How do you tell the degree of elipse? Let's say we can measure proportions of minor and major axis of elipse. Should it be linear dependence like 1:2 ration for 45 degree, 1:3 for 30 degree and 2:3 for 60 degree? And i guess theoretically we can build planes that are at specific angles to our view plane with only elipses?
Can you please clarify a couple of things: @ 3:16 "Minor axis needs to be perpendicular to the plane of the ellipse" But minor axis (as well as major axis) is IN the plane of the ellipse and it can't be perpendicular to it. (A plane is a flat surface on which the ellipse is drawn). @ 4:03 "Because the plane of the ellipse will be angled to our view we have to account for the ellipse to be slightly tipped in space". Does that simply mean that the ellipse in this case should be just drawn slanted to look better (more natural)?
Sure, the minor axis is a line going through the widest parts of a flat shape. But if we shift to thinking about it in space, the line would ALSO be arranged in a way the would make it perpendicular to the plane in 3dimensions. It’s one of the weird things about ellipses that make them hard to understand. Yes, the tilt makes it appear correct to our eye and is what happens if we photograph a circle perspective. When an ellipse is standing up (not horizontal ) the tilt will have change depending on the perspective we draw it in. It’s another quirk that makes ellipses confusing to draw.
Can I have a question to the 3:32 moment? If we assume that these ellipses on a left and a right side are perfect cirlces in perspective, then they must be inscribed into squares. Doesn't that mean that the ellipses should be slanted a bit so they would touch the centres of the squares' sides (in the points where red lines cross the sides of the squares), becasue circles inscribed into squares do so? That even happens when you show us an ellipse standing up example. You tipped the ellipse a bit so it could fit into a square in perspective correctly.
You have landed on one of the most confusing contradictions in ellipses. Unfortunately the systems of perspective we use are not perfect and especially in ellipse there are inconsistencies in the logic. You are right drawing the ellipse through the center of the box is one of the rules, but for an ellipse parallel to the ground and to the side of the vanishing point if we draw it that way the ellipse will become tipped in perspective. This means it will not appear to be flat to the ground plane and seems incorrect to our eye. The solution is to make sure that every ellipse parallel to the ground is flat and not tipping, so we ignore the idea of constructing in the center of the box and opt to make it flat to make it appear correct to our eye. I hope that makes sense :)
Awesome video! Just a question... for ellipses and circles placed in the horizontal plane how does this work?? are they the same in a 1 point and 2 point pespective? This is something I may be overthinking but I genuenly find no awnser anywhere
um, at 4:03 you say "however, because the plane of the ellipse will be ANGLED to our view, we have to account that the ellipse will be SLIGHTLY TILT in space." I don't understand. Is it because we are not looking at the box and ellipse full frontal?? Your vid are very helpful; I just need that TINY clarification. 😕
This is a visual effect of ellipses in 2 point perspective. It’s essentially a quirk of the way we see, or at least how the system of linear perspective approximates it. It’s one of the reasons ellipses are complicated.
Thank you for the incredible amount of information on the topic :) I have 2 questions: when I draw ellipses in perspective, do the mathematical major and minor axis determine the further away points of the ellipse? and do the perspective major and perspective minor axis determine the 4 equal areas in perspective of the ellipse? if yes, in the vertical ellipses in 2 point perspective, how can you determine the position of the perspective major axis and perspective minor axis? the doubt about the last question is due to the fact that the perspective axis pass through the perspective centre, but it s needed a second point for each perspective axis. I apologize for this mega poem :D
If I understand your question then to the first part yes. To the second part, the minor axis perspective point could be found exactly by using the station point to find the two vanishing points of a box in two point (I have another video which describes that) and then an ellipse or cylinder constructed in box would have the minor axis that would go to that vanishing point. I hope that helps!
There is one small mistake at 5:45. The axel would go out of and go into physical centers of the circles (discs) , which are the intersections of the diagonals of the outbound squares. Unless that, great video and explanation.
Ok, a pretty good video, but there are a few imprecise statements, and they should be at least mentioned even if one wants to ignore some (or all) of them. 1) A paradox? Hardly, no one should be surprised that the major axis is not incidental with the perspective horizontal center of the perspective square that would contain it sine major and minor axis is based on symmetry of the ellipse shape itself While this is what is stated, I don't know who would have thought that they were the same in the first place, and calling a paradox is a misnomer. 2 ) Horizontal ellipses should be draw flat and parallel to the horizon, and photography and some "perspective methods" "distort" the ellipse: Tilting the major access of the ellipse with respect to the horizon, however, is not wrong -- and it's not distortion: it's truth. That's the way it really is. Only ellipses under the center of vision are truly parallel with the horizon. The tilt becomes noticeable the further away from the CoV one looks. If you keep with a 15degree cone of vision it won't be that noticeable, but beyond that it gets slowly worse, However, I will agree that one may be better off simply putting the parallel because there's always someone who will tell you it looks off if you do it correctly. 3) Minor access points to the opposite vanishing point, and one can connect an "axle" of a cylinder to this VP. This is only true at the horizon, but it is further and further misaligned the further away from the horizon line the station point is. Again, it's an oft-sited rule that many people use, but it's not very precise. It's better the closer you draw your cylinder/ellipse to the horizon, but in general, it's not right.
Nice discussion. A few observations: - 1:36 not a rectangle but a square around the circle in perspective (if you are talking about the result it's not a rectangle but a trapezoid) - 3:26 the assertion "because the minor axis is perpendicular to the plane of the ellipse, it will cross the even mathematical center of the ellipse" is inaccurate. It should say "because the minor axis of the ellipse coincides with the axis of the cylinder of the original circle (i.e. perpendicular to the plane of the circle AND goes through the center of the circle), it will cross the even mathematical center of the circle and the square. center of the ellipse" - 3:38 (this is a major issue) when a horizontal circle inscribed in a square is drawn in 1PP off center, the tangents of the circle should touch the sides of the original square, so that the lines through those tangents converge into the same VP or be parallel to the horizon. Since this doesn't happen here, it's not a true circle in perspective (1:12), but simply an ellipse inscribed in a perspective trapezoid of the square. The problem is that you can't use a straight ellipse to show a perspective circle in 1PP off center. It must be a *skewed* ellipse. (Not simply rotated as alluded at 3:44) math.stackexchange.com/questions/3823048/is-the-line-created-by-the-minor-axis-of-an-ellipse-concurrent-to-the-lines-runn In 1PP the coincidence of the minor axis and the cylinder axis should hold, but the major axis would no longer be perpendicular to the minor axis. It is the same kind of transform used in Tilt Shift Lenses to compensate for vertical line convergence. Basically adjusting a 3PP to 2PP or 1PP. fstoppers.com/architecture/best-wide-angle-lens-tilt-shift-lens-378646 In this video in the 2PP there is no ellipse distortion because the object is crossing the horizon line. When dropped away from the horizon (2-3 times the size), the ellipse distortion will again be present (by minor and major axes being not perpendicular). More discussion in the comments to the following construction video, which proves these points by construction: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uN8vXi87bEg.html
how would you draw one in more extreme positions where the major axis reach really far into the distance toward the vanishing point. is there a different procedure for ellipses in long rectangles?
If the perspective is extreme then nothing really changes in the technique, it just becomes more challenging to track lines and points. If the rectangle is really distorted you run the risk of it not being a true square box, so the ellipse will be distorted too.
I don't know what to say! This is what I have been looking for so long! I never ever could think that minor axis goes from vanishing point and that parts of ellipse always should be perpendicular to each other! That`s amazing!
Fantastic video!! It took a lot of searching to find someone to explain it so well! I had a question regarding drawing an ellipse on the ground. If you are drawing the ground plane in 3-point perspective (such as drawing something as if it was shot with a wide lens), would you then shift the ellipse so that the minor axis connected with 3rd vanishing point? Thank you again for the video!
Thank you so much! If I understand your question, if the ellipse is on the ground plane then minor axis would converge at the third vanishing point, which would make sense because if you stretched that ellipse into a tower it would need to converge with the other perspective in the scene.
Why do we have to account for the ellipse being "slightly tipped in space", when we are seeing it in perspective? You don't explain. Why can't it just stand upright with the major axis being vertical?
It is actually one of the weird quirks of ellipses, that when viewed like this the ellipse appears tipped. If you made the major axis vertical it would look slightly distorted.
@@DrawshStudio Is this a new discovery since the advent of computers and higher precision modeling? My old book on perspective by Rex Vicat Cole depicts the ellipses for arches as drawn on a vertical axis. But I always thought it felt a little distorted when I drew them that way. Your method does appear truer to the way they look in life. It's just a bit difficult to wrap one's head around the logic as to why...or how the discovery might have come about. At any rate, thanks for the videos. There are a lot of videos on youtube teaching incorrect perspective. Nice when a channel comes along that appears to know what it's talking about.
It’s not new, “creative perspective for artists and illustrators” published in 1955 shows this, and it is much older knowledge than that. But I think you comment might be conflating the major axis with the center of the ellipse in 2 point. These are not the same, and in the case of an arch, the arch’s center point will be a vertical axis, this however won’t be the same as the major axis (in 2 point). This is a hard thing to wrap our heads around, and in a logic based system like perspective seems very illogical. But it does more truly approximates our visual systems. Glad you are liking the channel, good luck on the drawing :)
I have a question about he ellipse at 4:09. You said that with that ellipse, we have to account for it being slightly tipped in space, however you don't explain how to do that. You said that it depends on the perspective box that ellipse is in, but when try and draw it out, my major and minor axis' are not tipped. They are straight. It may sound like a dumb question, but what can you do specifically to tip the circle and by how much?
This video is the rules and theory, the follow up video explains how to actually construct ellipses in space. When you construct a box in 2 point and then build the ellipse in it, you will see the major and minor axis is tipped. If you are drawing similar ellipses in perspective but the major and minor axis are straight, something is a little off in the construction. m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uN8vXi87bEg.html
@@DrawshStudio I actually saw your follow up video sometime after I wrote this comment. Thank you for taking the time to comment. I appreciate it. And your videos are the most clearest and concise on how to draw ellipses in perspective, so I appreciate too. Thanks!
This is a nice introduction to perspective drawing, but the animation following 3:40 is misleading. The reason the tilted ellipses don't "feel right to our eyes" is because they were tilted the wrong way! Assuming they are to represent circles on the ground plane, then the minor axes should be tilted very slightly away from the centre of vision, not toward it.
Thank you :) The point at 3:40 is that in one point perspective, all ellipses should be flat to horizon. If they are tipped they would need to be in 2 point perspective.
They can be drawn flat as a kind of "artist cheat", and it will look fine most of the time. To get technical, if you picture a chessboard in perspective, then the corner squares in the lower left and lower right will appear as lozenges, right? If we imagine circles inscribed in those squares, then the corresponding ellipses in perspective must be tilted somewhat. This effect becomes most apparent in extreme perspective when the shape in question is at the edge of the cone of vision or beyond it. (Also, there won't be any distinction between one-point and two-point perspective because turning a circle does not change its appearance.) I think your aim is to show a practical and simple method, so these technicalities are maybe outside the scope of the lesson; I'm just pointing out that the "flat ellipse" technique is an approximation, and in reality there will typically be a small (but often imperceptible) tilt. Cheers :)
Understood, and as you say in the chessboard example things begin to get distorted as they near or leave the cone of vision. If the squares are distorted, so to would be the ellipses and therefore look strange as tilted ellipses. This is what happens if you photograph ellipses, especially with a wide angle lens. While we buy it in a photograph, there is a shift in perception of correctness when viewed in a drawing. But since linear perspective is an approximation of our visual systems and must account for it being a drawing, I subscribe to the school of thought that we need to keep all ellipses on the ground plane flat to make it feel correct to the eye. This is one of the strange things about ellipses.
Thank you very much, this video are really excellent and have helped me a lot. I have a question, please help me: "The minor axis goes through the center of the ellipse ( center points of the box) in the perspective " . So is that still true when the ellipse is placed inside a rectangle ?
Glad you are liking the videos :) If the ellipse is placed in a rectangle, it’s not a true ellipse (circle in perspective) but yes, the line would go through the center points of the box.
It's a crime that this video has so few views! This single 7 minutes and 32 seconds video solve a lot of problem you will have with ellipses in perspective than you could imagine! Thank you so much for your video, hope that more people will find out this amazing video.
I cannot *believe* I now undestand how to create an ellipse in 2 point perspective but now I'm struggling to create an ellipse with 1 POINT PERSPECTIVE. In that case, do I also have to tilt the ellipse in some (mysterious) direction?? 🧡
Not technically. An oval is actually an egg shape, the word oval coming from ovum. But it is commonly used interchangeably with an ellipse shape. In reality an ellipse is an ellipse, regardless of if we think of it as a flat shape or a circle in perspective.
This was very informative. Perspective is a very difficult subject in art, and your video’s really help reinforce what I’ve studied and fill in a few of the blanks. Thanks, and keep up the good work.
Thanks for the continued support! Perspective is a really tough subject. It takes a lot of study from multiple sources to wrap our minds around it. Glad this is one of those sources :)
