I'm really trying to wrap my head around why this works, geometrically. Why, eg., does the line drawn from the LVP through the CV strike the VVP - RVP line at 90 degrees? What causes these lines to converge at the CV on the picture plane?
Man I have gone through all your videos and they've been awesome. I've gotten most of the way through the the book you had (complete guide to perspective), bar the stuff you have yet to cover in 3 point But the stuff they have on ellipses and spheres is wrong. Same for scott robertsons book. It's also wrong. The closest i've found was an article by david chelsea on "boxing the sphere", which i didn't really understand why he was doing it in specific ways. His book "perspective for comic book artists" is the best method i've seen, for foreshortening an ellipse. But still his vertical two point bit was a bit confusing. If you could demistify the ellipse, sphere, parabola, hyperparabola, properly in perspective, it would be awesome! And i think they would be the only correct videos on the topic. Thanks for all the work you've put into your videos. Really has been the best resource out there.
The ellipse and sphere are interesting in that when you draw them correctly in perspective they look wrong due the the distortion that is inherent in perspective drawing. It is important to understand this because it clears up some of the confusion surrounding why you do not follow the points on a correctly plotted ellipse, and why you just use a compass to draw a perspective sphere. Most artists are more interested in making their drawings look good than being correct. But understanding the difference between the two is important.
@@trustyourperspective Thanks for the reply! Yeah i know they look distorted. For a while i thought that i was doing the ellipse wrong on paper, or that it was lens distortion in photos, or that photoshop warp was wrong. But i kept looking into it and it turns out they are distorted! I think they look cooler distorted, like when you draw a building just outside the cone of vision in some compositions. Also I feel like the point of learning perspective is getting stuff like that right as possible. One point horizontal ellipses aren't that bad. The sphere method isn't even that bad. More just i don't understand it so i am following it blindly. The (hyper)parabola are definitely the weirdest to me at the moment. Definitely voodoo going on there🥲
4 дня назад
Weird question, is the picture plane technically concave?
Some, but not all of them. Since I couldn’t find some information that I wanted to explore, I had to figure out many things on my own. I made a lot of mistakes.
8 дней назад
@@trustyourperspective Thanks for giving all this hard fought for information for free on YT 🙏
It doesn’t need to be the reference line. It can be any line that goes to a vanishing point.
11 дней назад
Will the box always rotate around the Reference Line the Axis Point is on? If so is there some way to change the line the box rotates around? Sorry if this is covered in future videos, haven't got there yet
Hello Sir I am a student studying perspective drawing. I have been studying with the book "The Complete Guide to Perspective Drawing" and happened to come across your RU-vid channel while searching online. Thanks to your channel, I found it much easier to understand the concepts with your explanations compared to just reading the book.😄 I apologize for the sudden question, but I have one that I would like to ask you. I have heard that before drawing with perspective, I should create a basic diagram first (as you explained in one of your videos). When drawing on paper, can I decide which part to draw? For example, if I want the vanishing point in a one-point perspective diagram to be a bit more to the right, or if I want to move the horizon line up or down, should I adjust the diagram on the paper accordingly?
I'm not understanding what's happening at 7:38, you say "it goes straight across", but how do you determine the angle? It looks like you're just eye-balling it, i don't see you lining up to any RP or MP or VP. Or does it need to go across parallel to the ML / HL? If so, i don't understand why that should be so. I would imagine the line needs to point at the RVP.
Yes, parallel to the HL/ML. You are creating a horizontal surface. Shadows of vertical lines on a horizontal surface follow the GL, which is parallel to the HL with Parallel light.
This is exactly the problem I'm wondering and I can't find any solutions online. If you want to reflect anything across a plane, you need to be orthogonal to that plane (at 90 degrees), otherwise it's an inaccurate reflection.
I found a method that requires a little bit of math, but you can compute them easily for common vanishing points (20&70, 30&60, 45&45) 1. Assume the height from SP to CVP is 1 (units don't matter. you can apply them afterward) 2. Be aware that anything above 0.63 (little less than 2/3's of total height) will put a line outside of the 60 degree COV 3. When you draw a line from a VP to the SP, the angle to that VP never changes. Therefore, when calculating the angle, the distance from the CVP to the VP is always fixed. This means that you must be aware (from 2) where within the 60 degree COV you want to place this line (height less than 0.63 means it's within 60 degree COV) Then from here, you just find the inverse tangent of the length from CVP to VP divided by the height ratio you decided (keeping 2 in mind) tan^(-1) (L/H) = angle These are approximate Length's I calculated: L @ 20 deg = 0.36 L @ 30 deg = 0.58 L @ 45 deg = 1 L @ 60 deg = 1.73 L @ 70 deg = 2.75 So, for example, if you want to find the angle to a 70 degree VP, where the height would be about 0.20 (within 60 degree COV), then the angle will be tan^(-1) (2.75 / 0.20) = 85.84 degrees 90 - 85.84 = 4.16 degrees On the paper, measure 4.16 degrees, and that's your line from within the 60 degree COV to the 70VP. Repeat for other lines. This really bugged me, so I had to try to work it out. I would appreciate if someone developed an easier method.
At 3:11 you say "This is a 45 degree angle". I don't understand. You're referring (and pointing) to a line, not an angle! Where is the 45 degree angle? Afterwards you talk about the station point, which i understand, but how does that relate to the red line?
It would be really great if you could make a vid explaining why using the measuring points creates isosceles triangles and why that makes lengths the same. Is it possible to explain from a top down view why that's the case, or doesn't that make any sense? Because it seems really fundamental to the whole perspective thing, but i'm not quite getting it. You could number the new vid like 30b or something so it would slot in.......I mean, i believe it of course, but i can't make physical sense out of it.
At 11:50 you project out to the RMP, measure two across on the ML, then project back. Did you cover this in an earlier video? (if so, i can't find it). I can't quite get my head around why that works!
@@trustyourperspective WAIT! ...... i think i understand. By drawing a line to the MP, You're creating a point on the ML that's an equal distance (horizontally) to the distance your point is from where it hits the ML on its way to its VP (the isosceles triangle thing). So you're subtracting (or adding), or to put it another way, 'correcting', for the offset of the point from the ML.
Thank you for this awesome content! I’m learning so much about perspective following your videos! The way you’re explaining it is easy to follow along with! If I had you as my art teacher in school I’d be on another level! Thank you thank you thank you
The horizon line is always horizontal. It doesn't tilt. In the birds eye or worms eye view the horizon line is always a horizontal line.
28 дней назад
@@trustyourperspectivethanks for the response. I'm struggling to wrap my head around 6:00 where you draw the horizon line parallel to the tilted line of sight
The line of sight is not really a horizontal line. it is a line in the third dimension. Its just that we have a 2-D piece of paper and need to show the distance from the viewer on a flat surface. I think I have another video that talks about this.
At the end you put the wheels on the wrong side of car #2! ........ seeing you make a rare mistake somehow makes me feels better about my own endless mistakes haha!
Honestly, the human figures standing on "the ground" and tilting their heads in every perspective text was what was throwing me off the whole time. It only clicked when I thought of just a pinpoint at the end of a light cone in outer space. There is no "up" or "down" and especially no re-orientation of my head anywhere; only arbitrary planes are rotated/tilted relative to the picture plane. Everything orients itself relative to ME and my always fixed line of sight. It also helped not to think of a whole "scene" being "in 3PP" but to think of "3PP" belonging to just one single cube that co-exists among other cubes in other orientations. Great videos though. It is helping to see the numbers for once and not just "space the vanishing points nice n far apart".
Right! We don't need the Earth to draw objects in perspective. Vanishing points are not "on" the horizon line but beyond it at infinity. We just talk about them being on the horizon line because the difference is more more theoretical than practical, and it's easier to just say put the vanishing points on the horizon line. I was going to get to this idea, but you beat me to it. It's great that removing the idea of looking "up" and "down" makes more sense to you. I spend a lot of time talking about object's relation to the ground plane, in addition to their relation to the picture plane, mainly because we spend most of our time here on Earth and when drawing things we are usually drawing them in relation to a horizontal surface. However one can wrap their head around the material...it's all good.
Is there a trick to drawing parallel lines at a distance quickly and accurately like you do at 7:38 and 11:26? Do you just use the grid on the transparent ruler to line it up, or is there more to it? I don't have a transparent ruler like yours, so the best I've come up with is butting two squares against each other. If I line of of the squares up with the horizon line, then I can slide the other square along the other side until it lines up with the center of vision and trace the corresponding line, but this is clumsy and prone to slipping.
Not exactly. Three-point is when the viewer is looking down or up. Here the viewer is looking parallel to the ground plane, so this is a two-point object that is at an incline. It has three vanishing points, but technically not three-point perspective.
@@trustyourperspective Aha, thanks! But isn't this the first time (in this series of videos) that there are 3 vanishing points for a box? I mean, i see it vanishing in 3 directions, so it doesn't feel like 2 point perspective! And if we ignore the fact that the box is tilted, we are kinda looking down at it. So if we rotated the ground plane 60 degrees clockwise, it's 3 point perspective, right? (for the last box)
Great! Instead of trying to copy your steps on paper, i'm just pausing the video and asking myself: "what does he need to do next?", and after a couple of times watching, I'm starting to get it!
I think it's interesting to note that in terms of teaching perspective, your videos are the least hi-tech of any on youtube, with the lowest production values, no animations etc. Just paper, pencils and a few tools. And they're also the best. I don't think that's a coincidence! Because the amount of time needed to produce 150+ flashy videos on this subject would be prohibitive. And it's not necessary. Just start at the beginning and run methodically and in detail through the whole thing without worrying about it also being quality entertainment! Well done & thanks!
Thank you and I agree! Entertaining, hi-tech animations with impressive production values are not necessary to communicate this information. But, I have no idea how to create entertaining, hi-tech animations with impressive production values. So there is that.😊
Just to check if i misunderstood, the plan view shows a perfect square but your perspective square was just drawn by eye, so in fact wasn't really a prefect square, correct?
It could be a perfect square. A square will be different shapes depending on where the viewer is. When I made up a measuring point and drew 45° angle, doing that placed the station point (the viewer) the correct distance from the picture plane it needed to be for the shape to be a square. I hope that makes sense. Let me know.
Im here right now at 2.23k subs great channel, I learned a lot in this channel, haven't finished watching the previous vids, coz my brain stopped braining😅
I never had thought that perspective drawing was so complex when I started to ✍️. It took me hours of study and searching for sources to learn. Then I came a year ago on your channel and I can say now that you are the only one who has the didactic skills and the visualisation skills to explain it. And at such a level that now I see this video I think I have come far. Thank you utmost and I wish to learn many more of you.
Can you also put "ground plane" in the title of this one? Because this video is one of the most important of the early ones. The explanation of the ground plane is crucial and needs to be easier to find!
