Ah i have just started learning about perspective. Was studying from this book that mentioned measuring points and i ended up with so many questions. I was confused about why draw an angle using that if the lines just connected to the vanishing point anyway and how on earth you're supposed to decide where to place it on the hl. This cleared it all up. Thanks so much.
You said: "The way we do it is geometry". But in geometry every statement has to be proven by deriving it from previous statements. And you did not even try to prove anything during your "explanation". You just kept connecting various points and all of a sudden said: "This is the same triangle but in perspective". Why should we believe that it's the same? You did not do anything to make all your tricks convincing. And when somebody in comments said "I don't understand" you responded by "I will explain it in the future videos". So you are just trying to make your viewers to trust your words. That's a joke and not Geometry.
When i said I will explain in future videos that is what I meant. I can't explain everything in one video. Now that would be a joke. It would be so long no one would watch it. The videos are focused, and what is not answered in early videos are addressed in future videos. Perspective is best explained with visuals. Answering complex questions here in Comments in not efficient. You can watch the other videos, or do your own research, or both.
@@trustyourperspective : No, not all in one video. Just in the right order as it is always being done in Geometry. Every new statement is based on something that was articulated and proven earlier. And construction workers don't build starting from the roof that will have to hang in the air till they will be so kind to build the walls to support the roof. And before the walls they have to build a foundation. I don't see the reason to continue this conversation. Continue with your Black Magic but just don't say that it's Geometry. Your way of doing things has nothing to do with Geometry. Thank you for listening.
I recommend starting over and: 1. Draw an arbitrary square. On the surface of the paper. No perspective, no nothing. Literally, just a square. 2. Establish an arbitrary horizon line. 3. Select an arbitrary vanishing point (VP). 4. Connect the corners of your square to VP. You should now have “a square-shaped tunnel to infinity.” Now, demonstrate how to “chop off a cube-shaped portion of the tunnel,” ensuring it’s just as deep, as it is wide and high. Your viewer should be able to repeat this process with _any_ values for 1-3. Done! --- Aside: If things like _“cone of vision”_ are irrelevant, don’t say the words _“cone of vision.”_ It’s as though you’re saying _“Whatever you do, don’t think about pink elephants.”_
The cone of vision comment makes no sense. Of course he should use the proper term for it when telling us that something isn't the cone of vision. That line would be very helpful for beginners, not confusing.
I think that readthetype is asking you to follow their instructions... Personally, I'm beginning to think that Depth is indeed an arbitrary choice that the Artist has to make and cannot be found with just the Horizon Line and VP(s) set... The only thing that can be deduced is everything else using strategies like the Brewer Method so that all the logic of the image makes sense unto itself... As for how the Depth of the Scene is set, it can be done so by first establishing the SP and then deducing the MP's and CoV, but any of those can be determined first with the other two being solved for afterwards... If the SP is lower on the page, the MP's will be farther apart from one another and the CoV will be bigger causing depth to appear "flatter"... The opposite effects will happen if the SP is positioned higher... Basically, it's similar to adjusting the Focal Length of a Camera... Low FL results in depth appearing very stretched and creating distorted images while High FL makes depth look very squashed resulting in Flat images... Most of these concepts are nice to know, but an artist doesn't really need to be privy to them all in order to create great perspective images... Correct me if I'm wrong... @@trustyourperspective
@@theapexpredator157 Yes, I would agree with you! I would also add there are many "easy" ways to create perspective drawings. But these shortcuts typically have limitations, and more important to me, they bypass a deeper understanding of the subject. I get a lot of "Why don't you just do this instead..." And yes that works, but I'm trying to explain perspective as opposed to showing workarounds that give instruction on how to draw without needing any meaningful knowledge of perspective. It's like baking bread. You can go to the store and buy the box of premixed-add water-and bake-bread mix, put it in the oven and voila. You don't need to know anything about yeast and its relation to carbon dioxide and sugars to bake bread, but if you want to be a Michelin star pastry chef...
I believe I referenced the Brewer Method incorrectly in my last post and I wanted to address it... The strategy that I was really referring to was the one that Drawsh Studio (and others) talks about on their channel in their video named... "Repeating Depth in Perspective." I thought that the name of that method was the Brewer Method, but I'm pretty sure that's incorrect... I'm not sure exactly what the real name is, but I'd certainly like to know if this method does indeed have a name... I see what you're saying... I found this video helpful because it isolates a single concept and covers it deeply... Other videos on youtube don't really do this and some written content I've found isn't always as easily digestible as this... Your organized approach by dedicating a single video to each concept gives plenty of room to discuss it in full... I'll be going over more videos in your playlists for personal study... @@trustyourperspective
I don't understand why at 06:33 when you draw that line towards the measuring point that automatically creates a 45 degree angle in perspective? And also I don't understand why the line equals the same number of units as the line on the measuring line/bottom of picture plane?
Pretty sure you’ve made an error. You haven’t explained how you arrived at the *vertical position* of your station point (SP). Therefore, the math regarding the 45° line, how it’s used to establish a measuring point (MP), and to ensure the the foreshortened line is _also_ 5 units long, is moot. For example: Keep everything the same. Just move SP one inch higher (arbitrary). Same placement horizontally, same vertical axis, just one inch higher (essentially where the degree symbol [°] in your handwriting of “45°” is). This will result in a different location for its corresponding MP. As before, connect this MP to the right hand point of your horizontal line of 5 units. You can see, the place where it intersects the foreshortened line is in a different location than before. Therefore, your math cannot be used to verify _“the foreshortened line is also 5 units long.”_
I think this may be the problem. You can not move the SP to a different location without also changing the position of the VPs. you can not move the SP and then "keep everything the same." When you move the SP one inch higher (which is really one inch closer to the picture plane) you change the geometry of the diagram. When you move the SP and you keep the vanishing points where they are those VPs are now drawing a different angle, and thus need a differently MP. If you set up two VPs that draw a 90 angle and then move the SP closer to the PP, those same two VPs would be creating an angle greater than 90°
Ah i have just started learning about perspective. Was studying from this book that mentioned measuring points and i ended up with so many questions. I was confused about why draw an angle using that if the lines just connected to the vanishing point anyway and how on earth you're supposed to decide where to place it on the hl. This cleared it all up. Thanks so much.
You’re welcome
You said: "The way we do it is geometry". But in geometry every statement has to be proven by deriving it from previous statements. And you did not even try to prove anything during your "explanation". You just kept connecting various points and all of a sudden said: "This is the same triangle but in perspective". Why should we believe that it's the same? You did not do anything to make all your tricks convincing.
And when somebody in comments said "I don't understand" you responded by "I will explain it in the future videos". So you are just trying to make your viewers to trust your words. That's a joke and not Geometry.
When i said I will explain in future videos that is what I meant. I can't explain everything in one video. Now that would be a joke. It would be so long no one would watch it. The videos are focused, and what is not answered in early videos are addressed in future videos. Perspective is best explained with visuals. Answering complex questions here in Comments in not efficient. You can watch the other videos, or do your own research, or both.
@@trustyourperspective : No, not all in one video. Just in the right order as it is always being done in Geometry. Every new statement is based on something that was articulated and proven earlier. And construction workers don't build starting from the roof that will have to hang in the air till they will be so kind to build the walls to support the roof. And before the walls they have to build a foundation.
I don't see the reason to continue this conversation. Continue with your Black Magic but just don't say that it's Geometry. Your way of doing things has nothing to do with Geometry. Thank you for listening.
Thanks, it helped a lot!
I recommend starting over and:
1. Draw an arbitrary square. On the surface of the paper. No perspective, no nothing. Literally, just a square.
2. Establish an arbitrary horizon line.
3. Select an arbitrary vanishing point (VP).
4. Connect the corners of your square to VP.
You should now have “a square-shaped tunnel to infinity.”
Now, demonstrate how to “chop off a cube-shaped portion of the tunnel,” ensuring it’s just as deep, as it is wide and high.
Your viewer should be able to repeat this process with _any_ values for 1-3.
Done!
---
Aside: If things like _“cone of vision”_ are irrelevant, don’t say the words _“cone of vision.”_ It’s as though you’re saying _“Whatever you do, don’t think about pink elephants.”_
Sure. That's another way to do it.
The cone of vision comment makes no sense. Of course he should use the proper term for it when telling us that something isn't the cone of vision. That line would be very helpful for beginners, not confusing.
I think that readthetype is asking you to follow their instructions...
Personally, I'm beginning to think that Depth is indeed an arbitrary choice that the Artist has to make and cannot be found with just the Horizon Line and VP(s) set...
The only thing that can be deduced is everything else using strategies like the Brewer Method so that all the logic of the image makes sense unto itself...
As for how the Depth of the Scene is set, it can be done so by first establishing the SP and then deducing the MP's and CoV, but any of those can be determined first with the other two being solved for afterwards...
If the SP is lower on the page, the MP's will be farther apart from one another and the CoV will be bigger causing depth to appear "flatter"...
The opposite effects will happen if the SP is positioned higher...
Basically, it's similar to adjusting the Focal Length of a Camera...
Low FL results in depth appearing very stretched and creating distorted images while High FL makes depth look very squashed resulting in Flat images...
Most of these concepts are nice to know, but an artist doesn't really need to be privy to them all in order to create great perspective images...
Correct me if I'm wrong...
@@trustyourperspective
@@theapexpredator157 Yes, I would agree with you! I would also add there are many "easy" ways to create perspective drawings. But these shortcuts typically have limitations, and more important to me, they bypass a deeper understanding of the subject. I get a lot of "Why don't you just do this instead..." And yes that works, but I'm trying to explain perspective as opposed to showing workarounds that give instruction on how to draw without needing any meaningful knowledge of perspective.
It's like baking bread. You can go to the store and buy the box of premixed-add water-and bake-bread mix, put it in the oven and voila. You don't need to know anything about yeast and its relation to carbon dioxide and sugars to bake bread, but if you want to be a Michelin star pastry chef...
I believe I referenced the Brewer Method incorrectly in my last post and I wanted to address it...
The strategy that I was really referring to was the one that Drawsh Studio (and others) talks about on their channel in their video named... "Repeating Depth in Perspective."
I thought that the name of that method was the Brewer Method, but I'm pretty sure that's incorrect...
I'm not sure exactly what the real name is, but I'd certainly like to know if this method does indeed have a name...
I see what you're saying...
I found this video helpful because it isolates a single concept and covers it deeply...
Other videos on youtube don't really do this and some written content I've found isn't always as easily digestible as this...
Your organized approach by dedicating a single video to each concept gives plenty of room to discuss it in full...
I'll be going over more videos in your playlists for personal study...
@@trustyourperspective
Do you have a link (Amazon or whatever) to buy the transparent grid rulers you use? I think I've seen you use at least two different sizes?
www.dickblick.com/items/westcott-beveled-plastic-ruler-12-8ths/?clicktracking=true&wmcp=pla&wmcid=items&wmckw=55618-1012&country=us¤cy=usd&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiAhomtBhDgARIsABcaYykqqVuXp2tbhGUDK6G6QXhln2IqnOONX6hL50VkMSrY_nUM_hCdnr8aAn4qEALw_wcB
Good luck to you.
I don't understand why at 06:33 when you draw that line towards the measuring point that automatically creates a 45 degree angle in perspective? And also I don't understand why the line equals the same number of units as the line on the measuring line/bottom of picture plane?
I try to explain this in future videos. Keep watching and I think it will come together.
@@trustyourperspective okay, will do. Thanks for the reply.
These rly help beginers
👍🏻
Thank you!!
You are welcome
Pretty sure you’ve made an error.
You haven’t explained how you arrived at the *vertical position* of your station point (SP).
Therefore, the math regarding the 45° line, how it’s used to establish a measuring point (MP), and to ensure the the foreshortened line is _also_ 5 units long, is moot.
For example:
Keep everything the same. Just move SP one inch higher (arbitrary). Same placement horizontally, same vertical axis, just one inch higher (essentially where the degree symbol [°] in your handwriting of “45°” is).
This will result in a different location for its corresponding MP.
As before, connect this MP to the right hand point of your horizontal line of 5 units.
You can see, the place where it intersects the foreshortened line is in a different location than before.
Therefore, your math cannot be used to verify _“the foreshortened line is also 5 units long.”_
I think this may be the problem. You can not move the SP to a different location without also changing the position of the VPs. you can not move the SP and then "keep everything the same." When you move the SP one inch higher (which is really one inch closer to the picture plane) you change the geometry of the diagram. When you move the SP and you keep the vanishing points where they are those VPs are now drawing a different angle, and thus need a differently MP.
If you set up two VPs that draw a 90 angle and then move the SP closer to the PP, those same two VPs would be creating an angle greater than 90°