HOME | DD

Nsio In reply to Marini4Art [2018-01-23 15:53:32 +0000 UTC]

Cool! I remember your comment on my journal, it's great to hear you are doing well there. It's also cool that even your lecturer found my tutorials worth mentioning, it shows that I'm probably doing at least something right . Keep up the good work and spread the word to your fellow classmates about my tutorials so that they could ace their designs as well

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Nsio In reply to Cestarian [2018-01-11 16:59:30 +0000 UTC]

I don't see any difference to my way of thinking and the way you explained your thoughts. In fact, it's exactly the same. I don't know, maybe I didn't explain my views as well as I should have if you find it different. And that's what I'm always concerned with my explanations, because bad interpretation can potentially lead people astray. It's good to hear that you came to the same conclusion trough your own thinking.

The effects you mentioned are direct consequences of the rules. If an object rotates along its vertical axis, the same horizon line still works. I recall explaining this on more conceptual level, in a way that apply any particular situation, i.e. rotation along any point/axis. Though it's easier to understand the concept trough more concrete example and then expand the idea to all possible situations, that's how I figured it out at first as well.

Also the point where vertical and main horizon would intersect is merely a consequence of the rules. If there are two circles with the same radius and center point, and one of them is rotated along the center point, then the two circles will intersect at two points. If the other circle is rotated 90 degrees, then yeah, vertical and main horizon intersect each other and two vanishing points are located on. If you rotate the vertically oriented circle 90 degrees along vertical axis, then you have three circles and 6 intersections. That's 6 vanishing points.

I think that the only difference we have is that you (currently) think the rules are external and therefore projected on the objects you want to draw (so constructing a cube with horizon, vanishing points and guidelines), which I find as the traditional or typical way to perceive it. For me the rules are embedded in the objects I draw, (so I construct horizon, vanishing points and guidelines with a cube). I've learned to use my own drawing in progress as references for the rest of the drawing. It's organic process where everything is subject to change. I look for middle and end points, middle lines, dividers, right angles and try to take "shape equality" in account (more about that here: Nsio Explains: Introduction to Guidelines  . I can see the guidelines in my mind and I attempt to take them in account, because they are direct consequences of the perspective rules. Drawing complex shapes is just about breaking them into basic shapes and then making sure the drawing follows the rules.

M way isn't reliable, but it's more intuitive and fun in my opinion. I'm sure you could adopt that sort of method, it merely takes a lot of practice to be accurate with it and even then there will be inaccuracies. I suppose a mix of the two is the most useful.

Yeah, that guy is awesome with perspective. Although the guidelines are definitely working, it's tedious to actually construct them. I may say that just because I want to avoid the tediousness. I have done similar drawings before, but not very often. But for example: 

This isn't even close to the awesomeness of what Robertson can do... but merely a simple test of drawing without meticulously constructing the perspective. I only drew a quick grid by free hand and a simple projection to get an idea. There are mistakes (most noticeably the air intake above the seat with bad orientation, the cockpit is also clearly off-centered), but I'm getting better at noticing them and preventing them.

Here is another example:

I drew this without any guidelines. Sometimes I just start drawing something random, usually just for fun and warm up. I usually draw one side and then try to analyse how the other side would look if it was symmetric. It's difficult, but definitely good practice for both the hand and eye.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Cestarian In reply to Nsio [2018-01-12 02:34:32 +0000 UTC]

It's amazing to me that you could draw something so complex yet symmetrical looking without using any guidelines but at least it was difficult for you what I wouldn't give to learn that tho

I'm glad to hear I'm on the right track for it, if you'd make a new perspective tutorial I'd gobble that shit up like a hungry wolf right now

Anyhow, I think maybe if you want to have a higher success rate maybe you should try to make your perspective tutorial with the assumption that the reader doesn't even know how to draw a box or cylinder yet, work from the assumption that someone trying to learn to draw for the first time ever in his life is reading your tutorial, and moreover is 12 year old and doesn't have any real background in mathematics If you start from the bottom and work your way to the top at a gradual pace instead of trying to do it all-in-one it will probably be more understandable to your readers, you might have to make a bigger project than your usual tutorials to do this tho.

Perspective is probably the most complex concept in drawing and the most important one at the same time, there's an extreme lack of good tutorials about it not because nobody's trying, but because nobody is covering it in enough depth. Also the bottom line of drawing is that things can only be learned with practice, therefore exercises to practice the concept are necessary in order for people to successfully understand it.

I'm often told I'm a good teacher and my only secret to doing so is that I always start from the assumption that the one I'm teaching knows absolutely nothing, and work my way up from zero. Maybe that's the kind of attitude you need to take to make the kind of perspective tutorial you want to make, think of it as if it is going to be read by a bunch of children with runny noses that don't even know what 3D means

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Nsio In reply to Cestarian [2018-01-13 09:47:34 +0000 UTC]

I just take up the challenge. The more one does something, the better one becomes at it (eventually). After 7 years of application, it has had a noticeable impact and the impact would have been even greater had I spent more time on applying it. Robertson has draw hundreds of perspective drawings. As his page says, he has over 18 years of experience in teaching, so he has to have even more years under his belt before that.

You have put a lot of your own efforts and thinking on understanding perspective. That's a must in order to learn anything to begin with.

You know, that has actually been my strategy for a long time, to assume people know nothing about anything. However, doing that literally makes the project much bigger than my usual tutorials as you pointed out. That would lead to the Book of the Hermit Mystics with hundreds or thousands of pages . Not only it takes a lot of effort on my end, it also requires a lot of perseverance from the readers. It's difficult for people to stay interested if the subject at hand has nothing to do with the actual topic, because they won't see the connection at the time, or by the time I get to the point, people have already forgotten the preceding things for they fail to see the importance to memorize them. Effectively that means several read troughs which multiplies the readers efforts. What they will choose to do? They will keep looking for tutorials that claim to do the trick easier and faster, people will always try to find the easy way out. I would need God-tier methods to convince people to keep reading my tome instead and I know I won't have the time and effort to spare to make something as perfect like that, not to mention all the things that I have yet to figure out.

Making a series of tutorials starting from zero is also problematic for the same reasons. People most likely will get interested by the time the series actually start covering things about perspective so they essentially miss the foundation. it's not feasible to start every tutorial from zero either, at some point we just need to assume people know at least something.

You know how in maths there are functions like a+b=c, L=2a etc. I'm not especially talented in maths, but mathematical truths are beautiful. I like how they are applicable in any situations, like no matter what the dimensions of the cube are, we can just say that the length of each edge is "a". Or we can say a=2b, essentially dividing the cube into 8 smaller cubes where the length of each edge is "b". However, I didn't come to understand and value the beauty of the math until I had figured out my way of approaching perspective and witnessing that it works and follows the rules. The reason is that people don't see objects, they see meanings. I started to see meaning in those mathematical stuff. When something is broken into universal concepts, people fail to see the meanings, even if they are told what they are supposed to see there. They need to learn to inject meanings into those letters and formulas, otherwise they will not mean anything to them. But if they never see the connection, how they will ever learn it?

Therefore we can argue whether using a cube for perspective demonstrations is truly beneficial. A cube is the most useful way to demonstrate the rules of perspective and geometry but on the other hand, it's so simplified form that people have hard time injecting any meaning into one. In a similar way a simplified drawing, while delivering the idea, isn't really as tangible as a real object with real meaning. On the flip side, using a real life object like a car is so complex that people won't know where exactly they should put their attention on (while also taking so much efforts to draw just for the sake of demonstration). In short, using too simplified and conceptual examples lack the meanings to make them understandable, while too complex and meaningful objects fail to deliver the idea loud and clear. That's why there are usually examples on how to utilize the formulas and a lot of exercises to apply them.

Maybe it's for the best to just spark inspiration and make people think on their own after all. You didn't completely understand what I was trying to say about perspective, yet you put your own thoughts into it and filled the confusing gaps I failed to explain and came to the same conclusions. Maybe the interaction between the apprentice and the master, the student and the teacher, is in fact the best way to make sure people will learn, because trough the discussion teachers can determine where the students are lacking, effectively helping them to focus on developing those areas.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Cestarian In reply to Nsio [2018-01-13 15:13:26 +0000 UTC]

Haha yeah that makes sense, people always want that magical shortcut, myself included... And it took me years to reach the realization that the shortcuts are all trash, and doing the hard work, and doing it seriously, for a long time, is the only way that you're gonna get any real shortcuts those will be shortcuts developed in your head to do this hard thing with less and less guidelines, when I was starting out I like most never listened to people who said this, because I didn't want to hear it, but now that the training wheels fell off for me I can see the error of my ways, as I fall flat on my side. I bet however that there's plenty of people who have ended up here, maybe even a majority of self-taught artists, and those who do either have the same level of thirst as me (which drove me to swallow my pride and read another "how to draw book" ) or they were never gonna end up doing anything good with it anyways.

People have shortened attention spans, people glaze over details often, I'm no less guilty of this than others, in fact there's only three tutorials you've made where I've read every letter. 2 perspective tutorials, and the 1 about boobs (cus you know, it's short, and has boobs) Usually I just look at the pictures and try to see what you mean from that. I didn't really want to admit it, but I'mm just as affected by attention deficit as everyone else who has had the internet since they were kids I know I am capable of focusing longer but I need to put my mind in order first Even if I'm reading a book about perspective, I'm just glazing over everything in the second chapter (perspective terminology) only stopping my eyes if I see something I don't get (these things so far have been cone of vision/field of view and drawing ellipses around the minor axis I found a way to practice ellipses, I'm really bad with them so I'm somewhat happy about that. But pictures, (at least your pictures ) are fun to look at therefore peoples eyes will be drawn to that rather than text, therefore the format of maximum images, minimum text may be the best to keep reader attention, you can make short descriptive texts beneath each image and then maybe add more detail for certain things that may need more explanation in the description. (I'm not saying you don't already do this btw)

I think maybe the best approach is deciding how many parts there should be (I recommend 3 parts, each building upon the last; beginner, intermediate, advanced) then take as long as you need (days, weeks, months...) thinking about what needs to be covered in each part, what is the best way to cover it, maybe even write down those ideas for each part so you don't forget them, until you feel like they would be satisfactory, and then start slowly working on them, piece by piece, day by day. This way you can go into a lot more detail visually (in the tutorial) and verbally (in the description), so that most people will grasp the concept, and those thirsty enough to read the details in the description will properly understand the concept. How does this format sound?

Also, I wouldn't mmind buying a book about drawing by you hehe, maybe you should do it

I agree with what you said about math, but I just haven't reached that point yet, not in math anyways.

I think I agree with your idea that maybe a cube isn't the ideal perspective teacher, it is both "too simple" and has too little meaning to anyone. And also I can only draw cubes because I practiced only cubes (mostly) so it becomes a problem in and of itself if too heavily relied on.

You may have sparked inspirations and gave me enough information to fill a bunch of gaps myself, but I did not fill all the gaps my perspective knowledge is still half baked, even if it's 10x better than before I talked to you (and that happened overnight) 10x 1 is still only 10/100 or something. I think you might be right that the interaction between a student and teacher is the best way to learn, because that's 1 on 1 teaching, that can be tailored to the students specific needs by answering the student's specific questions. But most people don'tr ask these questions, most people think in terms of "I understand" and "I don't get it" and if they don't get it, they think they don't get the whole concept, rather than narrowing down which part they don't get, therefore because not all students question, not all students learn. But I at least do narrow it down, and right now my biggest weaknesses are: cylindrical shapes, complex shapes and imaginary guideline's accuracy.

I think with some practice I can solve the former two, but since when I draw with what you taught me I use guidelines I see in my head (or rather, I decide where the horizon is, and where the initial VPs are, and draw based on that; my current plan is to learn what guidelines Scott Robertson uses and then imagine these as well to solve problem (probably 1), 2 and 3 but there's no guarantee it will solve 3), and you say you draw a first object and base the perspective of the rest off of that first object, using my method I can indeed draw this first object without issue, I can even draw the others albeit with some difficulty, so if I were to ask you to explain anything to me now, it would be how you base your perspective off one object rather than on horizon + vp mental guides?

How did you figure out this technique? What goes through your head when you execute it exactly? How does it work? Can I do that too?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Nsio In reply to Cestarian [2018-01-13 17:29:00 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, sometimes when people ask guidance from me, I would just want to say they should start from scratch. That's hard to swallow and no one wants to hear that. However, I don't have a curriculum to follow, the "learning order" tutorial is closest to what I have managed to come up with so far. There are so many things to learn, but by doing wise choices it can be done easier. What comes to me, I just wanted to learn drawing quickly, so I focused on concepts that would allow me to get started. As long as I'm drawing constantly, I can build up my confidence and accuracy and venture beyond my comfort zone.

I have tried to compile my tutorials in a way that they would be captivating to look at. Boob tutorial definitely does the trick lol . But on a more serious note, there are many psychological things that when taken in account can draw the attention of people. Artists are masters of manipulating the viewer to see what they want and guide their eyes to the key points.

Those students who think on their own, ask questions, come up with their own ideas and experiment are the ones who learn. And those teachers who can identify the weaknesses of their students and know how to steer them towards the right direction are the best teachers. Since I know what kind of issues I had, I assume people have very similar issues as well. And as you pointed out, there are many people who have walked the same path of arrogance. Even the most given facts are to be questioned and dismantled for closer look to grasp the secrets.

I think I started to understand how perspective works when I was at the university and working on CAD modeling. Slightly orbiting around the model made it look more three dimensional. I also noticed how hard it was to fit things within the field of view when making 3D renderings. The lines are just too straight. If I forced 2 point perspective, things on the ground and close to the viewer look skewed. When you take a picture with a camera, there will be very slight distortion. I realized that "mathematical" perspective, while true in its own right, has its limitations. I started to pay more attention on the distortion.

My childhood home is next to a railroad so in one occasion I observed how a train looks when it passes me at close distance. When the train goes past me, where does it go? If I turn around, it goes away from me, obviously. But the interesting part is what happens between those two views. The transition is the key here. If the real world worked like mathematical perspective, the train would become larger behind me. But when I turn to see what's behind me, the rules change dynamically to meet the new conditions. So this is how I found that there are vanishing points at both ends of the axes and the guidelines has to bend so that they will recede at both points. The guidelines are parallel, but mathematical perspective makes them "literally too parallel" so to say.

I've done similar experiments with some handheld objects (like remote controller) and observed how I see them when I move them in different places in my field of vision. When it's directly in front of me, then that's where the horizon and "vertizon" intersect. Then you could imagine that cross divides your field of view into four quadrants. Technically you can just study how the object behaves in one quadrant, the rest of the quadrants are identical but the effect is mirrored. Let's imagine that the quadrants are number from 1 to 4 in clockwise order. So if the cube is on the right and seen from below, it's on the 1st quadrant. On 2nd quadrant that same cube would be still on the right, but now it will be seen from above. On 3rd it's on the left and still seen from above and on the last quadrant it will be on the left but seen from below just like on the 1st quadrant.

If you have a small cardboard box, it's good for this kind of observation (for it's clearly rectangular).

Anyway, I just started to apply simple rules. So if I draw a cube in certain orientation, what does it tell me about the relation between the object and the beholder? Is it above or below, left or right, i.e. in which quadrant the object is? How far or close it is the beholder? It's for the best to assume the bottom (or top) face is in fact horizontal, because it will then give a tangible hint of the world it exists in). I decide where I want it to be and after that I will start to see where the rest of the image should be in relation to the first object and the beholder according to the rules. I have learned to feel where the horizon should be. Like "I see the bottom, front and left face of this cube, so if I move my eyes to the left and down, the intersection of the horizon and vertizon ought to be somewhere in there. I have also learned to feel the "fan effect" of the lines as they recede towards the vanishing points. The larger the difference between the guidelines (or the edges of the reference cube), the closer OR larger the object is. When these same lines are nearly parallel to each other, the object is far away OR small. Basically there are multiple rules affecting the view at all times which can flip or rotate the view depending on how you perceive the image. In real world, we happen to refer to horizontal plane because everything are technically bound that horizontal plane, so our brain has no problem with figuring out how to perceive the world. 

I actually cover these things to some degree in this tutorial. The pics at the bottom with the tiles seen from above, below, left and right.


In this practice I also apply the "quadrant mirroring" by "rotating" or "flipping" the rules. If you look at the vertically aligned cubes, you could imagine that they are seen either from above or below. Since they are only simple cubes with no meaning and there isn't any background to refer to, I don't know if people are able to see the rule flip (I tried to draw those figures pointing at the direction they are looking at).


Anyway, this is the strength I have. I can see the objects in different orientations and I can also flip the view in my mind. I can also invert the view in my mind to some degree, like reverse the depth cue (inverted cube looks weird if you think that the closest corner is actually the farthest, this is what I tried to demonstrate on the aforementioned tutorial). If I draw just the horizon and some vanishing points, I have no idea where the view I'm imagining in my mind is. This is one reason I originally abandoned the perspective system, for I had no idea how to set it up. My own method still follows the same rules though and I have confirmed it many times.

If that makes any sense to you, you can adopt the same method. For me it has become a second nature, it just makes a lot of sense and works in all scenarios. In fact, I'm so accustomed to see this way that when I see a drawing like the racing car example where there are two pics next to each other, I feel there is perspective mistake in there. You know, in that pic there are two racing car pictures in identical orientation. I however tend to see such images as if it was one image, so to me it looks as if the car on the right is rotated slightly. It just shows my perception works as intended .

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Cestarian In reply to Nsio [2018-01-16 23:57:48 +0000 UTC]

Whew, that took a while to digest, I started by reading the first half, then for some reason I was getting tired so I waited until I was in a learning mood to read the second half. Your method makes sense to me logically, and the more I think about it, the more I feel like trying to see if I can do the same in practice, I also however see that there are a bunch of gaps in my knowledge (which is where I guess 3D modeling came in handy for you ) I suspect that like you, if I don't start getting it soon I should probably try picking up 3D modeling again and learn the rest from observation by myself.

I think this method could end up being really useful since it has a few obvious benefits.

• It allows you to go straight into drawing without overthinking your perspective or drawing a bunch of guides
• Enforces the idea that every object in the image is connected, helping you create a more cohesive (and therefore pleasing) image by default
• Allows you to account for distortion more easily since you're looking at the image, not the guidelines, over time it no doubt develops into a 'sense'
• Makes it easier in practice to focus on where the object is, in the image, rather than where it is from the perspective guidelines, casting an illusion on yourself as you would on your viewers which should in turn make drawing a more immersive and enjoyable experience overall.

There are probably more good things, I think when I first saw that tutorial you linked to a couple of years ago, I thought "that's what I want to do" (which I still do think) but at the same time decided I wasn't ready for it (and I was right) now however I am ready to start practicing it mostly thanks to the guidance you gave me last year. Now once again I must thank you for your guidance, Nsio Sensei  

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Nsio In reply to Cestarian [2018-01-17 19:33:05 +0000 UTC]

Yeah there are benefits in this method which make it more intuitive. I don't think it's significantly easier, though it forces you to process the idea. I'm sure that all good perspective artist have this skill to some degree, they just rely on guidelines for accuracy which is harder or more troublesome to achieve with this method.

I figured I didn't even explain how I embed the rules on the objects. I onlyexplained how the objects are related to each other in space.

If we start from the core idea of any system or method, it has to be reliable and applicable in any situation. The less complex it is to put in practice, the better. A good system or method builds on basic principles which form a solid foundation and which can be extended for complex tasks. It's imperative that the rules can be used to check the drawing for errors.

Perspective has many rules and some of them are technically very easy to put in practice. The horizon, vanishing points and guidelines create a very solid system that just works if followed trough (when the guidelines are drawn with a ruler and they meet at vanishing points, then you technically can't go "wrong" there). It however requires more deep understanding how to setup the scene to meet specific needs and one has to take the limitations in account. This is where most people just fail.

My method is automatically less reliable because there aren't straight lines for guidelines. Therefore I have to embed the rules into the objects themselves to make sure I get them right.

Basically there are still many rules borrowed from the perspective system, or rather, facts about geometry. I'm sure these are obvious to you, but I'll explain it anyway.

A cube has 6 faces that are identical. Therefore I can focus only on one face. The edges form 4 corners, each with 90 degree angle (right angle). Therefore all faces have right angles in relation to any other faces. Therefore when there are two or three faces visible, I have to keep these rules in mind. The more I see one face, the less I will see the other faces. If I see one face directly from the front, I won't see any other faces. The hard part here is to make sure those corners are in right angle at all times while also taking in account the depth, because my method doesn't provide as reliable guideline as traditional perspective system does (because it technically takes the depth distortion automatically in account, it's built in the system).

So I need more rules to make sure the corners are in fact in right angle. I need to make sure that the edges are parallel or perpendicular, for that's a direct consequence of having a right angle. Two lines that have  a right angle and intersect are perpendicular, two opposite edges of a square are parallel. This isn't any different from traditional perspective, but the thing is that I will use these aspects as a way to check my drawings for error. If you draw straight lines but they aren't parallel or perpendicular, there won't be a right angle. This is easier to grasp with isometric projections because then you don't have to worry how depth affects the view.

The next important thing is to find the middle points. Middle points are in the middle, it's just that simple. It shouldn't be hard to find a middle point of a line even by eyeballing. And hey, you can use them to check for errors as well. If you draw a line between two opposite edges along the middle points, then it has to be parallel in comparison to the other two edges. Draw two lines (horizontal and vertical) along the middle points and they will intersect in the middle of the face. Draw two diagonals between the two opposite corners and they will also intersect in the middle. If all 4 lines you drew intersect exactly at the same point, you know you are doing well.
The middle lines also provide yet another way to check the drawing for errors. I call this "shape equality". Any shape that is truly divided with middle lines will be divided into 4 equally sized shapes which are 1/4th of the original shape. So a square will be divided into four smaller squares. If each shape look identical, or at least very similar, it's likely that the original shape is drawn right and you have also found the middle points. Now you can just start "flipping" and "mirroring" the original shape. It won't reveal whether you have drawn the shape in right orientation, but it's already something noteworthy.

Of course,when moving from isometric projection to perspective, you will need to "break" these rules a bit but still maintain the idea of parallel and perpendicular lines, middle points and lines and shape equality. Now depth is just one more rule to keep eye on. I basically see a hand fan in my mind: "www.designsponge.com/wp-conten… " . Like, imagine the pivot point is a vanishing point, the slats are guidelines. Technically that's what perspective system does. I try to keep that effect in mind and subtly change the angle depending on where the beholder is looking at.

And that's just a cube we are talking. There are more rules when it comes to complex shapes, but even they can be broken into the same rules as in squares and cubes, but going trough all possible shapes and forms would be too much in one go... and writing it without drawn examples is futile for me.

To put it short, the big idea is to have multiple rules which you can then use to cross-reference each part of your drawing, one by one.  In fact, these geometric facts are part of perspective system as well so these same methods can be used to check for errors in constructed perspective. Contradictions between rules need to be analysed to see which rule(s) you didn't follow.

That said, I can't draw a good perspective drawing in one go. It's a process where even already drawn objects may still change.

I think the hardest part here is to avoid letting your own mind interfering the process. I check this by first assuming that whatever I drew is drawn correctly and then I imagine what that would look. I try to imagine how the drawing looks from different angle, how it would really look if it truly looked like the way I drew it. Since I won't let my brains think what it wants, I easily see clear abnormalities which I can try to fix.

Here are some examples of imagining object from different angle. I've drawn some illustrations for people to explain what I see in their drawings. In first pic I shoved how the arm would look from above. On second pic I saw the book as if it wasn't on a horizontal plane. On the third pic I pointed out how the arm  should be posed according to the limitations of the joint articulation.

I'm good at seeing errors like these, which is why I'm not doing blatantly obvious mistakes very often. I wouldn't be this good at this if I didn't force myself to approach drawing like this, in fact, I did the same mistakes as everyone at first. Years of experience have done the trick.

You're most welcome. It's always fascinating to talk with people who are truly trying to understand these things, because I also need to put my thoughts in order.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

jmr-mark In reply to Nsio [2018-01-18 16:34:04 +0000 UTC]

Sorry for Interjecting into the conversation, but I am a senior in high school and some of the things you talk about above seem to just blow past my mind. 
I have been trying to learn art for a few years but I depend way to much on references to create my own images, And I am trying to do what you said earlier " start from scratch" because I realized that my way of thinking about art is mostly wrong.
But I was hoping you could explain what you meant by the rules being embedded in the object and not externally projected

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Nsio In reply to jmr-mark [2018-01-18 20:31:13 +0000 UTC]

You know how many step by step tutorials and alike tell you how to draw? When people don't fully grasp the whole concept of the tutorial or a method, they end up projecting the rules on anything they draw without true understanding why it is done that way. Perspective, while a powerful tool, is difficult to set up properly without deep understanding of how it works. The system alone won't make a good perspective drawing.

I didn't enjoy constructing perspective, so I needed another ways to make sure I get things right. Therefore it was imperative for me to understand and perceive the shapes and forms I'm about to draw. As I listed in my earlier comment, I'm familiar with many geometric facts that are directly related to the shape itself. Therefore I'm aiming to see those facts manifest themselves on the objects I'm drawing rather than trying to fit them within a system I'm not familiar with. Many of the rules can be used to cross-reference the features to make sure they are drawn properly. If there are contradictions, then there must be something wrong somewhere in the object.

So if I draw a cube in one way and decide how it exists within the 3D space, it will determine the rules for the rest of the objects. If this initial object is faulty, then the rest of the drawing can end up being faulty. However, the objects I draw later on will also set their own rules which I can refer to check whether my original object was in fact properly drawn. To do this it's absolutely must to understand the shapes thoroughly and to be able to read the visual cues in a way that reveal the errors and merits. It's by no means easy, but it's more intuitive in my opinion. I set the rules, not the system.

Everything in the world has some rules. Just like your neck is anchored between your shoulders and allows your head to move around with limited freedom. If you draw the head in one way and decide how the beholder (you) sees it, it will automatically rule out many options. Once you set the torso in place, it will again rule out a lot more options for the rest of the body. So if anything, you are on the safe side when you can avoid posing the body parts in a way that's beyond the limitations.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

jmr-mark In reply to Nsio [2018-01-19 13:51:52 +0000 UTC]

sorry for the late reply. This is some amazing stuff. I actually understand it more than yesterday perhaps though it is because I read your discussion with the other deviant in 5 min. Do you think that you could reteach me the basics of art.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Cestarian In reply to Nsio [2018-01-18 06:19:46 +0000 UTC]

When I said easier, I really meant intuitive. Intuitive and easy sorta mean the exact same thing. And I only meant this specific aspect of getting your head in the image, rather than in the guidelines, if you rely on guidelines it takes a lot of training to 'see' the image like a 3D space, after all when all you're thinking is guidelines, the illusion is broken, however accuracy is all but guaranteed since guidelines ensure that you're not doing anything completely wrong. Your method flips this, by forcing you to see the 3D space, and using that mental image to draw, essentially eyeballing everything based on your first object. Which in turn makes accuracy significantly harder to achieve, but if you were to ask me which is more important, it's that 3D vision rather than the accuracy, because in the end, I don't need super accuracy as much as I need creative freedom and dynamism as you called it. (although it's mostly just gesture, when you're not too bogged down in guidelines, dynamism should be easier to achieve and maintain.)

Ah I see, basically it's important to keep the basic rules in mind and get good at error checking, then redrawing as needed any spotted mistakes. That's somewhat amazing, I've seen a good lot of artists who can't do active error checking until after they finished their picture. Even for me I usually only spot less obvious mistakes at least a week later that is some really good advice you've given me. To make error checking runs a part of the sketching process is something I have until now underestimated the importance of. It's starting to make a lot more sense now why you're so good at this, as for me, I can't really draw the same thing from a different perspective yet, the bigest reason might be that I can't even draw the same thing from the same perspective even, I don't understand how to replicate my own drawings which can at times be quite the limitation. There exist very few guides o how that can be achieved as well (I recall looking into it and giving up because I can't even draw anything worth replicating yet anyways) although I imagine that it's pretty much the same as drawing from reference, I kinda suck at that too. Maybe it's time I do something about that but I think I'll probably delay it as much as possible, until it becomes a completely vital skill for me to progress (like perspective is right now)

Anyhow, thanks for your help once again you've opened my eyes to some more things.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Nsio In reply to Cestarian [2018-01-20 13:07:24 +0000 UTC]

Yep, intuitive approach makes it easier because everything will make sense. Learning an artificial system that doesn't tell you anything isn't as easy, even though it makes some other aspects easier.

Sketching phase is the most important part of any drawing in my opinion. Ideally all errors should be fixed at this point, because it's still relatively easy to fix or even discard the whole drawing and start a new one from scratch. It's painful to start fixing things when you have already put so much effort on the drawing. It's difficult to get rid of all mistakes at first, but seeing them after a week is a good opportunity to study the errors. You need to identify what kind of tendencies you have before you can put efforts on avoiding them after all.

You're welcome, until next time

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Nsio In reply to Rixks [2018-01-11 15:14:14 +0000 UTC]

Sorry for the late reply.

Many of the things that I have discovered are in fact so obvious and given that its actually embarrassing. I figured that I had to study them in order to bypass automatic filtering of the brain. And when things got too complex to handle, it was necessary to find the ways to simplify.

What you are saying about art vs. realism is true, but one has to be careful with such statements. Does that statement stem from real artistic understanding or from something that's just said to be that way? For a beginner that will most likely be an subconscious excuse. That's not to say it wasn't possible to make great art without understanding about perspective, but it surely rules out many options.

Anyway, my goal is to figure out concepts and rules that apply in all scenarios. You will never need to plot a point cloud to construct a perspective, the point cloud just refers to the idea that there are infinite options for you to set the perspective.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rixks In reply to Nsio [2018-01-13 06:42:50 +0000 UTC]

It's cool, man. Anyway, to answer your question about my statement:

I feel that my answer stems from what I've gathered in artistic understanding. In my opinion, a beginner (completely wet behind the ears, mind you) needs to take these concepts very seriously. For example, I wrote off a lot of stuff when I was beginning because I believed there would be an easier way to get where I'm going than what most people have done...but from asking around, trusting my eyesight while taking note of my observations, I've learned that I have to do obsessive studying to get the idea I want to convey in a medium as close to the image in my head as possible. Also, my definition of obsessive means to go far and well past the means of getting a handle on something than having to know every minute detail about it. I'd say that take on studying something varies from artist to artist, though.

Over the last four and half years, I've been building on my own intuition trying to make my mind more malleable. Sure the ideas and truth of the world are pretty obvious and blatant, but it's a lot tougher to put them into practice, at least from where I'm standing. Half, if not most of what I had been learning at the start was still confusing to me, and I didn't quite believe that what I was learning was true in my head, or made sense enough for me to properly explain it on paper. I was a lot less observant then, too. Concepts like "How do I make sure all of my character's body parts make sense in space?" "How far apart are they?" "How am I supposed to consider and see all of that at once when that's a lot of things?" Then I went back to someone saying "You need to see 2D and 3D at the same time." Still, I was lost, and then it clicked for me when I realized that I was supposed to be reading everything I studied or drew like a flat image or silhouette the whole time--like I had unconsciously from the start.

I have to draw as if I'm witnessing an action happening before me. I have to feel it and anticipate it, and when I'm not completely sure how to explain something, I go right back to study.

With all that said, I think your method explains a lot, but it still all boils down to each artist and how much they're willing to learn about a given subject.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rixks In reply to Rixks [2018-01-15 02:26:53 +0000 UTC]

I'd like to amend a line from my prior statement:  Also, my definition of obsessive means to go well and far past the means of getting a handle on something than just understanding enough of it to get the point across.*

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Nsio In reply to Marcotonio-desu [2018-01-11 15:02:46 +0000 UTC]

Sorry for the late reply.

I searched for an example pic that would closely represent the idea I was after. I actually thought it might have been for the best to explain what to look at, because there are some unnecessary blue dots there. I however assumed that people would understand that I'm referring to the "red" sphere. I also thought my explanation would do the trick: "So the idea is that you as the beholder are in the center of the perspective system, i.e. in the center of that point cloud of vanishing points."

Representing 3D on 2D has it's limitations which is why it's difficult to actually demonstrate the effects. A 2D representation is static, therefore it shows only one particular view. If we wanted to show more than what our field of vision allows, then the perspective has to bend in order to follow the rules. This isn't how we are used to see though, because when an object is out of our field of view, we turn to look at the object. The view isn't static anymore, it changes and this transition from the original view to the new view causes the bending on 2D image.

So the vanishing point of the infinitely long pole (that's vertically orientated) is above you, which is in fact your "personal zenith" as you said. However, to see this vanishing point you need to turn to look at it. Now this vanishing point is in front of you, even though from your perspective it's still above you (because we are subject to the gravity and therefore refer to horizontal reference plane, i.e. the ground). So the pole isn't vanishing at different vanishing point, it's just your view that changes.

Think about a panorama image. To take such a pic, you have to rotate the camera which then compiles the image into a panorama view. The camera can't see the whole scene if it doesn't rotate.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Marcotonio-desu In reply to Nsio [2018-01-17 16:17:55 +0000 UTC]

No worries about the delay, I myself owe a few people some replies on dA. >_>

I think I understand it better now. I was thinking since the pole doesn't bend (like the Earth's surface), there would be no converging to a certain point in space, and even if it was extremely foreshortened forwards, as long as it had a slight tilt upwards it would keep going up, just taking billions times more pole to reach the "out of bounds" of my field of vision. But I thought about how Limits work and I saw where I was wrong - it is still going up forever, but it's going at such a slow rate that it never passes the vanishing point, even if it's infinite. And the converging is not caused by the curvature of Earth as I was thinking for some reason.

That was an insightful exchange!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Nsio In reply to davichiz [2017-11-30 20:09:47 +0000 UTC]

True, many concepts require a lot of experimenting to truly get the idea. I'm hoping I could find a way to help people find the key to great revelation. People are so different that finding an universal explanation may pose impossible after all. I still remember how blinded I used to be with very straightforward and obvious things that it still amazes me. Technically everyone are struggling with the same issues.

Practicing an unfamiliar concept is also hard because one can never be sure whether they are on the right track or not. Some concepts may even be impossible to learn before grasping some other skill. In those cases 15 hours or even weeks may be fruitless practice (or the effects will not be visible until years after). On the other hand, how could someone learn drawing a difficult viewing angle if they never draw one? Although one should learn the basics first before going for the advanced things, it maybe necessary to stumble with challenges to actually realize what are the basics.

Thanks! Sorry for taking so long to reply

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

Nsio In reply to HarmonyRainWingCat [2017-11-16 18:59:05 +0000 UTC]

I need to confirm one thing, do you find that the horizon in the perspective system is the same as the horizon of the Earth? That once anything reaches the point where you can no longer see the ground due to Earth curvature, that's where the horizon and vanishing points are. Is that what you are saying? I want to be sure I understood your point properly because to me it sounds you have a big misconception here. Of course, if you just want to continue with this conversation.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

HarmonyRainWingCat In reply to Nsio [2017-11-18 01:35:41 +0000 UTC]

That's pretty much what I said yeah

I'm still a bit (very) lost when it comes to the legitimate reasoning and placement of vanishing points, so this really helped me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Nsio In reply to HarmonyRainWingCat [2017-11-18 07:18:42 +0000 UTC]

I see, well the horizon of the Earth and the horizon in the perspective system are two different things. Things do get smaller by the time they reach the the horizon of the Earth for sure, but they don't vanish there. You see, you can still see the masts and sails of a sailboat even when it has already crossed the horizon from your point of view. 

The concept of perspective doesn't take in account the Earth curvature at all. It assumes the ground is completely flat and the horizon is infinitely far away. Its horizon is your eye level and the guidelines receding there are completely straight. So if you want to take the curvature in account, you need to adjust the methods of constructing perspective and make the rules bend along the Earths curvature. That will make it much harder though because you can't use a ruler to construct such perspective anymore. On the other hand, if you can do that by free hand, it can look even more believable and lively.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

HarmonyRainWingCat In reply to Nsio [2017-11-23 01:37:25 +0000 UTC]

Thanks so much! >w<

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Nsio In reply to JellyBX [2017-11-16 18:50:47 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, it may not need anything other than more experience about drawing in general. Technically speaking perspective is just about putting the lines in right places reliably. So even if someone didn't know about the vanishing points and how to use guidelines, it still possible to draw cubes that look alright. It's then possible to find the rules governing perspective from there.

The first video was cool and that artist seems to be quite a pro. He did good job demonstrating the effect of vanishing points and guidelines, though he didn't really elaborate why it is in certain place. For beginner it's really difficult to decide the place of the vanishing points to get the desired effect. On the other hand, practicing like this will make the artist familiar with the effects he has chosen to use (whether they work or not in that particular case you want to pursue).

The second video demonstrated the limitations of the system, scalability and how the unfavorable rules can be mirrored to make it work in different scenario (like the effects of using the 3rd vanishing point).

Neither video didn't elaborate how we really see things though... and the second video even claims as if we still don't know how we see the world beyond our field of vision. The effect he demonstrates is purely because of following the rules of mathematical perspective literally beyond its limitations. That distortion takes place only because converting 3D space on 2D canvas will never be completely perfect and seamless if you venture far enough.

Take a look at this image: s3.amazonaws.com/rocketstockas… here you can see a cube unwrapped into 2D space. As, you can see, there has to be gaps on the corners. You can't connect the left and right together either, so the world just sort of  "ends" there. In addition, the points where the faces connect each other look a bit weird. If you wrap this flattened cube back into a 3D cube and imagine yourself inside this cube, you would perceive the sky and ground just fine, without and gaps or discontinuity (though the corners may still look funny, for this is a cube we are talking about). In a similar way, if you wanted to flatten the Earth on 2D space, it would look somewhat like this: www.gamefromscratch.com/image.… . For practicaly use that just looks rather weird, so we tend to use mercator projection instead: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator… . It looks alright, but the closer you get the poles, the more distorted the continents become. For example, Greenland seems to be larger than Africa, but in reality it's hardly 1/6th of the size of Africa. Similarly, if you go beyond the limitations of the perspective system, things will start to skew and distort.

That said, we simply can't see more than our field of view allows us to see. Images where the distortion takes place merely show these areas we can't see unless we actually turn our eyes or head to see the area, in which case the area will be within the limitations of the perspective system again. That said, every time you move your eyes and/or head, the rules of perspective will change as well to meet the new conditions. In fact, they have to. Therefore there is nothing weird happening in the areas that are beyond our field of view. If we literally believe the mathematical rules of perspective, it will just lead us astray, for if the rules don't change depending on where you look, then the perspective gets broken.

You can witness the rules changing on the animated box. In each frame it looks alright, because the rules keep changing while the view changes.

That's one reason I didn't get perspective at first and abandoned the system for a while. I however figured that rules keep changing when the view changes and they actually have to bend if we flatten the image. Even then it won't be perfect, but it will make things look more natural. You can actually see this bending if you try to see what happens in your peripheral vision (without moving your eyes). If you look at the the corner of wall and ceiling and focus on looking at the two wall corners on left and right without moving your eyes, you ought to see edge between the wall and ceiling bending slightly. The larger the room or the closer you are the wall, the more prominent the effect is. You can also perceive this if you are walking on a floor with tiles. If you keep walking, the tiles seem to bend around you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JellyBX In reply to Nsio [2017-11-20 12:39:16 +0000 UTC]

Thanks for your reply!  

Indeed, the perspective will always change if we move the camera or our eyes since the vanishing points will also move from our sight which basically also change the object shape in our perception.

Actually something interesting which i realized during my exercise in drawing tons of boxes is vanishing point exist like in the direction of where the box come from, but that fixed point wont moving pretty much even if we change the view.
Something like if we assume that a box comes from fixed point in horizon line, if we change the view a bit lower near the box, obviously the horizon line will be placed lower while the box stay in its place and naturally it'll seems that the box distorted (like an above view) because we retain its vanishing point which is moving along the horizon line.
I think the same rule also follows if we move the camera higher and so on  

Yeah maybe thats a basic understanding about perspective which i got from drawing boxes, yet i dont quite understand about how to bend perspective until it reach something like curve shape or something like that  

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Nsio In reply to FireShika [2017-11-10 16:25:16 +0000 UTC]

I'm thinking ways to illustrate the idea more thoroughly on Sketchup. Since it follows strict mathematical perspective, it's difficult or impossible to demonstrate some things that I would like to emphasize. Showing two vanishing points at the same time is one of those things that's problematic.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Nsio In reply to Technemancer [2017-11-10 16:13:46 +0000 UTC]

Good to hear that this could shed some light on the subject

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Technemancer In reply to Nsio [2017-11-10 16:55:00 +0000 UTC]

speaking of lighting, your shading tutorial was great  

👍: 0 ⏩: 0