3 Point Perspective Question

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  01 January 2010
3 Point Perspective Question

I am working through perspective drawing, and came to some confusion after a bit of drawing.

I realize that in three-point perspective, you set an additional vanishing point for the vertical lines, but how do you draw multiple objects without them being disoriented from each other; that is, tilted in different directions so that they do not appear as if they are resting on the same surface.

For example, take this drawing (an example of mine); does it look correct in terms of my question?

 
  02 February 2010
Bump.

Has my question not been answered because it was posed in a confusing manner? I'd really like some thoughts on this..
 
  02 February 2010
I believe all of the towers would still have the same vertical VP.




See this thread at CA for more info on perspective

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sh...590&postcount=5

John
__________________
John P. Garrett
CG Artist

Last edited by vapsman88 : 02 February 2010 at 11:51 PM.
 
  02 February 2010
Originally Posted by vapsman88: I believe all of the towers would still have the same vertical VP.




See this thread at CA for more info on perspective

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sh...590&postcount=5

John


Thanks John.

I am trying this out now in some sketches and it is simply not working.

Also, I can't view the link you posted as it requires me to sign in.
 
  02 February 2010
Originally Posted by SergeantOreo: Thanks John.

I am trying this out now in some sketches and it is simply not working.

Also, I can't view the link you posted as it requires me to sign in.


Something you need to consider for the vertical perspective is the shot that you're attempting to paint/design. For example, in the picture you gave there would be very little visible vertical perspective because the viewpoint is only at a slight angle higher than looking along, or parallel, to the horizon. The shots where vertical perspective is apparent is when looking upwards at a steep angle, say 60 degrees from the horizon upwards.

There are situations where you'd put the 3rd point in with slighter angles, especially if you're looking 'down' on a scene aswell, but the point still remains that if the field of view is only at a slight angle parallel to the horizon there won't be much vertical perspective. That's why your image looks odd because you're artificially 'injecting' vertical perspective into a shot that naturally wouldn't have a great deal.
__________________
Portfolio: http://gcotton.daportfolio.com/
 
  02 February 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL4tqD17myI
__________________
Photoshop: Color Extractor Script | Custom Split Script

Last edited by Jettatore : 02 February 2010 at 10:44 AM.
 
  02 February 2010
Originally Posted by Myrmedus: Something you need to consider for the vertical perspective is the shot that you're attempting to paint/design. For example, in the picture you gave there would be very little visible vertical perspective because the viewpoint is only at a slight angle higher than looking along, or parallel, to the horizon. The shots where vertical perspective is apparent is when looking upwards at a steep angle, say 60 degrees from the horizon upwards.

There are situations where you'd put the 3rd point in with slighter angles, especially if you're looking 'down' on a scene aswell, but the point still remains that if the field of view is only at a slight angle parallel to the horizon there won't be much vertical perspective. That's why your image looks odd because you're artificially 'injecting' vertical perspective into a shot that naturally wouldn't have a great deal.


This was really a test; I am still learning how to properly set up my scene, and I thought I'd ask get some help.

I have enclosed an image which shows my setup for this sketch; I'd appreciate your comments (or anyone else's for that matter.)





Originally Posted by Jettatore: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL4tqD17myI


Thanks, I'll have to take a look at that.
 
  02 February 2010
All objects in view will have the same vertical VP, not separate ones, so if anything they'll lean 'towards' each other rather than away. If you don't use it in the right context though it can produce warped geometry that will look as though it's being viewed through a circular reflection - it's all about field of vision.

When you look up at an angle that emphasizes a three-point perspective you'll generally only see large objects like skyscrappers or objects suspended in air as everything else will be out of your field of vision. Those large objects will mostly dominate the view so fitting 3 large structures in a three-point perspective piece may give a warped look. In other words significant vertical VP is usually only seen from viewpoints that contain one maybe two large structures, anything more than that and you'd need to be at a distance where the vertical VP becomes fairly insignificant.

Try to focus on making a vertical VP for a single skyscrapper where the viewpoint is based close to the base of said skyscrapper, then branch out to adding more buildings and placing the viewpoint further away from those structures.
__________________
Portfolio: http://gcotton.daportfolio.com/

Last edited by Myrmedus : 02 February 2010 at 11:10 PM.
 
  03 March 2010
Originally Posted by Myrmedus: All objects in view will have the same vertical VP, not separate ones, so if anything they'll lean 'towards' each other rather than away. If you don't use it in the right context though it can produce warped geometry that will look as though it's being viewed through a circular reflection - it's all about field of vision.

When you look up at an angle that emphasizes a three-point perspective you'll generally only see large objects like skyscrappers or objects suspended in air as everything else will be out of your field of vision. Those large objects will mostly dominate the view so fitting 3 large structures in a three-point perspective piece may give a warped look. In other words significant vertical VP is usually only seen from viewpoints that contain one maybe two large structures, anything more than that and you'd need to be at a distance where the vertical VP becomes fairly insignificant.

Try to focus on making a vertical VP for a single skyscrapper where the viewpoint is based close to the base of said skyscrapper, then branch out to adding more buildings and placing the viewpoint further away from those structures.


After I read this over a few times, I finally got it.
Here's a new 3-point drawing that I did yesterday - let me know what you think.

Cheers!
 
  03 March 2010
I believe this would be considered 2-point, since all the horizontal lines are parallel.
 
  03 March 2010
Originally Posted by Heozart: I believe this would be considered 2-point, since all the horizontal lines are parallel.


Yeah, you're right.
 
  03 March 2010
I found some good info.

1 point

2 point

3 point

Enjoy!
__________________
maya and zbrush training
creating CG3D since 2001

3D Models
@ Turbosquid

my Scripts
 
  03 March 2010
Thread automatically closed

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.
__________________
CGTalk Policy/Legalities
Note that as CGTalk Members, you agree to the terms and conditions of using this website.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.