30-point perspective

[brokk]

BRAIN STRAIN
24" 2004

Can a painting have 30 point perspective? Yes....................

Here is the gallery http://www.termespheres.com/gallery1.html
And here is the Brain Strain thing: http://www.termespheres.com/brainstrain.html

6 point perspective: http://www.termespheres.com/perspective.html

Pretty crazy, I thought there was only up to 4 point.

[I_LOVE_ART]

:ac::ao::ao::al::a!:

[theincredibleandy]

oh man, that's hilarious! My friends and I made fun of an old dorm roommate cause we thought he was an idiot for BS'ing about learning up to 6-point perspective in high school. Wow...I should probably apologize to him...

I won't though. He's still an idiot.

[Hayabusa]

i dont see the big deal....u can get tons of perspective points in a more complex city scape scene for example....especially if theres people in the scene....woopty dooo..he can draw shit that recedes to a point...

[Dizon]

about that 5 pt and 6pt perspective. my instructor never taught us that. he only gave us a photocopy of a sphere with intersecting lines. what crap!

so thats how its done...

[blankslatejoe]

i dont see the big deal....u can get tons of perspective points in a more complex city scape scene for example....especially if theres people in the scene....woopty dooo..he can draw shit that recedes to a point...

I think you might be mixing up vantage/viewing/perspective points and vanishing points. yes you can have a million VPs in a scene if you want, just by rotating objects around, but the picture itself will still be limited to a grid/world setup.

I'm not positive on this, but I think the 2 point, 3 point, 4 point, etc. are completely different ways of "laying out 3d space on a 2d page". You can still have all sorts of vanishing points within those, but where they'll fall will be based off of your initial choice and the scope of the 3d-to-2d representation.

With 3 point perspective, every object has 3 VPs, right? side 1, side 2, and vertical.

but with 4 point perspective, every unique object would have 4 VPs (add another vertical in there). With 5 point, everything's got 5, and so on. I think that's how it works.

[Hayabusa]

i can understand 4 points...top, bottom and two sides, hence the curve in the drawings, but how can u have 5 points or more on an object with only 4 sides or planes or whatever? i dont get it

and yes ihad them confused

http://www.termespheres.com/images/new_pieces_2005/brain_strain_large.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v506/tough_love/braane.jpg
like in this picture, the cubes say in the frst row can be split in half at the middle cube....all those to the left recede to the "top" aND below they go to the "bottom" of the respective cubes...theres a curve to it so it makes sense, and on top of that they also recede to the sides....i only see 4 points...granted that seperate rows of cubes are on seperate planes and therefore VP's....but i still dont see more then 4 on each row of cubes...maybe they were confusing the same thing i was and just callin everything vanishing points...seeing as how things seem to vanish to them or however have u

i think this line is very misleading

Can a painting have 30 point perspective? Yes....................


really rough redraw so u kno wtf im saying

[brokk]

Ok, I really don't know much on the subject, but I'll try to add something to this. Take it with a grain of salt please.

i can understand 4 points...top, bottom and two sides, hence the curve in the drawings, but how can u have 5 points or more on an object with only 4 sides or planes or whatever? i dont get it.
The problem is that the object does not have either 4 sides or planes. In fact, it has no sides or planes. I think that has something to do with not being able to treat this as a flat surface.

Do this: where you are sitting or standing or otherwise right now, turn your head up. Now look at your sides. Now look down. Try to draw all this on a paper (or imagine it). Now, look up, and continue to look further back until you can see beyond the zenith, and then you will have to turn your head and body around to see whats on the other side of your head. Try to imagine how all this would look on paper, it would be a full 360 perspective of everything around you. The 1, 2, and 3 perspective points are true if you are looking at something without turning your head, its like a moment in time. The 4th perspective point is what would happen if you look upwards or downwards, towards the zenith or nadir. The 5th perspective point is what something would look like turning your head both up and down, left and right, and to the diagonals, forming a half-sphere. The 6th perspective point is when you actually turn your head around and look at whats behind you. I guess its trying to draw on a paper, everything you can possibly see from where you are standing, looking in every direction possible. It would give a 360 whole view, therefore, a sphere : )
And I'm guessing its only appropiate to represent that, on an actual spherical surface, rather than a flat surface.
Remember that these are only 2 dimensional photos from a three dimensional object, I'm guessing its much different to hold one of those spheres and turn it around than it is to see still shot of it, flat.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v254/bk7600/braane2.jpg
The main problem with this interpretation is that you are considering it as if it was a 2-D image when in isn't, its a 2-D shot of a 3D object. The vanishing lines you established do not recede to those points, they recede following the spherical surface, around the sphere. Also there are several other vp's you didn't mark.
I can't explain the 30 point phenomenon or how it works, I haven't understood it myself, but it has to do with something like this more or less:
There are six vanishing points distributed in equal distance to each other, forming a dodecahedron, like the site mentions. A side of a dodecahedron has 5 edges, so 6 x 5 = 30. This is the part I don't understand, how he establishes all those other vps. I imagine he puts a vanishing point in the middle of one of the edges between the two vanishing points of where the edges meet. But this is only my conjecture.

I hope that cleared things up.... somewhat... its a very confusing subject, I'm quite confused myself.
If anyone sees any conceptual or interpretational flaws on what I posted above, please correct them, my mind feels like its desperatly trying to grasp what this is all about.

[blankslatejoe]

hrm.... so if you have a spherical range of vision from wherever you sit, if you image that a sphere is 'literally' around you, like a bubble, and that represents all you could see from that point.

draw a cube around that sphere, and each face of the cube has a vanishing point associated with it?

[Prometheus|ANJ]

I wrote a quick and dirty computer program a while ago that generates a 5pt perspective grid.

It's quite simple, just start with a big circle (which is the horizon if you look straight down into the ground and have 180degree vision), then draw centered ovals horizontally and vertically, and in the middle you draw radiating lines which works as the forward VP.

It sorta works, but the trouble is spacing the ovals, cuz the density should increase towards infinity the less oval they get, ie. the closer to the edge of vision they are. I don't know by what formula...


http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/perspect5.html
There's a perspective grid near the bottom here but I think it has the same problem as mine, the squares get distorted near the edges.

[Hayabusa]

too complex for my little brain, not worth my time

[brokk]

hrm.... so if you have a spherical range of vision from wherever you sit, if you image that a sphere is 'literally' around you, like a bubble, and that represents all you could see from that point.

draw a cube around that sphere, and each face of the cube has a vanishing point associated with it?

Yup, I think thats the idea, only instead of a cube, he uses a dodecahedron. And I think that he doesn't put the vp's on the "faces", he puts them in the corners.

Prometheus|ANJ, that reminded me of this:
http://www.treeshark.com/Persptut.html

And this, from the handprint.com site you mentioned:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v254/bk7600/spherical.gif
Hmm... I don't know about that formula. Ovals get more distorted near the edges from where you are standing, if you walk around the sphere, the ovals in the center from which you are viewing will always seem more "correct" and less distorted. In reality, the sphere has the same ovals distributed all around in a uniform manner, it only seems as if there was more density near the edges.
If the program you wrote was 3d and you could rotate the sphere, you could just distribute ovals uniformly along the sphere and you would just have to rotate views (right?).
Ack.

[blankslatejoe]

as an interesting point of topic, I did this once as a neat exersize.

take an empty art frame and string plastic wrap over it... then find a nice scene in real life and use a sharpee to literally 'trace' real life. you have to close one eye and keep yourself still so your view doesn't change, but afterwards you can see things look strangely unreal. Maybe our minds are so accustomed we don't see any distortion as out of the ordinary. but drawing it into a picture, flattened, and the distortion looks unreal. it works really well if you stand close to the frame, so you see more through it, and are inside building/room.

[brokk]

Dude, cool! I'm gonna try that.
That, and building one of these crazy painting spheres.

EDIT: I don't know what that plastic is, I'm gonna try it with tracing paper.

[blankslatejoe]

seran wrap... pastic wrap, that stuff you wrap leftovers in :) tracing paper works too, though its not as easy. Seran wrap + sharpy work well.