HOME | DD
damir-g-martin — Male Tyrannosaurus
#feathered #featheredtyrannosaurus #cretaceous #dinosaur #king #paleoart #sculpture #tyrannosaurus #zbrush #feathereddinosaur #damirgmartin
Published: 2014-11-21 20:09:00 +0000 UTC; Views: 84715; Favourites: 2016; Downloads: 9
Redirect to original
Description
Male Tyrannosaurus I made for Mike Kelly upcoming book about the King of dinosaurs. Iridescent plumage covering sides of the kings belly and most of the dorsal tail.. An element directed towards attracting opposite sex.I pulled my hair out for couple weeks trying to figure questions relating to feather/fuzz in Rex. The render above has optimized tail feathers (for a faster render time) Originally, the tail feathers should look bit different. I tried to design the tail feather to look unique. I had peafowl on my mind the entire time. His beautiful tail feathers are very special and a trophy among feathers. I Tried to make Tyrannosaurus tail plumage a "trophy" in it's own. Sort of like: "You gonna wanna see T Rex tail feathers!" There's an image on my facebook page that explains the feather structure. Sort of like a long bristles attached to a stubby rachis, reminiscent of a broom.. I wanted to go "outside the box" with it. Due to the lack of evidence I as an artist had certain extent of freedom and I took it. I took advantage of "art" in "paleo art" if you will. I simply tried to avoid going the safe way or simple way by completely exploiting modern feather look and feel( even if this render does not show it properly)
Print for private use only.
Related content
Comments: 219
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I love how you chose to present him as a beautiful creature, rather than a monster. Great work.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hey, I don't know if your where trying to make it accurate or not, but you seem to have given it bird-like feathers, Tyrannosaurus didn't have those, he had only dimples filaments like mammalian hair/fur ( only on the aesthetic part though)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Is the shape of the head intended to be accurate? Did you use a picture of a real skull for reference?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Truly amazing!
You gotta get your work onto our site : www.renderhub.com
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Pretty damn awesome!
You say you spent a couple weeks having to figure out just the feathers and fuzz. How long would you say you needed for the model as a whole? A month?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Depends. What level of detail is required. It can all be done in matter of up to 5-10 days. But if you want super HD detailed model, it can take up to 3 or more weeks for model and feathers.
In this instance I was dealing with new plugin that I did not have much experience with. So when you're trying to get a result via new methods the process takes a while.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've only drawn T. rex with feathers on the back of the neck. But this looks pretty darn good, and I bet it's pretty close to the accurate animal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Not too dull yet not too flashy either. This is amazing color balance.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Did you read where they found a partial dinosaur tail embedded in amber? Guess what? It was covered in feathers!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I read it. Amazing, we need more discoveries like that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What if... what if, all the land dinosaurs had feathers! Not just some of them. Birds are warm-blooded aren't they?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Then most of the bigger ones would die of heat exhaustion.
Tyrannosaurus in particular would already be having trouble getting rid of excess heat without the trouble of having ridiculous feathers covering it. It literally had no good reason for having feathers whatsoever, they just would have given it a harder time surviving. And anyway, not every Dinosaur evolved into birds, it was likely only the Raptors and other dinosaurs which where already flyers!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That is a possibility.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oh wow! I love the detail on this. Especially the feathery portions, looks really neat!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is one of the best pics of a T. rex I've ever seen.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Holy menstruating mother of god I hope you are paid well!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Love the blue and green/teal-ish colors on the feathers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I would like seeing this rex than the one we have now in JP.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
hehehe thanks for making me smile
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't think they evolved into birds.
They're just an extincted kingdom similar to birds and reptiles.
But yeah, why not be feathered. Makes total sense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Unfortunately for you, the evidence overwhelmingly supports birds being the descendants of non-avian dinosaurs, as birds are still technically classified as dinosaurs, just avian dinosaurs, under a monophyletic hierarchy. Which means that snakes are still considered lizards, as snakes evolved from within lizards. Which is why humans are still apes, and apes are still monkeys and we're all still primates.
Birds (as we know them) evolved within non-avian dinosaurs. True birds didn't appear until the Cretaceous period, around 100 million years ago.
If you look at Emu's, they still have vestigial forearms that contain a finger and a claw... it's easier to visualize the transition when looking at paleognaths, rather than neognaths, which the latter is what most people see on a daily basis. Paleognaths are emus, ostriches, etc.
Kingdoms are the second highest rank in taxonomy... There are six kingdoms as it's taught in the US, but 5 as it's taught outside the US. However, some recent classifications based on modern cladistics have explicitly abandoned the term "kingdom", noting that the traditional kingdoms are not monophyletic, i.e., do not consist of all the descendants of a common ancestor.
Birds/Aves are a class within taxonomy. Everything that is not defined as a plant, fungus, bacterium, etc. are animals, which yes, includes humans.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Birds (as we know them) evolved within non-avian dinosaurs. True birds didn't appear until the Cretaceous period, around 100 million years ago."
Extreme age.
I think the geology you'd use to measure era's according to Darwinian models by is not that old. Maybe not even 1 million years old. And all the changes we see on Earth could be thousands of years old rather than millions of years.
No man has ever observed the passing of 1 million years, or 1,000 years. By saying Earth is billions of years old, scientists plant the thought that many small and slow changes could take place over hundreds of millions of years.
If the Earth is younger, then evolution is false.
In any case it simply can not be scientifically proven under laboratory conditions and is thus a theory I label pseudo-science.
And if you use extreme age to justify modern population from later then about 14,000 years ago, you get a family growth rate many times larger than we have alive today.
Ice cores measure not one year of snow fall from the past, but however many hundreds of times snow fell at the poles in one years time over thousands of years, if use use elementary logic.
Our DNA is vastly different from any ape alive or extinct, and our infants are not born with instincts.
Our children are born useless to themselves and the environment unless it is to be fodder for something else they can't evade, or defend themselves from.
Unlike any other mammal besides a few marsupials.
Are we closer to a possum than an ape?
The fact a newborn swims to the surface of a pool if born in water is proof that a baby swims in water even before birth, not any instinct to reach the surface.
Set your 8 month old baby in front of a cobra.
Will he scream and back away like a 1 week old chimp would?
No, the human child would move towards it and try to touch and experience the new stimuli it is trying to learn about and comprehend.
This comes with having no fear because of absent instinct.
If mother is willing to set the baby eye-to-eye with the thing, the thing must be okay, due to our hypothetical infants learned behavioral awareness.
A chimp mother would never come near a cobra, on instinctual directive.
Nor would a human mother, but only because she can see in her fully formed imagination that the outcome would play out as I said.
Fear in that case is not instinctual, it is emotional, and emotion derived from a sound logical interpretation of data is something very few mammals have the ability to do.
Maybe we are dolphin or pachyderm cousins? But their newborns function and can find the way to mothers teat at birth. And so do possum babies, so my earlier rhetorical question is inert in that case as well.
We are vastly separate classes, and I don't even consider us animals at all.
But you're free to follow the status quo.
I'm not saying anyone has to agree, just allow me to have my own opinion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Well, the age is determined due to scientific observation and experimentation.
What is measured is the decay of certain elements in various core samples, etc... elements decay over time and they measure the amount of decay of those elements to determine the age of the sample they use and they use several different tests that overlap each other to find a concordant result.
"If the Earth is younger, then evolution is false."
Not really. But since the Earth is not younger, in fact, as science has progressed, the age of the Earth has gotten older and more precise.
Anatomically modern humans didn't appear until about 200,000 years ago. Our population didn't really double until the last 50 years.
"Our DNA is vastly different from any ape alive or extinct, and our infants are not born with instincts."
Actually, no, it's not. The DNA difference of us with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. Most importantly, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans all show this same amount of difference from gorillas. A difference of 3.1% distinguishes us and the African apes from the Asian great ape, the orangutan.
We actually are born with instincts. The reason our species isn't well adapted to the environment is because we've evolved to develop environments to us. We don't live out in the wilderness anymore like other apes.
We are closer to an ape, because we are apes, right now.
Humans are curious animals by birth, it's a shame we figuratively beat that curiosity out of children.
Actually, a one week old chimp wouldn't be left alone either, the mother would be carrying it around most of the time.
Fear is an emotion, instinctual or not. Fear is what plays into our fight or flight response, which is also an instinct.
Well, we're animals. Deal with it. Everything that defines an animal, defines humans. Because you're not a plant, you're not a protist, you're not bacteria, and you're not fungus.
An animal is defined as a generally motile, multi-cellular, eukaryotic, heterotrophic organism lacking a cell wall, whose embryos pass through a blastula stage and possess specialized sensory organs for recognizing and responding to stimuli in the environment.
Enjoy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"What is measured is the decay of certain elements in various core samples, etc... elements decay over time and they measure the amount of decay of those elements to determine the age of the sample they use and they use several different tests that overlap each other to find a concordant result."
But my point was, the tests are built over a false underlying assumption that is shunned from being contested. If the premise is inaccurate, all the tests designed to back it and confirm it without considering the root as non-fact are inert and misinterpreted chemical reactions proving nothing. If scientific ego can consider that possibility at all....
"Not really. But since the Earth is not younger, in fact, as science has progressed, the age of the Earth has gotten older and more precise."
I'd like you to clarify the "Not really" part.
And since no one can really be certain in the realm of truth, you can't just state the Earth is older and leave out the merit backing of that statement. I know it will take a book to explain your answer, but I'm addressing if for the norms who might be reading this in awe of our collective reasoning.
Many atheists will begin a debate with me and end in a huff if I go into detail with many paragraphs of explanation, but the fact is any real intellectual premise takes stamina to evaluate or explain. Anyway, I disagree the science has advanced to the point of accurate dating, and physic's and the study of the universe helps back the flaws in Darwinian logic, in my personal opinion.
Without your "Bible": "On the Origin of Species"; none of the modern sciences from geology to psychology even exist in the realm of science fact.
And most of those sciences, from physic's to geology were invented by creationists.
"We actually are born with instincts."
Instincts:
A) an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli.
B) a natural or intuitive way of acting or thinking.
C) a natural propensity or skill of a specified kind.
"A", is the definition that helps the evolutionist theory out of the hole of proving infant human instincts.
I just don't think the ability to lay there like a slug, blow spit bubbles, twitch and cry shows much instinct....
"Actually, no, it's not. The DNA difference of us with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. Most importantly, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans all show this same amount of difference from gorillas. A difference of 3.1% distinguishes us and the African apes from the Asian great ape, the orangutan."
I was talking about the structure of the actual DNA helix. Human has no real comparative structure.
Any ape, a chimp, gorilla, orangutan has the "break" in the double helix actually leading to two disjointed individual strands.
Ours seems "fused" at the point of the break.
Your very smart, I'm not challenging your intellect, you quote the standard accepted view vert succinctly.
"Anatomically modern humans didn't appear until about 200,000 years ago. Our population didn't really double until the last 50 years."
I disagree, based on the inability to determine the actual age of organic mater past 30,000-45,000 years, and the ability of human made leather to fossilize in as little as 50-80 years in the right mineral conditions. The texts on rock ages and other sample elements to determine decay are theoretical enforcement to the underlying assumption of the validity of extreme age.
Of course, we have been studying population for the length of our human history (sarcastic joking statements) and we didn't just start studies on the phenomena 50 years ago because we were getting worried about resource management and overpopulation.
Neither were there any epidemic's to speak of or any other conditions reducing and increasing that number such as wars or climactic condition. And we can't track any of it with DNA memory.
Or maybe we can...and maybe about 10,000-14,000 years ago a genetic bottleneck appears in every strand of modern human DNA, that proves the humanity we have now is only that old and separate from all past populations in its diversity, or lack of it.
Science is fine with me, but it is clouded by Darwinian theory, and we can have science and still be objective about creation. Ask, Sir Isaac Newton.
"We are closer to an ape, because we are apes, right now."
This has no scientific merit, and is a vague statement of unclear determination. It seems to be nothing more than a reinforcing opinion of the data offered above it, in which case it is fine, and relegated to propaganda in favor of the personal agenda. Nothing wrong with having an opinion.
"Humans are curious animals by birth, it's a shame we figuratively beat that curiosity out of children."
I know...who can dream when forced to cram in a set criteria of accepted standardized knowledge in order to pass a term to progress in life or be relegated to failure based on the scores.
"Actually, a one week old chimp wouldn't be left alone either, the mother would be carrying it around most of the time."
"A chimp mother would never come near a cobra, on instinctual directive."; spoken with the assumption that the reader will understand mention of the mother is implying the infant in her arms, under her protective care.
"Fear is what plays into our fight or flight response, which is also an instinct."
According to human and animal psychology. The science based on the "evolution" of senses (see "Fields of Psychology: J.R. Guilford Edition"). But fear in mankind is not the same as the fear in a deer that spots a hunter. Neither can a case be made to support it if evolution is not used as the foundation of the explanation. It's another fallacy of the peudo-scientific Cult of Darwinism.
"Well, we're animals. Deal with it. Everything that defines an animal, defines humans. Because you're not a plant, you're not a protist, you're not bacteria, and you're not fungus."
Of course, logically, we are animal, if compared to mineral, or vegetable. But my attestation is we are not in the natural order an animal as considering the obvious linguistic divisions of terms, such as: "We don't live out in the wilderness anymore like other apes."; using the knowledge of human as advanced order and civilized as the defining quality of man.
"An animal is defined as a generally motile, multi-cellular, eukaryotic, heterotrophic organism lacking a cell wall, whose embryos pass through a blastula stage and possess specialized sensory organs for recognizing and responding to stimuli in the environment."
Isn't the process amazing, ingeniously designed, and nearly undefinable from as species standpoint? Are we worms if the following stage were to die? If examined by some alien being would they even consider it embryonic if the embryo itself were all that they had been offered to study. Who ever created the process must have been more brilliant than any human who ever lived or ever will.
"Enjoy."
I did, no gall intended.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I would love to talk to you through another medium besides text, because typing is becoming very tiresome.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I feel you, but I write a lot so I can stand it.
In any event, I hope you part with me in mutual respects and at least hold out the remote (however improbable) possibility that I have as much a chance of being right as anyone else claiming to know something. I love to study the alternatives to my own theories also. It help in the formulation of mine, and I don't claim to be correct, I just would rather it be my way as a personal choice.
It's been fun.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Personally, it's not whether I want to believe something or not... it's what the evidence demonstrates and if the evidence doesn't validate my views, then I need to change my views.
Evidence should change views, views should not change evidence.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I can totally understand that opinion. Neither will I condemn or judge you for holding it. I used to be atheist because the facts of reality (mostly human behavior and life and death) make it so easy to weight them and conclude in favor of blind chance.
But my belief now, consists of the ancient sentiment: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
I have faith that the physical barriers on reality are not restricting the improbable possibility that there is more. I hope then, for something beyond what can be proven by men. And to me, and millions of others, the fact that I'm willing to do so is proof enough in the power we collectively imagine. In my faith, man is very small, even smaller than in the view I once held about his insignificance. But the one that made man, understands everything man never could. It frees me from the realm of possible truth, so I can: "speak things that are not, as though they be true."; and be assured that by my faith, the impossible can become possible.
My scriptures state, the world will mock me, and see my opinions as madness. (which enforces my view)
But also says that the wisdom of men is defined only by their reality. (pure logical observance)
If you don't believe in my faith, there is none, in your reality.
If you join in, there is hope, for all.
But nothing about that is demanding you agree, or compelling me to force you. A lot of false religion has been heaped on the simple teaching of forgiveness and grace. (tolerance)
Free will, and choice are the point in my beliefs.
And 90% of all the Nobel Prize winners of history share my opinion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Valkaneer | Professional Writer.
You certainly write well, a better composition than my attempts to defend my worldview. I tend to include my fair share of metaphors and sarcasm, though; probably not the most professional approach.
I've read your responses and enjoyed them, and you actually have the last response in the threads, my 'opponents' have devolved into a 'Good! ... I'm glad you're glad! ... I'm glad you're glad I'm glad!' mentality of having to have the last word. Also, they tend to resort to character assassinations. I know I'm not the best debater, but I figure I'm above these below-the-belt blows like "Did your mother drop you on your head?"
I kinda wish I could borrow your wisdom and presentation method. If I tried to borrow just your talking points, I'd probably still botch it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
They actually did evolve into birds however that was the smaller ones not the T-Rex
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't believe in that vast a change, because I don't believe in the extreme age of Earth.
If you go by that theory, then for 22 of the 24 hours Earth has existed (as a theory model) life was non-existent and in the last 15 minutes dinosaurs and mankind with all his technology has developed. If evolution from one cell took over 2 hours to become higher order biology, then how did it advance so rapidly in the last few minutes?
Anyway....
Love the render.
But evolution has as many holes as Swiss-cheese when you really strip away the non-science "theory" and get right to the heart of what has never been solved by the pseudo-sciences of geology and origination genealogical biology. Chiefly in explaining how life began at all. I find it an attempt to understand what we don't and can't without being able to transcend time as a barrier.
No laboratory study can be done to back it with real, pure scientific method.
Human origin is the most problematic seeing as a chimpanzee is relatively unchanged for something like 260,000,000 years if the accepted timeline is used. Where are the half retarded, fire making, stone and bone wielding, hairless hand gesturing cousins of us? Or the aquatic fish catching upright kinfolks of those apes? Why and how can the theory exist without the proof of the intermediate phases?
It leads a diligent student of origin and change through progression to other questions such as the broken strand of DNA in every ape species (and the pre-humans we have harvested viable strands from) becoming mysteriously "united" in human DNA at roughly 25,000 years ago or missing a key combination in the sequence.
You have to either rely on Arthur C. Clark or Sumerian Myth and say alien intervention is at play.
Or concede to the dirty words no one wants credit as factually viable.
They give us a neat set of progressions from Erectus to Neanderthalensis to modern Sapiens Sapiens. When in fact, the number of evolutionary changes from neanderthal to human is on the order of 65,000 missing links, not just one or two. Same with Erectus to Neanderthal, or earlier common ancestors.
The question is not why fossils don't show up in earlier strata deposits, the question is how geologic were the area's that housed any fossils at all, and how rare a fossil of anything actually is.
Then logically attempting to understand the bias towards alternative history and fact.
How it is perfectly fine to construct a whole skull from one tooth or one eye-socket.
Realizing at last that all the "actual fossils" of the so called early-pre-human family can be housed in one shoe box on one corner of one table in the warehouse of bones in our museums.
But for years a pig molar was upheld as, The Missing Link.
But Neaderthal and Erectus are complete because they dwelled in caves and near rivers, paleontologists just like to lift the shoulders up to human level to get rid if the obvious anatomical sway of the hands at the mid thigh.
And ignore the definite triangular difference in the ape ancestry rib-cage compared to our nearly oval design. The reason a chimp can tear Vin Diesel, literally apart limb-from-limb. Because we as mighty as we are, we are so soft and delicate compared to ape strong.
Why would that evolutionary advantage leave us with intellect?
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"extreme age of Earth"? What..... What do you mean?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Earth is thought to be 80 billion years old.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>