View Full Version : freehand perspective tutorials
April 13th, 2003, 11:09 PM
I've been trying to find some tutorials on freehand perspective. I found one site that had some here drawthrough.com (http://drawthrough.com) , but there wasn't very much information on how to figure out measurement like making perfect squares. I understand how to do this with rulers and a 1pt or 2pt perspective setup, but I can't seem to figure out a way to measure things with the freehand method. If anyone knows of any other tutorials other than at the site I found, I'd really appreciate it. Thankyou.
April 18th, 2003, 02:17 AM
well what i have assumed is using the length of the pencil and dots for markings :)
April 18th, 2003, 02:13 PM
Well, I'm talking more about ID drawing, not observational drawing. But, thanks :)
April 18th, 2003, 02:40 PM
I guess I don't get what you're asking either.
You need to know where the horizon is and where the VPs are I guess.
You can use perspective guidelines like that
but you won't be able to construct a perfect cube for example.
Drawing to scale and measuring freehand?
I don't think that's possible.
Maybe these links help!?
April 18th, 2003, 03:42 PM
no i didnt mean observational, i just lay the pencil on the paper andwork out rough prespective using that with dots while i stay in line with the dots im in prespective but i dont actually use a ruler, animators usually assume prespective so check some of thier stuff :)
April 20th, 2003, 02:40 PM
I know how to make perfect box... Listen: Draw horison, and make 2 points. Lets say that angle bettwen those two points is 90 (well it can be any angle smaler than 180, but lets say 90)
Ok. You know that diagonal of quadrat is 45 degrees in relation with side, and so disapeer point of diagonal is in the middle, beetwen first two dots. I will let you do finish this quadrat alone. If you want to make perfect box you need one more disapeer dot. This is bottom dot. This dot represent line wich is 90 with horizon. So connect first dot and last one, and in their midle you got 45 degrees wich is diagonal of vertical side...
I has same problem... I couldnt find perfect box perspective metod, so I was create it by my self.
If you get in this metod you will se that something missing...
That you will find alone:) And reemember: There cant be perfect perspective metod, cose 3d cant be 2d.
April 20th, 2003, 05:59 PM
["That you will find alone And reemember: There cant be perfect perspective metod, cose 3d cant be 2d."]
Hmm… a ponderous notion that one attempts to perplex with.
But since not many of us are English majors lets just leave this quote as an example. Perfecting in a 2D world is expressed by the perception of the artist. Hence I can make an oval (and if insane enough) I will claim it’s a perfect square.
But that’s not the problem I see here, there seems to be a misunderstanding that you are trying to correlate a 3D environment to what artists “portray” on paper. The answer lies in photos. A perfect 3D environment example captured in a 2D prison (debate if you like but all photos no matter how realistic are 2D – flip it over and see the Kodak paper if you will). Hence 3D is possible to be created in a 2D environment as long as we understand that it’s artistic illusion.
And in the end it’s exactly like magic. Not 100% real but a mass quantity of society is enamored with it. The better the artist/magician the better the “illusion” can be displayed and performed. So as to where the cube is only showing X amount of sides, if you had the same cube and looking at it through the same “perspective” that the artist portrays, it is perfect (not taking into account that every possible shadow hue is presented – lets just stick to more line work terminology).
Yeah I rambled long enough, and I’m not sure I made my point but then again there wasn’t a real question here to begin with.
God bless and keep using the pencil and dots method.
April 21st, 2003, 03:08 AM
I was very happy when I discover perspective metod, cos it make my drowings look more real. Ofcourse, till now I was create large number of perspective drowing, so i dont need anymore to lay down helping lines.
There is difference between photo and image in brain.
1- human see angle about 180/75. If you make photo with that lens you will vired image
2- human see two pic in same time. First 75/75 ant second 2/2. Thats way you eyes allway moving.
3- Vertical lines are allways vertical. So 3 point perspective is mistake.
4- Human eye allways scalling its blend, so even when you look at the picture you cant see it as it is.
5 Five and most important thing- Eye have focus, wich is not just bluring, it is telling brain about distance.
6 There is two of eyes
I dont know why everybody is so interested in my bad english:confused:
April 22nd, 2003, 02:27 AM
["I dont know why everybody is so interested in my bad english"]
What bad english? It comes in clear, all that seems to be misunderstood here is what the original question actually is or was. Somehow it went from a simple proposition to a derailed Lufthansa off the 91.
I like the breakdown of what and how the eye works but I’m here to tell ya that art in itself is magic. It (er rather the artists) has the ability to fool that complex Rod’s & Cones coupled with the intrinsic synapitcal and neuron laidened mass between your ears (yet another complex system) to see in a 3D fashion. So in short I end my stand here until I can fully understand what I’m actually debating about more so then someone’s need to make technical discussion.
April 22nd, 2003, 04:35 AM
I dont like that kind of aproach. It looks to me like cave man mitology: If is it tunder they think that some spirit is anger. Art is magic as magitian is wizard. If you know perspective you will easy create perfect box, or perfect architecture. I agree that you can make good perspective without construction, but this way is much longer and risky.
April 22nd, 2003, 01:51 PM
Wow, it's amazing how misunderstood my question was. Thanks very much for all the help. My problem is not that I don't understand perspective and measuring points, it's that when drawing the freehand guidelines you generally don't use a horizon line. You first plot like five lines (two going to one vanishing point, two going to the other, and one vertical that points to the center of vision) that don't touch at a point but are plotted with enough acurracy that they would converge on the same horizon line if you kept drawing them. My problem was, and I'm sorry I didn't state this clearly enough, that withough the horizon line or plotting a stationary point how would you determine your measuring points so you could plot measurements. Or, withough using a measuring point or a measuring line how could you find a perfect square? I know how to make a box freehand and double the distance of a line in perspective and how to make elipses that fall on the correct minor axis (well sorta ;)). but making a perfect square is still beyond me. My guess is that industrial designers must do lots of traditional perspective constructions of perfect cubes in many different vantage points and then use their best guess. That, and they probbably try to memorize correct angles. Hmmmmm...looks like I have my work cut out for me.
Oh and I have to agree with Danilo, perspective doesn't really work (the traditional method anyways) because when we see 3D objects at a distance from left or right those objects begin to curve. As far as I know, no one has found a way to accurately make a grid that represents the distortion caused by distance yet.
April 23rd, 2003, 03:39 AM
well Im still dont understand you:( (maybe this is cose my egish is bad). What you want to make perfect perspective without construction drowings???
I think that horison is denier line. If you draw pic in outer space why you need horison? You just need vanishing points.
this guy know something of perspective.look at drawng comics section.
April 23rd, 2003, 08:08 AM
Thanks, I think I get it now.
June 5th, 2004, 07:05 AM
I found this discussion very confusing. I'm no perspective expert. But Danilos "rules" seem strange. At least the 3rd one. 3 point perspective is used in a situation where you are looking at an object from below or above (frog/bird perspective). This object have to be viewed at a distance (in the case of skyscrapers) or just being small (like when you paint a still life). Lines being vertical has nothing to do with it. Perspective construction deals with how our eyes (or rather eye, since it's one image we're making) precives our sorroundings. 3PP is valid. Then again, I might just be misunderstanding Danilo. No offence, but I also had some problems figuring out parts of your posts.
As for Wilson. I might have something for you. I found this over a year ago. It's actually a page about water colours, but it goes into perspective in DETAIL. You probably won't use all this but it's a good read. Actually you just might come off with a headache! There is a lot of eye openers in there! Combine this text with other more simple perspective tutorials, and you might start to get an idea of how to apply it. I still struggel tho. Print this out and read it all (beware it's the length of a small book)!
This text talks about mesuring points in both 1 point perspective, 2PP and even 3PP (!!!). The 2PP construction starts on "page" (chapter) three.
It might not be easy to start from there though. It took me a while before I understood that the arcs he is drawing are from the vanishing points. It's kind if like Danilo described it. But here you can work out the measurepoints easily regardless of how you rotate your cube on your paper. I'm not sure I'm all understanding it all yet though.
Now when I reread your posts I realize that you want to do this freehand. Not sure if this will enable you to do that. But the text deals with tightening loose perspective sketches into valid perspective. I still think it's a good read and if you practice enough you will be able to do it.
As for panorama perspective, check this out. This tutorial is from a thread here on the forum (search for panorama). It loosen up how you think about perspective in a good way.
Last note about 3PP:
You could turn it around and say that All perspective drawings should be 3PP. It is just that there are situations when we don't need it since the difference is too small to see and it would be inconvenient. Like when we're viewing an object centered, head on (1PP) or slightly rotated but close (2PP). You just would have to use paper the size of a small gymnasium to be able to plot the vanishing points. :rolleyes:
Remember you can have 1PP and 2PP, maybe even 3PP, objects within the same drawings. It's mostly about how they are rotated compared to the viewer.
Not sure if this was all that good in the end but maybe somebody will find it helful. Good luck! :)
June 20th, 2004, 10:37 AM
Scott robertson's video from gnomon.
August 26th, 2004, 07:45 PM
Heh, heh, man, I forgot I had posted this. That seems so long ago! Since I asked this question I took a class with Scott Robertson and though it doesn't need to be said I did figure out how to draw cubes fairly accurately freehand. You draw elipse to determine a side. Since an elipse is a circle in perspective, if you draw sides around it it will determine a square which in turn will help you determine the cube.
October 4th, 2004, 06:59 PM
I discovered this thread as I inquired in perspective and its very informative!
You draw elipse to determine a side. Since an elipse is a circle in perspective, if you draw sides around it it will determine a square which in turn will help you determine the cube.
The only thing I can't figure out is this freehand technique. I can't see how you can construct a square from an elipse.
I thought a lot about it but I miss the point. Its not logical to me because an elipse in perspective doesn't has to be a circle???
Would you or (anybody else) be so kind and explain it a little more precise? It would help me a lot. Thank you!
October 29th, 2004, 08:46 PM
I think the idea is that you get a guide to draw the ellipse, that way you would know its a perfect circle in perspective, from there you lay in the outside edges of the sqaure around that to get the perfect square in perspective.
January 12th, 2007, 01:34 AM
August 19th, 2007, 08:52 PM
realy i have to thank u and the master Scott Robertson.Realy u and your teacher helped me on geting rid of the problem of makin a square in perspective.thanks again and again.
February 23rd, 2012, 01:20 AM
Hey can you guys put an image to show this technique, I am finding hard to understand by just words alone :<
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.