How to really keep dinosaurs

I love it! Hey, maybe that's Alaskacephale. Don't you go stealing my Prenocephale idea now, Mike! :-) Now will this be an actual book, or just a series of paintings? Because a book would kick ass.

I also have to thank Mike for steadfastly sticking with traditional pen & ink (and paint) methods for his restorations, while shabby CG crap is being loaded onto the printed page faster than you can say "awful."

rant: I think there's something inherently scientific about drawing a life restoration from the skeleton up. The artist can see how the muscles connect to the bone, they can figure out what looks right and what doesn't, how mobility works, etc. In essence, the pen & ink artist, while a dinosaur himself by today's standards, is actually learning about the animal as they go along (I do, anyway). But CG scupts can't do that. You start out with a bulky wireframe, with no real skeletal structure to build upon. When I draw my dinosaurs, I always start with the skeleton (this could be why so many of my pictures take so damn long!). Why do those National Geographic dinosaurs look like crap? Because they were reverse-engineered. There's no science there.
/rant

First of all, those do look fantastic. Can't wait to see the book.

And a response to Zach Miller: blame the artist, not the medium. There is indeed a lot of shabby CG illustration out there, but there's some fantastic stuff as well (such as National Geographic's Dakosaurus).

As someone who has actually done both 3D and 2D restorations, I think 3D actually has the better potential to be scientific. It's impossible to get perspective and lighting errors, and, if you use a good reference, it's also impossible to get proportion errors. I've even done simple 3D mockups as a precursor to some 2D pieces just to make sure the pose was accurate.

Just because some people aren't using the medium to its full potential doesn't mean the medium is inherently bad. Any artist who doesn't use a skeletal reference is going to churn out crap (although possibly good-looking crap) whether they're using paint, pencils, Photoshop, clay, 3D Studio, Maya, or crayons.

[from Darren: sorry for the delay in the appearance of this comment Mike. The spam-filter at Scienceblogs automatically quarantines anything with even one url in it. This is the source of constant complaint.]

Wonderful pictures!

Only Daspeltosaurus picture has kid in the wrong place. It should be inside mouth. That would be more wonderful Mash humor.

Come on, pugs and cocky kids are only interesting when they get into trouble - read Harry Potter, even kids themselves think so!

BTW - couldn't colors be more bright and patterns sharp? Make Das more like green tiger and less like bowl of spinach. ;)

And 'Phale boy could clutch his knee.

Is that a meeting on alien plants or a meeting on alien planets?

What the...? Is that kid wearing dockers? How realistic is that? And doesn't it send entirely the wrong message to children?

... if you read Tet Zoo, you're in very good - ... - company.

Indeed, as we're in your company, Darren. No irony intended in that.

I am also regularly impressed by the amount of expertise your other readers have.

Darren - Thanks for posting the imagery, hopefully it is more in line with the anatomy of " dinosaurs as pets " !

Zach - The images (there are 5 so far) were done for a series of panels on display at Dinosaur Provincial Park, here in Alberta. I thought the public would have fun with the idea of dinosaurs interacting with kids, and it is helpful in establishing a sense of scale, for those unfamiliar with the relative size of dinosaurs. One of my publishers and I have been kicking around the idea of developing this into a childrens book (once I get caught up with other projects).
I prefer working in traditional media (its a tactile thing),and although digital media is capable of many amazing things, I agree with your assessment of the pitfalls in terms of vertebrate reconstruction.

Jerzy - Although I can think of a few kids I wouldn't mind seeing in a Daspletosaur's jaws, the managers at the World Heritage Site where the panels are installed, would probably frown upon "graphic content" ! As to color, I'm a conservative guy, what can I say . . .

Pough - The kids portrayed in the panels are all local(except for the boy on the Daspletosaur, who lives in Georgia), and I asked all the parents to have the kids wear the sort of casual clothing they typically would go to school in, when we were meeting for the reference photography. As they new what the project was about, and that the kids were going to be "on display", I think that influenced their choices to some degree.

Mike, any chance we might see the other 3? :)

Weird, I wrote up a big defense of 3D CGI and it appears to have been swallowed up. :(

Anyway, great images!

Louis - thanks for your interest in the imagery. Actually, Darren has the balance of the series as well. If he has time to post the remaining 3 illustrations amidst his own daily topics, I'm good with it, but I'll leave it to his discretion. . .

Mike - thanks anyway, the fickleness of technology I guess, one moment it's there, the next , poof !... another reason I like traditional media, a physical end product I can hang on to!

Now that is riding a tiger! Beautiful pictures

and it appears to have been swallowed up.

You must have triggered the spam filter. For example, on Pharyngula all comments that contain more than one link are held up for moderation, and that's probably common to all of ScienceBlogs.

Yes, I had several links to examples. That must be it.

Anyway, my main points were:

1) If a piece of art is bad, blame the artist, not the medium.

2) 3D media* actually have greater potential to be scientifically accurate than 2D media*, since it's impossible to get perspective or lighting errors, and, if you use a good reference, it's also impossible to get proportion errors.

* both digital and traditional

3) If someone doesn't use a reference, then their illustration is going to be bad no matter what the medium is.

Mike, good point about having a physical end product -- but can you make a backup? ;) (If I had only copied my defense before submitting it....)

Digital media have several other advantages: the "Undo" button, the ability to easily make variants (or updates in the case of new discoveries) without ruining the original (there is no "original", really), and more flexibility when it comes to making tweaks (color, contrast, etc.). But, of course, if the artist lacks talent, or lacks proficiency, or lacks proper time, or lacks good references, it's going to be garbage in, garbage out -- same as with any medium.

I'm going to defend CG as well.

Again it is like any medium, and the accusation of not being able to build a skeleton or musculatur base is ridiculus. It is quite easy to do (just time consuming like any intricate piece of work) you can easily build these in a puter. CG is just like sculpting. You can build anything so long as you spend the time doing it.

Granted I won't lie about my CG dinos (that appear on my website linked to my name) in that they are a little lazy. I DO however reference drawings and skeletons to try and get them close. At the same time I won't claim their scientifically accurate. I like to think their not too bad though for about 5hrs effort each (I have a short attention span).

I think we should just agree that really bad efforts like how to Keep Dinosaurs are bad examples of Dinosaur art. I can name a gazillion books with equally bad 2D painted or drawn art. I think it's the research and effort put in that makes a good Dino restoration, not the medium.

I personally thought that the recent December issue of National Geographic's Dinosaurs were really good. If you're not convinced with them than watch their newish (it just came out down here in New Zealand) Sea Monsters CG movie. Their amazing!

As for Mike's pictures their unbelieveable awesome. I can't wait to see them installed at the field station in DPP when I start work there in May.

the "Undo" button

Also known as "the greatest thing since sliced bread".

Chris - thanks for the compliment!

Mike - in terms of "back up", yes in fact, as I have my photographer shoot 4x5's on most of my work, I have the capability to generate prints, and in a worst case scenario with a piece of masonite and paint I think I could produce a "reasonable" back up ;o)...

Traumador - point taken, fundamentally, the art (no matter the media) is inextricably tied to the skills and capabilities of the artist. Working at the Park?... as an interpreter? The Field Station has doubled in size with the recent expansion... interesting displays on extant flora / fauna... a nice counterpoint to the paleo exhibits.

Off topic, it's nice to see our own Mark Witton being quoted in a BBC article on the new fossilized-skin sample from Psittacosaurus: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7177181.stm

Mike- Yes hopefully as an interpreter. Technically I haven't gotten the job yet, but I worked at the Tyrrell for 5 years in a similar capacity, and know Fred Hammer pretty well. So I'm hoping I've got it.

I'm assuming your pieces are recent additions. Last time I was in the park field station was 2006, and they hadn't touched the dinosaur section at ALL. The new additions were just ABOUT to open. So it was only about 75% complete. I'm looking forward to seeing it all done, as well as the new renos at the Tyrrell (I left Canada in late 2006).

Traumador - Sounds good, maybe I'll see you out there this summer! As to the Field Station, the paleo section got a cosmetic facelift, but the displays are essentially the same. A series of paleo murals/panels that I was involved in are mounted in a corridor that separates "past" from "present" displays. In addition, in the new extant exhibits area, along the far wall, I have a series of 9 panels depicting scenes/geology based on photo reference I've taken there over the years, and have encorporated wildlife visitors might be lucky enough to encounter, organized in a series that progresses thru a "typical" daytime sequence, from dawn to dusk. At the official opening of the new exhibits, some visitors had mistakenly thought these panels were "photograph", but are in fact paintings. The Tyrrell has had some upgrades recently, including installation of a group of Albertosaurs in a forest setting you pass through in the foyer, and a revamped ceratopsian display in the main hall, that now includes a new Pachyrhinosaurus mount based on the specimen collected at DPP, Michael Ryans recently described Albertaceratops, and the newest addition, Eotriceratops (discovered near the "Albertosaur Pack mortality site" at Dry Island Buffalo Jump, 40 minutes north of the museum.

Mike, Pachyrhinosaurus is my favorite ceratopsian (it being Alaskan and all). Is there something special about the DPP specimen? Does it have a giant nasal horn?!?

Zach - The occurance of that specimen within the DP formation, I believe makes it the earliest appearance of a Pachyrhinosaur in the fossil record to date. It bears more similarites to the Pipestone creek material than to canadensis, and is conservative in terms of the morphology of the preserved boss. The good news is, that in the very near future, the long awaited extensive monograph on Pachyrhinosaurus by Currie Langston Tanke, et al, is finally due to be published ( I'm scheduled to paint the life reconstruction for an intended wraparound cover, next month )

Mike- I thought the DPP Pachyrhino ended up being named Albertoceratops.

I left the museum just before the ceratopsian exhibit was being put up (they'd just taken down Lillian and the Dino corner *tear*), and Darren Tanke was still working on the "Pachy" a bit. He said Dr. Ryan was going to describe it, and a few months later out came the Albertoceratops announcement... Did I assume wrong in thinking they were one and the same?

Mike, oh my gosh, you MUST tell me when that monograph becomes available, and how I can get my hands on it. As you may know, the Alaskan pachyrhinosaur material has a unique concave boss with a noticable "lip" on the front end, and the boss slopes downward toward the back (caudally?). There also appears to be a difference in frill ornimentation, although because professional Alaskan paleontologists are so scarce (actually there are NONE right now) nothing has been formally published.

And Traumador, I don't recall Albertaceratops (laziest name ever) ever being considered a pachyrhinosaur. The bugger is a basal centrosaurine, and seems to lie close to Zuniceratops and Kirkland's "Octoceratops."

But now I'm all excited about Pachyrhinosaurus!

Traumador - I'm not sure whether Michael Ryan is involved in the description of the Park Pachyrhino, he very well may be... but Albertaceratops ( which he has described ) is a separate and distinct animal found further down,in the southeastern corner of the province, around Manyberries. There is additional related material across the U S border into Montana. It is a basal centrosaurine, interestingly with prominent postorbital horns, and a simple "blade-like" set of paired/fused nasals, that even in this more mature individual, are reminiscent of a more juvenile condition found in Pachyrhinosaurus juveniles (and possibly all immature centrosaurines). Michael has a website dedicated to research in S. Alberta including a synopsis, photos, and a quick pen & ink "portrait" here :
http://www.digitaldreammachine.com/sadrg/dinosaurs/albertaceratops.html
Zach - I expect the monograph will be released before summer, published by Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. I believe the the content will focus on the Pipestone Creek material with comparative reference to related forms, various authors contributing, and promises be a fairly comprehensive overview of ceratopsian coolness!