Відео

That is a good question, which also occured to me once. If center point = vanishing point (which is one point perspective) then is not possible to calculate the FOV. It is an edge case

Thank you! No there is no discord or similar

What is not clear to you? Also, the formulas are not that important. As I said, intuition is the most helpful thing, so maybe spend your energy on this 😉

Thank you <3

I don't think that is the case. For a camera - yes, but for our eyes/vision it is more complicated, and some curcing takes place, even for static view. You may have a look at my pinned comment. I also refer to a paper, where they determined experimentally how the visual space looks like, here: figshare.cardiffmet.ac.uk/articles/journal_contribution/The_Art_and_Science_of_Displaying_Visual_Space/21205910 So, I think, both dynamic and static view have some fisheye effects in them. Thanks for your comment!

Just tell me where you got lost

Thank you very much, happy to read that!

Thanks for this comment, makes feel it was worth it!

Probably you are past that point. But maybe still just try to draw like I suggested. Also, certainly everybody has to find their own path of learning, and what I have shown here probably can be learned in other ways as well

@@phipsart6424 thx. I did try the observational drawing exercise. I immediately recognized the curving of the three axes as i turned my head (due to having learned about curvilinear perspective). _But_ i will say that the observational drawing exercise gave me more insight into how depth and distance in real life are represented in a drawing. I had to see the physical distance of objects in my chosen setting (especially those overlapping each other) and judge how to represent that accurately in my drawing. So I guess it still helped me a little 😊

@@SyoDraws That's basically what this was about :)

@@phipsart6424 oh, so i got it, yay 😁

That's not what I wanted to say with this video 😁 Maybe you know what you need to practice now?

It depends on on which edge you hinge it. If you hinge it in a way that they both are lying on the ground (like here, in an other video of mine, at 8:20 ua-cam.com/video/Mtsv1IpjUgs/v-deo.html& ) then it is the same situation as for the first cube: One still does look perpendicular on the guideline pointing up/downwards. But I guess you are more interested in the other case, where you hinge it with one of the edges that are parallel to the ground. So, you rotate around one of the edges that have a vanishing point on the horizon. So when doing this rotation, the corresponding vanishing point will not move. The other 2 vanishing points however do move. The second VP that lied on the horizon will now lie below or above the horizon. And now, have a brief look for example at 32:58 in the perspective video ua-cam.com/video/YDanHdjPJVs/v-deo.html With the altitudes you can get the 3rd VP. You will find, that because the 2nd VP does not lie on the horizon anymore (or more general: the line connecting VP1 and VP2 does not run exactly through the middle of the image (center point) anymore), the 3rd VP will not lie in infinity. And therefore it is a 3-point perspective, and no 2-point perspective anymore. Does this make sense to you? Thanks for your comment!

​@@phipsart6424 Thanks. The way it switches from 2pp to 3pp is counter-intuitive. And in my sketches it still looks counter-intuitive.

@@a7ccel Then most likely the placement of the new VPs is a bit off. Make sure the cube is located where the altitudes of the VP-triangle meet. Or maybe also edges of the cube do not converge into VPs. Probably you should check this first. However drawing cubes with VPs is very technical on this level, and you may find an easier access to drawing cubes or drawing in perspective in general. Maybe you check out this video, the very first exercise, 'Observational Drawing'. It is a more intuitive approach. ua-cam.com/video/Mtsv1IpjUgs/v-deo.html

So in particular when I draw intersecting bodies, I first draw lets say a cube with light pressure, and then I draw a cylinder over it with light pressure. Then I decide a point where they should intersect, and try to figure out all intersection lines and draw bold over everything. Does this make sense? Also, recently for example I drew mechanical tools in perspective. Like hammers, tongs, etc. These are great to study and practice since they often are made out of basic forms. You also can practice proportion and it is relatively easy to tell whether you did a good job or not since their forms are very familiar. So they give you very good feedback

@@phipsart6424 okay thank you, this helps a lot!! i think drawing tools, basic every day objects is a great idea. usually i try to find free blender models -> draw objects in persp -> compare with model but that takes too much time. i think i'll try winging it and take some photos of real life objects from diff angles. i learn alot faster when i have something to compare my drawing to. again, this helps thanks so much for giving such a detailed reply! hope your journey of becoming an art god is going great :>

Hey thanks for that feedback! Light weight - you mean line weight? Or can you give a timestamp? :)

@@phipsart6424 Yup. I type like a 3 year old. Line weight, especially on the silhouettes. The line weight on the lit side should be thinner (or even broken), and the dark side heavily (sometimes MUCH heavier).

Thank you so much! Here is what comes closest to part 2: ua-cam.com/video/Mtsv1IpjUgs/v-deo.html&t

I would not say that there is true or false perspective, or that one of them is a lie. There are just different ways to do it. Thanks for your comment! :)

I am not sure if I got you right, but have a look at 8:20. The vanishing points of the green lines all lie on the red line (lets call it horizon, the horizon of these cubes). So this horizon line gives a good anchor for every cube. Other than that, you may draw a perspective grid from this horizon, which gives you a relation for the spacing. These 2 techniques still involve some guessing (like when you estimate where the 2nd vanishing point of the cube should be on the horizon), but they narrow it down a bit. With the perspective map you could get even more exact results, but it gets more tedious. But I think these measures may give you a good orientation of the relation between the objects and their behavior when you continue to draw more objects to the left and right etc. Does this help? Thanks for your comment! 😊

I don't know enough about aphantasia, but for spatial imagination I think it is a seamless transition anyways. Like, for ghosting, which helps to draw perspective grids: I reckon that with some practice you can tell whether a grid is off (lines not converging well), no matter if you have aphantasia or not. You get accustomed to some pattern - and that may be same for other skills that are considered to be 'spatial imagination'. So I think you can learn a lot about it, despite the term 'spatial imagination' suggesting no compatibility with aphantasia. So maybe 'how it should be' is the wrong question anyways ;)

@@phipsart6424 that makes sense, thanks for the vids and exercises bro !

I don't have aphantasia, but in my experience a lot of the technical stuff with drawing (even spatial reasoning) has more to do with specific knowledge of principles and patterns, such as perspective, and applying them consistently, than with imagining stuff. Hence, while I CAN imagine stuff in my head, I usually don't do that when I'm drawing. I hope this was useful to you, and I wish you the best in your art!

Totally agree!

Very happy to read that!

I dont have that much time 😅 but happy to read that!

Very happy to read that! If you have other tips or exercises feel free to share!

Haha thanks for sharing!

Sure! You also can do so below my perspective video ;)

@@phipsart6424 Thank you! I wanted to comment on the perspective video but I thought my comment would be drowned within the sea of other comments. Most of my questions are about the “90o cases and how to deal with far away Vanishing Points” chapter of the video. 1. What did you mean when you said v or w would converge to zero if the 3rd VP is close to the rim of the blue area? I know this isn’t relevant but when would v be the one to converge to zero and when would w converge to zero? 2. If the canvas converging to zero is the same as all the VPs being infinitely far away, how would it mean that you are moving closer to a one or two point perspective if all 3 VPs are far away instead of just the 3rd VP or the 3rd VP and one of the horizontal VPs? 3. What do you mean when you say that there is always a VP not farther than 2.5 times the canvas’s radius and how is this possible? Why is it that not all VP’s can be farther than 2.5 times the radius of the canvas? This kind of relates to question 2 so I may be repeating myself. Sorry for the abundance of questions, I just couldn't put my head around some things you said. Also, do you have a community discord server or anything similar? I would love to be able to talk with others and ask more questions. I really appreciate the work that you put into the perspective video, it helps with my perfectionism, although I plan on trying to rely more on intuition in the future.

@@DdokgaebiI read all comments, no matter on which video. Now your questions: 1. From rule 2 you get the location of the center point. If you vary the 3rd VP then this changes the location of the center point, and therefore it also changes v and w. If you move the 3rd VP to the left or right rim of the blue area, then the triangle becomes a right triangle, which means the center point will be located at the right or left VP, and this means w=0. On the other hand, when you move the 3rd VP to the circular rim of the blue area, then with Thales theorem you get that you again have a right triangle, and this time the center point will be located at the 3rd VP, and v will be 0. 2. Probably I stated that ambiguous. Not all of them can be infinitely far away at the same time. If you look right at one of them, then the others are infinitely far away for instance. Or, if you look for instance at the horizon, then the VP of the vertical will be infinitely far away. So I think you got that already right. 3.If you rotate your view through space, then VPs come in your vision and leave your vision. Have a look for example at 22:00. The view plane would be the infinite extension of the canvas as it is rotated around there. And the intersections with the lines of the true VPs are where the VPs on the view plane will be. There are always such intersections, and they are closer or farer away from the center point. And if you turn away from one, you move more towards another. What I did in order to come up with the value of ~2.5, is figuring out, that when the VPs form an equilateral triangle, then this is the situation where you look right in the middle of the 3 VPs, and so the center point will be as far away as possible from the clostest VP. From this equilateral triangle I calculated the size of the canvas in relation to v, which is this value of ~2.5 I hope this helps! If not, just ask again. And sorry, no I do not have a discord server. Would be a nice idea though

​​@@phipsart6424Thank you for taking the time to answer, I really appreciate them and the videos that you make! Still wrapping my head around the first but mainly the third answer but if I have any questions, I'll make sure to ask.

@@DdokgaebiYeah just write again if it does not get clear!

Makes me happy to read that! :)

Maybe first draw them with vanishing points. After some practice, skip drawing the guidelines, and after that skip the vanishing points. Of course there are also other things you can do. Soon I will publish a video with 8 exercises concerning spatial imagination, so stay tuned!

@@phipsart6424thanks! i'm looking forward!

Thank you so much!

Just skip it, it's not necessary in order to become good at perspective drawing :)