/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3245845
The absolute state of /ic/

>>3245845
>In the various books im reading they only show how to draw cubes parallel to each other and never show how to rotate or tilt them.
To rotate or tilt the box, move the two horizontal vanishing points across the horizon line to the left or right and proceed as normal and the two points on the vertical axis, if applicable, up or down. Be sure to keep their distance apart from each other the same as their initial distance or the boxes will look distorted in comparison to other boxes from the last position.
I would provide an image or a redline for you, bit I'm posting from a phone as well.

>>3245849
He said in memes.
Stop posting.

>>3246117
>and the two points on the vertical axis, if applicable, up or down.
Let me correct myself, it should be ONE* point on the vertical that you'd have to adjust up or down, not two. I hope this rushed description helps you visualize it a bit.

>>3246120
thank you anon, i will try what you have suggested now

>>3246123
Be sure to take note that the vertical and horizontal points don't need to be visible, just aligned with the axis'. It's better to have the distance between them be vast so your boxes don't look fucked up. Using sticky notes or another piece of paper to cheat helps me refer to the points without eyeballing. Extending the axis along the other canvas and plotting the point.

>>3245845
Read Scott Robertsons How to Draw he explains it

>>3246117
This is what i took from what you said anon, i moved the two vps along the horizon, i dont understand the vertical vp though.

>>3246163
Rotate your head left or right 90 degrees and look at your pic again, anon. It's basically what you did for the red boxes already. Be sure to extend the distance between the two points, though.

Long story short, i want draw the cubes i made freehand using vanishing points
>>3246166

Made this before i read your post*

>>3246181
You're pretty much understanding the vanishing points, but on a subconscious level. Once you realize that, this will be easier.

Look at your free-handed boxes in your pic and extend the lines with another color to see where the lines converge, if they do. They can either converge onto a point or go on without touching forever; either's fine as long as it's not both. The reason for this is because they all have to apply to the same point for the box to make sense.

I also just remembered drawabox has a great lesson on this for the first lesson to assist you in rotating boxes, planting points, and other cool shit. Pic related.
It'll really help illustrate what I'm failing to do on this stupid phone.

>>3246200
thanks anon you've been a great help, I'll totally check out the drawabox lesson on this matter.

>>3246200
My vps create a tilted horizon line, now if i want two prisms with one of the sides parallel to each other and the other one tilted (think of a ribcage and pelvis) would i need to have the two horizons intersect somewhere?

>>3246259
I free hand the boxes I use for the torso and pelvis, but your lines would be better if you drew through the form. That means drawing the corners and lines that aren't even in view. This will help you make sure the lines converge properly and aren't screwed.

Also, your horizon and VPs are correct, there's nothing wrong with them at all. But it seems excessive to rely on this for every box. Are you planning on using this as means to see of your boxes are built properly?

>>3246276
I am just really confused why i can freehand boxes in angles i cant do with proper perspective. Before making this thread i wasnt sure if the boxes i freehand were correct.

>>3246259
Im not sure if its correct to have two seperate horizon lines intersected on one of the vps

>>3245845
what the seriously fuck

>>3246117
>Be sure to keep their distance apart from each other the same as their initial distance or the boxes will look distorted in comparison to other boxes from the last position.
The distance between the VPs does not stay the same. see pic related.
>>3246200 this gif is not as helpful as it could have been and is also misleading. OP, if you take perspective seriously you should avoid drawabox.

you can't always see the vanishing points because they can be too far from the object (visually), and out of the page. in these cases you have to just feel it bro.

>>3246706
How dare there be beginners, am I right fellow pro?

>>3246823
This has nothing to do with being a beginner. It more like failing a basic intelligence test. It's the kind of geometry small kids play around with in their early years to learn math formulas. If somebody is struggling with something like this then I would say they are screwed when it comes to draftsmanship. No joke.

I like boxes, sometimes I make a new vanishing point to tilt them.

>>3245845
here is something similar to what you wanted to do in the top left of your pic. the situation in my one is simpler because these boxes are made with only 2 VPs, but it demonstrates the basic technique of using a magic right angle corner (the bottom of the circle in the video, in >>3246760 the corner is at the top but that doesn't matter) to find the 2 VPs of a box that sits at a different angle to another box, whilst also keeping both boxes in the same perspective.

Drawing a single box or cube in perspective style is easy, but keeping them all in the same perspective and making it so that they are all actual cubes calls for a more thorough understanding of linear perspective projection.

Sometimes I constrain them inside other boxes because my mind gets full of fuck.

>>3246836
>>3246259
>>3246839
the tilted box is missing a 3rd vanishing point. If you tilt a 2VP box like this, it becomes a 3VP box.

>>3246836
>>3246839
Regardless of which way I'm using, it's adjusting the horizon line.

>>3246840
I forgot that part, but true.

>>3245845
I feel like we've had a similar thread a couple months back, so I'll repost what I posted there.

The horizon line we speak of doesn't really exist, it's just convenient to use it because we often deal with scenes that have lots of objects with the same vertical rotation (sitting on the ground plane).
If you want to figure out what's the perspective on this box, start with a neutral box and rotate it on X axis, then Y and Z as well, as if those axes were skewer needles running through the center of that box. Its VPs will always slide accordingly across the sphere that represents all the possible VPs this box could have (pic related).

>>3246831
Blatantly false

>>3246843
you have an absolutely fucked up mental model of linear perspective and should start learning it again from scratch from as many sources as possible.

stay away from perspective threads with your sphere bullshit.

>>3246852
Use your skills or a source to prove him wrong, otherwise shut the fuck up.

>>3246760
Would the VP placement be different if it were rotated based on the center of the cube's bottom face? That's what I was basing the placement from, to rotate it in place. The cube in your pic rotates along one corner of the cube's rather than the center of it's form, doesn't it? I don't have a 3D program to use for these types of things and thought what little perspective I know can still help OP.

>>3246882
>Would the VP placement be different if it were rotated based on the center of the cube's bottom face?
Nope, the VP placement of a cube rotated around its center by x degrees would be the same as a cube rotated by x degrees around its corner. Don't take my word for it, really have a think about why this is so.

>>3246852

>You're wrong but I'm not going to say how or how to do it right

>>3246888
>>3246863
try the skewer bullshit they described, but instead of rotating the box, just move it somewhere else inside the sphere.

The imaginary skewer would pierce the sphere at different points, which means that not only has the box moved, but the vanishing points have moved also. Why is that retarded? Because boxes that are tilted the same way in space have the same vanishing points on a picture, regardless of where these boxes are placed in the real world.

The anon's crackpot model of perspective has nothing to do with real perspective, it's unhelpful and full of holes, you couldn't even use it to help explain why things that are farther away appear to be smaller than things placed nearby.

>>3246882
*inhales*
I don't think so, since if you draw a cross intersecting the center on the bottom plane of the box, the lines in the center and the corners still converge to the same set of vps.
If you move the origin of the box to the center of the bottom plane, then, as you rotate it, that point will be static and the position of the corners of the box is what will change.
The vps move around the horizon independently of where the origin of your box is.
So, in practice, you draw an ellipse inside the bottom plane, making sure the sides act as tangents like pic related, then reposition yout vps and finally connect them again as a tanget to the ellipse to get the update position of the corners.

tl;dr pic related

>>3246148
If you don't know how VP's work, then you've identified your problem.

Read 'How to Draw' by Robertson.

Then experiment around with cubes.

Once you understand this, you can make general rules that help you simplify the process.

Don't let /ic/ think for you.

If you don't understand something, understand it before asking stupid questions.

>>3246912
consider the simplest case with these 2 squares, the red one was rotated around its center and the green one was rotated around a corner. The bold lines are parallel to each other, so if you drew these squares in a perspective, the bold lines would have the same vanishing point.

now imagine these squares were the bottom faces or maybe the top faces of 2 cubes, one that was rotated around its center and the other that was rotated around its corner.

these 2 cubes will have the same vps if drawn in perspective, so
>the VP placement of a cube rotated around its center by x degrees would be the same as a cube rotated by x degrees around its corner.

>>3246882
>The cube in your pic rotates along one corner of the cube
No anon, that green square's corner represents the stationary point (your camera) and the square itself just represents any 90 degree angle.

>>3246894
Oh I see, it's a simple misunderstanding.
That picture is only meant to explain the dome of potential vanishing points, to help beginners stop limiting themselves to a single horizon line.

The skewer analogy is something different, I mentioned that only to explain the X, Y and Z axes as three ways you can pierce a box and rotate it around.
Thanks for taking the time to explain your point.

>>3246760
what program is that? seems very helpful

any other sources other then Scott Robertson for perspective?

>>3246986
geogebra

>>3246995
mmm i cant figure the program out, how can i map out a perspective grid with it?

>>3247003
>how can i map out a perspective grid with it?
you don't, geogebra gives you tools for geometry, not perspective.

>>3247010
yeah i just realized that while exploring the program, oh well

>>3246991
Vandruff's perspective series, Ernest Norling if you're a /beg/.

>>3246846
You must live in some alternative reality then. In the country where I live such geometry is mandatory in the most basic schooling that everyone have to go through even if they'll never have any use for it. You'know because it's expected that any kid can figure it out.

>>3247189
Your school taught you the geometry to rotate a box and its VPs in perspective?

>>3246200

Why is the box distorted in top view?

>>3246837

Did you draw the second box smaller on purpose?

>>3245849
>t. Nobody

>>3247541
Nope, ideally both boxes are the same size, but I see that they are not. I eyeballed the size. To be clear, I only wanted to demonstrate how you can rotate the angle of a pair of VPs accurately. Getting things to be the same dimensions in the same perspective would have been messier.

>>3246894
So I thought about it for a while and I have to apologize, 'cause you're absolutely correct. I'll rework the model.
I think I'm onto something with it and that it could be actually helpful, but right now it's flawed.

y'all just need to feel the form.

>>3247604
Feeling the form doesn't really cut it when it comes to interior design, vehicles/mechs, exploded views or anything more technical.
>inb4 Kim Jung Gi

>>3247539
Ignore it, it's a made-up diagram that is meaningless on a technical level. You can tell what he's trying to show, but there is no rigor behind the way it is shown. This one >>3246760 on the other hand is accurate.

>>3247538
I'm just going to write you off as an idiot and remind myself that stupid people like you try to learn art too.

>>3247732
I'm not the anon you replied to earlier asshole. Can you even begin to answer OPs question using just the geometry that everyone is taught in school? Were you even familiar with the techniques to changing the angle of VPs accurately before I posted these? >>3246837 >>3246760

>>3247784
>OMG we're doing like 2 different horizontal perspectives on top of each other because it's like two different objects you know. It's sooo complicated and nobody can figure this out on their own because I know I've like tried sooo hard. It's like whenever I'm in a city and see all these buildings that are not parallel to each other I just go "like this would be soooo hard to draw".

Idiot

>>3247784
Also if you are not the same asshole then how would you know that the other guy was the OP?

Dumbass.

>>3247790
Can you do it in 3 point?

>>3247796
how the fuck would you get it right without 3 reference points in mind? It's a box. Dumbass

>>3247802
Can you correctly rotate a box drawn with 3 points? Moving its VPs accurately along a vanishing line? It's ok if you don't, I'm going to post a demo showing just how.

>>3247807
You gotta be trolling.

>>3247790
>Euclidean geometry standard educational material
>took 2000 years for people to devise linear perspective
>only happened because of camera obscura
lmao@yourlife
Yeah lets talk about how having a base knowledge in geometry can allow anyone to just 'figure out' perspective then speak about the 2000 years of artists trying to do exactly that since Euclid

>>3247811
The mathematical understanding of perspective is an invention but not the understanding of the concept you shit for brain. It's up there with spacial understanding. It's like you are an evolutionary dead end.

>>3247732
Right now we have two threads running about how to get rid of people like you, just let that sink in will ya

>>3247830
>we
Odds are that it is you who are the problem. I've been here long and rarely do I meet people who need to be called out like you. Perhaps 4chan is not for you. You seem like you need a more safe environment.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST WHY CAN'T I VISUALIZE A FUCKING BOX IN MY HEAD REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>3245845
alright OP here is the 3 point perspective version of >>3246837. Finding the magic point is not as straight forward as in 2pp, but once you do find it in 3pp you can use it the same way as you do in 2pp.

A magic point can be constructed between each of the 3 VPs that make a box, so there's actually 3 magic points you could use to tilt a box. I make two use of magic points in this video.

>>3247906
I think this kind of stuff is just for people who cannot do it by eye measurement.

>>3247816
So then explain exactly why it took almost 2000 years for people to understand it AFTER Euclid wrote his elements of geometry?

>>3247942
You want to to explain why you think it took people 2000 years to help me see those lines do not match up?! wtf Are you drunk?

>>3247944
So if understanding perspective is an innate thing than why was it not formalized until the 1400's?
Surely you don't mean to tell me the millions of artists between 300BC and 1400AD were 'genetic dead ends'?
I guess the artist in like 500AD just thought 'hey anyone who doesn't get this is a brainlet lmao fuck writing it down ayyyy'

>>3247950
Early art was a lot more symbolic with extremes like the Egyptian decorations being a part of their language. It's not like they didn't work in perspectives but because of the materials available artists worked more in statues and wood cuttings. Actually painting didn't really take off before the tools came along so there wasn't much evolution in the field. Even cave paintings might have displayed an understanding of perspective..

But I guess a dimwit like you doesn't have that perspective.

>>3247906
this is amazing anon thank you
also, dafuq is a magic point?

>>3247973
not sure, don't remember what its technical name is, some people use different names anyway. Really what matters is that it can be a useful point to have in mind if you want to change the angle of a pair of VPs

>>3247906
where did you learn how to do this?

>>3247835
>claims rotating a box in 3pp is a matter of basic intelligence
>people should just figure it out instead of asking on an art related board
>calls an idiot some random anon for questioning this
>somehow not a shitposter

>>3247790
>>3246706
You are the most obnoxious faggot. Having contributed nothing but shitposts with zero insight on the topic and opted to just stroke yourself while debasing others for no justifiable reason in a thread for someone asking for help.

>>3248106
>tries to link unrelated shit because of an otherwise lacking argument.
>Thinks he/she's not the shitposter.

>>3248147
>links anon post
>lacks an argument so claims that this direct response represents all posts by said anon and complains about them being direct replies.

Either this is one stupid anon or people struggling with this topic are generally dimwits.

Either way you must love being told this stuff since you keep replying (I mean you would have to be stupid to not have seen that link, right).

>>3248066
A bit from everything eg norling, d'amelio, scott robertson, vandruff, erik olson, gary meyer, gwen white, storey, handprint, loomis unironically etc. I can elaborate on the techniques I showed itt if there is interest, but nothing here is anything that hasn't already been written down somewhere by one of the authors listed

>>3248783
What's the best perspective book for beginners? Also have you ever done the Perspective section in Rapid Viz?

in what order should i read these books? Scott Robertson is too advanced for me while Norling is for complete beginner's

>>3246760
is drawabox really that bad? i was just about to start getting involved

i mean the vanishing points aren't going to affect your drawing too much if youre just using them as a guide for a ribcage or pelvis. just draw from life more and don't worry about it.

>>3249510
When it comes to perspective, drawabox is indeed mediocre compared to other resources freely available online like handprint.

I fucking love this board

>>3249502
NEWSFLASH: YOU ARE A COMPLETE BEGINNER

>>3249510
No, it's very good - just not for learning perspective.
Drawabox teaches you line quality and form, translating the lessons of Dynamic sketching into a form that's more beginner-friendly.

>>3249565
Norling only demostrates the most basic principles of perspective, meanwhile Scott Robertson goes really in depth. Isnt there something in the middle?

>>3248783
>>3248783
>>3248783

Awesome anon, please elaborate, share everything you can because right now I am struggling with VP's and general geometry stuff.

Also, if I read Scot Robertson's "How to draw", will I'll learn about this stuff you posted or I need to pick it up from someone else.
Asking because looked through How to Draw and didnt seen this stuff.

>>3250885
I don't remember, maybe handprint or gwen white.

Robertson doesn't go into any meaningful depth with how perspective works, his book is more on practical things you can do with perspective to draw stuff

This is some grade A+ bullshit, if all drawings were made like this they would all be super wide.

>>3251003
Working digitally that's not a concern. Also, you don't really need to mark a vanishing point, if it's really far you can make do by marking 2 arbitrary lines within your page that will converge at the VP, one of these lines should ideally be projected from the relevant magic point.

>>3251003
This, how the fuck did the people from the renaissance do this shit? They cared a shit load about perspective, so did they plot everything with huge ass bars on the back of their easel?

>>3251914
They had some contraptions for getting perspective right by brute force, look up "gurneyjourney drawing grids" for an example.