/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.3453871]

How the fuck do I draw cylinders without having to do squares and shit all the time.

[Anonymous No.3453876]

>>3453871
why would you need a darned square

just watch the vandruff videos and come back

[Anonymous No.3453913]

>>3453871
fat oval close to magic dot
skinny oval far away from magic dot

[Anonymous No.3453915]

>>3453871
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlCRfTmBSGs

[Anonymous No.3453944]

>>3453915
You can't practice something you're not sure you're doing even remotely correctly.

[Anonymous No.3453948]

>>3453944
align minor axes
draw lines on each end
ta-da

[Anonymous No.3453954]

>>3453948
>he doesn't consider the degree of the ellipse!

[Anonymous No.3453961]

>>3453954
of course i do
go read a basic perspective book

[Anonymous No.3453964]

>>3453961
>He still thinks that the minor axis aligns with the cylinder regardless of angle

[Anonymous No.3453966]

>>3453964
is this what autism looks like

[Anonymous No.3453970]

>>3453964
>he doesn't know it's only supposed to work within the cone of vision

[Anonymous No.3453972]

>>3453966
no autism is when you start drawing spheres as ellipses

[Anonymous No.3454087]

>>3453970
>> he doesn't know it's in the cone of vision and it only works when the minor axis is actually on the horizon line jusssttt

[Anonymous No.3454091]

>>3453970
How do you measure the cone of vision, is the 30° really working? or is there another method?

[Anonymous No.3454499]

>>3453964
this only applies to rectilinear projection, however all forms of projection will distort the minor axis in some way the further out from the centre you go.
can you retards can stop arguing about this now?

[Anonymous No.3454850]

>>3453964
Brainlet here, please explain what does it mean.

[Anonymous No.3454875]

>>3453871
eyeball an oval. Shift+displace it to duplicate. eyeball the connecting lines.
Unless you do industrial stuff, you don't use shape tools you need an organic "nearly perfect but not too much" feel to it.

[Anonymous No.3454881]

>>3454850
It looks like minor axis intersects with major axis to create 90 degree angles. But I dunno, I don't understand perspective shit.

[Anonymous No.3454882]

>>3454881
That part I got but, that post >>3453964 makes it sound like thats not the case.

[Anonymous No.3455066]

>>3454850
https://www.geogebra.org/m/vxCX4nmt
Book is telling you the red lines are always parallel.

[Anonymous No.3455097]

>>3454882
I think they use the minor axis method because it's much more convenient opposed to measuring out a square then drawing an ellipse.

[Anonymous No.3455101]

>>3455066
So, I thought short axis should be always perpendicular to long axis which is ray coming out from VP.

OK, short question, how the fuck should I draw circles to make them fucking perfect perspective wise?

Like, fuck, those thing brake my brainlet brain.

[Anonymous No.3455120]

>>3455066
thats awesome thank you

[Anonymous No.3455226]

>>3455101
If you want perfect, trace over a render. If you want close enough to look good while drawing freehand, follow the book's advice. It's practical, and anyone telling you otherwise is just paralyzing you with too much information and technicalities.

You're drawing to do art, not to win arguments. You guys are being entirely too anal about this. Save your french curves for drafting.

[Anonymous No.3455241]

>>3453964
What the fuck I got lied to in perspective class
They told me that the minor always go to the VP
My brain is melting, my truth shatters, I'm NGMI

[Anonymous No.3455257]

>>3455226
>anyone telling you otherwise is just paralyzing you with too much information and technicalities.

I am ngmi but still, I want to draw this shit properly, I might freehand it when I feel like it (and I do) but I want to know how to draw it perfectly.

Freehand allow you to draw how you feel it but actual knowledge allow you to feel it right.

[Anonymous No.3455268]

>>3455257
Hey, it's good if you want to learn it. Mechanical perspective is nice to know.

But let me ask you. Do you start every drawing with a station point, 45 degree vanishing points, a proper scale and arbitrary camera height, all drawn and properly measured with mechanical tools, and a scientific calculator for doing the necessary trigonometry? If you don't do the rest of your drawing to that level of accuracy, then obsessing over a few degrees difference in the orientation of your ellipse is a waste of time, because it would already be off.

[Anonymous No.3455275]

>>3455268
>Do you start every drawing with a...

I never did but once I started, shit made everything so much more believable and correct, I down want to go back.
Until I learned about perspective I thought its all "paint by the numbers" and is not necessary for drawing but once I actually tried it, I realised that I just made excuses not to use it because of complexity and its actually something that improves my drawing immensely and its one of those things I WANT to learn.

Apart from just looking good it also makes it much easier to actually draw stuff, I mean it lays out a scaffolding for you to use, knowing rules and applying them properly you will never go astray.

Shit is magic and I want to learn the spell.

[Anonymous No.3455277]

>>3455275
>once I started

I'm skeptical of this. If you already do those things, none of this should come as a surprise to you.

[Anonymous No.3455291]

>>3455277
I do two point perspective with understanding of a third point (incomplete) and until now I would draw circles in a box which would actually improve accuracy immensely.

I know that proper perspective can turn my wacky doodle into something that is still wacky but now actually makes sense.

Because of that I want to learn how to draw circles correctly because until now, I assumed that just drawing them into a box will always produce proper circle in perspective.
I want to understand this shit.

[Anonymous No.3455297]

>>3455291
Based on what you wrote, you're not even close to doing mechanical perspective or what I described.

Follow the advice about minor axis in general art books.

[Anonymous No.3455308]

>>3455297
I thought mechanical perspective is the stuff of 45° VP's, and how circle fit into a box.

Is that not it?
If not I was mistaken then, sorry anon but I still want to learn how to draw the most accurate circle in perspective there is.

[Anonymous No.3455344]

>>3455241
99% of the time yes
a very, very, very, very, very, very rare time, maybe once in your lifetime, it'll be very wrong.

[Anonymous No.3455692]

>>3455308
What you're thinking of is isometric, which is where all dimensions of an object are the same proportion along the x, y, an z axis. The reason for doing that is for clarity of the object, as engineering drawing is about imparting information, like construction, dimensions, etc. It's a different objective than artistic drawing. There's no perspective in most cases, as it's not needed.

If you want precision, then study drafting. You'll learn more than you ever wanted to about precise ovals on an angle than you could ever hope to. (And will give you more job prospects, as that can lead to working in fields like engineering, or architecture, or industrial design)

Artists use many of the same toolset that mechanical drafting does, the overlap is pretty broad, as we're using the same rules of geometry to produce perspective, that they use to produce blueprints and isometric drawings.

[Anonymous No.3455708]

>>3455101
You can get extremely close through a method described in Perspective for Comic Book Artists. Love the book, thank you to everyone that recommended it to me.

[Anonymous No.3455730]

>>3454087
when would you ever need to draw something like this
some retard on /ic/ is going to crab on you anyway for the shit perspective so why bother doing this much effort

[Anonymous No.3455998]

>>3453876
Is there a way a jew can gain access to his lectures about perspective?