This represents points from the previous elevation transferred onto the vertical axis of my 3 point layout.
I rotated the drawing 90 degrees clockwise, drew a square that recedes to the "orthogonal VP," and drew diagonals from the square to locate the VPs on what is the horizon line in the right side up position.
[I have reasons for doing all that-- they may be wrong.]
The few diagrams I've studied always have a line connecting VP1 with the front corner of the box. [At a point representing the Central Visual Ray.] This line extends to intersect, at a perpendicular angle, a line emerging from VP2 that goes to VP3.
Problem: when I draw the lines described above, VP2 must connect with a point on the vertical axis that is substantially higher that VP3.
However, I have worked out a drawing of the banana box using "New VP3," but not changing anything of the other measurements, and everything seemed to work out well and look right.
I'm going to mull over this [not posted yet] drawing, figure out if anything is wrong, or figure out WHY it's right, and post it later this evening.
(I cleaned up the above drawing by transferring measurements to a clean sheet.)
I used the new (higher) bottom VP3 that results from my studies telling me that the line from VP1 through the front corner of the box (CVR) has to be perpendicular to the line that connects VP2 and VP3.
I drafted (badly-- my compass lacks tightness) the semi-circle of Thales to find the SP to the right of line VP2--VP3 that is used to find the vertical measuring point.
The proportions and geometry of the box's appearance compares well with reality. And, I've messed around with the measuring points to pencil in some arbitrary divisions on the box.
Yet, it seems to me that that elevation (side view) that I created should define the Orthogonal VP (where the axes cross) and VP3 without VP3 having to be moved to make things work!
It looks right. And, it gives me a workable 3D measuring system.
But, I fear I'm missing something!
[MacEvoy's discussion of the side view elevation is dense and hard to relate to a real view. So, admittedly, I'm "winging it" and trying to relate his diagrams to what I think I know without fully digesting his text.]
Note: Below represents an 8.5" X 11" sheet with the drawing scaled so that 1 millimeter = 1 inch.
Public Woman: moved a lot, didn't get as far as I did with helmet hair man yesterday. (The 2 ghostly sketches are her too-- you can see where I've crossed out time on the main drawing-- was contemplating bailing at various points due to movement). Honestly, I'd benefit GREATLY right now from a true model that doesn't move--one whom I can gaze upon freely and rudely! Particularly for heads.
Note: based on some more study of "Handprint," MacEvoy's site, I think that last banana box perspective IS correct. My assertion has to do with the 90 degree "cone of vision." The "higher" VP3 corresponds to the lower most point of this cone in relation to the CVR. This makes sense because you can't see past a vanishing point.
The only thing left that puzzles me: why isn't the top point of the "cone" the OVP instead of the OVP?
But, I'm pretty sure I figured out the real deal and it works. (Even if I'm too math dumb to prove it).
Yo Perspective Lord! How you doing?
(after you've mastered mechanical 4-point perspective, you'll be promoted to Persp King, and Persp God after you've mastered mechanical 6-point perspective) LOL
Just curious, but what's your objective for spending so much time on mech perspective? All the time, when drawing from life, we don't use rulers, and a understanding of where the converging lines go is more than enough!
Originally Posted by Kamber Parrk
Honestly, I'd benefit GREATLY right now from a true model that doesn't move--one whom I can gaze upon freely and rudely! Particularly for heads.
Have you tried finding if there's any community figure drawing class / sessions in your area? Because like what you said, you can really learn a lot from one! I realized this myself only recently, when I start to read Peck's anatomy book and when looking at a nude model, I don't feel so lost or confused anymore, because I can start to spot where the landmarks are, how the rib cage and shoulders are structured etc.
But at the end of the day, you're still the beast when it comes to fast sketches!
You've been working hard, and so I vote for your SB with 5 stars, and due to the calculation, it ends up at 3.
I guess if a couple more folks come along to vote, it will push it up to 4 stars and then 5.
Hey Xeon: 3Point's kind of the "Crown Jewel" in my perspective knowledge. Once I can use it cleanly with authority, I will be able to incorporate it effectively into my cartooning as part of the system I'm using for 2Point.
I have access to some good relatively cheap life sessions. But, what I'm talking about is an up close model that I can give my own directions. I'm considering approaching various acquaintances to see if I can get some quality drawing time with them.
The bad thing about formal sessions is that sometimes you end up with 20 minutes of pose that's not always positioned or close enough to do the type of study that'll benefit you the most at a given time. Also, I could use some formal costumed models to work on human/drapery interaction.
[Good to hear you're reading Peck! That book is one of my prized possessions (next to my 18" see-through ruler).]
Ultimately, this book'll probably never be 5 star material by CA standards! The 5 star rating is jealously policed by the community and pretty much goes to what I call "portfolio" threads-- books that are filled with ONLY high grade professional level stuff. Even if I arrive at professional level cartooning and start drawing easily in the manner of E. M. Gist and Reilly, this will probably still be where I post daily mileage, experiments and problem solving!
Yeah, MORE PERSPECTIVE: with some problems and questions that I'll try to sort out later in the evening-- Recycling Bin Again-- elevation and perspective
Great studies. The newest entries with the perspective 'math' are an awesome way to help with perspective drawings. Even though they do still confuse the heck out of me sometimes. Also have you ever tried to deconstruct your perspective before you draw it by just putting horizontals and verticals to get proportions? This helps me a ton when I'm doing perspective sketches.
BogGnarr: What I usually do is rough sketches from life-- with a focus mainly on the abstract perspective aspects of what I'm seeing, THEN I try to mark up those drawings with horizons and vanishing traces-- THEN I try to work out the scaling. [Something with the way my brain works, I get really lost just looking at a blank paper and trying to work out perspective without my toys and pictures.]
That works pretty good for 2Point. And, its what I'm trying to do by focusing on that banana box here for 3point. The thing I'm STILL struggling with is proving to myself that what I'm doing is mathematically correct.
"Art Later Post": I'll edit in my latest "banana box studies" later in the evening-- they need scanning-- and I need to reflect upon just what is was I was doing in them.
Note to self: still have to post the diagrams for the above post.
Daily: taking the Daily back into construction/anatomy studies. This is a composite of WWE wrestler Randy Orton. I made a 7cm X 5cm box, gridded out the classic divisions-- hairline, brow ridge, base of nose, chin, then using a couple different photos as ref, did my best to construct an image to the scale of the box. There are oddities because I was making up some detail because I do not have a photo that is "square on mugshot" like I'm constructing here.
Basic mass construction was with an "egg and wedge" crash dummy type head that I've been trying to incorporate into all my life drawings.
My goal is to memorize R.O. to use an "index figure" for my cartooning and life drawing.
Daily continues with the Randy Orton mugshot gallery:
In the second image, I tried to fit the profile into a 7cm X 6.5cm box. The nose is supposed to go on the outside of the box. But, like the frontal shot, I've gotten a little out of spec to make the chin look right.
Progress on these is pretty slow because I'm taking time to review various texts as part of the process: Peck, Bridgman, Loomis, Richer, etc.