At the end you put the wheels on the wrong side of car #2! ........ seeing you make a rare mistake somehow makes me feels better about my own endless mistakes haha!
@trustyourperspective6 сағат бұрын
You need to understand the severity of this accident. The wheels went right through the vehicle to the other side! It's a miracle no one was injured
@notfrances581023 сағат бұрын
miss the class but not really haha
@trustyourperspective6 сағат бұрын
I feel the same 😂
@sharonwinters1054Күн бұрын
Came here from a reddit comment recommending your channel. Your explanation of the picture plane was very helpful and clear. Thank you!
@trustyourperspectiveКүн бұрын
Awesome, thank you!
@NataliaDaraselia2 күн бұрын
Honestly, the human figures standing on "the ground" and tilting their heads in every perspective text was what was throwing me off the whole time. It only clicked when I thought of just a pinpoint at the end of a light cone in outer space. There is no "up" or "down" and especially no re-orientation of my head anywhere; only arbitrary planes are rotated/tilted relative to the picture plane. Everything orients itself relative to ME and my always fixed line of sight. It also helped not to think of a whole "scene" being "in 3PP" but to think of "3PP" belonging to just one single cube that co-exists among other cubes in other orientations. Great videos though. It is helping to see the numbers for once and not just "space the vanishing points nice n far apart".
@figuredrawing_attebery328Күн бұрын
Right! We don't need the Earth to draw objects in perspective. Vanishing points are not "on" the horizon line but beyond it at infinity. We just talk about them being on the horizon line because the difference is more more theoretical than practical, and it's easier to just say put the vanishing points on the horizon line. I was going to get to this idea, but you beat me to it. It's great that removing the idea of looking "up" and "down" makes more sense to you. I spend a lot of time talking about object's relation to the ground plane, in addition to their relation to the picture plane, mainly because we spend most of our time here on Earth and when drawing things we are usually drawing them in relation to a horizontal surface. However one can wrap their head around the material...it's all good.
@lukestevens93752 күн бұрын
Is there a trick to drawing parallel lines at a distance quickly and accurately like you do at 7:38 and 11:26? Do you just use the grid on the transparent ruler to line it up, or is there more to it? I don't have a transparent ruler like yours, so the best I've come up with is butting two squares against each other. If I line of of the squares up with the horizon line, then I can slide the other square along the other side until it lines up with the center of vision and trace the corresponding line, but this is clumsy and prone to slipping.
@figuredrawing_attebery3282 күн бұрын
The best way is to use a triangle and create a 90° angle line, from the right reference line.
@retromograph38932 күн бұрын
This is 3 point perspective, right!?
@trustyourperspective2 күн бұрын
Not exactly. Three-point is when the viewer is looking down or up. Here the viewer is looking parallel to the ground plane, so this is a two-point object that is at an incline. It has three vanishing points, but technically not three-point perspective.
@retromograph38932 күн бұрын
@@trustyourperspective Aha, thanks! But isn't this the first time (in this series of videos) that there are 3 vanishing points for a box? I mean, i see it vanishing in 3 directions, so it doesn't feel like 2 point perspective! And if we ignore the fact that the box is tilted, we are kinda looking down at it. So if we rotated the ground plane 60 degrees clockwise, it's 3 point perspective, right? (for the last box)
@figuredrawing_attebery3282 күн бұрын
@@retromograph3893 Yes,, I would agree with that.
@retromograph38932 күн бұрын
Question: is that technique (around 9.28) of finding an alternative MP a hack, or does it give the exact, perfect placement?
@retromograph38932 күн бұрын
For anyone wondering about the technique described around 9:28, it's covered back in video 36.
@retromograph38932 күн бұрын
Damn, that thing of rotating the image 90 degrees and swapping around your SPs and VPs seems very powerful and key, but will take some thunking about!
@trustyourperspective2 күн бұрын
Yes, it’s a powerful tool to have.
@retromograph38932 күн бұрын
Craig! Videos jump from 72 to 74, there's no 73, did the follow up to this one (far aux vanishing points / vertical measuring line) ever get made?!
@trustyourperspective2 күн бұрын
There’s no 73. Some kind of computer error. It jumps to 74. 🤷🏻♂️
@retromograph38934 күн бұрын
Great! Instead of trying to copy your steps on paper, i'm just pausing the video and asking myself: "what does he need to do next?", and after a couple of times watching, I'm starting to get it!
@figuredrawing_attebery3284 күн бұрын
Nice! I like that approach.
@retromograph38934 күн бұрын
I think it's interesting to note that in terms of teaching perspective, your videos are the least hi-tech of any on youtube, with the lowest production values, no animations etc. Just paper, pencils and a few tools. And they're also the best. I don't think that's a coincidence! Because the amount of time needed to produce 150+ flashy videos on this subject would be prohibitive. And it's not necessary. Just start at the beginning and run methodically and in detail through the whole thing without worrying about it also being quality entertainment! Well done & thanks!
@figuredrawing_attebery3284 күн бұрын
Thank you and I agree! Entertaining, hi-tech animations with impressive production values are not necessary to communicate this information. But, I have no idea how to create entertaining, hi-tech animations with impressive production values. So there is that.😊
@retromograph38935 күн бұрын
Just to check if i misunderstood, the plan view shows a perfect square but your perspective square was just drawn by eye, so in fact wasn't really a prefect square, correct?
@figuredrawing_attebery3285 күн бұрын
It could be a perfect square. A square will be different shapes depending on where the viewer is. When I made up a measuring point and drew 45° angle, doing that placed the station point (the viewer) the correct distance from the picture plane it needed to be for the shape to be a square. I hope that makes sense. Let me know.
@jaoartfolio48596 күн бұрын
Just living a comment to see the growth of this channel, I hope that many people find this channel. currently at 2.23k subs
@jaoartfolio48596 күн бұрын
Im here right now at 2.23k subs great channel, I learned a lot in this channel, haven't finished watching the previous vids, coz my brain stopped braining😅
@GuestUser-jf8uj6 күн бұрын
The greatest perspective channel of all time.
@ronaldronaldo9847 күн бұрын
writting support comment
@RobertvandenBurg7 күн бұрын
I never had thought that perspective drawing was so complex when I started to ✍️. It took me hours of study and searching for sources to learn. Then I came a year ago on your channel and I can say now that you are the only one who has the didactic skills and the visualisation skills to explain it. And at such a level that now I see this video I think I have come far. Thank you utmost and I wish to learn many more of you.
@trustyourperspective5 күн бұрын
Thank you. I'm happy to help.
@aarna_arts_123Күн бұрын
True. Really learned a lot.
@redendstone44697 күн бұрын
Wow a 3d assets, the production budget has increased. it's nice to see you again, your videos were of great help to me.
@jaoartfolio485911 күн бұрын
My brain stopped braining😵💫😵💫
@trustyourperspective11 күн бұрын
It happens.
@retromograph389313 күн бұрын
Can you also put "ground plane" in the title of this one? Because this video is one of the most important of the early ones. The explanation of the ground plane is crucial and needs to be easier to find!
@user-gv6ky4xh1x13 күн бұрын
sorry, i am a green hand, i really do not understand why these lines are parallel with each other to the same vanishing point? could you plz describe more or draw a perspective drawing to help me understand this principle? best thanks
@trustyourperspective12 күн бұрын
As lines go back in space the distance between them appears smaller, it is not smaller of course but just farther away. Things that are farther away appear smaller than things that are closer. As parallel lines recede in space the distance will appear smaller until they appear to come to a point. The first part of the video shows the perspective view of this. A good example would be to take a piece of plexiglass or glass and stand on a sidewalk and trace the lines going back in space. You will see that they go to a point on the horizon line.
@user-gv6ky4xh1x12 күн бұрын
@@trustyourperspective many thank!!!
@Wishexe14 күн бұрын
Thank you so much for these video, I just found out. I was so confused studying from books and they POORLY explained all of this. This was so much easier to understand.
@trustyourperspective12 күн бұрын
You are welcome
@retromograph389318 күн бұрын
Question: how do you use or create a ruler when it's off the page? So for example, if you were drawing the view from a high tower, looking down at an angle of say 70 degrees, then your picture plane will intersect the floor off your page.
@trustyourperspective18 күн бұрын
That would be 3-point perspective. The diagram is set up differently.
@retromograph389318 күн бұрын
@@trustyourperspective OK! But then how do you decide the moment when 2 point becomes 3 point? Because, physically, 2 point doesn't really exist in the real world. I'm know i'm being a bit pedantic, but that's just the way i am, whenever i learn something my mind always jumps straight to the edge cases! 😂
@figuredrawing_attebery32818 күн бұрын
@@retromograph3893 There's videos about that under 3-point perspective. I'm kinda thinking 2-point does really exist though.
@kestergreen384419 күн бұрын
Awesome video! I wanted to understand how you would space something like fence posts disappearing into the distance. I don’t quite understand the orange line you drew yet but I’ll get there :)
@trustyourperspective18 күн бұрын
There’s other videos that address those issues.
@retromograph389319 күн бұрын
One thing I'm not getting is that you say you want the viewer to be six inches away from the picture plane, but it's only six inches for a very specific size of picture plane, field of view & piece of paper! Wouldn't it be more useful to say i want my viewer to be at whatever distance they need to be so that when they cast a 60 degress cone of vision towards my plane, the cone hits the outer edges of my paper?
@trustyourperspective19 күн бұрын
The picture plane is infinite, vertically and horizontally. The useful area is the cone of vision. You can make the cone of vision fit the size of your paper but some of the vanishing points and measuring points would be off the paper. You could compensate for that by using a bigger paper, but then the cone of vision wouldn’t be the size of the paper anymore. So it’s not the size of the picture plane that’s important (because it’s infinite) but it’s the size of the cone of vision. The farther away the viewer is from the picture plane the bigger the area you can draw in.
@retromograph389318 күн бұрын
@@trustyourperspective OK! I actually think about it the other way around! The picture plane should contrain the bondaries of your piece of paper, and the cone of vision isn't really important. You only need to be aware that the angle from your station point to the outer edges of your picture plane should equate to the focal length that you want in your picture (54.4 degrees for 35mm for example). Although when you start to shift your cone of vision off-center, then you do need to start thinking about it. I still have some questions but i'll post those in another comment when i have formulated my thoughts about them. And thanks for all the hard work in this wonderful set of videos!
@retromograph389319 күн бұрын
I don't know what to say, other than that for anyone learning perspective drawing, your videos are pure gold!
@retromograph389320 күн бұрын
One thing which confused me in the beginning is the idea that the picture plane can be located anywhere in the world of our viewer, and can be any size. It represents, in camera terms, our amount of zoom, crop, focal or lens length. It also represents the sheet of paper we're going to draw on! So imagine the plane is a piece of glass which is only one meter square and is placed one hundred meters away from us. We're going to look through it and trace on it (with our hundred meter long arms and superman vision!) what we see behind it. If we have a city scape, all we're going to get is a small portion of one building, perhaps a few windows. Our field of view or cone of vision (as captured on the glass) will be very narrow, less than one degree. But we have two problems. First, we can't capture anything that's closer than 100m, and secondly, we need very long arms. So we start to bring the plane of glass closer. But of course, as we do so, we need to shrink the size of the glass down i order to keep the field of view (cone of vision) the same. Because the cone gets smaller, the closer it gets to our viewer (eye or camera lens). So as we get the glass within arms length, it will need to be only a few centimeters square. If we don't shrink the size of the glass as we bring it closer, than our field of view gets progessively wider until, when it's at arm's length, it's giving us a field of view of roughly 60 degress. So when we see these representions of this big piece of glass (picture plane) in videos about perspective, we need to realize that its size and placement physically represent the image that will be captured, and its size needs to change, depending on what image we want to capture and where we place the glass. And for any given view, there are an infinite number of places we can place the glass along the cone, with the only limitation being that if it's too far or two close, we will not capture things in front of the glass, or things that are close will obscure what's behind. So in a sense, it doen't matter where we place the glass along that cone, but it's still useful to intuitively understand the concept that it can be moved back & forward, if we're willing to also change its size. Additionally, we need to realize that we need to make an extra conversion in size. Because although in our viewer's world, the sheet of glass is only a few centermeters square (in the above cityscape, zoomed in example), the piece of paper in our REAL world that we're drawing on isn't so small, it might be A4 or even a lot bigger. So then we realize we have a "real" world plane of vision in our viewer's world, but this needs to be shrunk down or blown up to the REAL world piece of paper we're actually drawing on! so I'm basically making the point that we have two worlds we need to think about in a physical sense: the "real" world of our viewer (in order to capture perspective), and our REAL real world (in order to represent perspective on a 2D surface). It's also important to note that, although analogies to photography and cameras can be useful, the analogy breaks down in the sense that a camera lens generally has a fixed, or a least limited field of view, whereas with our piece of paper, we're totally free to choose any lens length we want, even impossible (practically speaking) ones like an orthographic view! But of course we need to bear in mind the issues of distortion covered in this video.
@58elrond23 күн бұрын
Example of the question i had previously, is if you google "British Museum, Reading Room stock image" these images where the camera is pointing at the walls on left/right? Can you draw even construct these ellipses with standard squares?
@figuredrawing_attebery32822 күн бұрын
You can't draw the entire circle using a square, but you can draw part of the circle using part of a square. You can't draw the entire circle or an entire square because that would put part of the square/circle behind the viewer. The picture plane, being a flat surface in front of the viewer wont allow for objects behind the viewer's eye to be projected to it's surface. But you can construct part of a square (1/2 of a square, 1/4 of a square, etc) and then plot points that will draw a small section of the circle, the part of the circle that is in front of the viewer. Anything beyond 180° you wont be able to draw unless you get into the world of curvilinear perspective.
@58elrond25 күн бұрын
I'm trying to draw accurate squares/circles that are centred behind the SP,, yet creep into vision (example: standing in a large circular tent? or on a large circular carpet) I can't find this taught/mentioned anywhere,,
@trustyourperspective25 күн бұрын
A circle that big would be largely outside the cone of vision. So you only need to worry about drawing part of the circle. Maybe just the back half. You make a rectangle that is twice as long as deep and then plot the points. I have videos on how to plot points for an ellipse. you would just be doing half of the circle.
@58elrond25 күн бұрын
@@trustyourperspective i really struggle to wrap my head around this concept,,, i've drawn a basic 1p square room on ground, but if i step inside the back half of it (like in this example, but very close to the window) and try to re-construct it all over again with wide angle fov (say 120 deg) all kinds of things fall apart,,, i want to make that room a circle shape (like im standing in a circular tower with wide fov, 1meter away from a window, looking out (not using curvelinear + ik it will look distorted, thats fine)
@drdca8263Ай бұрын
Does the distance between the viewer’s eyes play a significant role? Like, if you did the projection onto the image plane for one eye, and for the other eye, I imagine that for many things, the difference would be something relatively negligible (though of course one wouldn’t have stereoscopic depth perception looking at objects in the scene), but, is there a point where the discrepancy gets large enough that it becomes particularly noticeable? Also, the increased distortion outside the ~60 degree cone, is this just about, “if the viewer’s eye is not precisely at the ideal viewing point, then things outside this cone will look off”, or is it about like, some approximations failing for objects outside this cone? I would imagine that if the viewer’s eye was precisely at the right location (and they had their other eye closed), and if the image was exactly matching the correct perspective, then, it would look the same (perspective-wise) as if the scene were really there rather than the image? Is the issue “we want the picture to look good from multiple viewing locations”, or “it is very inconvenient/time-consuming/whatever to make the image have the distortions just right so that it looks correct from the one specific viewing location”? Or, something else of course. I could quite easily be missing a possibility or five. I’m not an artist, and am mostly interested in perspective for math reasons.
@trustyourperspectiveАй бұрын
The distance between the eyes does not play a role at all because we eliminate one of the eyes. If you place the two eyes into the equation you end up with two different drawings (stereoscopic depth). Then you need a device of some kind (such as a stereoscope) so the left and right eye does not see the wrong image. "I would imagine that if the viewer’s eye was precisely at the right location (and they had their other eye closed), and if the image was exactly matching the correct perspective, then, it would look the same (perspective-wise) as if the scene were really there rather than the image?" Yes! Is the issue “we want the picture to look good from multiple viewing locations” Yes, this is why we keep it inside the 60°. It will always look perfect if we can force the viewer look at the scene from where the station point was plotted. but this is unrealistic so we try to limit the distortion by keeping the drawing inside the 60° cone of vision.
@drdca8263Ай бұрын
@@trustyourperspective Thanks!
@MA-nr1puАй бұрын
You are my HERO
@trustyourperspectiveАй бұрын
Ahhhh 😌
@emadsaadallahal-jejakly6251Ай бұрын
Thank you very much for the smart explanation, you are unique from others
@trustyourperspectiveАй бұрын
You are welcome!
@FishyFLCLАй бұрын
I have been reviewing perspective lately and I like our videos because they are just detailed enough and concise to understand easily and quickly .Also , does this book cover the most of the recent stuff you have been making videos about? I would love to just have a single book I could reference anytime I need to review perspective
@FishyFLCLАй бұрын
Furthermore is there an equivalent quality book that isn't so rare or expensive?
@trustyourperspectiveАй бұрын
The book covers everything that the videos have covered. I think it would be easier to pick up the book to find a specific procedure than searching through videos.
@user-eu2yt7ev1gАй бұрын
Thank you so much for making this video, Please keep making these videos. Love & respect from India. 🙏
@trustyourperspectiveАй бұрын
You are welcome!
Ай бұрын
This is the best channel I’ve found on yt for learning perspective. I get so frustrated with other tutorials because they never explain how things work
@figuredrawing_attebery328Ай бұрын
Thank you, happy to be of help
@jamesoliverfarrell1797Ай бұрын
Looking forward to go through your videos, sub and favo
@figuredrawing_attebery328Ай бұрын
Great. Sub and favo?
@dr4k3l34Ай бұрын
Hi there! Your channel is incredible! I am a very methodical learner much to my detriment or benefit depending on how you think about it, and your videos are just the exact thing that I need. There are so many videos telling you that this is one-point or two-point perspectives, but they don’t actually explain why things are the way they are and so you just kind of have to accept it as is, which is not a very good way to learn in my opinion. I was wondering if you know any other resources/books/channels similar to your own that cover other elements of drawing like values, anatomy, etc. that are a bit methodical/theoretical? Thank you so much!
@trustyourperspectiveАй бұрын
See video 38 for why things are the way they are. I think that may explain things a bit. As for general drawing instruction I would look at Proko. They have some excellent videos.
@dr4k3l34Ай бұрын
@@trustyourperspectiveOh no, I meant a lot of videos from other channels. Yours explain things very clearly.
@gizliad-pu7kdАй бұрын
among all circuses of youtube tutorials this is the best one ive seen
@michas4740Ай бұрын
Thank you for consistently uploading your tutorial in youtube 😊
@figuredrawing_attebery328Ай бұрын
you are welcome
@lukestevens93752 ай бұрын
Is it possible to perform multiple rotations on separate axes to put vanishing points into an arbitrary orientation in 3D space?
@trustyourperspective2 ай бұрын
Multiple rotations on separate axes yes, but the vanishing points cant be arbitrary if you want the corners to be 90 degrees.
@trustyourperspective2 ай бұрын
Good luck to you.
@illiria20002 ай бұрын
It was a pleasure gettin your help on instagram. Thank you once again. I have been a subscriber since your first few videos back in 2022. It was a happy accident reaching out to you, unbeknownst to me when doing so, that I had already had subscribed to the KZread channel of the books author “ The complete guide to perspective drawing” I recall, reaching out to you on video 139 and you shared how I could reach you, but at that time I don’t have your book. And after getting the book I forgot that you had said your name. So in conclusion I didn’t know who I was talking to and I also didn’t remember that you had shared how I could reach you. When I did reach out to you, it was me talking a shot in the dark and hoping the authors book would reply to my questions.
@trustyourperspective2 ай бұрын
That's so funny. Well, the dots are connected now.
@illiria20002 ай бұрын
Yes it is funny. And once again I’m happy to see you continue your videos. Eager to see you reach five point perspective, even though I’ve ordered the book you recommended.
@serge83972 ай бұрын
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.
@trustyourperspective2 ай бұрын
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.
@serge83972 ай бұрын
@@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.
@chelseagibbs55972 ай бұрын
love the video, thank you!😍
@figuredrawing_attebery3282 ай бұрын
You are welcome
@Peter_H_Art2 ай бұрын
The angles explanation of imagining 360 degrees around a point in perspective and at the SP is so crucial. I love how you explained it here, thank you!
@trustyourperspective2 ай бұрын
Thank you.
@ronaldronaldo9842 ай бұрын
writting support comment
@MichaelPrais2 ай бұрын
Thanks for all your videos. They are at a technical level that I like. Looking out at the horizon puts the eye level on the horizon. This makes the eye level obvious and connects it with the ground plane. One could look into something below or above. Does eye level and measuring line continue to make sense?
@figuredrawing_attebery3282 ай бұрын
Looking down or up puts the viewer in the world of 3-point perspective. The horizon line will still be at the eye level, but the center of vision is no longer on the horizon line. There will also be another measuring line for the vertical dimensions.
@MichaelPrais2 ай бұрын
@@figuredrawing_attebery328 Thanks!
@killersfromspace2 ай бұрын
Very helpful videos especially these on shadow. Thank you!
@trustyourperspective2 ай бұрын
You are welcome
@Lolwtfbbq122 ай бұрын
So this explains why I always had this feeling that the diagram itself was a elavation view. You are truly a amazing teacher you even took the time to explain the diagram. I always will give you credit when ppl ask me where did I learn perspective
Пікірлер
At the end you put the wheels on the wrong side of car #2! ........ seeing you make a rare mistake somehow makes me feels better about my own endless mistakes haha!
You need to understand the severity of this accident. The wheels went right through the vehicle to the other side! It's a miracle no one was injured
miss the class but not really haha
I feel the same 😂
Came here from a reddit comment recommending your channel. Your explanation of the picture plane was very helpful and clear. Thank you!
Awesome, thank you!
Honestly, the human figures standing on "the ground" and tilting their heads in every perspective text was what was throwing me off the whole time. It only clicked when I thought of just a pinpoint at the end of a light cone in outer space. There is no "up" or "down" and especially no re-orientation of my head anywhere; only arbitrary planes are rotated/tilted relative to the picture plane. Everything orients itself relative to ME and my always fixed line of sight. It also helped not to think of a whole "scene" being "in 3PP" but to think of "3PP" belonging to just one single cube that co-exists among other cubes in other orientations. Great videos though. It is helping to see the numbers for once and not just "space the vanishing points nice n far apart".
Right! We don't need the Earth to draw objects in perspective. Vanishing points are not "on" the horizon line but beyond it at infinity. We just talk about them being on the horizon line because the difference is more more theoretical than practical, and it's easier to just say put the vanishing points on the horizon line. I was going to get to this idea, but you beat me to it. It's great that removing the idea of looking "up" and "down" makes more sense to you. I spend a lot of time talking about object's relation to the ground plane, in addition to their relation to the picture plane, mainly because we spend most of our time here on Earth and when drawing things we are usually drawing them in relation to a horizontal surface. However one can wrap their head around the material...it's all good.
Is there a trick to drawing parallel lines at a distance quickly and accurately like you do at 7:38 and 11:26? Do you just use the grid on the transparent ruler to line it up, or is there more to it? I don't have a transparent ruler like yours, so the best I've come up with is butting two squares against each other. If I line of of the squares up with the horizon line, then I can slide the other square along the other side until it lines up with the center of vision and trace the corresponding line, but this is clumsy and prone to slipping.
The best way is to use a triangle and create a 90° angle line, from the right reference line.
This is 3 point perspective, right!?
Not exactly. Three-point is when the viewer is looking down or up. Here the viewer is looking parallel to the ground plane, so this is a two-point object that is at an incline. It has three vanishing points, but technically not three-point perspective.
@@trustyourperspective Aha, thanks! But isn't this the first time (in this series of videos) that there are 3 vanishing points for a box? I mean, i see it vanishing in 3 directions, so it doesn't feel like 2 point perspective! And if we ignore the fact that the box is tilted, we are kinda looking down at it. So if we rotated the ground plane 60 degrees clockwise, it's 3 point perspective, right? (for the last box)
@@retromograph3893 Yes,, I would agree with that.
Question: is that technique (around 9.28) of finding an alternative MP a hack, or does it give the exact, perfect placement?
For anyone wondering about the technique described around 9:28, it's covered back in video 36.
Damn, that thing of rotating the image 90 degrees and swapping around your SPs and VPs seems very powerful and key, but will take some thunking about!
Yes, it’s a powerful tool to have.
Craig! Videos jump from 72 to 74, there's no 73, did the follow up to this one (far aux vanishing points / vertical measuring line) ever get made?!
There’s no 73. Some kind of computer error. It jumps to 74. 🤷🏻♂️
Great! Instead of trying to copy your steps on paper, i'm just pausing the video and asking myself: "what does he need to do next?", and after a couple of times watching, I'm starting to get it!
Nice! I like that approach.
I think it's interesting to note that in terms of teaching perspective, your videos are the least hi-tech of any on youtube, with the lowest production values, no animations etc. Just paper, pencils and a few tools. And they're also the best. I don't think that's a coincidence! Because the amount of time needed to produce 150+ flashy videos on this subject would be prohibitive. And it's not necessary. Just start at the beginning and run methodically and in detail through the whole thing without worrying about it also being quality entertainment! Well done & thanks!
Thank you and I agree! Entertaining, hi-tech animations with impressive production values are not necessary to communicate this information. But, I have no idea how to create entertaining, hi-tech animations with impressive production values. So there is that.😊
Just to check if i misunderstood, the plan view shows a perfect square but your perspective square was just drawn by eye, so in fact wasn't really a prefect square, correct?
It could be a perfect square. A square will be different shapes depending on where the viewer is. When I made up a measuring point and drew 45° angle, doing that placed the station point (the viewer) the correct distance from the picture plane it needed to be for the shape to be a square. I hope that makes sense. Let me know.
Just living a comment to see the growth of this channel, I hope that many people find this channel. currently at 2.23k subs
Im here right now at 2.23k subs great channel, I learned a lot in this channel, haven't finished watching the previous vids, coz my brain stopped braining😅
The greatest perspective channel of all time.
writting support comment
I never had thought that perspective drawing was so complex when I started to ✍️. It took me hours of study and searching for sources to learn. Then I came a year ago on your channel and I can say now that you are the only one who has the didactic skills and the visualisation skills to explain it. And at such a level that now I see this video I think I have come far. Thank you utmost and I wish to learn many more of you.
Thank you. I'm happy to help.
True. Really learned a lot.
Wow a 3d assets, the production budget has increased. it's nice to see you again, your videos were of great help to me.
My brain stopped braining😵💫😵💫
It happens.
Can you also put "ground plane" in the title of this one? Because this video is one of the most important of the early ones. The explanation of the ground plane is crucial and needs to be easier to find!
sorry, i am a green hand, i really do not understand why these lines are parallel with each other to the same vanishing point? could you plz describe more or draw a perspective drawing to help me understand this principle? best thanks
As lines go back in space the distance between them appears smaller, it is not smaller of course but just farther away. Things that are farther away appear smaller than things that are closer. As parallel lines recede in space the distance will appear smaller until they appear to come to a point. The first part of the video shows the perspective view of this. A good example would be to take a piece of plexiglass or glass and stand on a sidewalk and trace the lines going back in space. You will see that they go to a point on the horizon line.
@@trustyourperspective many thank!!!
Thank you so much for these video, I just found out. I was so confused studying from books and they POORLY explained all of this. This was so much easier to understand.
You are welcome
Question: how do you use or create a ruler when it's off the page? So for example, if you were drawing the view from a high tower, looking down at an angle of say 70 degrees, then your picture plane will intersect the floor off your page.
That would be 3-point perspective. The diagram is set up differently.
@@trustyourperspective OK! But then how do you decide the moment when 2 point becomes 3 point? Because, physically, 2 point doesn't really exist in the real world. I'm know i'm being a bit pedantic, but that's just the way i am, whenever i learn something my mind always jumps straight to the edge cases! 😂
@@retromograph3893 There's videos about that under 3-point perspective. I'm kinda thinking 2-point does really exist though.
Awesome video! I wanted to understand how you would space something like fence posts disappearing into the distance. I don’t quite understand the orange line you drew yet but I’ll get there :)
There’s other videos that address those issues.
One thing I'm not getting is that you say you want the viewer to be six inches away from the picture plane, but it's only six inches for a very specific size of picture plane, field of view & piece of paper! Wouldn't it be more useful to say i want my viewer to be at whatever distance they need to be so that when they cast a 60 degress cone of vision towards my plane, the cone hits the outer edges of my paper?
The picture plane is infinite, vertically and horizontally. The useful area is the cone of vision. You can make the cone of vision fit the size of your paper but some of the vanishing points and measuring points would be off the paper. You could compensate for that by using a bigger paper, but then the cone of vision wouldn’t be the size of the paper anymore. So it’s not the size of the picture plane that’s important (because it’s infinite) but it’s the size of the cone of vision. The farther away the viewer is from the picture plane the bigger the area you can draw in.
@@trustyourperspective OK! I actually think about it the other way around! The picture plane should contrain the bondaries of your piece of paper, and the cone of vision isn't really important. You only need to be aware that the angle from your station point to the outer edges of your picture plane should equate to the focal length that you want in your picture (54.4 degrees for 35mm for example). Although when you start to shift your cone of vision off-center, then you do need to start thinking about it. I still have some questions but i'll post those in another comment when i have formulated my thoughts about them. And thanks for all the hard work in this wonderful set of videos!
I don't know what to say, other than that for anyone learning perspective drawing, your videos are pure gold!
One thing which confused me in the beginning is the idea that the picture plane can be located anywhere in the world of our viewer, and can be any size. It represents, in camera terms, our amount of zoom, crop, focal or lens length. It also represents the sheet of paper we're going to draw on! So imagine the plane is a piece of glass which is only one meter square and is placed one hundred meters away from us. We're going to look through it and trace on it (with our hundred meter long arms and superman vision!) what we see behind it. If we have a city scape, all we're going to get is a small portion of one building, perhaps a few windows. Our field of view or cone of vision (as captured on the glass) will be very narrow, less than one degree. But we have two problems. First, we can't capture anything that's closer than 100m, and secondly, we need very long arms. So we start to bring the plane of glass closer. But of course, as we do so, we need to shrink the size of the glass down i order to keep the field of view (cone of vision) the same. Because the cone gets smaller, the closer it gets to our viewer (eye or camera lens). So as we get the glass within arms length, it will need to be only a few centimeters square. If we don't shrink the size of the glass as we bring it closer, than our field of view gets progessively wider until, when it's at arm's length, it's giving us a field of view of roughly 60 degress. So when we see these representions of this big piece of glass (picture plane) in videos about perspective, we need to realize that its size and placement physically represent the image that will be captured, and its size needs to change, depending on what image we want to capture and where we place the glass. And for any given view, there are an infinite number of places we can place the glass along the cone, with the only limitation being that if it's too far or two close, we will not capture things in front of the glass, or things that are close will obscure what's behind. So in a sense, it doen't matter where we place the glass along that cone, but it's still useful to intuitively understand the concept that it can be moved back & forward, if we're willing to also change its size. Additionally, we need to realize that we need to make an extra conversion in size. Because although in our viewer's world, the sheet of glass is only a few centermeters square (in the above cityscape, zoomed in example), the piece of paper in our REAL world that we're drawing on isn't so small, it might be A4 or even a lot bigger. So then we realize we have a "real" world plane of vision in our viewer's world, but this needs to be shrunk down or blown up to the REAL world piece of paper we're actually drawing on! so I'm basically making the point that we have two worlds we need to think about in a physical sense: the "real" world of our viewer (in order to capture perspective), and our REAL real world (in order to represent perspective on a 2D surface). It's also important to note that, although analogies to photography and cameras can be useful, the analogy breaks down in the sense that a camera lens generally has a fixed, or a least limited field of view, whereas with our piece of paper, we're totally free to choose any lens length we want, even impossible (practically speaking) ones like an orthographic view! But of course we need to bear in mind the issues of distortion covered in this video.
Example of the question i had previously, is if you google "British Museum, Reading Room stock image" these images where the camera is pointing at the walls on left/right? Can you draw even construct these ellipses with standard squares?
You can't draw the entire circle using a square, but you can draw part of the circle using part of a square. You can't draw the entire circle or an entire square because that would put part of the square/circle behind the viewer. The picture plane, being a flat surface in front of the viewer wont allow for objects behind the viewer's eye to be projected to it's surface. But you can construct part of a square (1/2 of a square, 1/4 of a square, etc) and then plot points that will draw a small section of the circle, the part of the circle that is in front of the viewer. Anything beyond 180° you wont be able to draw unless you get into the world of curvilinear perspective.
I'm trying to draw accurate squares/circles that are centred behind the SP,, yet creep into vision (example: standing in a large circular tent? or on a large circular carpet) I can't find this taught/mentioned anywhere,,
A circle that big would be largely outside the cone of vision. So you only need to worry about drawing part of the circle. Maybe just the back half. You make a rectangle that is twice as long as deep and then plot the points. I have videos on how to plot points for an ellipse. you would just be doing half of the circle.
@@trustyourperspective i really struggle to wrap my head around this concept,,, i've drawn a basic 1p square room on ground, but if i step inside the back half of it (like in this example, but very close to the window) and try to re-construct it all over again with wide angle fov (say 120 deg) all kinds of things fall apart,,, i want to make that room a circle shape (like im standing in a circular tower with wide fov, 1meter away from a window, looking out (not using curvelinear + ik it will look distorted, thats fine)
Does the distance between the viewer’s eyes play a significant role? Like, if you did the projection onto the image plane for one eye, and for the other eye, I imagine that for many things, the difference would be something relatively negligible (though of course one wouldn’t have stereoscopic depth perception looking at objects in the scene), but, is there a point where the discrepancy gets large enough that it becomes particularly noticeable? Also, the increased distortion outside the ~60 degree cone, is this just about, “if the viewer’s eye is not precisely at the ideal viewing point, then things outside this cone will look off”, or is it about like, some approximations failing for objects outside this cone? I would imagine that if the viewer’s eye was precisely at the right location (and they had their other eye closed), and if the image was exactly matching the correct perspective, then, it would look the same (perspective-wise) as if the scene were really there rather than the image? Is the issue “we want the picture to look good from multiple viewing locations”, or “it is very inconvenient/time-consuming/whatever to make the image have the distortions just right so that it looks correct from the one specific viewing location”? Or, something else of course. I could quite easily be missing a possibility or five. I’m not an artist, and am mostly interested in perspective for math reasons.
The distance between the eyes does not play a role at all because we eliminate one of the eyes. If you place the two eyes into the equation you end up with two different drawings (stereoscopic depth). Then you need a device of some kind (such as a stereoscope) so the left and right eye does not see the wrong image. "I would imagine that if the viewer’s eye was precisely at the right location (and they had their other eye closed), and if the image was exactly matching the correct perspective, then, it would look the same (perspective-wise) as if the scene were really there rather than the image?" Yes! Is the issue “we want the picture to look good from multiple viewing locations” Yes, this is why we keep it inside the 60°. It will always look perfect if we can force the viewer look at the scene from where the station point was plotted. but this is unrealistic so we try to limit the distortion by keeping the drawing inside the 60° cone of vision.
@@trustyourperspective Thanks!
You are my HERO
Ahhhh 😌
Thank you very much for the smart explanation, you are unique from others
You are welcome!
I have been reviewing perspective lately and I like our videos because they are just detailed enough and concise to understand easily and quickly .Also , does this book cover the most of the recent stuff you have been making videos about? I would love to just have a single book I could reference anytime I need to review perspective
Furthermore is there an equivalent quality book that isn't so rare or expensive?
The book covers everything that the videos have covered. I think it would be easier to pick up the book to find a specific procedure than searching through videos.
Thank you so much for making this video, Please keep making these videos. Love & respect from India. 🙏
You are welcome!
This is the best channel I’ve found on yt for learning perspective. I get so frustrated with other tutorials because they never explain how things work
Thank you, happy to be of help
Looking forward to go through your videos, sub and favo
Great. Sub and favo?
Hi there! Your channel is incredible! I am a very methodical learner much to my detriment or benefit depending on how you think about it, and your videos are just the exact thing that I need. There are so many videos telling you that this is one-point or two-point perspectives, but they don’t actually explain why things are the way they are and so you just kind of have to accept it as is, which is not a very good way to learn in my opinion. I was wondering if you know any other resources/books/channels similar to your own that cover other elements of drawing like values, anatomy, etc. that are a bit methodical/theoretical? Thank you so much!
See video 38 for why things are the way they are. I think that may explain things a bit. As for general drawing instruction I would look at Proko. They have some excellent videos.
@@trustyourperspectiveOh no, I meant a lot of videos from other channels. Yours explain things very clearly.
among all circuses of youtube tutorials this is the best one ive seen
Thank you for consistently uploading your tutorial in youtube 😊
you are welcome
Is it possible to perform multiple rotations on separate axes to put vanishing points into an arbitrary orientation in 3D space?
Multiple rotations on separate axes yes, but the vanishing points cant be arbitrary if you want the corners to be 90 degrees.
Good luck to you.
It was a pleasure gettin your help on instagram. Thank you once again. I have been a subscriber since your first few videos back in 2022. It was a happy accident reaching out to you, unbeknownst to me when doing so, that I had already had subscribed to the KZread channel of the books author “ The complete guide to perspective drawing” I recall, reaching out to you on video 139 and you shared how I could reach you, but at that time I don’t have your book. And after getting the book I forgot that you had said your name. So in conclusion I didn’t know who I was talking to and I also didn’t remember that you had shared how I could reach you. When I did reach out to you, it was me talking a shot in the dark and hoping the authors book would reply to my questions.
That's so funny. Well, the dots are connected now.
Yes it is funny. And once again I’m happy to see you continue your videos. Eager to see you reach five point perspective, even though I’ve ordered the book you recommended.
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.
love the video, thank you!😍
You are welcome
The angles explanation of imagining 360 degrees around a point in perspective and at the SP is so crucial. I love how you explained it here, thank you!
Thank you.
writting support comment
Thanks for all your videos. They are at a technical level that I like. Looking out at the horizon puts the eye level on the horizon. This makes the eye level obvious and connects it with the ground plane. One could look into something below or above. Does eye level and measuring line continue to make sense?
Looking down or up puts the viewer in the world of 3-point perspective. The horizon line will still be at the eye level, but the center of vision is no longer on the horizon line. There will also be another measuring line for the vertical dimensions.
@@figuredrawing_attebery328 Thanks!
Very helpful videos especially these on shadow. Thank you!
You are welcome
So this explains why I always had this feeling that the diagram itself was a elavation view. You are truly a amazing teacher you even took the time to explain the diagram. I always will give you credit when ppl ask me where did I learn perspective