Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Haspen]

You were always a cool kid v;

* Haspen misses the point once again!

[Cathar]

Psst; the way you made the computer is not allowed in one point perspective. One point perspective only distorts one axis (X, Y or Z) and leaves the other two perpendicular. If you want to use two point perspective  you need to distort two axis consistantly and most importantly, have the two vanishing points on the horizon line :U

Your vanishing points are the only friends you can really trust and who will never betray you to get with a hot chick

The rest is good tho

[TD1]

In other words: Go home. You're not a cool kid.

[Cathar]

Remember cool kids, always respect and trust your vanishing points. Your friends will knife your back, your family will disown you, your cat will eat your dead body without a second thought, but your vanishing points will always, always have your back



Okay I botched it but basically the computer should look a bit like this

(Also it's okay, it's fresh in my mind because I'm learning this too right now, I hope it helps)



Edit : Last wip, I promise

[Solifuge]

Oh, it's been some time since I was formally taught anything, but I remember learning that, in order to rotate an object in space (like the monitor) you can create another vanishing point on the same horizon that applies only to that object. That vanishing points are for objects that are squared relative to one another. This might've been a lazy-person shortcut, but is this not the case?

[Darkmere]

One-point perspective isn't useful for much besides a practice tool - nothing in real life is going to be that perfectly aligned with the horizon plane and all that. Every object is going to have its own VP's and honestly you're only trying to get to a point where you can estimate those pretty well in your head.

The monitor specifically would only work that way IF the top/bottom edgewise panels are flat and completely parallel to the plane of the floor.

[Cathar]

One point perspective is useful for action scenes, or scenes that implies stuff like camera forward motions, or to serve as an indicator of where the viewer should look. One point perspective is super useful for scenes with a lot of punch to them. It does not mimic the human perception but it creates pictures with a lot of power in them.
Else I often use one point perspective in scenes where the background is not important and I want to draw quick, else I usually go for two point perspective. Three point perspective is something very specialized I only use for establishing shots. At least that's how I do things.

As for vanishing points being object related ;  no (and of that I'm absolutely certain). Vanishing points depend of the viewer. That's why on 1P and 2P, they always are located on the line of horizon, at the level of the camera. In one point perspective, the vanishing point is basically where the camera is pointing. Hold on I'll draw a quick mini tutorial

Edit : Here we go



Edit 2 : Also



Also as a side note I'm not formally taught, so I have to go through a lot of trial and error, so you might actually be right over me... altho I think the screen would make more sense in a two point perspective (and the other vanishing point should also be located on the line of horizon)

Here, the page is finished. Every type of perspective has been tried (aside isometric which does not make sense in a comic) (respectively : 3P 1P 1P 1P 2P)

[Shook]

As for vanishing points being object related ;  no (and of that I'm absolutely certain). Vanishing points depend of the viewer.

I disagree; vanishing points depend on parallel lines (or the lack thereof), and they are fixed points on the horizon for such lines (provided that the object doesn't rotate). If you take the classic 2 point cube and rotate it around its vertical axis (without you moving with it), that would shift the vanishing points along the horizon. If you rotate it on one of the two other axes, it's going to make one of the points leave the horizon and/or tilt it. It's true that all parallel lines share the same vanishing point, but if they're not parallel, they don't converge.

Spoiler: also example (click to show/hide)

nevermind that building a city like this would be dumb

Nevermind that converging/diverging lines convolute this even further. :V
THAT SAID, i won't claim that lining things up is a bad idea, it makes your life a shit ton easier if you don't have to draw 2 vanishing points for every surface in your drawing, and having a lot of implied lines converging in the same area makes for a powerful focal point. Thankfully for our sanity, most human structures have a lot of parallel lines.

sneakedit: Reading your examples a bit more closely, what you did with "imaginary" cubes around rotated ones is a very clever way to make sure things don't look janky, but note that the actual cube inside it still has its own vanishing points.

All that besides, comic's looking great!

[Cathar]

> but note that the actual cube inside it still has its own vanishing points.

No no no
Okay, I have big trouble to explain what I want to say.

The vanishing points depend on the viewer. They are the vanishing points of the axis of the planes. Once you have drawn your planes with the help of the vanishing points, you can place your items on it as you want. A sphere doesnt have lines for exemple, but it will fit on a 3D plane, and to draw the 3D plane, you need to use your vanishing points.

I'll draw another, clearer exemple tomorrow, but the vanishing points are absolute.

The bottom line is : once you have your vanishing point, you have to always trust it. He will never betray you and knows better than the human eye. Don't make more points as you go along, it doesn't work like that

>All that besides, comic's looking great!
Thank you

[Shook]

I think get what you mean, it's like the global X-Y-Z axes of a 3D modeling program, but even then, every object still has its own local axes and vanishing points (again, similar to 3D programs; set motion to absolute, and it moves along the global axes, while relative motion moves it along its own axes). It is absolutely a good idea to keep the global lines in mind at all times for all the reasons you mentioned, i'm probably just being pedantic about the definition of vanishing points. The main problem arises when none of the lines of the object inside the projected cube line up with the global vanishing points, which makes it difficult to place the corners accurately. In a sense, i guess it's mostly just down to how you prefer working. I'm not going to deny that if you do make local VP's for every object, it's going to be a clusterfuck without peer.

Also, regarding circles, do remember that precisely because they have no actual lines, they could be drawn from any pair of perpenticular vanishing points. :v (not that i'd recommend doing so if it's not strictly necessary)

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Another test. I tried to imagine what the average fairly well off person might look like in my comic book world. Went for a mix of Roman and Norse. It came out quite Frankish imo, but I suppose that was to be expected.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[TD1]

You have the Gaul to post that here?!?!

[Haspen]

You have the Gaul to post that here?!?!

* Haspen thwacks!

Terrible puns do not belong here V:<

[TD1]

To be Frank, I agree. I just had to Caesar the moment, though 

[SalmonGod]

Or... if you want accuracy and you're savvy, just block out the major elements of the scene in an actual 3d program and then draw over it