- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
The reason for the stretched skin look for dinosaurs initially is because of the comparison to lizards, who do frequently have their skin stretched on their bones except in a few places. Unfortunately things like that have momentum, so changing it takes even longer than it took to catch on.
I’m still pissed at Jurassic World cowardly going with the old designs when they could have shown the current knowledge, much like the original movie has.
Eh, in universe it fits the continuity. They’re not dinosaurs, they’re lab created animals that fit an inaccurate public perception of dinosaurs . Corpos keep corping, why mess with a winning formula
I haven’t watched Jurassic World, but wasn’t that kinda explained with the frog DNA? I heard something to that effect. Meaning that they knew they weren’t like the original animals.
yes, henry wu even says something along the lines of that.
Yeah, that’s not even remotely relevant to what I was talking about.
I want to take it one step further.
And no, I don’t care if there’s good reason to believe that Tyrannosaurs weren’t fluffy like owls, I still want a decent artist’s depiction of a T. rex with owl-level fluff.
Feathered tyrannosaur of Asia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yutyrannus
Feathered tyrannosaur of North America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanuqsaurus
Artist’s depiction =|= AI slop
≠
Neeeeerrd
May I marry you
I’llAllowIt.gif
ill_allow_it.gif
Yay
I should warn you my wedding dress will have spiked shoulderpads with Warhammer style spikes
!=
Get off your high horse
Why? They’re right. There wasn’t an artist involved in making that.
If you acknowledge that producing a fake image of an imagined idea is art, why is the neural net that produced this picture not an artist? What is your definition other than a thing that produces art?
How about comparing to the Campbell’s soup can. Is that not art? And yet it’s mass produced.
If your objection is to the quality, what specific aspect of this image vs the others in this thread, or in life, makes it low quality.
If typing a prompt into a plagiarism machine makes you an artist, why doesn’t paying a real human to make art for you also make you an artist?
If someone said they were the artist of something but it turns out they just paid someone else to do it, would you think they were a talentless jackass or an artist?
I’m talking about the machine being the artist, reread my message.
Nvmd other guy got it
They weren’t calling themselves artists, they were saying the AI/model is the artist.
Your comparison is a strawman.
Came for this, not disappointed
A giant murder sparrow would be horrifying as fuck, ngl.
Anyone who thinks feathered dinosaurs are somehow less terrifying need to be locked in a room with a cassowary
Or just look at depictions of terrorbirds. They actually coexisted with early humans.
They still do if you’re antipodean
Horrifying AND cuddly.
They might’ve really had feathers! It’s funny how Jurassic Park colors our perception
Fun fact, the reason some dinosaurs are depicted with lips is because the asymetrical wear on their teeth doesn’t match with modern equivalent’s that have exposed teeth, meaning they had “labial scale” lips.
Image owned by Mark P. Witton
Hippos will absolutely fuck you up, though.
Yeah pic 2 is just an artistic depiction of their inner selves
Inside all of us there are two hippos…
Hey, that’s not fair, I’ve really been trying to lose weight.
And it shows! You look like just 1.8 hippos now!
Take your upvote
deleted by creator
It’s like that is the hippo’s Slayer form from Baldur’s Gate 2.
But they have a Bruce-Banner-esque secret… they are always the Slayer.
The term “artist” here is being used kind of loosely. They’re doing the bare minimum you need to turn a skeleton into a living creature. Good artistic representations require a lot more imagination, beyond what we scientifically know. You can get clues by looking at already existing animals and how they relate to their skeletons. Which gives an idea of how much not bone material those creatures might have. No you won’t know exactly how much they did, but that’s not really being represented by skin wrapping either is it. Better to try and go for something believable rather than the bare minimum.
Uh, go and look at most artistic renders of dinosaurs. So much so that people now actively reaist attempts at more accurate depictions. This is very much truth in meme, in fact it’s exactly what they’re sporking.
Hippos are so friend shaped it’s unfair.
I mean, look at this guy!
IT’S A TRAP! chomp
Holy shit, this is exactly this book:
All Yesterdays: Unique and Speculative Views of Dinosaurs and Other Prehistoric Animals
There was a great podcast that pointed me to it: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/welcome-to-jurassic-art-redux/transcript/
I think that’s it. I’ve already done more searching than I intended to get the name of the book. You’re on your own.
I wanted to be an archeologist when I was a kid because I loved dinos. This book speaks to me.
To whoever likes this sort of fantastical speculative artistry, one of the authors C.M. Koseman also wrote and illustrated All Tomorrow’s, which is a similarly speculative view of humanity from the fictional perspective of a paleontologist in the unfathomably far future, after humanity spread to the stars and experienced an apocalypse that leads us down countless evolutionary paths. Content warning: Body horror, cosmic horror, but presented in an academic way.
I wish I was one of the snake people. Look at him. He is at peace with his Sock and Juice.
An interesting book on why many dinosaur depictions are wrong and what they may have looked like.
The hippos teeth peg it as a mostly vegetation, so depictions would favor that line.Does that hippo have a beard?
It has a badly shaven mustache, so the beard is likely
