James Farrell Thanks James. I’m sorry it took so long for me to respond to your nice comment about my tutorial. To be honest, this RU-vid world is just coming into focus for me.
This changed my entire perspective (aha) on drawing. I realize a lot of figures are drawn this way, if you're looking eye to eye with someone the same height, the elipses would trend down towards the feet.
I watched and learned that an ellipse has two axis of symmetry. I also learned that through the center of the ellipse is called the major axis of symmetry.
very informative. Thank you. But it did not answer my question about drawing ellipses; it is good that you showed how you opened up the ellipse as you worked down the vase. But by how much should one open it up? This video was supposed to be about drawing the ellipse in perspective. This assumes some perspective formula for determining the correct ellipse. What you taught however was how to draw the ellipse by eye, freehand, with a little guidance i.e. open the ellipse as it goes below eye level. How much does one open the ellipse? How does one determine the respective angle of the ellipse as it moves away from eye level?
Hardtop Harry Thanks for your comment, but the information you request is beyond the scope of this simple discussion. If you need more specific information, buy an ellipse guide with several different ellipse degrees. A straight horizontal line is a circle seen from the edge. On the ellipse guide a line is equal to 0° and a circle is 100°. Each ellipse on the guide will provide the angle away from 0°. The ellipse guide also gives you major and minor axis marks. As far as I know (short of drafting a perspective drawing with station point , image plane and picture window), there is no way to extract the exact ellipse opening you need. Good luck.
I agree. But If we're getting technical, you're almost right. The angle still changes and the ellipses are still different, but it's not obvious or noticeable at a distance. However, we don't need drawings accurate to 1/100th of an inch, so I stand corrected. Still, if I dig down into every detail, the lesson gets muddy. I sincerely thank you for the input.
Isn't an ellipse supposed to be in perspective? Isn't the leading or closest edge larger in a ellipse? Or is that a perspective ellipse? And these are isometric ellipses? If the top and bottom and all sides are exactly the same isn't that an oval? Or does rotating the glass instead of keeping it level and raising a lowering it to the horizon line make it more oval? Rotating it still leaves one edge closer than the other so in perspective on flat paper they are still not equal. The front edge is rounder and longer. Ovals are still pretty close though.. I looked on Google and I guess an ellipse is the same on all sides so no they are not in any kind of point perspective. They are just elliptical ovals if you ask me. Elliptical is just another style of oval. Fat in the middle same on both ends..
If I understand what you say, then your implication is that the viewer-facing edge on the curvature on one side of the minor axis is a different shape from (rounder than) the distant edge on the 2D plane (the other side of the minor axis) - the implication is that it’s like a very fat egg shape. However, this is almost always incorrect. The viewer-facing and distant edges almost always have the same roundness in the 2D plane (unless the camera or your eye has distorted optics). Explanation: if you take a cone (the pinhole viewing which models the perspective) and imagine slicing it diagonally with a flat plane (the viewing plane of the 2D image) then the conic-section is an ellipse, with equal curvature on both sides of the minor axis, even though one side of the plane is closer to the tip of the cone and the other side is closer to the wider part of the cone. It will not have an egg shape. Although this is not intuitive, it is a well-known fact from geometry, which can be proven.
@@gideonk123 If a circle like a square is equal on all sides and the circle in the square on the same plane the circle should have a larger relative front edge. I also think you could never see the sides of a cylinder unless your eyes were as wide as the cylinder. You can never see a full 180° of a siloh or cylinder because you can't see through the rounded front.
@@seetheforest I agree that when you view a cylinder from up-close then you cannot see both of its sides. I also “feel” the intuitive logic you describe comparing the wide front of a rectangle vs. its back side. Nonetheless, if you view a round object, such as the opening of a cylindrical jar or drinking glass (wether transparent or opaque), more and more from the front, you will definitely notice that the shape at its opening is an ellipse with symmetry around its minor axis. In the 2D projection, the front shape will be symmetrical to the back shape. I understand this is counter-intuitive, but encourage you to try it, especially if you look with a single eye open, to prevent the mind playing perception tricks. You can also photograph with a camera and study the resulting pics. I admit the only time where you would be correct is when viewing with a camera “extremely” up-close, together with some distortion in the camera optics, which always happens (nothing is ideal). As I said, this can also be proven mathematically as the oblique cross-section of a plane (representing the 2D projection on a camera or eye) with a cone (representing the perspective of a part of a round 3D object, such as the jar’s opening).
0:46 erm, the top shape is not an oval (which is essentially another word for an ellipse, but is often specifically meant to convey an ellipse tapered on one end). The top shape is a sometimes called a pill shape but is, which we can see by the fact that it contains straight lines, most definitely NOT an oval. I don’t mean to be unduly critical but this is a pretty egregious error for an art demo.
Avoid a common terminology mistake...the "top shape" @ 0.42 IS NOT an oval since an oval is an egg shape that is wider at one end than at the other. Ovum means egg in Latin.
Tele Visor Thanks for the Latin derivation, but Webster’s has a definition that dates somewhat later than the fall of the Roman Empire: 1. an oval figure or object 2. a racetrack in the shape of an oval or a rectangle having rounded corners Thanks for your comment.
To know if this is one, two or three point perspective, I need foreshortened parallel lines. In this tutorial, I’m avoiding any discussion of perspective distortion as it pertains to liner elements - sorry. This is simply an observation and discussion of a mistake I often see in student drawings.
I find half of the ellipse really hard to draw. The right side seems to be able to get it but not when I draw the left. I have to turn it upside down - like my brain and hand wants to do something different to what I see - practice practice practice.
Rachel Kennedy Thanks for your comment. Try drawing vertically (on an easel or on a drawing table pitched almost vertically). Looking down on a flat table may give you problems. I have my students use a clipboard resting on the table and the top of their legs. You want to look straight at the paper, not at an angle. Good luck
This is how you guess. If this is an accurate enough sketch for your needs, great. Perspective is for locating everything correctly in space it can be as accurate as you want to make it. Whenever I make an image that is symmetrical, I only ever draw half of it and either make a template or use one or another transfer technique to make the other half match properly. Not all art depends upon a vase being symmetrical, of course.
This is very clear and helpful. Thanks very much! (RU-vid seems to always recommends videos by Indians and other foreigners at the top. Can barely be understood and more likely to be quite bad.)
Really doesn't explain any way to arrive at the proper dimensions/shapes of the ellipses that define this shape. Perspective is much more involved than just eyeballing something. In that regard, this is not helpful.
