PDA

View Full Version : Seeing the perspective lines


mordecaidesign
08-09-2006, 02:30 PM
I've noticed that I have a problem seeing things like vanishing point, actual horizon, and the perspective of photo plates in matte paintings. I'll try to draw perspective above a matte painting and then see where the matte painter puts his/her perspective lines...typically I end up being wrong.

This is something I want to "nip in the butt" before it affects me further. I am new to matte painting but as a graphic designer I know that it's important to try to master things like grids, color, and typography and in matte painting's case...perspective.
I create pretty good perspective when I am creating from scratch but when I use an existing plate it throws me off.

Are there any good perspective books you would recommend for my unique problem?

CodeNothing
08-09-2006, 04:50 PM
one of the problems may be that the real world isnt built on a grid. Often one building is facing a different plane than its neighbor, and sometimes roads are not parralel. Sometimes roofs and walls are slanted or leaning. these are all especialy true for older structures.


but other than that it may be helpfull if you posted an example of something that threw you off.

R-K
08-09-2006, 06:36 PM
this is basically what I do, I make a low rez sketch painting, then scale it up - and I make sure that I have painted everything (perspective) correctly. Then I just find photos, 3D, etc and paste those elements on top of my piece. If the perspective in the photos is wrong (it doesn't fit to your painting), it looks immediately wrong when it's pasted on top of the sketch. Often I use Photoshop's skew and perspective -tools, if I really need that element in my piece. Sometimes though it's easier to find another photo, or in case of 3D, just change your viewpoint.

Canadianboy
08-10-2006, 02:24 AM
thanks for the help/

mordecaidesign
08-10-2006, 03:01 AM
...one building is facing a different plane than its neighbor, and sometimes roads are not parralel. Sometimes roofs and walls are slanted or leaning. these are all especialy true for older structures.

but other than that it may be helpfull if you posted an example of something that threw you off.


Regarding buildings...maybe I've been in PHX too long but here EVERYTHING is on the grid cept the BOA building in Mesa. Almost every building faces another building perfectly here. look at google earth or even google maps and you'll see what I mean. It's quite scary.
LOL but I digress. That is something I've noticed in my work that I am trying to also fix and "get over".

I have a good example regarding my perspective lines. I was watching the Schurer DVD and right before he started painting on the plate I made a guick guess in my head. I thought his perspective would look something like the red lines. But when he was finished and drew in his own ... "I was way off"

http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes1203/dumb107.jpeg



My lines are the red lines (warning: not actual image from my head at the time. That would be really hard.)

http://www.mordecaidesign.com/matte/perspective.jpg

Now that I look at it the ground kinda looks right but if the buildings followed that perspective then you would see a dramatic increase in the size of the two buildings.

softdistortion
08-10-2006, 12:18 PM
maybe your lines should first include the horizon, then you could converge a point on that line using existing buildings etc?

Inlakechh
08-10-2006, 01:12 PM
your lines dont run into one (vanishing) point on the horizon line.

mordecaidesign
08-10-2006, 05:38 PM
maybe your lines should first include the horizon, then you could converge a point on that line using existing buildings etc?

your lines dont run into one (vanishing) point on the horizon line.

Thanks. Yeah I do need to start off with a horizon line. I do realize that the lines don't run into one vanashing point. My bad.

But that's not my point. If you look at Scheurer's lines you can see that his vanashing point is off the painting. Too often I feel like my point has to start INSIDE the matte. And I've seen alot great mattes that have vanshing points that are not inside the matte.

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m78/mordecaidesign/sieklines.jpg


As you can see with this extension I was working on this morning. As you can see I have no idea where the vanishing point and perspective is.

Anyone care to draw on top of that

CodeNothing
08-10-2006, 05:38 PM
good example. As said above the horizon isnt quite right, and your lines should all converge. the Schurer DVD isnt realy a good source of perspective info. in fact his perspective on this piece is prity awfull, and i remember cringing during the 'castle' demo. It is however a good messy demo on how to work in photoshop.

I am thinking you were using the street lights in the forground as a clue to the persoective lines, which is a good start but you cant be a 'slave' to them. The street lights may be on a hill (making the line trail off above the horizon) or the street may be at a slightly different angle (giving it a new vanishing point). but heres what you were going for...

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/8581/perspective01mn6.jpg

but this building would look terrible trying to use 1 point and set on the same grid as the environment. you can use multiple vanishing points for 1 structure and dozzens or hundreds for the entire city. it all depends on what direction each building is facing. just because you make a vanishing point doesnt mean EVERY building needs to use it.

heres an entirely new vanishing point that has nothing to do with building 1 or the forground grid. the only thing it shares is the horizon.

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/9804/perspective02vf2.jpg


and with it i can make a bridge that connects the 2 large structures.

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/9900/perspective03pa4.jpg


and heres yet ANOTHER point to make a building that is at a different angle than everything else with a bridge.

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/3517/perspective04vi0.jpg

It doesnt matter how many points there are. actualy puting buildings on different points can make your composition a hell of a lot more interesting and dynamic.

http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/8688/perspective05ch1.jpg

hope this helps. :)

CodeNothing
08-10-2006, 06:06 PM
another excelent example. Old structures like this are built on hills, various angles, and in some cases the structures are so heavy on poor foundations they sink a little and they become crooked. besides that, they just didnt have the tech, or need to make everything on a precise grid. so just about every structure in this city is pointing a slightly different direction.

the good news is that if you want to add to this city you will only need a 'rough' idea of the perspective. if things are a little off its ok. actualy if everything you add is razor sharp and precise it will make it look like it doesnt belong.

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9085/perspective06kn7.jpg

finding the perspective for this piece will not be precise. The horizzon is hidden by trees and none of the buildings match up with one another.

heres the best i could do, and looking back i still think my horizon is too high. If you look closely you cannot see the floor at the top of the stairs. If the top of the stairs were realy bellow the horizon you would see the floor. You cannot see any rooftops, so they are all above the horizon.

the problem is there are so many organic shapes in this piece and you cannot trust organics to be straight, or parralel to each other. But, thats kind of a good thing because you can get away with a lot more in this piece. just follow the rough clues you find.


http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/2226/perspective07yy8.jpg

Integrity
08-10-2006, 06:25 PM
If you look at Scheurer's lines you can see that his vanashing point is off the painting. Too often I feel like my point has to start INSIDE the matte. And I've seen alot great mattes that have vanshing points that are not inside the matte.

The further apart two vanishing points are on the horizon line, the more "zoomed in" the picture (for example if you're using them to draw a 90 degree corner), ie field of view.

From what I have seen most matte paintings are used for backgrounds that are in the distance, which is why the vanishing points are way off the frame.

Also, if the higher resolution version of Scheurer's picture enables you to make out the top and bottom (on the ground) of one of the structures (assuming the top and bottom are parrallel), you can draw lines from these angles to figure out where the horizon is (where they converge).

CodeNothing
08-10-2006, 06:37 PM
sorry for 'Blasting' your thread, :) i just have time on my hands.



so heres the answer to the 'vanishing off the page' question. Its very easy to set up a vanishing point off the page. But, if you are planning on using a 2 point system for 1 object, there is a mathmatical formula to determine exactly how far away the points need to be from each other. If you dont do that the object will look funky and it will frustrate the hell out of you because your following all the 'rules'.

I know the formula, and ill post it if you want, but its complicated and ill probably have to go back into my notes from school to get it right.

but... for the rough sketch purpose, and not photo-real preciseness, heres how to set up a vanishing point off the page....


1. first make a horizon line (blue) and on a new layer make a series of evenly spaced yellow lines all parallel to the horizon.

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/9982/perspective09ov9.jpg
2. Next, on the yellow line layer, go to: Edit / Transform / perspective. shrink one side down to nothing. This is your 'vanishing' point.

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/2343/perspective10do1.jpg

3. now your vanishing point most likely did not line up with the horizon. so apply the transform and move it down so it does.
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/545/perspective11mx8.jpg


4. now that the vanishing point is on the horizon, simply shift/click and drag it left or right off the page. holding shift will make sure it only travels left or right and doesnt leave the horizon.


http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/144/perspective12dz9.jpg

5. now you could just go off of this, but if you want to use these lines on objects on the right side of the image go to Edit/ transform/ scale. and scale it horizontaly only accross the page.

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/5151/perspective13wf4.jpg

and thats it! :)

mordecaidesign
08-10-2006, 11:20 PM
From what I have seen most matte paintings are used for backgrounds that are in the distance, which is why the vanishing points are way off the frame.




hope this helps. :)

Yes. This has helped tremendously. Thanks alot guys.

I need to loosen up and have fun with it too. Matte paintings are not supposed to be mathematically perfect. They are the illusion of reality. As long as it looks believable and doesn't "break the fourth wall" then I should just have fun with it . Thanks guys. CodeNothing your examples helped tremendously . Thanks.

I've decided to purchase a book called Perspective for Artists so maybe I'll learn a few things from that.

Xdreamer79
08-27-2006, 05:28 PM
Great explanations here as I still have my problems with those grids (before I can't start with mattepaintings I guess .-/ ). I am studying this tutorial (http://www.ragearts.com/Tutorial.php) right now but have my problems on the first step.

Is it required that my grid looks like his?
Does it bother if the angles aren't the same?



Thanks for any help on this and sorry for reactivation this topic.

Datameister
08-30-2006, 08:46 PM
Xdreamer79, the perspective lines are fine for that tutorial as long as they radiate outwards from two points that are both sitting on the horizon line. You can choose how many lines you want and at what angles, but make sure they all converge at vanishing points.

Xdreamer79
08-30-2006, 09:23 PM
Thanks a lot. Now I can start as soon as I find the time :) Appreciate it.

Datameister
08-30-2006, 11:31 PM
No problem. Have fun! :)

CGTalk Moderation
08-30-2006, 11:31 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.