Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 65
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,921 Times in 2,548 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by daafone View Post
    Can we please talk only about my question? This thread may be useful in future to others, so why do we have to flame?
    Sure, your question is best answered by practice, study and effort to understand the principles of perspective. A variety of books, that make sense to you, will be the best guide as you practice many of the challenges you will face when trying to learn perspective.

    Because Anid called me out on what I thought was the best advice I could offer.
    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    154
    Thanks
    128
    Thanked 46 Times in 42 Posts
    Thanks for taking the time to draw that up, arenhaus. I'm curious about why the rightmost two points on the elevation (thought that was actually a "plan"?) square are directly below the points on the perspective square, while the rightmost point on the elevation square seemingly isn't directly below the corresponding point on the perspective square. Is that a property of perspective, or am I looking at the diagram incorrectly, or is it tiny accumulated errors, or something else?

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,921 Times in 2,548 Posts
    Pretty sure you're right on the money there arenhaus - sort of reverse engineering a bit to get the plan view then moving forward again to establish the perspective. Nice job!
    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals

  5. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    154
    Thanks
    128
    Thanked 46 Times in 42 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Cider View Post
    Thanks for taking the time to draw that up, arenhaus. I'm curious about why the rightmost two points on the elevation (thought that was actually a "plan"?) square are directly below the points on the perspective square, while the rightmost point on the elevation square seemingly isn't directly below the corresponding point on the perspective square. Is that a property of perspective, or am I looking at the diagram incorrectly, or is it tiny accumulated errors, or something else?
    After puzzling through this a bit, I can elaborate my question. In step #3, I expected you to draw a line between pt A and the rightmost point in the perspective rectangle, and then drop a perpendicular from where that line crosses the HL to find the width of the rectangle in plan. If you feel like wasting more time on this, I'd love to learn more

  6. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    3,055
    Thanks
    254
    Thanked 1,122 Times in 885 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by arenhaus View Post
    I built this demo rather quickly from memory, so double-checks are welcome.
    That's a really helpful Fucking Manual for many to read. Note that it is limited to squares with the frontmost point dead in the center of vision, horizontally. I prefer to start with the stationary point and take it from there.

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,081
    Thanks
    1,529
    Thanked 5,191 Times in 1,728 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by arenhaus View Post
    It's very much a science, Kev. If you "fake it" and eyeball everything, it does not mean that there is no method to do it precisely.
    Don't misunderstand me. I am a firm believer in the genius of the system you just gave a primer to. (Particularly fascinating is the addition of elevations and floor plans into the mix. It took a lot of brilliance to figure all this stuff out) I encourage every artist to learn it, master it, love it, appreciate it. Etc.

    However, it is a technique. It is not science.

    A linear retreat of perspective is not what actually happens as an object retreats from the eye. The fall off just seems linear from a certain distance. Objects actually retreat from our vision under much more complicated equations, the solutions to which become more or less asymptotic/indistinguishable with linearity beyond some distance only.

    Secondarily, the surface of the earth is curved. The consequences of this are enormous. Anything based on a single horizon line and straight perspective lines beyond a certain point will be incorrect because of the curvature of the plane at a distance, and will be even more curved at the deepest corners of our vision field. Any particular building can be correct in planar perspective in relation to itself (assuming good carpentry.) But using the same parameters to orient another building which is miles from it in the distance will not be a true relationship.

    So, taken together - the falsity of the use of perspective for things in close, and the falsity of the use of perspective for things beyond a certain point... we must appreciate that what we are talking about is a technical procedure which just approximates things (and which is enormously useful in doing so.)

    Let me reemphasize: I did not mean to discourage the understanding of the perspective techniques generally in use by the student artist. It is essential technical information.

    kev
    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    3,055
    Thanks
    254
    Thanked 1,122 Times in 885 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    Secondarily, the surface of the earth is curved. The consequences of this are enormous.
    I beg to disagree here: it is really not noticable in daily life, just as it is not relevant for a carpenter.

  9. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,631
    Thanks
    2,518
    Thanked 2,591 Times in 1,616 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Cider View Post
    Thanks for taking the time to draw that up, arenhaus. I'm curious about why the rightmost two points on the elevation (thought that was actually a "plan"?) square are directly below the points on the perspective square, while the rightmost point on the elevation square seemingly isn't directly below the corresponding point on the perspective square. Is that a property of perspective, or am I looking at the diagram incorrectly, or is it tiny accumulated errors, or something else?
    It's just a shortcut to get the scale of the square's elevation plan. Ultimately it does not really matter what scale the plan is, since every square with two sides lying on the same vp1-a and vp2-a lines will share the same diagonal vanishing point, so I just used the perpendicular.

    Of course, you'll want all other measurements to be done with diagonals from there on, or you'll get distortions.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to arenhaus For This Useful Post:


  11. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,631
    Thanks
    2,518
    Thanked 2,591 Times in 1,616 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    So, taken together - the falsity of the use of perspective for things in close, and the falsity of the use of perspective for things beyond a certain point... we must appreciate that what we are talking about is a technical procedure which just approximates things (and which is enormously useful in doing so.)
    Kind of like Newton's laws of motion are false, because you need Lorentz's model to get it really right... right?

  12. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    WA State
    Posts
    2,364
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 1,272 Times in 887 Posts
    As much as a certain evil part of my brain longs to see the extended dust-up that may result from this thread, I say arenhaus has given a rather clean and elegant answer to the OP.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Kamber Parrk For This Useful Post:


  14. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,883
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,066 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    A linear retreat of perspective is not what actually happens as an object retreats from the eye. The fall off just seems linear from a certain distance. Objects actually retreat from our vision under much more complicated equations, the solutions to which become more or less asymptotic/indistinguishable with linearity beyond some distance only.

    Secondarily, the surface of the earth is curved. The consequences of this are enormous. Anything based on a single horizon line and straight perspective lines beyond a certain point will be incorrect because of the curvature of the plane at a distance, and will be even more curved at the deepest corners of our vision field. Any particular building can be correct in planar perspective in relation to itself (assuming good carpentry.) But using the same parameters to orient another building which is miles from it in the distance will not be a true relationship.
    It's like in calculus when you zoom in on a circle or a curve enough, it appears as a straight line. Though beyond a certain frame of reference, it's certainly not.
    "Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."

  15. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,631
    Thanks
    2,518
    Thanked 2,591 Times in 1,616 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Cider View Post
    Thanks for taking the time to draw that up, arenhaus. I'm curious about why the rightmost two points on the elevation (thought that was actually a "plan"?) square are directly below the points on the perspective square, while the rightmost point on the elevation square seemingly isn't directly below the corresponding point on the perspective square. Is that a property of perspective, or am I looking at the diagram incorrectly, or is it tiny accumulated errors, or something else?
    I have simply taken a shortcut, for clarity. Since we are dealing with a perfectly aligned square here, it does not matter what the scale of the elevation plan is; all squares aligned to anchor point a like that will have the same diagonal and the same diagonal vanishing point vpd. So I had just used a quick and lazy way and plotted a perpendicular to get a referent.

    Now, if the square was not aligned to a, that would not work. This is a modified architect's method aimed at plotting a perfectly aligned square, remember? The full architect's method would have a at the viewer's position and two additional horizontal lines for the picture plane bottom, one in the elevation plan and one in the perspective plot. You'd use them to measure horizontal positions of each point, and diagonals to measure relative proportions. But in that version of the method, the elevation plan is much larger than the resulting perspective plot, and typically requires two separate pages.

    This simplified version is still very useful for plotting any square with sides parallel to the sides of the perfectly aligned one. You can use this perfectly aligned square's diagonal VP and the existing vp1 and vp2 to plot any number of squares not aligned to a, as long as their sides are parallel.

    So often it's worth finding a vpd for a rectangle perfectly aligned to a, and then just use the three VPs to plot the real unaligned rectangle - instead of bothering with the full-blown architect's method.

    After puzzling through this a bit, I can elaborate my question. In step #3, I expected you to draw a line between pt A and the rightmost point in the perspective rectangle, and then drop a perpendicular from where that line crosses the HL to find the width of the rectangle in plan. If you feel like wasting more time on this, I'd love to learn more
    Technically, yes, I would. But in this case I only needed to calculate the vpd, and so didn't bother to keep the scale right. The diagonal is the same for any size of a square perfectly aligned to a, remember, and in this particular case I don't need to care about distortions anywhere else.

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to arenhaus For This Useful Post:


  17. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cambridge UK
    Posts
    5,457
    Thanks
    6,453
    Thanked 4,524 Times in 2,458 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post

    A linear retreat of perspective is not what actually happens as an object retreats from the eye. The fall off just seems linear from a certain distance. Objects actually retreat from our vision under much more complicated equations, the solutions to which become more or less asymptotic/indistinguishable with linearity beyond some distance only.

    Secondarily, the surface of the earth is curved. The consequences of this are enormous. Anything based on a single horizon line and straight perspective lines beyond a certain point will be incorrect because of the curvature of the plane at a distance, and will be even more curved at the deepest corners of our vision field. Any particular building can be correct in planar perspective in relation to itself (assuming good carpentry.) But using the same parameters to orient another building which is miles from it in the distance will not be a true relationship.
    kev
    I think the thing that really messes people in contructing perspective is all the straight lines.
    when you look around at things its all bending out at you.
    if you dont belive me sit in your chair and make a mosaic of shots of your surroundings. the walls will all bow outward along apparent curves as they come close and recede fom you.
    brainy just builds it all into a picture we understand.
    sure there are vanishing points, but theyre in every direction, and most objects higgledypiggldy.
    Buildings stand at funny angles on steep hillsides or along river banks.
    that and most vanishing points are usually way the fuck off the canvas your drawing on..
    Draw a perfect square using two vanishing points
    Draw a perfect square using two vanishing points

    those simple perspective excercises cant handle that so drawing anything that isnt boxy and perfectly alignedwith its surroundings is a nightmare.

    Straight line perspective constructions are quite good for architecture, tiled floors, toasters and streets.

    For mountains and coral and building sites theyre really not that helpful at all
    Youre pretty set if you just remember stuff close to you looks bigger than stuff thats far away.

    Draw a perfect square using two vanishing points

    Draw a perfect square using two vanishing points

    Quote Originally Posted by s.ketch View Post
    It's like in calculus when you zoom in on a circle or a curve enough, it appears as a straight line. Though beyond a certain frame of reference, it's certainly not.
    interesting that. but corners you can zoom on forever. like theyre different elementary particles of shapes.
    Last edited by Velocity Kendall; April 27th, 2012 at 04:46 AM.
    sb most art copied to page 1
    Weapons of Mass Creation 2011 ::: Add your favourites!
    skype: velocitykendall
    facebook: Alface Killah

  18. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York, USA
    Posts
    2,337
    Thanks
    1,074
    Thanked 2,206 Times in 1,056 Posts
    Not only is the real world not built on infinite straight lines, your vision isn't a straight line, either... It's a combination of input from two eyes at different positions, and includes a chunk of information from peripheral vision, all mixed together and edited into a presentable form by your brain...

    So perspective only gives an approximation of what we actually see, or think we see. It's good for getting you 90% of the way there, but to make a picture "look right", you generally need to do a little eyeballing and adjusting after you've done the technical part of the perspective.

    This is why un-adjusted 3D scenes often look weirdly distorted in places (especially near the edges...) They rely on formulaic perspective, and aren't tweaked by a human to "look right" to a human viewer.

    Oh, and if you wear glasses, everything is curved...

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to QueenGwenevere For This Useful Post:


  20. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    154
    Thanks
    128
    Thanked 46 Times in 42 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by arenhaus View Post
    I have simply taken a shortcut, for clarity...This simplified version is still very useful for plotting any square with sides parallel to the sides of the perfectly aligned one. You can use this perfectly aligned square's diagonal VP and the existing vp1 and vp2 to plot any number of squares not aligned to a, as long as their sides are parallel.
    Awesome discussion--thank you! This really helped me understand the theory behind the method you demonstrated.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Vanishing points?
    By metalhead3 in forum Art Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 1st, 2011, 07:02 PM
  2. Vanishing Points
    By Jie Kageshinzo in forum Photoshop
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: March 29th, 2011, 03:30 AM
  3. Is there a system to do perspective without vanishing points
    By The Blue Pill in forum Art Discussions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 3rd, 2010, 01:33 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 19th, 2009, 04:16 AM
  5. Off-the page Vanishing Points in Photoshop
    By jfrancis in forum ART TUTORIALS, ART TIPS & ART TRICKS - ARCHIVE
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 13th, 2005, 05:21 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Developed Actively by the makers of the Best Amazon Podcast