5 ms·
I think there's two issues making it this way. The big one is the use of 'exponential space' based on each distance being halved along an axis, which is not acc
by twelvechairs 5y ago
I think there's two issues making it this way. The big one is the use of 'exponential space' based on each distance being halved along an axis, which is not accurate to how artists perspective works if drawn properly (someone smarter than me may do the math to figure out what the real formula is here).
The second point is the vanishing point for verticals is ridiculously close to the cube which makes it an incredibly tortured perspective for the eye to understand to start with.
- TheRealPomax 5y agoIf you're a professional artist, and you draw on actual paper, you will almost never work outside of the very first grid space. This article shows you what happens if you were to use the full exponential space, which (and let me stress this yet again) *no one should ever do*. Any tutorial on perspective drawing teaches you to keep your vanishing points out of your picture, and to stay the hell away from them. That's solid advice, and in this article we investigate why that's solid advice.
- jameshart 5y agoThis is just not the case. You can have three orthogonal vanishing points all inside the bounds of an image and it can look just fine. It just corresponds to having a field of view wider than 90 degrees (which looks a bit unnatural but can be a dramatic way of presenting an image). Imagine standing on the corner of a city block, such that without turning your head you can look down both streets and up at the sky. You can see the two streets recede off into the distance and the skyscraper above you foreshorten towards a vanishing point far overhead. Of course a vanishing point can be inside a perspective drawing, after all where do you put the vanishing point for one-point perspective?