System of proportions based on cranium, not head?

[lemiere]

Great question. Will be keeping an eye on this post.

Now the human proportion system based on the head unit that you are referring to is the one developed by Dr Paul Richer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Richer)?

He actually proposes a system of seven and a half heads, not eight. Four heads down to the pelvic floor and then another four heads from the iliac crest to the feet. The measurements that cross over the pelvis result in a subtracted half a head, giving a total of seven and a half heads.

http://go3d.com.au/proportion/01-Paul_Richer_-_human_proportions.jpg

Any for information about Mentler around on web? Don't know much about his theories.

Thanks.

[manfredkooistra]

Hey lemiere,

you can find Michael Mentler's teachings in the forum at conceptart.org (search for his name or for "Book of Bones") or on his own website, tsofa.com.

As for the cranium system, look in this thread at conceptart.org, I posted my question there also and recieved several answers:

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=150545

Regards,
Manfred

[lemiere]

Thanks manfredkooistra,

Yeah, looks like there's a lot more activity to your question on conceptart.org.

Have you checked out Artistic Anatomy by Dr. Paul Richer 'and' Robert Beverly Hale?

http://www.amazon.com/Artistic-Anatomy-Practical-Art-Books/dp/0823002977/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242439079&sr=1-1

You'll find that Hale is the translator and editor of Dr. Paul Richer's original ideas. Don't know why every one credits Hale for this proportional system?

[jfrancis]

Here is the system

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=5877146&postcount=12

[jfrancis]

I'll repost it -

In the tradition of Robert Beverly Hale (and to a good extent, Vilppu) I like to use the head width (not head height) an important measurement also known as the 5-eye line.

Unlike full heads, this unit hits a lot of important bony landmarks.

It is the distance from top of head to just under nose.

Another one takes you to the pit of the neck.

Another one takes you to the bottom of the sternum.

Another one takes you to the points of the ribcage.

Another one takes you to the pelvic points.

It is the width of a head.

It is the length of a sternum.

It is the length of a scapula.

It is the length of a clavicle.

Two of them make a humerus; the lower arm is 80% of this.

Three of them make a femur; the lower leg is 80% of this.

It is a handy little measuring tool that I try to make the basis of all my judgments of figure proportions.

-----

The goal is NOT to make everyone conform to this. The goal is to have a reference in mind so that you can recognize and draw deviations from it as you encounter them.

[jfrancis]

You'll find that Hale is the translator and editor of Dr. Paul Richer's original ideas. Don't know why every one credits Hale for this proportional system?

Because when he uses it in these videos (http://www.jo-an.com/art_video.htm), he doesn't, as I recall, mention that he is presenting Richer's ideas. He just teaches using them.

[lemiere]

Thanks jfrancis for sharing your ideas.

Are there diagrams available for the 'Head width' proportional system?

I was also hoping to clarify the definition of a head with, which is suggested to be five eye lengths wide. As the widest point on the skull is the side of the cranium.

I've only ever come across the five eye width in Jack Hamm's book Drawing the Head and Figure (http://www.amazon.com/Drawing-Head-Figure-Jack-Hamm/dp/0399507914). Even in his diagrams, the widest point of the head is not five eyes, rather it defines the side of the zygomatic arch.

I'm in total agreement with you that proportional systems are to be only used as guides. It's something I think is fascinating how we are all so alike, yet subtle proportional difference defines individuality.

[jfrancis]

Regarding the 5-eye line...

http://www.digitalartform.com/assets_c/2009/03/S-Eastwood-thumb-512x335-59.jpg

http://www.digitalartform.com/assets_c/2009/03/5eyeLineWidth_2-thumb-512x360-62.jpg

http://www.digitalartform.com/assets_c/2009/03/5-eye-line-lens-thumb-512x256-65.jpg

The 5-eye-line (http://www.digitalartform.com/archives/2009/03/portrait_lenses.html) is only visible when you are not super close to the subject's face.

[jfrancis]

Here is a look at the system per Hale

http://www.tsofa.com/galleries/skull/hale2.jpg

http://www.tsofa.com/galleries/skull/hale3.jpg

and here is something M Mentler put together I believe

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v413/mentler/profront.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v413/mentler/proback.jpg

Found here...

http://www.cgtantra.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6637&postcount=15

[lemiere]

Cool. Nice one jfrancis. Thanks for posting that.

Yeah, I've always found Hamm's use of the 5-eye system a bit crappy. I'm fine with 5-eyes equals the width of the cranium.

So, can we conclude then, based on manfredkooistra's original question, that the answer is "Master Class in Figure Drawing" by Robert Hale (http://www.amazon.com/Master-Class-Figure-Drawing-Robert/dp/0823030148).

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.