HOME | DD
amorousdino β The Fishers
Published: 2011-08-18 02:20:01 +0000 UTC; Views: 3762; Favourites: 173; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
"The Fishers"Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, Coloborhynchus clavirostris, generic crocodyliform. My new airbrush painting.
Its the early Cretaceous, at a swamp in Egypt and a mature spinosaur is taking a drink of water before heading out for its daily swim for fish while a resting coloborhynchus watches in the foreground. I'm intrigued by the idea that spinosaurs may have led a semi-aquatic lifestyle, swimming or wading around in deep water for large fish. Just a theory though, but a fun one
The water didn't turn out too well but its all a learning process
. This was done with my new Badger Velocity airbush. Love what it can do with it My Badger Patriot airbrush was used for the bases of the water and sky. Done using airbrush acrylics, regular acrylics and water soluble color pencils.
Completed on the 17th of August 2011.
Related content
Comments: 14
Question: Whats an airbrush?
Β
I love the painthing tough
π: 0 β©: 1
Here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3OGEZβ¦
π: 0 β©: 0
Maybe the crocodilian is KaprosuchusΒ or a juvenile Aegisuchus?
Anyway good drawing.Β
Β
π: 0 β©: 0
THE SPINOSAURUS'S BITE FORCE WAS STRONGER THAN WE PERVIOUSLY THOUGHT!!!!!!
TheROC said this on carnivoraforum.com
"Dr. Manabu Sakamoto back on the dinobase forums around 2009, told me about some unpublished bite force estimates for Baryonyx, here. He said 3800 N (854.3 lbs of force). He said the skull he worked with was based on the Baryonyx specimen in the Natural History Museum (NHM) in London. Dr. Sakamoto agreed that it was probably 28 feet long. And from there I just scaled up to a possible 18 meter Baryonyx specimen, keeping in mind that muscular strength (jaw muscles are included in that of course) goes up as a square of the scaling factor, and came to the conclusion that a 18 meter baryonyx would have about a ~2 ton bite.
From there, just came a bit of guess work for an 18 meter spinosaurus, I reasoned that its mandible is significantly deeper than Baryonx's proportionately, that it might yield a bite force 50% greater than a baryonx skull of equal size. Which is where the ~3 ton bite force guess originally came from, as that's 50% greater than 2 tons. I feel a 50% stronger bite force at equal skull lengths is reasonable, considering the often great differences we see in different dog breed bite forces, even when skull length is comparable between breeds.
The whole thing is of course, assuming spinosaurus has a skull as proportionately long compared to its body size as baryonyx does, which I believe is fair; dal sasso and crew did estimate the spinosaurus maxilla they worked with in 2005 to be 17-18 meters using the smaller relatives like baryonx to scale from. And afterall, large theropods tend to have proportionately larger skulls than their smaller relatives as a rule, which means I could be underestimating the bite force in actuality.
The baryonyx bite force is unpublished officially, yes, but I spoke with Dr. Sakamoto again in 2010 via e-mail and asked him about the exact same baryonyx bite force figure and he said he is still preparing the theropod bite force estimates that the baryonyx figure comes from, for publication--but that he had other things that took priority at the moment. --So it seems to me that the bite force figure is still viable to discuss, at least within our circles(since we can't add it to wikipedia yet since its still unpublished).
Also, within that e-mail I discussed with him the study that you seem to be referencing in your opening, Grey. It is in fact Dr. Sakamoto's study as well, and that was initially the reason I e-mailed him to inquire further about the study, (while asking about the unpublished baronyx bite force figures as an aside). He was kind enough to actually give me the full pdf of it over e-mail. The study is not about bite forces directly, but rather mechanical advantages of skulls. It shows mechanical advantages for dozens of taxa across their whole tooth row. The mechanical advantage of course becomes lesser the further you move away from the 'inlever' (which are the jaw muscles in this case), so that means the closer you are to the jaw muscles, the greater the mechanical advantage (which is obvious to everyone here of course, the back is where you bite hardest). He actually revised the Spinosaurus mechanical advantage stats using a different skull reconstruction later, here here and got higher values. Anyway, if we compare the mechanical advantage of say T.Rex and Spinosaurus, in the back of their tooth row, closest to their jaw muscles, they are actually quite comparable. Spinosaurus mechanical advantage at the back teeth was just about 0.25, whereas T.Rex was at about 0.28. At the front of the skull though, there is a bigger difference. Spinosaurus' mechanical advantage at the front of the tooth row is a little over 0.11, whereas T.Rex's is about 0.16. There are plenty of theropods with greater mechanic advantage values at the back of the tooth row than T.Rex however, Carcharodontosaurus for one, if just looking at equal sized theropods, has a mechanical advantage value of about 0.37 at the back of the tooth row.
Anyway, I feel Spinosaurus had to have a pretty hefty bite in absolute terms.
[link]
See this Alligator Gar? Being chopped by an axe? Notice how difficult it is to do so, also notice how in one part of the video there are visible sparks made from the axe slashing along the scales? A lot of the types of fish Spinosaurus would have preyed on would have had the same kind of enamel hard ganoid scales, only they would have been even thicker ganoid scales since they belonged to bigger fish. Ganoid scales as you see, are quite hard, Native Americans even made arrow heads out of ganoid scales apparently.
π: 0 β©: 0
WOOOOW pretty. I love all the colorful details.
π: 0 β©: 0
AWESOME!! COOL!!! This spino is better them Planet dinosaur BBC's spino.
π: 0 β©: 0
ok there are is a pretosaur, and a dinosaur also that croc, whats with the turtle?
π: 0 β©: 0
I won't go through the channels of a formal critique, because I don't have all the answers (probably not even most of them) and I'm sure I'll miss some things. But I think you need at least one person popping up to say "remember Caesar, thou art mortal."
The biggest problem is the perspective. It's not good. The odd, apparent aerial angle (caused at least in part by the diagonal ripples); the lack of converging lines or vanishing points; the chopped-off composition; and the width compared to the foreground animals, make the river look like a a short stretch of stream - possibly flowing downhill - rather than the wide, distant expanse of nile-like proportions I would assume you were trying for. (Only assuming, though) That all clashes with the eye-level view of the animals, the reflections on the water, and the extreme converging perspective of the treeline on the far bank.
It makes the animals seem too bunched together and plays optical illusions with their size. The nearest colobo seems huge, about 2/3 the size of the spino. As far as I can tell, at least. It doesn't help that it's part of the 'chopped-off composition' (along with the right bank, reduced to a few whisps of green), left to hover over the painting and environment rather than interact with it.
The flying colobo looks tiny in comparison, thanks to the position of it's reflection in relation to the spinosaur's reflection and dribble-ripples (it looks like it's reaching halfway up the river) in the 'compact stream'. It looks like it's a scant few feet away from the spinosaur's head, though difficult to tell if it's in front, or to the right. The croc doesn't seem too much further ahead, either; and thanks to the river's perspective problems looks even smaller.
The bird's-eye-view short-stream effect, and the spinosaur's long reach and almost-parallel position to the river and the bank, wreak havoc with the converging perspective of the treeline. Rather than suggesting distance it look like they're rapidly shrinking along the river's route, and add more confusion as to whether that route is uphill or around a bobsleigh-like turn.
That's what all the disparate perspective problems - positions, distances, angles, reflections, etc. - combine to do to the painting. There are too many inconsistencies and contradictions. Conflicting reports create too much dissonance and the more I look, the more Escher-like the painting seems and the more my head spins.
In addition, the far bank and treeline look far too regular and regimented, almost like an afterthought to get out of the way so you can concentrate on the dinosaur. Believe me, I know the feeling, but it's not helping.
The tree in the river. Two words - sore thumb.
The reflections of said tree and the furthest colobo look strange, too sharp for a running river I can't say much about the right way to do it, but I know a man who can.
Colours: pretty good, but I think there's too much reliance on a blanket of flat, saturated green to suggest vegetation - despite the black shading and hints of brown.
In fact, I think the black shading may be a cause of the flatness. It also makes the entire painting too dull and muddy. It especially doesn't help the sky, creating a dark and stormy look that I don't think is reflected in the rest of the painting.
Animals look good, though I think the spino's tail seems too narrow, ribbonlike and floppy, especially with this in mind. It's also maybe a bit too Todd-Marshall-spiky, but that's more my own tastes.
Thumbs up for having a go, though. I can see and appreciate what you were going for, but I don't think you're quite there yet. Some more study of perspective, composition and reflection are needed, I think. And it might be a dirty word in some areas of dA, but I think you could do worse than give conceptart.org a visit, for starters.
π: 0 β©: 0
Wow, just incredible work for traditional art. Just amazing detail in your work. I would never have guessed this was created by hand.
π: 0 β©: 0
