOU KNOW OF THE METHODS USED FOR THOSE SCENES YOUVE POSTED? i THINK THE "MATTE" BACKGROUNDS ARE PHOTOSHOPPED ACTUAL PHOTOED SCENES AND THE ANIMALS ARE "LAYERED " ON FROM EITHER RENDERINGS OR ACTUAL PAINTINGS

I'm not getting the images from any single source, so I suspect that the actual software and methods being used are all different.

However, I think some of the images are based on photographed scenes onto which they somehow CGI the Dinosaurs.

I was amused to see in one of the images above a possible contrail (from a Jetliner) in the background near the clouds. Whoever made that image may have spent more time worrying about making his dinosaur look real than cleaning up the environment behind him.

It's interesting to note however that it's no longer easy to tell how much of an image is photograph and how much is CGI. And the fact that images of that quality have become commonplace says a lot for the state of the art (technology wise).

yeh but the cgi doesnt "invent" itself. Im still not pleased with the way that CGI does hair and soft fuzziness. It makes things look too metallic.

Such flights of educated and talented fancy!

Do you have pics of the fossils upon which these illustrations are based?

Here are some pics of dilong paradoxus fossils:




And an artists' rendition thereof:

I know 2 guys who do these "forensic" reconstructions of creatures from their fossils. Its amazing how they collaborate, especially in the areas of feathers and colors.
Usually, feathers, when they appear in big enoiugh clumps agreeably had some degree of iridescence, so thats where the wild hues come in.
HOWEVER-who the hell knows for sure. Theres still a pitched fight on how feathers developed and whether many dinosaur groups were or were NOT warm blooded.

Theres the "tuna fish school" that believes, thgrough evidence from bone cross sections, that only some genera of dinos were warm blooded (hence the name Tuna SChool since tuna and their family are only one of about 4 genera of fish that are warm blooded)

Various aspects of reconstruction are also extrapolated/deduced from similar organisms or similar conditions with similar organisms. For example, a lot of dinosaur behavioral assumptions are based on avian behavior (mating displays and such).

End user media articles however rarely go into the detail by which reconstructions are made. They simply jump to the final conclusion without much explanation.

Yeah, I get that that's how they came to give T rex and other theropods a more birdlike structure and stance.

Well, that's one reason, but there's a lot of good physiology behind Structure and Stance. It's more the behavioral and color type stuff that they extrapolate from "similarities" to other creatures.