>>53350986The first reply is a totally different anon, not the guy making the claim about motion blur changing something's entire shape, and like the reply to that reply said said, the photo of the Cyclizar proves that it doesn't matter if the photo is ingame or not, that alone doesn't cause multiple design differences.
You're trying to argue about the effects of motion blur, but are ignoring that actual motion blur when applied to Great Tusk's horns, still does not create something even close to the photo from the book. Yeah you can wave your dick in front of a camera to get a smear, but Tusk isn't moving fast enough for that to happen, have you seen it run ingame? It's very very slow. Even if it WAS moving fast enough to get a photo as blurry as anon's hand, it STILL wouldn't look like the shape in the photograph. I can fuck around with my picture of Great Tusk in Clip Studio for as long as you're satisfied if you need me to substantiate my claims.
You could even argue that maybe because it's an old camera, that would cause issues, since old cameras use light exposure to get their shots, but even THAT doesn't just generate anatomical differences in a photo's subject, go look at an old timey photograph, you don't see dogs with fucked up cat ears or anything like that.
This entire argument feels like you (yes, you) bending over backwards to bend the rules of what "motion blur" actually is to turn it into some kind of natural photoshop. Motion blur alone isn't enough to explain Tusks horns, we can go back and forth about just how much motion blur is in effect here but the answer remains unchanged.
