Xeon's perspective questions thread - New questions (20 Dec 09)

[Xeon_OND]

If we stand in front of the Pacific Ocean and look straight ahead, the horizon line will be where the sky and the ocean meets in the distance.

But if I'm tilting my head all the way back so that all I can see is the sky, where will be the horizon? Across the sky?

And if I'm tilting my head all the way down so that all I can see is the ground, the horizon will be across the ground?

I'm currently reading Perspective Made Easy by Norling and is a bit confused about this.

Thanks!
Xeon

[DeadlyFreeze]

Its in the same place, you just no longer see it.

[Too Many Captains...]

OK, I'm no expert, but this is my understanding: Read Elwell's post. I hope I'm making sense.
mike
*edit: I fixed that. thanks for the heads up Elwell

[ItsChoco]

It's possible for the horizon to be out of the picture, gonna recommend this link, there's a short example from a photo that shows a case of it(fig.6).
http://www.khulsey.com/perspective_basics.html

[Elwell]

"Horizon" and "eye level" are often used interchangeably, but they are really only the same thing if your line of site is parallel with the ground. Norling's book is a good introduction, but he completely avoids three-point perspective, which is what you get when the angle of vision tilts up or down.

[TASmith]

Exactly. The horizon is the line where sky meets ground. It's usually broken by features on the ground, like hills and trees. Your eye level does change - it's where you're looking straight at. You look up at the sky? Your eye level raises. You look down, and your eye level lowers. The main thing with perspective is to remember that each object has it's own axis in relation to that eye-level line. When you look at a city street, most of those buildings are lined up accurately enough that you can use one vanishing point for them all. But, especially with still-lifes and people, when each subject is turned a different amount, then they all need different vanishing points.

[Xeon_OND]

Thanks a lot, all, especially to Elwell and TasSmith!
Well, Tas, that example you gave cleared up the rest of my confusion with eye levels and horizons.

Previously, I always thought the eye level = horizon even if we look up or down or away or diagonal.

Thanks again,
Xeon

[Xeon_OND]

Ok, I've decided to put all my questions regarding perspective into this thread so as to make the forum neater. I have changed the title of this thread as well.

Now, after reading some pages of Loomi's Successful Drawing (the part on perspective), Phil Metzger's The Art of Perspective and Norling's Perspective Made Easy, I notice some issues:

1) All 3 books keep saying that it's important to know and decide on where is the eye level in your drawing before you draw. This only applies when you're drawing from imagination, right?
Because when you're drawing from life (e.g: still life subjects), you don't even need to bother about eye level. Just draw by eye and observe carefully the contours, note the angles (use sighting etc.) and proportions, and you get an accurate drawing.
Why do these 3 books say eye level is important? I've been drawing still life so far without care for eye level and it's fine.

2) Perspective is only used for when i) you're constructing an environment from imagination and ii) using it to check / fix your drawing after you're done with it. Correct?

That's all! Thanks a lot!
Xeon

[Elwell]

IF you draw what you see
AND you see what you look for
THEN the more you know, the more you see

The better you understand perspective, the better you will understand what you are looking at, the faster and more accurate your observational drawing will be, and the less correcting you will have to do.

[Lamp]

IF you draw what you see
AND you see what you look for
THEN the more you know, the more you see

This is beautifully put in regards to the question being posed, and it would be one of the best summations I've heard in response questions about the importance of learning anatomy in drawing the figure. Five stars, good job

[armando]

"I've been drawing still life so far without care for eye level and it's fine."

You were keeping track of the eye level without being aware of it. You can never be consciously aware of all the processess going on throughout your mind/being(or whatever you want to call it.) No drawing method can teach you to be aware of and draw everything that you see/experience.
You can use perspective to any degree that it will help you get the result you want.

[Xeon_OND]

Well, thanks, especially to Elwell and Armando!
Elwell always provides invaluable wisdom and Armando always give practical, to-the-point answers!

Now, look at the photo below:


It's a corner of my room (in other words, interior space).

I'm pretty confused about finding out the vanishing points of the upper-top corner of the room (where the 2 walls meet), so I used Photoshop to draw green lines indicating the direction in which they go to in order to meet the vanishing point:


This is correct, right? So far, in the tutorials here and in the book examples, they uses mainly the corner of a house to illustration 2-point perspective so I'm kinda stuck when I look up at the upper-corner of my room and saw that the left wall's line is going towards the right wall and the right wall's line is going towards the left wall.

It's like, due to the fact that they converge towards one another, it's a bit weird and new for me.

[reme]

its 2p perspective, you can count 3p if you want to..

[Xeon_OND]

Hi all!



Look at the pic above and advise me on this
(the ellipse is a bit "crooked" but that's not the point here).

Thanks!
Xeon

[Scribble King]

From how I understand perspective, in the view you've provided, both ellipse A and B should be exactly the same.

[armando]

Because you have not clearly indicated a vanishing point, or which side is supposed to be in front, there is no answer. Just draw some rectangles and you'll be able to figure it out yourself. Parallel surfaces fan around their vanishing point. Use a ruler when you do perspective.

[dpaint]

On the room interior your vanishing points meet at eye level which is below the edge of the image. Imagine you are in side the uppermost box in the attachment.On the cylinder, A would be rounder than B. These are from Will Pogany's drawing lessons dover books

[Xeon_OND]

First, thanks for the replies, folks!

On the room interior your vanishing points meet at eye level which is below the edge of the image. Imagine you are in side the uppermost box in the attachment.On the cylinder, A would be rounder than B. These are from Will Pogany's drawing lessons dover books

Yeah, a cylinder standing upright is easy, cos' the nearer the top of the cylinder is to the eye level, the flatter it is.
However, when a cylinder is titled sideways etc., it becomes trickier to say.

I've taken Armando's advice and tried to draw squares.
Below is it:



That's my own logic. If I'm wrong, do let me know!

[Scribble King]

Actually, the boxes for the ellipses should be positioned off the other vanishing point, since it's 2 point perspective... like this:



Hope that helps a little.

[Xeon_OND]

Actually, the boxes for the ellipses should be positioned off the other vanishing point, since it's 2 point perspective... like this:



Hope that helps a little.

Thanks a lot, Scribbleking!

Actually, I had intended for the thing to just go into 1-point perspective to make it simple, but I guess 2-point would gimme a better view.

Anyway, I went back to see this pic from Yoitisi's tutorial:



So, in this case, the ellipse that is nearer to the viewer should be thinner, while the ellipse farther away from the viewer should be more circular. I tried this using a real-life transparent cylinder tube and what Yoitisi says is correct. Which means my sketch above is wrong.

I'll do a correct one tomorrow morning and post here again.

Thanks all!
Xeon

[Scribble King]

Thanks a lot, Scribbleking!

Actually, I had intended for the thing to just go into 1-point perspective to make it simple, but I guess 2-point would gimme a better view.

No problem, perspective can be a little daunting to understand sometimes... I'm still trying to get a good grasp on it myself. LOL

Also, be careful when choosing a view. 1-point seems to work better when the vanishing point is near the center of the picture plane, while 2-point and 3-point are a little more forgiving.

[Xeon_OND]

Thanks King! Anyway, below is my correct study:



So, now I know that in this sort of perspective, the ellipse at the far end is rounder.

[Xeon_OND]

Ok, now I'm stuck at a particular point in Yotisi's tutorial.
That thread is old and I doubt anyone's replying to that, and I'm also not Yotisi's mentee, so I'll post here:

Instead of starting out with the outside construction and working our way in, here we start with the inside (the ellipse) and work towards the square around it.




To explain some of the ideas below, take a look at the circle on the left first. Since this is a circle in simple front view, drawing a square around it is easy. The sides of the square should be equal, the lines are perpendicular, the middle of each side should connect with the circle and the middle of both coincide. Easy. To translate this to a perspective view though is a bit harder. For one, the lines of the cube will no longer appear perpendicular, and the middle of the ellipse (the mathematical ellipse mind you) isn't in the middle of the square surface anymore. An important aspect that remains unchanged is the fact that the ribs of the square are still tangent to the circle (or ellipse). This is what we will use in the following steps to find a square around the ellipse.

Step 1: Start out with a horizontal ellipse. Make sure it follows the rules as explained in assignment 5 for drawing ellipses.

Step 2: Choose a direction. This can be anything, but remember to let it pass through the real middle of the circle in perspective and not through the crossing of the major and minor axis. Notice that the line you just drew is actually 1-3 or the line 2-4 in the example on the left. The choice you make here defines the perspective of your square around the ellipse.

Step 3: There are actually two ways to go about this, I'll explain the second in the next step-by-step example. Draw the line perspectively parallel to your first direction, but now on the spot where it will be tangent to the ellipse. Basically, keep the direction of the first line in mind and try to find where it'll touch the ellipse on the edge.

Step 4: Now do the same on the other side. Keep in mind that there should be some perspective in those lines, they should go to the same vanishing point somewhere off the page.

Step 5: Mark the spots where both the lines of the last two steps touch the ellipse and connect them. If you find one of the to be off (because your line doesn't pass through the middle) correct this.

Step 6: No do the same as in step 3 and 4 but now for the other sides of the square. Note that the direction you choose in step 2 determines the whole of the rest of the square you draw. You can draw any square around it you like by choosing a different direction.

I'm stuck at step 2. HTF are you gonna be able to find the "real middle of the circle in perspective", especially now you're working from an ellipse to a square and not the other way around?! HTF does one know how steep to draw that direction line?

Pls advise!
Xeon

[dpaint]

Because you start by dividing the elipse into equal quarters from your viewpoint. After that, as he says, the choce determines the rest of the square you draw.

[Xeon_OND]

Thanks! So, am I supposed to choose myself, in whichever way I like, where the direction lines goes? Like, if I want it to go that way, I draw it?

[dpaint]

you got it.

[Xeon_OND]

you got it.

And it's all thanks to you, Master! LOL

OK, one last question (for now). In Step 2, when he says "remember to let it pass through the real middle of the circle in perspective and not through the crossing of the major and minor axis.", how are you going to find the "real middle of the circle"?

In the case of a square in perspective, you just use the X method to find the "real middle of the circle" by drawing diagonal lines and the point they meet is the "real middle".

But with the ellipse, umm....how?

[Kamber Parrk]

The line in Step 2 looks like it does pass "through the crossing of the major and minor axis."

[Xeon_OND]

The line in Step 2 looks like it does pass "through the crossing of the major and minor axis."

Thanks Kamber, but actually, if you look closely, the line in step 2 passes through the point a bit higher than the point where the major and minor axis meets.

I read in some perspective books that an ellipse or a square in perspective has a centerpoint (the point where the major and minor axis meets), as well as a "tangent point" (which is the true centerpoint of the ellipse because that's where the ellipse is at it's widest. But to keep things simple, I guess using either one would do since there isn't much difference especially if you're drawing freehand.

[Kamber Parrk]

Hey Xeon OND,

Yeah. . . I was actually considering editing that post after spending a bit more time to try to figure out that diagram-- the arrow line is kinda double-struck, but, you're right, the "mark" is slightly "North" o' the intersection.

I'm still pondering the whole matter though-- trying to glean the utility of starting with the ellipse-- but I suppose that if you made a nice ellipse with a template that you could use this to carry it deep into a drawing-- like for wheels on a car.