The phenomenon happening at 2:15 is actually kind of the opposite of how it's being described. If you have a small object, it'll be more distorted the closer it is to you, and less the farther it is. Buildings similarly are more distorted the closer you are to them, but because they're already so big and you don't have to hold them so close to your face that it's hard to look at them like you would for a small object, you kind of notice the distortion more, and also the vertical distortion becomes really apparent (leading to obvious 3-point perspective). If you look at a building far in the distance though, the angles flatten out a lot. All of this also changes depending on the kind of lens you're looking through, with wide-angle having the most distortion (fish-eye being the extreme) and telephoto having the most flattening.
Saying that you "miss spoke" is not sufficient. What you're attempting to explain during that segment is an important fundamental understanding of POV and you delivered the entire explanation of it in the complete opposite manner. It pretty much causes a major loss of credibility for the rest of the video. There are a lot of young impressionable minds watching - and probably believing - this video and they're going to be very confused when a veteran perspective instructor actually explains this phenomenon correctly.
@@syntheticelementvids Actually, I don't know that you did. When objects are close to the eye, they DO distort - but that distortion occurs on the end closest to the VIEWER, rather than the horizon line. This perspective "Bloating" is not the same distortion that you demonstrated. The phenomenon Sean Simpson is referring to is, in fact, bloating. Just try holding something up to your eyeball; you'll find that it GROWS, not shrinks.
Omg i cant tell you how happy Iam to have found this video.. I dcided to do this little animation of a rotating cube thinking it would be easy..NOT.. but now I can achieve it.. thankyou :)
I think I'm going to try to paint a stack of books. Thank you for some insight, this was something that I wasn't sure about for a long time. And if I'm going to have characters lifting objects, I really want to understand this.
I want to congratulate the video creator on the excellent use of Photoshop layers, many of them, to create a very easy to follow explanation of something that's not that easy to understand. Well done !!
Thank you for this video Justin!! I had a book that I was reading through that explained the same concepts but watching someone also do it in demonstration makes things even more clear :)
This is much more complicated than using station point and classical perspective. To viewers watching this video and are confused, realize this is not a typical approach to perspective. It is overly complicated. To your credit, you do a nice job with pacing and explanation. I would, however, suggest picking up a copy of 'How to Draw' by Scott Robertson. This is a creative approach, but trust me when I say there are much easier techniques. I promise I am not trying to be negative, and hopefully, my recommendation is helpful.
I own and read his book but, he's work is only concerned with stationary perspective and working with 3 dimensional projection allows us to rotate objects when his method does not. I do not think he is wrong at all, I am just saying that with his method you could never rotate a cube or any other object making those methods incomplete and less useful than this method. If their is a better method then mine I would be very interested in hearing about it.
The method he uses actually helps rotate objects, however he does not directly specify how to do it in the book, and you sort of have to figure it out by a little trial and error, however it's much easier than this alternative method once you get the hang of it. Please check mechanical perspective drawing resources and dive deep into it, I'm sure you'll find it a whole lot simpler and more fun.
Scott’s book is great but this is in depth concepts as titled. Rotating boxes in curvilinear perspective is not at all in the book so hats off for putting this out there.
This is why it's called "ADVANCED perspective." This video is for people who already have figured the basic perspective theory out and seek, well, more advanced theories. This theory is not the absolute, that's true, but it certainly showcases an interesting approach to solving certain perspective challanges.
thanks .. I have something to say .. making the two vanishing points closer isn't like changing the perspective amount of your view? like when they are further apart you get kinda like isometric .. and and as we see in camera lenses that if the object doesn't move and we change the FOV of our camera we can see that same thing happens when you play with the vanishing points ..
Just Photoshop, I draw a line by holding down shift the dragging the brush tool. Then I copy that line 9 times. Next, I merge all those layers and duplicate them. I then free-transform the second set of lines 90 degrees and merge again. Then I free-transform the grid I made into perspective by right-clicking while free-transforming. I hope that makes sense.
Not if you're into illustration, if you can't understand what's happening on the physical sense of the universe then your drawing will look just as random: you're shooting without aiming, how is that gonna convey your message to your targeted audience ?
@@osefosef123 That depends on your own personal style and approach. Some artists are far more technical than others, but it doesn't necessarily make their art "better". It's subjective, and technical accuracy is just one aspect of art. Art, including illustration, doesn't have to be technically perfect to appeal to people. If you want to create highly technical art then kudos to you. If you'd rather focus on other aspects of art then that's fine too. I find highly technical art amazing and impressive but most of my favourite art isn't particularly technical, in terms of realism. Some illustrators use 3D software to figure out lighting, perspective and other things.
Hi, How do you know that the first laid down "square", the big one, it is indeed a square and not a random rectangle? The only method I've encountered so far, even a bit empiric, is using the ellipse (Scott Robertson's style) Thanks
With a little big of calculus you can measure the first horizontal line and the using the inverse square law calculate the same distance divided by the square of the objects length times decay. It is always a little less then half the length of the first horizontal angle you drew. I know this sounds strange but as things move away from you they get shorter and they shrink by more than half for a set distance and that distance is the inverse square of the object. Its the gravity law, if you have two objects and they both pull on each other with 10n of force. If you move them twice as close the gravity on each will more than double so they would have 23n of force on them. It goes up and up till its infinite. I know that is a strange explanation but if you look up the inverse square law it will help you understand.
Can someone tell me, at 16:35 what are the other 2 lines along the ground for, other than the ones coming from the lighting base to the edges of the ground circle and the line through the middle of the circle? And why is the point of the shadow of the cone connecting to the bottom one of these lines instead of the one going through the center of the circle? In any case, great video, by far the most helpful I have found to date on perspective.
Both the best and worst perspective tutorial l've seen. Best because it covers proper advanced perspective, worst because it's impractical as fuck... I mean if you need perfect perspective this is the only way to do it... But most artists just need it to pass as “close enough„ it's like details really, it just needs to look right at a glance, not actually be right.
Yeah, it looks like you missed connecting the right VP to the point located at the base of the sphere, which kind of messed up where you connected the ground plane shadow points closest to the base of the ball. Should be a slightly longer ellipse shadow that starts underneath.
The ellipse needs a longer major axis to the left. The ellipse is not connected with the first intersection point on the left side. Now it looks your sphere is floating in space and not touching the ground.
Hi I realize this video is a couple years old, but I'm hoping you can help me solve a problem. I'm a painter, and I alternate between working from life/from imagination. A lot of times, I lay a wash of random brushstrokes over a canvas, and let my brain shape it into a scene or subject. Usually that scene fuzzily conforms to the laws of perspective, and while the designs are interesting, I find myself wishing they were more accurate. Tl;dr: How might I go about(learn how) reverse-engineering the perspective framework based on a scene from imagination that doesn't quite conform? My goal is to emphasize the relative sizes of objects in these scenes, despite something large in the background appearing smaller than the subject in the foreground. Apologies if I'm not giving a very good description.
Can you visually show me my error, I mainly work in 3d and in 3ds max objects work the way I am explaining it. I could be wrong and I would love to know more.
@@syntheticelementvids I don't mean this in an overly harsh way but I really don't think you should be putting out misleading information like this when you clearly don't even grasp the fundamentals of perspective and photography. Objects up close have extreme levels of depth, objects in the distance have extreme depth compression and appear almost flat, anyone who has used a camera knows this. If it worked how you are suggesting then skyscrapers would look completely flat when you were next to them yet would pop out of the sky when you viewed them from a distance. Here are some examples. Note that a zoom lens achieves the exact same result as cropping, so what's really going on here is that at a higher mm focal length the photographer was standing much further back from the subject, then cropped the image to get the same framing. These pictures therefore show the effect of viewing the subject from different physical distances, higher mm lens = further distance away. bakerdh.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/allsmall.jpg qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2ac4ecec19bb5edfe0a74acebe6aba28-c c1.staticflickr.com/3/2650/3767022167_dc0cf3ee4f.jpg www.diyphotography.net/definitive-guide-focal-length-perspective-zooming-feet-nonsense/
@@Shorthouse061 You are the first person to explain the problem I was having with my understanding, Thank you so much. I only work with 3d and drawing not real cameras, so their are gaps in my information. Several people have said their was a problem with that part but no one could explain it to me in a visual way. I wish everyone was as helpful as you are. Thanks a lot.
@@syntheticelementvids No problem man, it took a while for me to understand at first too, but once you get it it seems so obvious. I should add that there's a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about this stuff even among photographers. You will often hear people talking about a zoom lens "compressing" a scene, when in reality the only thing that determines perspective compression is your distance from an object. The misconception comes from the fact that when you use a zoom lens you will have to step backwards to keep the same subject in frame. Many photographers would see the images I linked you and see it as proof that higher zoom lenses cause more compression, when in reality the effect is entirely due to the fact that the photographer would have to keep stepping further and further back as he increased the zoom.
I'm sure there must be a geometric rules and explanations for this but you don't explain any of them. You just say "Do this, then do this, etc." If you explained the rules we could draw something besides cubes and squares.
If you watch the other videos first you will see that once you can draw the cube you can draw any other shape. This is the 5th video in the series. If you explain some problems your having I can help you, but first check out the intro to drawing videos first, I promise it will all make since.
2:15 lmaaaooo what arrre you talking about?? the closest the lines are just affects the type of convergence. like different angle lenses. that shit is so wrong lmfaaooo how do you even think things going further away from you look more skewed perspective would even actually tell you the opposite happens.
![Kehlani - Next 2 U [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MpI7ekFG8A0/mqdefault.jpg)
![KFF Singapore Badminton Open 2024 | Alfian/Ardianto (INA) [7] vs. Liang/Wang (CHN) | QF](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/g0QGafkoT2o/mqdefault.jpg)
The phenomenon happening at 2:15 is actually kind of the opposite of how it's being described. If you have a small object, it'll be more distorted the closer it is to you, and less the farther it is. Buildings similarly are more distorted the closer you are to them, but because they're already so big and you don't have to hold them so close to your face that it's hard to look at them like you would for a small object, you kind of notice the distortion more, and also the vertical distortion becomes really apparent (leading to obvious 3-point perspective). If you look at a building far in the distance though, the angles flatten out a lot. All of this also changes depending on the kind of lens you're looking through, with wide-angle having the most distortion (fish-eye being the extreme) and telephoto having the most flattening.
Thanks for the correction I miss spoke.
Saying that you "miss spoke" is not sufficient. What you're attempting to explain during that segment is an important fundamental understanding of POV and you delivered the entire explanation of it in the complete opposite manner. It pretty much causes a major loss of credibility for the rest of the video. There are a lot of young impressionable minds watching - and probably believing - this video and they're going to be very confused when a veteran perspective instructor actually explains this phenomenon correctly.
@@zenithvsnadircrusader1268 The guy shared advance techniques for free on youtube. He even accepted the mistake. relax.
Thanks for the correction :)
@@syntheticelementvids Actually, I don't know that you did. When objects are close to the eye, they DO distort - but that distortion occurs on the end closest to the VIEWER, rather than the horizon line. This perspective "Bloating" is not the same distortion that you demonstrated. The phenomenon Sean Simpson is referring to is, in fact, bloating. Just try holding something up to your eyeball; you'll find that it GROWS, not shrinks.
I never found anyone clearly explaining how shadows worked, it always unnerved me on their exact shape and position, Thank you.
Thanks.
This actually helps me understand perspectives better than other videos. Thx for making it clear. Perspectives has been my greatest challenge.
Omg i cant tell you how happy Iam to have found this video.. I dcided to do this little animation of a rotating cube thinking it would be easy..NOT.. but now I can achieve it.. thankyou :)
I think I'm going to try to paint a stack of books. Thank you for some insight, this was something that I wasn't sure about for a long time. And if I'm going to have characters lifting objects, I really want to understand this.
actual madness delivered in a manor such as even this beginner can understand. Bravo!!
Let’s draw a table with 12 oranges on it!
YEAHHH!!!
*watches this video**
“Nah I’m good”
I want to congratulate the video creator on the excellent use of Photoshop layers, many of them, to create a very easy to follow explanation of something that's not that easy to understand. Well done !!
Such a great tutorial! I feel enlightened lol
Thanks a lot.
Thank you for this video Justin!! I had a book that I was reading through that explained the same concepts but watching someone also do it in demonstration makes things even more clear :)
I'm glad it helped!
This is much more complicated than using station point and classical perspective. To viewers watching this video and are confused, realize this is not a typical approach to perspective. It is overly complicated. To your credit, you do a nice job with pacing and explanation. I would, however, suggest picking up a copy of 'How to Draw' by Scott Robertson. This is a creative approach, but trust me when I say there are much easier techniques. I promise I am not trying to be negative, and hopefully, my recommendation is helpful.
I own and read his book but, he's work is only concerned with stationary perspective and working with 3 dimensional projection allows us to rotate objects when his method does not. I do not think he is wrong at all, I am just saying that with his method you could never rotate a cube or any other object making those methods incomplete and less useful than this method. If their is a better method then mine I would be very interested in hearing about it.
The method he uses actually helps rotate objects, however he does not directly specify how to do it in the book, and you sort of have to figure it out by a little trial and error, however it's much easier than this alternative method once you get the hang of it. Please check mechanical perspective drawing resources and dive deep into it, I'm sure you'll find it a whole lot simpler and more fun.
Scott’s book is great but this is in depth concepts as titled. Rotating boxes in curvilinear perspective is not at all in the book so hats off for putting this out there.
This is a technical drawing method so yes it’s confusing at first
This is why it's called "ADVANCED perspective."
This video is for people who already have figured the basic perspective theory out and seek, well, more advanced theories. This theory is not the absolute, that's true, but it certainly showcases an interesting approach to solving certain perspective challanges.
This is very informative! Thanks!
This video is so helpful you are a lifesaver man
I didnt even finish the video and i know you got something ... this !!! thanks bro
This is awesome!
and this... is to go even further!
Very useful! Thanks!
Thank you!
great tutorial thanks, what software are you using?
Thanks a ton!
Great info!! Thanks :)
thank you very much!! this video help me a lot
I've been searching 4 this thanks U vU
Really Really good video! I Feel enlightened ^^
Wow ure quite meticulous with this, i like that
Thank you man!
This is a great video
Thanks for this post.
thanks .. I have something to say .. making the two vanishing points closer isn't like changing the perspective amount of your view? like when they are further apart you get kinda like isometric .. and and as we see in camera lenses that if the object doesn't move and we change the FOV of our camera we can see that same thing happens when you play with the vanishing points ..
I don't fully understand could you explain a little more?
thankyou, it helped alot!
Yei, una perspectiva que si entiendo!
Awesome video. Your explanations are great. What is the software that you use to draw your grids? Thanks.
Just Photoshop, I draw a line by holding down shift the dragging the brush tool. Then I copy that line 9 times. Next, I merge all those layers and duplicate them. I then free-transform the second set of lines 90 degrees and merge again. Then I free-transform the grid I made into perspective by right-clicking while free-transforming. I hope that makes sense.
Can you make a video about perspecive of rotation cube on a incline or decline plane?
I want to Lear more of advanced perspective
Such an informative video, helped a LOT in my career! Thank you!
Its good to know all this stuff, but from a production stand point and for that much accuracy; it makes more sense to use a 3D medium to begin with.
Not if you're into illustration, if you can't understand what's happening on the physical sense of the universe then your drawing will look just as random: you're shooting without aiming, how is that gonna convey your message to your targeted audience ?
@@osefosef123 That depends on your own personal style and approach. Some artists are far more technical than others, but it doesn't necessarily make their art "better". It's subjective, and technical accuracy is just one aspect of art. Art, including illustration, doesn't have to be technically perfect to appeal to people. If you want to create highly technical art then kudos to you. If you'd rather focus on other aspects of art then that's fine too. I find highly technical art amazing and impressive but most of my favourite art isn't particularly technical, in terms of realism.
Some illustrators use 3D software to figure out lighting, perspective and other things.
man, you're serious about dem circles, inmates are glad, your not a corrections office
This is cool! I think I ought to go through this after Drawabox!
Hi,
How do you know that the first laid down "square", the big one, it is indeed a square and not a random rectangle? The only method I've encountered so far, even a bit empiric, is using the ellipse (Scott Robertson's style)
Thanks
Check this video out it will help you. ruclips.net/video/sitDCDkyc1A/видео.html
With a little big of calculus you can measure the first horizontal line and the using the inverse square law calculate the same distance divided by the square of the objects length times decay. It is always a little less then half the length of the first horizontal angle you drew. I know this sounds strange but as things move away from you they get shorter and they shrink by more than half for a set distance and that distance is the inverse square of the object. Its the gravity law, if you have two objects and they both pull on each other with 10n of force. If you move them twice as close the gravity on each will more than double so they would have 23n of force on them. It goes up and up till its infinite. I know that is a strange explanation but if you look up the inverse square law it will help you understand.
Thanks
That it is.
Feels like a cube in 4d space.
great
Can someone tell me, at 16:35 what are the other 2 lines along the ground for, other than the ones coming from the lighting base to the edges of the ground circle and the line through the middle of the circle? And why is the point of the shadow of the cone connecting to the bottom one of these lines instead of the one going through the center of the circle?
In any case, great video, by far the most helpful I have found to date on perspective.
They have no purpose, looks like they were guesses as to where the mainline for the top point of the cone were to go.
The moment the square is rotated tho, how is that one point perspective?
this video goes so hard
Thank you!
Gotta love math
WHERE THE HELL WERE YOU 12 YEARS AGO?!
me doing the drawabox lessons and trying to understand how to draw rotated boxes
Both the best and worst perspective tutorial l've seen. Best because it covers proper advanced perspective, worst because it's impractical as fuck...
I mean if you need perfect perspective this is the only way to do it... But most artists just need it to pass as “close enough„ it's like details really, it just needs to look right at a glance, not actually be right.
the shadow on the sphere is wrong tho?
Explain?
I think the sphere shadow should be at least touching the center point of the sphere?
Yeah, it looks like you missed connecting the right VP to the point located at the base of the sphere, which kind of messed up where you connected the ground plane shadow points closest to the base of the ball. Should be a slightly longer ellipse shadow that starts underneath.
Could you show me what you are talking about, from what I know this is accurate.
The ellipse needs a longer major axis to the left. The ellipse is not connected with the first intersection point on the left side. Now it looks your sphere is floating in space and not touching the ground.
So easy this to that at that to this
Hi I realize this video is a couple years old, but I'm hoping you can help me solve a problem. I'm a painter, and I alternate between working from life/from imagination. A lot of times, I lay a wash of random brushstrokes over a canvas, and let my brain shape it into a scene or subject. Usually that scene fuzzily conforms to the laws of perspective, and while the designs are interesting, I find myself wishing they were more accurate.
Tl;dr: How might I go about(learn how) reverse-engineering the perspective framework based on a scene from imagination that doesn't quite conform?
My goal is to emphasize the relative sizes of objects in these scenes, despite something large in the background appearing smaller than the subject in the foreground. Apologies if I'm not giving a very good description.
Nice video, man! Thanks for sharing. You should try to do this type of exercises using AutoCAD or draftsight (which should be free)
Way way to complicated for day to day but thank you still
Making object spin take decades if your not good at perspective
i stopped the video after 2:14 thing, actually it works the opposite way
Can you visually show me my error, I mainly work in 3d and in 3ds max objects work the way I am explaining it. I could be wrong and I would love to know more.
@@syntheticelementvids I don't mean this in an overly harsh way but I really don't think you should be putting out misleading information like this when you clearly don't even grasp the fundamentals of perspective and photography. Objects up close have extreme levels of depth, objects in the distance have extreme depth compression and appear almost flat, anyone who has used a camera knows this.
If it worked how you are suggesting then skyscrapers would look completely flat when you were next to them yet would pop out of the sky when you viewed them from a distance.
Here are some examples. Note that a zoom lens achieves the exact same result as cropping, so what's really going on here is that at a higher mm focal length the photographer was standing much further back from the subject, then cropped the image to get the same framing. These pictures therefore show the effect of viewing the subject from different physical distances, higher mm lens = further distance away.
bakerdh.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/allsmall.jpg
qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2ac4ecec19bb5edfe0a74acebe6aba28-c
c1.staticflickr.com/3/2650/3767022167_dc0cf3ee4f.jpg
www.diyphotography.net/definitive-guide-focal-length-perspective-zooming-feet-nonsense/
@@Shorthouse061 You are the first person to explain the problem I was having with my understanding, Thank you so much. I only work with 3d and drawing not real cameras, so their are gaps in my information. Several people have said their was a problem with that part but no one could explain it to me in a visual way. I wish everyone was as helpful as you are. Thanks a lot.
@@syntheticelementvids No problem man, it took a while for me to understand at first too, but once you get it it seems so obvious.
I should add that there's a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about this stuff even among photographers. You will often hear people talking about a zoom lens "compressing" a scene, when in reality the only thing that determines perspective compression is your distance from an object. The misconception comes from the fact that when you use a zoom lens you will have to step backwards to keep the same subject in frame. Many photographers would see the images I linked you and see it as proof that higher zoom lenses cause more compression, when in reality the effect is entirely due to the fact that the photographer would have to keep stepping further and further back as he increased the zoom.
Within the first 3 mins there are some serious errors and misunderstandings.
i dont get it
What part?
I'm sure there must be a geometric rules and explanations for this but you don't explain any of them. You just say "Do this, then do this, etc." If you explained the rules we could draw something besides cubes and squares.
If you watch the other videos first you will see that once you can draw the cube you can draw any other shape. This is the 5th video in the series. If you explain some problems your having I can help you, but first check out the intro to drawing videos first, I promise it will all make since.
Archmedis did it before you
2:15 lmaaaooo what arrre you talking about?? the closest the lines are just affects the type of convergence. like different angle lenses. that shit is so wrong lmfaaooo how do you even think things going further away from you look more skewed perspective would even actually tell you the opposite happens.
Thank you!