Advanced Perspective Techniques

handprint : advanced perspective techniques 12/7/09 9:27 PM
advanced perspective techniques

technique
The previous pages developed
the methods of linear perspective using the
cube (or other rectangular objects) as the
primary form. This was convenient because perspective of
complex plane figures
the edges and right angles of these objects
simplify perspective constructions. perspective of
complex solid forms
When tackling the perspective of complex or
irregular shapes, the basic strategy is to fit buildings from
blueprints or plans
these shapes inside a regular geometric figure
or solid, like a valentine inside an envelope or paraline perspectives
a vase inside a box, then use this rectangular
solid to "mail" the form into perspective curvilinear perspectives
space. This page gives several examples of
how to do this for plane figures and solid
forms.
Next, I provide a tutorial on projecting a

building, which is just another type of
complex volume, from architectural
elevations and plan. The same methods
apply to any object for which elevations and
plan are available.
The methods of paraline perspective, based

on the geometry of parallel projection, were
developed in the 18th century (at the rise of
the Industrial Revolution) for a variety of
engineering and manufacturing applications. I
present a few of the common forms and
discuss how they relate to the perspective of
central projection.
I conclude with a brief discussion of

curvilinear perspectives, a modern and
dogmatic answer to the "distortions" in
traditional linear perspective. I show how to
make a basic curvilinear template and explain
why the usual justifications for curvilinear
perspective are fallacious.
perspective of complex plane

figures
http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/perspect5.html Page 1 of 76
One of the most common

perspective problems is rendering in
perspective a curved or irregular figure that is
not a composite of squares or rectangles. The
most common example is a circle in
perspective, as the rim or contour of a disk,
drinking glass, bowl or cylinder.
The solution in each case is the same: to use

the square (or a metric grid within a square)
as the projection framework or projection
square. The rationale is that it is that it is
simple to project a square in perspective, and
once this is done the square or grid can be
used to transfer descriptive points from a
plan or elevation view of the figure.
The general procedure is: (1) enclose the

complex figure within a regular rectangular
form (square or rectangle); (2) divide the
rectangular area with a regular grid and/or a
major diagonal; (3) identify the point
intersections of the figure with the sides of
the square, the grid or the diagonal; and (4)
transfer these landmark points into the image
plane, where they are used to reconstruct the
figure image.
Projecting A Circle. Let's start with the

simplest case, projecting a circle in
perspective. I know of several different
methods to do this, but provide here two that
are among the easiest and most effective.
Circle Without a Plan. There is a very useful

method to construct the circle entirely from
the geometry of the square. No plan is
required, because the points are defined
entirely within the image plane; the diagram
(below) shows a plan view only to clarify how
the method works.
projecting a circle without a plan
Begin with any square established in

perspective at the appropriate scale, location,
and angle of view. The circle defines a plane,
and the vanishing line for this plane must be
available as the principal point (orthogonal
vanishing point) and diagonal vanishing point,
or the controlling vanishing point(s) and
measure points. A diagonal vanishing point or
measure point is only necessary to define the
square in depth, but the principal point or
primary vanishing point of recession is
required. Then:
1. Construct the full diagonals, ab and

matching.
2. From the full diagonal intersection (center

of the square), construct the half transversal
to c and the half orthogonal from the
principal point through d. Mark the four
intersections with the sides of the square, c

and d and the points opposite (black).
3. Construct two quarter diagonals, c to d

and matching on the opposite side. Construct
the two quarter orthogonals from the principal
point through the intersection e and its twin.
4. From the intersections of the quarter

orthogonals with the full diagonals, such as e,
construct the quarter transversals. The
projection square is now divided into sixteen
smaller squares.
5. Construct the two rectangular diagonals

from each corner of the square to the
intersection of the nearest quarter line with
the opposite side of the square: that is, a to
g opposite, h to f opposite, and similarly for
the other six rectangular diagonals.
6. Near each corner, mark the intersection of

the rectangular diagonals from that corner
with the nearest quarter orthogonal or
quarter transversal: that is, x and y for
corner a, and similarly for the other three
corners (black).
7. Finally, join the twelve points, freehand or

with a French curve, to produce the circle.
This method is "nearly accurate", because

points x and y stand slightly outside a perfect
circle, as is visible in the diagram. However
this is inconsequential when working small or
with very foreshortened figures; or the circle
can be drawn to miss slightly the pair of
corner guide points.
Circle With a Plan. Using a plan results in a

slightly more accurate set of guide points,
and additionally requires fewer guidelines to
define. The diagram below shows the
procedure.
projecting a circle with a plan
Begin with any square established in

perspective at the appropriate scale, location,
and angle of view. The circle defines a plane,
and the vanishing line for this plane must be
available, either as the principal point and
diagonal vanishing point or controlling
vanishing point(s). A diagonal vanishing point
is only necessary to define the square in
depth. Then:
1. In the plan (projection square) and image

square, define the full diagonals, ab and
matching.
2. In the plan and image square, divide the

square half by a perpendicular line (plan) or
orthogonal to the principal point (image)
through the intersection of the full diagonals.
Divide again by a perpendicular horizontal line
(plan) or transversal (image). Mark the four
points where these lines intersect the square,

c and d and the points opposite (black).
3. Construct two quarter diagonals, c to d

and matching on the opposite side. Construct
the two quarter orthogonals from the principal
point through the intersection e and its twin.
4. From the intersection of quarter and full

diagonals (e and matching on the opposite
side), construct a horizontal line to the side of
the square. This intersects the circle at f and
matching on the opposite side.
5. Mark the intersection of the circle with the

full diagonal, at g and on the opposite side.
6. With eight vertical lines, carry the eight

points d, b, a, g, f, e and matching up to the
projection line, then project to the principal
point with orthogonals. Using the intersections
of orthogonals with the image square
diagonals, identify the points within the image
circle; then use orthogonals and transversals
to reproduce matching points at other
corners.
7. Finally, join the twelve points, freehand or

with a French curve, to produce the circle.
Note that a and b are already defined in the

image square; d can be located with an
orthogonal from the principal point throught
the image diagonal intersection; and the
projection line from e (and the matching
point) can be found in the image square by a
transversal from the diagonal intersection of
the projection line from f, through the circle
to the opposite diagonal. Consequently only
four projection lines are necessary — from f
and g and the matching points on the other
side — as shown by the pink lines in the
diagram.
Circle with Trigonometric Ratios. Finally,

an even more accurate method for projecting
a circle was first used by Paolo Uccello, as
described below). It is based on a close
partitioning of the circle's circumference into
32 equal segments, which however makes the
projection task more efficient.
uccello's method of projecting the circle
1. Divide the circle plan with 16 equally

spaced "spokes"; these are found by dividing
the circle into quarters by a horizontal and
vertical line intersecting at the circle center,
then bisecting the two upper 90° angles 3
times.
2. Carry the 17 intersection points to the

projection line, and project by orthogonals to
the principal point.
3. Mark the intersection of each orthogonal

with a major diagonal of the image square
(magenta points). From these points construct
15 transversals across the image square.
4. Identify the point intersections of each

transversal with the matching orthogonals on
both sides of the square, and the two point

intersections of the central orthogonal with
the front and back of the square. Connect
these 32 points to form the circle.
The elegance of the original plan bisection is

that each projection point stands for both a
horizontal and vertical location of the
circumference points; the artist simply locates
the intersection of the projection orthogonals
with a major diagonal of the image square
and the transversals duplicate these locations
on opposite sides of the circle, creating the 32
points that define the circumference.
The location of these points along the width of

a projection line, of unit length 1.0, is derived
from the cosine of the angle of each "spoke"
to the direction of view. The sequence is
tabulated below for reference.
unit ratio locations

for 16 spoke division of circle
circumference
(0.5 = midpoint of unit distance)
proportion of
spoke no. angle to DOV
unit dimension
1 -90° 0.000
2 -78.75° 0.009
3 -67.5° 0.038
4 -56.25° 0.084
5 -45° 0.146
6 -33.75° 0.222
7 -22.5° 0.309
8 -11.25° 0.403
9 0° 0.500
10 11.25° 0.597
11 22.5° 0.691
12 33.75° 0.778
13 45° 0.854
14 56.25° 0.916
15 67.5° 0.962
16 78.75° 0.991
17 (=1) 90° 1.000
To scale this series, just multiply by the unit

length and measure from one end of the
dimension. Thus, to project a circle from a
projection line that is 20 cm wide, multiply by
20: then the -45° angle (spoke #5) is located
2.9 cm from the dimension end.
Ellipse Construction. Now an important

constant in perspective construction is that:
A circle in physical space always appears as

an ellipse on the image plane, except when it
is viewed edge on.
This means we can circumvent the whole

rigamarole of partitioning a plan and
projecting it into perspective space: let's just
construct the ellipse directly on the image!
Every ellipse can be described by its height

and width dimensions, known as its major
axis (widest dimension) and minor axis
(perpendicular to the major axis). This leads
to two simple methods for ellipse construction
and also a calculation to estimate the
foreshortening of a circle.
The diagram (right) shows how to construct

an ellipse from fixed height and width
dimensions. In the first method (A), the
height and width define a rectangle, which is
then divided into equal quadrants by two
lines. Then one interior horizontal line
segment and one exterior vertical line
segment are divided into proportionately
equal parts, creating proportionately spaced
points. (The points do not have to be equally
spaced, only equal in their proportional
spacing on the two lines.) Lines are drawn
from the two midline points, a and b, through
the respective points, as shown. The
intersection of matching lines defines a point
on the ellipse in one quadrant. The landmark
points are joined by a freehand curve or
segments of a French curve, then traced or
copied into the other three quadrants.
The alternative and more efficient trammel

method (B) is to define the ellipse rectangle,
then transfer the length of the major and
minor axes, aligned at one end, to a strip of
cardboard or heavy paper (diagram, right).
Because the major and minor axes are
unequal in length, there is an interval
between their end points at the other end
(magenta line). These end points are aligned
with the minor and major axes of the ellipse three methods for
rectangle, and the circumference of the ellipse constructing an ellipse of
marked off from the aligned end points at the fixed height and width
other end of the card. This method is quick,
although it becomes much less accurate as
the major and minor axes become equal (the
ellipse approaches a circular shape).
The third method (C) uses two concentric

circles, centered on point a; the two circles
are divided into quarters by perpendicular
lines defining the major and minor axes of the
ellipse. An arbitrary number of lines are
drawn radially through both circles from point
a, creating pairs of points at the intersection
of the line with the inner and outer circles.
Then lines are extended from these points,
parallel with either the major or minor axes of
the ellipse; their intersections define points on
the ellipse in one quadrant. An advantage of
this method is that, by extending the
"spokes" and the horizontal and vertical
construction lines completely across the larger
circle, the entire circumference can be
identified.
However, there is a problem. The circle

construction diagrams above show that the
center of the ellipse is not coincident with the
center of the image square (the intersection
of the image diagonals), because recession
causes the back half of the square to appear
somewhat smaller than the front half. Thus,
the black cross identifying the center of the
ellipse is not located at the diagonal but
somewhat below (in front of) it.
This is the same difficulty that produces the

visual discrepancy between the visible
circumference of a sphere (equal to the

image width of the major axis of the ellipse)
and the visual angle of its diameter (equal to
the image width of the perspective square
across its center). This problem is examined
in the section on projecting a sphere.
Unfortunately, there is no simple way to scale
the width of the ellipse, other than making a
scale drawing in plan, as the major axis is not
coincident with the midline transversal of the
square, and the points where the ellipse
touches the square envelope are typically not
on the major axis of the ellipse. But for
perspective circles within a 20° circle of view,
the discrepancy is so tiny that it can be
ignored.
This is a principal reason why architects

traditionally used ellipse templates and now
rely on computer drafting programs. The
templates contain a very large number of
ellipse cutouts, each slightly larger than the
last, all scaled to a standard angle of view
onto the plane surface containing the circle.
The artist simply chooses the template angle
that corresponds best to the proportions of
the major and minor axes of the ellipse
required, then chooses the cutout that is
closest to the right image size.
The method for estimating the foreshortening

of a circle (the ellipse template angle) derives
from the trigonometric tangent within the
circle of view geometry:
Given a perspective square located near the

median line, draw the vertical line A from a
front corner, and the horizontal line B from
the opposite back corner; these lines intersect
to form a right triangle. Using a ruler,
measure the lengths of A and B and find the
arctangent of their ratio. This is the angle of
view onto the plane surface of the square at

point x. This angle is used to identify the
most suitable ellipse template.
In the illustration (counting in pixels), A =

101 and B = 187, so the angle at x is
approximately the arctangent of 101/187, or
28.4°. The formulas quoted in the section on
distance & size calculations allow you to use
this angle to infer the radius of the circle of
view that contains the square, and the object
distance (X) of the center of the square from
the viewpoint. For ellipses turned at an angle
due to perspective distortion (see below), the
ellipse should be enclosed by a rectangle
tilted to the same angle; the tangent is found
from the height to width ratio.
Architects do not bother with any of this:

they just try one or another template until
they visually discover the best match in angle
and size.
Photoshop note: Because a circle is an ellipse

whose major and minor axes are equal, any
ellipse is just a circle image compressed along
one dimension. The Ellipse Marquee Tool can
be used to approximately define the ellipse
outline, and once this is colored in it can be
adjusted to an exact fit by horizontal and/or
vertical compression with the Free Transform
tool.
Perspective Distortions (Reprise). It

should not be surprising, if perspective
"distortions" are in fact accurate
perspective images and the circle
construction methods create accurate image
circles, that constructed circles will display
perspective distortions. So we have to reprise
the issue of distortions and how to deal with
them.
The example below is an extreme case, but if

you compare it to the appearance of
spherical forms similarly displaced from the
direction of view, you will see it is no worse
than expected.
perspective distortion in a 1PP

constructed circle
This is not just an artifact of the 1PP

perspective: if we use a 2PP geometry the
shape of the square containing the circle is
improved noticeably, but the circle is still
strongly tilted. (The reduction in elongation
and size is due to the fact that the image
square is closer to the principal point dvp and
to the horizon line.)
perspective distortion in a 2PP

constructed circle
Some perspective tutorials advocate the

radical solution of drawing an image circle in
all situations as an ellipse with major axis
parallel to the horizon line. Robert W. Gill, in
an otherwise sensible perspective tutorial,
claims that the normal perspective distortions
of circles "are contrary to the laws of

perspective" — which is flatly incorrect. The
problem is that perspective distortions are
sometimes contrary to a pleasing image.
"Pleasing" is a practical rather than

geometrical issue, so the practical question is
(for example) how an ellipse, with major axis
parallel to the horizon line, can be fitted into
the geometrically correct 2PP image square
shown above. This is only possible if the
ellipse does not touch the square on one or
two sides at the same time that the ellipse is
grossly flattened. Gill evades this difficulty by
standing the columns in his illustrations flat
on the ground plane: but most architectural
columns rest on a square base or plinth, or
are surrounded by square tiled floors, so the
proportions and shape of the cylindrical
column and square base must correspond. To
accommodate an acceptably rounded ellipse
shape that touches the four sides of an image
square base, the perspective shape of the
square base must also be "adjusted" by
reducing its visual width. But now the column
and base are no longer in scale to the
architectural elements around or behind
them, so these too must be adjusted ...
In effect, all these adjustments are

incremental steps toward shifting the diagonal
vanishing points, and with them the 2PP
vanishing points, farther apart. So the
appropriate solution for this problem is the
classical remedy for perspective distortions:
reduce the circle of view contained within
the image format or (equivalently) increase
the distance between the principal point and
diagonal vanishing points, or (equivalently)
increase the object distance in perspective
space.
If you are using an ellipse template, the

major axis of the ellipse should be aligned
either with a line to the opposite diagonal
vanishing point (in 1PP) or at a slightly less
tilted angle than a line to the opposite
vanishing point (in 2PP). I find an arc drawn
from the opposite vanishing point, from the
center of the ellipse to the horizon line,
reasonably locates the direction in which the

minor axis should be oriented.
Projecting Complex Plane Figures. A wide

range of more complex plane figures can be
handled by the square or rectangular
projection, and the method of distance point
projection is the foundation method in these
cases.
However, the distance point procedure of

drawing arcs to identify the diagonal
projections for every point in the figure
quickly becomes cluttered, or requires a large
working area. The more compact solution is
to use the diagonal contained within the
projection square as the depth projection
mechanism, and project everything from the
plan using only orthogonals to the principal
point (or, for 2PP or 3PP drawings, the
appropriate two measure points).
projecting a pentagonal plan into

perspective space
The method of diagonal depth projection

or rabattement is elegant and simple: draw a
square around the form you want to project;

draw a diagonal across this boundary;
establish the diagonal twin for all key points;
carry each point and its diagonal twin forward
to the measure bar; project the points from
the measure bar into a square in perspective
space with a diagonal carried to the diagonal
vanishing point (dvp); establish the key
points in perspective by construction.
In the example above, we want to project the

plan of an irregular pentagon into
perspective. We first scale and rotate the
plan, as described below, to the correct
orientation and dimensions. Then we enclose
it in a square, and draw a diagonal through
the square. (Note that we don't have to
exactly center the form within the square,
and in fact it is the diagonal, and not the
enclosing square, is the essential component
of the method. However, it is handy to put
required points on the sides of the square, if
possible, to eliminate one or more of the
projecting orthogonals.)
For each key point needed to construct the

form, we first carry a horizontal line over to
the diagonal, then two vertical lines, from (1)
the original point and (2) its intersection with
the diagonal line, up to the projection line.
Thus, starting with point a, we carry a
horizontal to the diagonal at x, then verticals
from a and x to the projection line.
From the projection line, we project all the

points back to the principal point (pp). We
also project to pp the width of the square.
Then, using the diagonal vanishing point, we
construct the image square and, within the
square its major diagonal.
Finally, for every point intersection with the

plan diagonal, we construct a transversal
from its intersection with the image diagonal.
Thus the orthogonal for the plan diagonal
point x intersects the image diagonal at point
x', which gives us the recession. A
transversal from x' intersects the orthogonal
from a at the perspective location of point a'.
The same is be repeated for each key point,
except that orthogonals from points on the

front or back of the square (such as b)
require no transversal, and points on the
sides of the square (such as c) require no
separate orthogonal.
Provided that the vanishing points have been

accurately rotated in relation to the 90°
circle of view (the principal point and dvp's),
these procedures work exactly the same in
2PP, and the 2PP vanishing points are not at
all required to project the figure in
perspective. In fact, any number of forms can
be projected into the same perspective space
using the same diagonal depth method of
projection, and their vanishing lines relative
to each other will harmonize exactly.
Finally, and most usefully, once a plane figure

has been projected into perspective space, a
line extended from any of its sides to the
vanishing line for the plane that contains it
(e.g., the horizon line for figures in the
ground plane) identifies the vanishing point
for that side and all physical lines parallel to
it (diagram, above).
projecting a street map into perspective

space
North Tribeca historic district, from New York Historical
Society map
For example, in the irregular street

alignments typical of many premodern city
plans, a detailed street map of the area can
be projected onto the ground plan, and this
image street layout used to define the 2PP
vanishing points for the horizontals of the
various buildings (pink lines, above).
Alternately, a metric grid can be projected

onto the image plane at the appropriate
spacing and perspective depth (blue lines,
above), and the map copied into the grid

square by square, with diagonal depth
projection used to trace out the contours or
locations of difficult problems, such as the
traffic loop in the right foreground.
perspective of complex solid

forms
The strategy for projecting

complex solids is essentially the three
dimensional extension of the strategy for
projecting two dimensional figures. The
complex form is enclosed in or reduced to
cubes or rectangles, and/or the grids or
diagonals they define, and the object is
reconstructed from the landmark points
defined.
I think most artists remember their

astonishment on first encountering the "wire
frame" perspective drawing of a chalice by
Paolo Uccello (right). In this case the complex
construction was achieved by the painstaking
accumulation of simple perspective tasks, and
in tribute I summarize them here:
1. The plan of a square for the base of the

cup was constructed in perspective space.
From the ellipse ratios evident at the top
and bottom of the chalice, I find that Uccello
used a distance point (viewing distance) of
approximately 8 times the height of the cup
(e.g., the chalice is contained within a 7.2°
circle of view). Thus, if the drawing is actual
size (29 cm high), the viewing distance would perspective drawing of a
be about 2.3 meters; and the base of the cup chalice
about 58 cm below eye level.
Piero Uccello (c.1450)
2. Separately, the plan of a circle was

bisected, then quartered, and then each
segment bisected again three times, resulting
in 32 equal divisions of a circle.
3. The intersection points were brought by

vertical lines to the projection line, then
projected by orthogonals into the plan of a
square in perspective space. Note that the
bisection method has produced intersection
points that are mirror symmetrical both
points that are mirror symmetrical both

horizontally and vertically, so all that is
required to reconstruct the square is the
intersection of each orthogonal with the
diagonals of the square (see diagram,
above).
4. This square projection was repeated over

sixty times, each time at a slightly different
scale and vertical location, to form the
principal circumferences of the cup. The
vertical spacing of the squares was
accomplished with an elevation drawing of the
cup, or equivalently by physical
measurement; and the horizontal spacing by
measurement.
5. The landmark points were connected

horizontally to define the circumference
edges, and vertically to the matching points
in the circles above and below to define the
cup surface.
Small misalignments and changes in line

weight suggest the finished cup drawing was
assembled from two or three component
drawings; this implies that the drawing we
have was transferred, by pin pricks, from
other drawings, or is a scaled down version of
drawings done in a larger format for
accuracy. The whole project must have taken
weeks to complete.
In that context, it is interesting to hear

Giorgio Vasari's comments on Uccello's
consuming perspective studies:
"Paolo Uccello would have been the most

gracious and fanciful genius that was ever
devoted to the art of painting, from Giotto's
day to our own, if he had labored as much at
figures and animals as he labored and lost
time over the details of perspective; for
although these are ingenious and beautiful,
yet if a man pursues them beyond measure
he does nothing but waste his time, exhausts
his powers, fills his mind with difficulties, and
often transforms its fertility and readiness
into sterility and constraint, and renders his
manner, by attending more to these details
than to figures, dry and angular, which all

comes from a wish to examine things too
minutely; not to mention that he very often
becomes solitary, eccentric, melancholy and
poor, as did Paolo Uccello. This man,
endowed by nature with a penetrating and
subtle mind, knew no other delight than to
investigate certain difficult, nay impossible
problems of perspective, which, although they
were fanciful and beautiful, yet hindered him
so greatly in the painting of figures, that the
older he grew the worse he did them. ... For
the sake of these investigations he kept
himself in seclusion and almost a hermit,
having little intercourse with anyone, and
staying weeks and months in his house
without showing himself." [Lives of the
Painters, Sculptors and Architects, 1550;
"Paolo Uccello, Painter of Florence"]
A cautionary word across the centures for the

many modern perspective dabblers, including
digital rendering engineers, who spend days
or weeks on a single texture map or
illumination model. (Those solitary
melancholics who spend months porting it all
onto an obscure web site, well ... they are
exempt from caution.)
Projecting a Sphere. The sphere and its

related geometrical forms the cone and
cylinder present a subtle difficulty. On the one
hand, they are all circular in cross section and
therefore, in most cases, can be represented
by an elliptical outline along the front edge or
circumference. On the other hand, they are
solids rather than plane figures, which
produces specific problems of image scale and
foreshortening.
Sphere Image Scale. The scaling problem is

that a sphere relatively close to the viewpoint
presents a visual angle that is larger than the
visual angle of its physical diameter. That is,
using a measure bar or unit distance to
project the diameter of a sphere in
perspective space will underestimate its
actual apparent size. The diagram shows why:
the angle of view to the limb of the sphere is
in front of the diameter, at its visible
circumference.
discrepancy between the visible

circumference and angular diameter of a
sphere
sphere shown at an object distance 1.4 times its
diameter
It's odd that this problem gets extensive

treatment in some perspective handbooks
without asking the question: does the
discrepancy matter? For a sphere at an object
distance (ground plane distance) from its
center to the viewpoint that is 2.5 times its
diameter, the angular diameter of the
sphere is 22.6° but its visible circumference
is 23.07°. This is a discrepancy of about 0.5°
or the visual width of the full moon (1
centimeter at 1.15 meters). That probably
matters.
For a sphere at an object distance 5 times its

diameter, the visible discrepancy is about
0.05°, or 1 centimeter at 10 meters; for a
sphere at 10 times its diameter, the object
distance recommended by Leonardo to
reduce perspective distortions, the
discrepancy is 0.007°, which is equivalent to
1 centimeter at 80 meters and is below the
optical resolution of the human eye or an
equivalent camera. Thus, I'd suggest that the
problem can be ignored for a sphere, cylinder
or cone at an object distance more than 5
times its diameter: the visual discrepancy is
then less than 0.5% (e.g., 1/2 mm in

10 cm), which is smaller than the random
variations introduced by drawing inaccuracy.
For anything closer, the scaling problem can

be handled by (1) constructing the measure
bar for the diameter of the sphere from a
plan drawing (such as the drawing above)
that reproduces the sphere diameter/object
distance proportions; or (2) rescaling a
measure bar that is based on the image size
of the sphere to reflect the visible
circumference, using the proportions in the
table below.
measure bar correction

for spherical/circular image width
Angular
OD*/Sphere Diameter Diameter VC*/AD*
(AD*)
[VC greater than

0.5 90°
2.0]
1.0 53.1° 1.129
1.5 36.9° 1.056
2.0 28.1° 1.031
2.5 22.6° 1.020
3.0 18.9° 1.014
3.5 16.3° 1.010
4.0 14.3° 1.008
4.5 12.7° 1.006
5.0 11.4° 1.005
Note: OD = object distance, viewpoint to center; AD
= angular diameter; VC = visible circumference.
Sphere Image Foreshortening. The second

problem is the foreshortening of the
circle/ellipse used to represent the sphere.
Because the sphere is visible in depth, its
apparent diameter undergoes rotation
foreshortening, which causes its circular
outline to appear elliptical when the sphere
lies to one side of the direction of view. The

axis of maximum elongation is always
approximately radial from the principal point,
so the sphere may be vertically, horizontally
or diagonally elongated, depending on its
position in relation to the direction of view.
Yet there is nearly universal consent that

spheres should be represented as circles
in a perspective drawing; Robert W. Gill
provides the most detailed defense of this
solution but it is common practice. In fact, I
have never found a perspective text that
explains the correct way to draw the true
central projection of a sphere.
Reasoning from the basic rules of

perspective lets us develop a correct
procedure. Start with the fact that a sphere
can always be enclosed by a cube, whose
width is equal to the diameter of the sphere,
so that the sphere is touching the center of
each face of the cube. This perspective cube
can be viewed from any angle or orientation
in physical space; the sides of the
corresponding image cube will recede to their
1PP, 2PP or 3PP vanishing points as the angle
of view toward the cube may require.
As a demonstration example, the 2PP circle

will be used as the plan of the sphere we
want to construct. It is necessary first to
construct the perspective cube, as diagonals
across the interior of this cube locate the
center of the sphere we want to construct,
and diagonals across the base locate the point
where the sphere touches the ground plane,
the perspective image of its object distance.
The measure bar for the front face of this
cube is also the diameter of the sphere we
want to construct.
perspective drawing of a sphere

construction of the perspective cube used to locate the
sphere center and ground plane distance; also shown is
a guesstimate of the circular profile of the sphere it
contains
Now the sphere inside the perspective cube,

in physical space, appears to have an
unchanging circular profile regardless of the
angle of view to the perspective cube. To
justify this unchanging appearance, imagine a
projection plane that (1) passes through the
center of the sphere and (2) is always
perpendicular to the line of sight from the
viewpoint to the center of the sphere. On this
plane, the outline of the sphere will always
appear as a perfect circle, and will always be
enclosed in a projection square whose
bottom edge can (arbitrarily) be made parallel
to the ground plane.
However this projection square is not a cross

section through the perspective cube, because
that might be a rectangle, trapezoid or
irregular hexagon, depending on the
orientation of the perspective cube to the
viewpoint. Instead, the projection square is
the central cross section of a projection
cube that has the same dimensions as the
perspective cube but is oriented so that its
front face is perpendicular to the line of sight
to the center of the sphere and its horizontal
edges are parallel to the ground plane
(diagram, right). This projection cube and its sphere inside a perspective
cross section, the projection square, will have cube
vanishing points different from the and a projection cube
perspective cube and its plan.
true perspective drawing of a sphere

locating the vanishing points for the projection cube
The vanishing points of the projection cube

(and the projection square) are found with the
3PP methods for exact rotation of vanishing
points, and by deduction from the given
orientation of the projection cube (diagram,
above):
• The vanishing point for the horizontal top

and bottom edges is found by rotating a
visual ray from the viewpoint, folded to a
vertical diagonal vanishing point, to the
horizontal (left or right) displacement of the
center of the sphere from the principal point;
this is the intersection of a vertical line
(perspective rule 8) from the center of the
sphere to the horizon line. Then the vanishing
point we want (vp1 ) is on the horizon line,

90° to this visual ray.
• The receding side edges of the cube are

parallel to the line of sight to the center of
the cube (because the front face of the cube
is perpendicular to the line of sight), so their
vanishing point is the center of the sphere
(perspective rule 5).
• The upright sides of the projection cube are

parallel to a plane that contains the line of
sight and is perpendicular to the ground
plane. Therefore their vanishing point is in the
vanishing line for this plane, which is the
vertical line from the center of the sphere.
The vanishing point is located as described
here, and a visual ray is rotated to the
vertical (up or down) displacement of the
center of the sphere from the horizon line;
the vanishing point (vp2 ) is on the sphere
centerline 90° to this visual ray.

scaling the measure bar for the sphere diameter, and
projecting to measure points
The dimensions of the projection cube are

found from the measure bar used to define
the sides of the perspective cube (diagram,
above):
• Orthogonals are used to project the original

measure bar (magenta line) to the image
depth of the center of the sphere (green line).
• The measure bar is centered on the center

of the sphere (blue line).
• The length of the measure bar is rotated to

parallel with the front face of the projection
cube by vanishing lines to the measure point
for the horizontal vanishing point. The
measure bar is projected onto a line from this
vanishing point through the center of the
sphere. Note that the projection is backward
and forward in perspective space, depending
on the horizontal tilt of the projection cube to
the image plane.
• The measure bar is rotated 90°, and its

vertical dimensions are projected to the
measure point for the vertical vanishing point,
to correct for the vertical tilt of the projection
cube to the image plane.
• The measure bar has defined four points:

these are the four sides of the projection
square that are tangent to the enclosed
circumference of the sphere. These
dimensions can be rescaled, if necessary, to
account for the larger visible circumference
of the sphere. The measure bar (the diameter
of the sphere) in the example problem is 1.2
meters long, and (based on the image
height of the point where the sphere rests on
the ground plane) the center of the sphere is
3 meters from the viewpoint. So, using the
table above, the dimensions can be
increased by 3%.
• Vanishing lines from the two vanishing

points, through the four side points, are used
to complete this square. This is the
perspective image of the projection square.
• Vanishing lines are used to perform the

"planless" square construction method or
another more exact method if necessary.
• The projected points are connected as an

ellipse to form the visible circumference (or
visual diameter) of the perspective sphere.
The diagram (below) shows the finished
drawing.

constructing the sphere profile from the "planless"
square projection method
I have pursued this digression for four

reasons. First, I've verified by example that
the correct perspective image of a sphere is
not an ellipse.
However, the amount of elliptical distortion,

even for a very large, closely placed sphere
far to the side of the direction of view,
appears much smaller than it does in a
ground plane circle at the same location. This
(and the complexity of drawing a sphere the
"right" way) provides justification for the
practice of using a circular outline to
represent a sphere, as has been customary
and wholly acceptable perspective solution
since the Renaissance.
Third, my perspective solution suggests why

it is that circles can be acceptable images of
spheres in perspective images. In effect,
spheres define no vanishing points in
visual experience: they only reflect the
viewer's central recession in their image size.
We artificially introduce vanishing points by
constructing a projection cube around the
sphere, and this cube is always in 3PP,
whatever may be the vanishing points of the
perspective cube.
Many attributes of the sphere — the lack of

linear elements on the sphere's surface, the
unvaryingly equal dimensions of width and
depth from every point of view, the typically
small size of physical spheres in everyday
experience, and the optical equality of the
paired images in binocular vision — are quite
unlike the linear edges, large physical extent
and binocular disparity that define many
"linear" perspective examples. As a result,
our habitual visual concept of spheres is
different from the recession and depth
convergence we associate with railroad
tracks, fences, streets, buildings and other
typical perspective themes. The point is that
perspective involves drawing what we
know (or what we think we see) rather than
what is a geometrically correct projection
onto an image plane: this problem is at the
heart of all perspective "distortions".
Finally, I've demonstrated the power of the

the basic rules of perspective, combined with
the 90° circle of view and the explicit rotation
of vanishing points and measure points, to
solve novel and complex perspective
problems.
Projecting a Cylinder. In most perspective

constructions, cylinders are columns, and
columns do not present unusual
foreshortening problems because the circular
base of the column is defined by the
enclosing square, and the column is
perpendicular to the ground plane.
But if the column tips over, or seems about
to — like the Tower of Pisa (right) — then we

have to find the angle of its base to direction
of view, and from that construct the circle
foreshortening, in this case to find the
circumference of each level of the tower.
the tower of pisa
perspective drawing of the tower of pisa

showing rotations for image scale and vertical angle,
and two circular constructions
This drawing is made by first establishing,

from a photograph or accurate plan and
elevation, the necessary measurements. If
the angle of the tilt is perpendicular to the
direction of view, then the tilt is at an angle
of 5.5° from vertical. Assuming an object
distance of about 75 meters, the 56 meter
high tower would span a vertical visual angle
of 36°. (Other tower dimensions, such as
diameter, are not considered here.)
To model the tilt, the median line and horizon

line are rotated around the principal point by
a 5.5° angle, to produce a new horizon line
(magenta) and a new median line, which is
now the axis of the tower cylinder.
Next, a 36° angle is rotated from one of the

side diagonal vanishing points to locate the
vertical dimension of the tower image. I have
done this from the original horizon line to the
original median line, assuming that the tower
height measurement was true vertical. If the
measurement were along the axis of the

tower, the rotation would be done from the
"tilted" dvp to the tower axis.
A measure bar is used to find the vertical

location of each tower level along the axis;
two examples are shown for the top platform
(a) and a middle level (b). If the points are
scaled at the distance of the front side of the
tower, they will be on the front face of the
perspective square; if they are scaled to the
distance of the center of the tower, they will
lie on the tower axis and be at the diagonal
center of the perspective square.
In either case, the perspective square is

constructed from the height point, using
diagonals to the tilted dvp's (blue lines).
Thus, diagonals from b define the front half
diagonals of a perspective square. A measure
bar for the tower width (tilted perpendicular
to the tower axis and centered on b) defines
the front corners of the perspective square (n
and o); orthogonals from these points to the
principal point (dv) define the square sides. A
second diagonal from the intersection of these
orthogonals with the original diagonals to b
define side midpoints (e.g., at r); diagonals
from these points intersect at the back side of
the square (at s). (Alternately, diagonals
from n and o intersect the orthogonals at the
back corners of the square.) A line through s
and parallel to no defines a perspective
square section. Finally, the front
circumference of a circle is projected into this
square using any of the methods described
above; given the number of diagonals already
constructed, the circle without a plan
method might be most efficient.
Projecting a Spiral Staircase. The Tower of

Pisa example tackles the tilt of a cylinder but
left out the vertical scaling of the tower
levles, which is done with a measure bar or
elevation (side view) of the tower. Spiral
staircases, although they almost never appear
in a drawing, are hoary perspective clichés
and a good example of how elevation and
plan are combined to project a complex
object in three dimensions.
perspective drawing of a spiral staircase

using the Uccello method of circle projection, and
transversals to locate the stairs in depth on an elevation
There is really little to explain. The plan view

is simply the Uccello format for projecting a
circle, which represents the outer edge of the
stairs. The elevation is constructed by
carrying the stair locations at each level to
the side with transversals, then projecting
these in depth with orthogonals to the
principal point (or, in 2PP, to the controlling
vanishing point).
Projecting a Cone. Finally, I demonstrate

the procedure with a cone, whose axis can
equivalently be the axis of a cylinder.
The easy problem is when the cone stands

with its base on or parallel to the ground
plane (diagram, right). In architecture this
occurs, for example, in the roof of a circular
tower, silo or minaret. Then the base is

defined by the square parallel to the ground
plane enclosing its circle; the apex is on the
perpendicular axis drawn from the diagonal
center of the square.
The most complex case is when the axis of

the cone is at an angle both to the ground a cone with base parallel to
plane and the direction of view. In the the ground plane
example, the cone has a base diameter of 1
meter and a height of 3 meters, is lying on its
side in the ground plane, with the axis at a
30° angle to the direction of view, at an
object distance of 4 meters. The completed
construction is shown below.
perspective drawing of a reclining cone

using the method of vanishing point rotation, horizon
line rotation and measure points
The first step is to establish the vanishing

point framework, since this is necessary to
scale the image size.
Two angles are involved. If the base of the

cone were exactly parallel to the direction of
view while its axis were parallel to the ground
plane, the base of the cone would be
perpendicular to the ground plane. If the cone

is lying on its side, the base would define a
visual tilt of 9.5° (1/2 the interior angle at the
apex of the cone). This would simply require
a corresponding tilt in the horizon line and
median line around the principal point (as for
the tower example, above). However, the
base is actually at a 60° angle to the
direction of view, so the 9.5° angle is
foreshortened by this angle.
This is solved in two steps: (1) rotate the

vanishing points around the viewpoint (a
vertical dvp) to obtain the 2PP framework for
the base, and then (2) rotate the vp's
around the principal point, to obtain the
tilt caused by the cone lying on its side. (The
steps can be performed in reverse order if
desired.)
Alternately, the 9.5° angle can be marked

from the base to the top of a rectangular
solid, and the cube projected into 2PP
perspective space with the required vanishing
point rotation (see next section).
Next, the measure points are defined in the

usual way, as arcs drawn around the two
vanishing points to the rotated horizon line.
Third, the measure bars for the cone height

and base width are defined using the
procedures for scaling the drawing
described earlier.
Using the measure points, a rectangular solid

that is 3 unit dimensions high and 1 unit
dimension square is projected into the
perspective space.
Diagonal lines are used to find the center of

the far square face, which is the apex of the
cone.
Finally, the "planless" method is used to

construct the elliptical base of the cone within
the square base of the rectangle at the
opposite end. If an ellipse template is used,
the major axis of the ellipse is usually aligned
perpendicular to the axis of the cone.
The same method is used to construct a

cylinder at an oblique or acute angle to the
image plane, ground plane and/or direction of
view. The only difference is that a circular or
elliptical circumference is constructed at both
ends of the rectangular solid.
Projecting Complex Solids at a Compound

Angle. I use as my examples two of the
Platonic solids, which were among the first
perspective challenges taken on by
Renaissance draftsmen.
We've already been working with one of the

Platonic solids — the hexahedron or cube —
and the cube (or a rectangular solid) can be
used to project complex solid forms in the
same way a square is used to project
complex plane figures.
Octahedron and Diagonal Centering. The

octahedron is a regular polygon with eight
faces and six vertices (corners). The eight
faces are equilateral triangles joined at an
angle of 109.5°, which is inconvenient to
measure through multiple vanishing point
rotations. In all these situations, the
projection cube/rectangle comes to the
rescue.
perspective drawing of an octahedron

using the method of diagonal centering, in the 60° circle
of view
The example is straightforward. A cube is
projected into 2PP space, using a measure

bar taken at full length for the height of the
cube and projected to the appropriate
measure point to define the foreshortened
faces of the cube.
Diagonal lines are used to define the

perspective center of the image squares.
These locate the vertices of the octahedron;
the points are simply joined for all front faces
of the form.
Dodecahedron and Layered Projection.

The dodecahedron is a regular polygon with
20 vertices and 12 pentagonal faces, each at
an angle of about 116.5° to the five adjacent
faces. Althougth the vertices all intersect the
surface of a sphere, they do not have any
simple connection to the geometry of a cube.
Nevertheless, a projection cube can be used
to construct the perspective image; although
for very complex forms and drawings at
modest scale, the method requires
professional drafting equipment to be reliable.
The cube functions in two parts, a series of

(in this case) horizontal layers through the
cube, each showing a section of the form in
plan at specific intervals, and a vertical
measure bar that defines the separation
between layers. The cube can just as easily
be divided into a series of sections or
elevations, registered with a horizontal
measure bar; the best strategy depends on
the characteristics of the primary form.
The plan is constructed first, as separate

layers, and the layers must be inspected to
ensure they define all the necessary
significant points. If possible, the primary
form should be tightly enclosed by the
projection cube so that faces or corners of the
form are coincident with faces and/or corners
of the cube; this reduces the projection work.
When several layers or plans are used, each
layer must be enclosed by the same
registration marks or cube outline, so that
layers will aligned exactly with each other
during the projection steps.
perspective drawing of a dodecahedron

constructing the vertical measure bar from the
dodecahedron elevation
The vertical measure bar is constructed from

an elevation of the primary form, which is cut
through at the levels containing the significant
points necessary to reconstruct the outlines,
corners, edges etc. of the form.
In this case, just as we have been doing with

perspective cubes, the significant points are
the vertices (corners), which define all the
edges and, with the edges, the faces of the
form.
The vertices divide the cube into four layers,

a, b, c, d (diagram, above), with an added
interval x to indicate the distance between
the base of the dodecahedron and the base of
the cube.
Note that the dodecahedron is oriented

symmetrically or regularly with the sides of
the cube; this should always be done, if
convenient, with any complex form, so that
its orientation can be manipulated entirely
through the vanishing points for the
projection cube.

constructing the projection cube, with measure points
and diagonal vanishing point in the 60° circle of view
Next, the projection cube is constructed in

perspective space in the location, orientation
and scale desired for the dodecahedron object
(diagram, above). The procedure for
constructing a 2PP image cube is described
here.

projecting the vertices in layer "a"
Now the projection of the separate plan layers

begins (diagram, above). The following steps
are used for each layer:
• The vertical measure bar is aligned with the

anchor point, and the level location (a in the
diagram) is marked off. Usually the best
procedure is to work from the layer closest to
the viewpoint to the layer farthest away, so
that significant points that are occluded or
hidden by the front part of the form can be
omitted as work progresses.
• The level lines (green) are drawn from this

point to the vanishing points; these define the
edges, along the faces of the cube, of the
layer to be projected. The layer diagonals are
drawn from opposite edges of the cube where
they are intersected by the level lines.
• The projection bar is aligned level with the

location level (a).
• The appropriate plan level is aligned with

the projection bar (in the example, a square
outline and a centering "+" are used for the
registration), and the points to be projected
— five vertices and three diagonal depth
points — are carried up to it with vertical
lines, where they define the projection points.
The accurate location and alignment of the
level location, level lines, projection bar and
plan outline are critical; in particular, the top
face of the plan square must be exactly
parallel with the projection bar, and the
projection bar must be level (for horizontal
layers).
• The projection points (intersections of the

vertical lines with the projection bar) are
projected onto the level line (green) by lines
to the appropriate measure point (as the
projection is onto the cube face whose
recession is defined by vp2 , the correct
measure point is mp 2 ). These lines intersect
the level line at the image points for their
edge locations.
• The edge locations of the image points are

regressed to the appropriate vanishing point
(vp1 in the example) by vanishing lines (blue
for vertices, pink for diagonal depth points).
• Where the diagonal depth vanishing lines

intersect the level diagonal, those
intersections are regressed to the opposite
vanishing point (vp2 ) by vanishing lines.
• The corresponding intersections of vanishing

lines are used to locate the image vertices
(orange points).
It is evident from the diagram that each layer

of a complex form may require dozens of
vanishing lines. To eliminate erasure and
clutter, it is useful to draw each plan layer on
a large sheet of drafting vellum or tracing
paper, oriented so that the projection cube
area is also covered. Then the entire sheet is
laid over the work area and taped taut in
place; then the level lines, projection lines
and vanishing lines are drawn upon it. When
the significant points for that layer are located
they are marked with a pin prick through the
paper onto the drawing paper below.
The location of the points is confirmed with

small pencil points before the layer sheet is
removed; then the sheet is taken off and the
additions to the drawing are cleaned up,
connected as edges, etc. before proceeding to
the next layer.

projecting the vertices in layer "b"
The vertical measure bar is used to locate the

next layer position (b) and the projection bar
is moved up to be exactly level with it. Then
the plan is aligned below it and the projection
steps described above are repeated.
A significant drawing problem arises when the

projection layer is oriented in perspective
space so that it is seen nearly edge on: in the
example, level c is nearly on the horizon line.
In those situations the location of the points
is defined by vanishing lines that intersect at
a very small angle, introducing potentially
large inaccuracies.
The solution is to create a second projection

layer at a distance far on either side — in the
example, in the base of the projection cube or
even below it — and locate the points
horizontally by vertical lines from their
perspective location in this second projection
layer. These replace the vanishing lines to
one of the two vanishing points, and the
diagonal depth points and their vanishing
lines can now be omitted, which substantially
reduces clutter. The vanishing lines to one

vanishing point and the vertical lines from the
second projection layer intersect at nearly
right angles, so that both the horizontal and
vertical locations of the points are accurately
and clearly defined.
This technique requires the image points to

be constructed twice, once in the second
projection layer and then again in the final
image layer, and this repeated projection is
also a source of inaccuracy.

the finished drawing in the 60° circle of view
After all the layers have been projected into

the image, any remaining construction lines
are erased, the points are connected, and the
drawing finished off. The image shows the
projection cube in place, to facilitate
comparison with the octahedron drawing
above.
Projecting the Human Figure. Hands down,

the most difficult perspective problem artists
have tackled has been the human figure. It
was also one of the first to be tackled. A
complex but precise method is illustrated in
Piero della Francesca's De Prospectiva
pingendi (c.1474), and rather crude but
efficient methods are explained in Albrecht
Dürer's Vier Bücher von menschlicher

Proportion (1528). Things really heated up
during the 16th century, when all those
ceiling frescos of saints and angels soaring to
Heaven required careful analysis of human
foreshortening (and the soles of human feet).
By the 17th century this stuff was school
study trailing in the wake of Tintoretto's
career.
The simplest method for transferring the

figure into perspective is to make a drawing
from life, or trace a photograph, that shows
the figure in the correct pose and from the
correct point of view to match its orientation
in the master drawing. This figure study is
then scaled to the appropriate size and traced
into location.
perspective drawing using a viewing grid

the figure is copied square by square from the viewing
grid to a smaller grid on the paper, and this drawing is
then scaled to fit the master painting; from Dürer's Vier
Bücher (1528)
The more anal, rigorous method is to recreate

the figure by the three dimensional mapping
of points into perspective space. To my
knowledge there are basically three
approaches in this tradition: (1) sectional
projection, (2) volumetric projection, and (3)
armature projection.
Piero used a sectional projection: he

divided the human head into parallel sagittal
planes, projected the key points for each
section much as we've projected the
octagonal plan above, but spaced each square
vertically to match the anatomical separation
of the sections in space. This creates a "cage"
of points and the face is reconstructed simply
by translating the points back into facial

features.
The second method, volumetric projection,

first analyzes the human figure into so many
interconnected eggs, cylinders, boxes or
pyramids, then projects the major corners or
axes of these simple forms in perspective,
then reconstructs the figure around them.
This approach was popular in the Baroque
and even dribbles like a late party guest into
20th century figure drawing and perspective
texts. I dislike it very much because it
completely destroys the tensile, articulated
and rounded strength of the human form. I
feel an active schedule of live figure drawing
is a better solution to learning the shape and
heft of the body from various points of view.
If you do have this basic understanding, then

armature projection is a very efficient
method to get the human proportions in
perspective projection. All you really need is
one of those wooden anatomical manikins
sold in every art store.
projecting the human figure from an

art school mannekin
the 12 inch long Dick Blick hardwood manikin
The illustration shows the basics of the
approach. Arrange the manikin in the desired

anatomical position, then set it on a glass
table top or projection stand. Cast a shadow
from the manikin onto a stiff white card below
the figure, using a ceiling light or spot light
placed as far above the set up as possible.
Mark the major joints on the card, using the
shadow as a guide.
Now place a spot light or desk lamp to one

side of the figure, at the same height as the
figure, at right angles to the major axis of the
figure, and at the same distance from the
figure as the ceiling or overhead spot. Firmy
support a second stiff white card behind the
figure, at the same distance as the previous
card was below it. Mark the joints in the
same way.
Choose the card with the better spacing of the

joints as your primary face, and either trace
the points onto a sheet of graph paper or take
measurements directly from the card, from
each point to one long edge and to one end
edge. Take a single set of measurements
from the second card to one long edge. These
measurements can be scaled, rotated and
transfered to a measure bar using the
methods described above, and from there
projected into perspective space. The
foreshortened figure is then reconstructed
freehand around the joints.
I've explained this approach with a manikin,

but it really excels if you can take two
perpendicular views of a figure pose from
exactly the same distance. Measurements can
be taken directly from the photographs, using
each one as the "card" on which the image is
projected. With computer image processing
software, such as Adobe Photoshop, you can
even distort and scale the images to match
the outlines of a predrawn rectangular solid in
perspective, then connect matching features
in the two photographs directly, without any
measurement.
This armature approach is implicit in the

series of photographs of human and animal
movement created by Eadwaerd Muybridge.
In many motion series there is a side and

front view, or two complementary front and
back diagonal views, taken with exactly right
angled directions of view. These permit the
two dimensional measurement from the
photograph of major joints and body
dimensions along the two sides of a square or
rectangle (the third dimension of vertical
distances are the same in both photographs,
or can be scaled so). These points can be
projected into space within a rectilinear solid,
either using Piero's sagittal sectional method
or the armature method, and the body then
can even be viewed from any angle simply by
rotating the vanishing and measure points for
the enclosing rectilinear solid.
Of course, this whole discussion is moot.

Artists now can use software such as Poser
to create male or female "digital mannekins"
in any pose, clothed or unclothed, and render
drawings or art from that foundation; and a
whole series of VirtualPose discs are
available that rotate static figure poses in two
dimensions. Programs for major animals are
sure to follow.
buildings from blueprints or plans
The most common application of

linear perspective starts with the elevation
and plan of a building or object, and
transforms these into a three dimensional
perspective view.
Depending on the shape of the object or

building, one, two or sometimes three
separate views are necessary to construct it.
Sometimes the plan view (view from above)
is necessary; a single side view by itself is
sufficient. If more than one view is used, the
views must be taken at right angles to each
other.
I will use the blueprints for a detached

commercial greenhouse (shown below). I
render this building in two point
perspective, which is both the most common
architectural convention and a relatively
straightforward method to use.
blueprint used for perspective plan
The first steps are always to establish the

scale and fundamental proportions of the
drawing. As described in previous sections,
this means (1) choosing the image format or
dimensions of the drawing to best display the
important shapes in the image; (2) choosing
the best viewing angle (frontal, oblique) to
show the important features and proportions
of the building; (3) adjusting the apparent
distance to the building along the angle of
view to create pleasing shape proportions
within the circle of view and format; (4)
moving the viewpoint up or down to establish
an effective anchor point and horizon line;
and finally (5) locating the necessary
vanishing points and measure points to start
the perspective construction.
Image Format and Viewing Distance. I

decide for presentation purposes that I want
a moderate scale for the drawing or painting,
and therefore choose to work within a quarter
sheet (11" x 15"). Given the size of the sheet,
we're assuming the viewing distance to the
drawing will be about two feet (24"), which is
slightly more than the normal distance for
reading a book (18") but much less than the
normal distance for viewing a painting (60").
That is, we intend the drawing for close
inspection rather than grand effect. Other
format sizes and proportions would be more
appropriate for other presentation aims,
display settings, media, etc.
Scale and Viewing Angle. From the

blueprints, I determine that the finished
greenhouse will be built to be 27 feet long,
25 feet wide and 14 feet high. From these
specifications I can define a scaling form —
a rectangle in the same proportions as the
plan outlines of the building (in fact, it can be
a tracing or full size photocopy of the
blueprint plan itself), approximately as large
as the image format with a diagonal line
included.
The plan proportions are 27/25 or 1:1.08, and

the image format is 11" high (in landscape
orientation), so the scaling form is drawn to
be 11.9" x 11" with a diagonal included. This
represents the plan proportions of the
building, and is shown as the magenta
rectangle in the diagram.
constructing from a plan: dimensions and

layout
shown in a 60° circle of view
Next I turn or rotate this scaling form until

the angle of the sides in relation to the
median line matches the angle of view on the
building that you want. In other words, I twist
the magenta rectangle left or right until I get
the desired visual proportions in the front face
and side of the structure.
Once I have the angle of view to my

satisfaction, I choose a point on the diagonal
of the scaling form that defines the visual

width for the structure that best fits into the
format proportions. In the figure, I've chosen
a point exactly 66% of the original diagonal
length of the scaling form. This width
provides room to include a rendering of the
setting around the greenhouse — paths,
trees, sky, etc. Now, by extending two new
sides parallel with the sides of the scaling
form from this diagonal point, I have a
scaled plan (gray rectangle in the figure) at
the exact proportions to fit the format.
I move this scaled plan left or right until its

horizontal position in the format is where I
want it, then drop two vertical lines from the
opposite corners of the scaled plan to define
the visual width of the building. I drop a third
line from the corner of the scaled plan that
represents the closest corner of the building
as it will be viewed in the final drawing.
As a check, I now determine the scale of the

drawing. I do this by measuring any side of
the scaled plan, then dividing that length by
the actual length of the building to be
constructed. In this example, the width (short
side) of the scaled plan turns out to be 7.26".
The basic size and distance proportions
dictate that this drawing size divided by the
viewing distance to the drawing (18") equals
the actual width of the greenhouse (300")
divided by the viewing distance to the
greenhouse. Doing the math shows the
greenhouse will be drawn as it would appear
from a distance of roughly 62 feet, in a
reduction of roughly 2.4% from actual size.
It is also useful to establish the scale of the

drawing in relation to the scale of the
blueprints, so that any measurements taken
from the blueprints can be directly converted
into drawing measurements. (If you just use
a full size photocopy of the blueprint plan as
your scaling form, you've already done this
step when you created the scaled plan.) In
this case the blueprints are in the scale 1/2"
= 1 foot, so the width of greenhouse in the
blueprint plan is 12.5". The corresponding
width of the scaled plan is 7.26", which is a
reduction of 58%. Now, for example, if I

measure a window width in the plan of 1", I
can immediately transfer this to the drawing
as a window width in reduced scale of 0.58".
Finally, I can establish the length of the

anchor line: it's 2.4% of the building height of
14 feet, or 58% of the blueprint elevation
height of 7", or roughly 4.0" high. I then
determine the point where the horizon will
intercept the anchor line based on the
implied height of the point of view. For
example, if the greenhouse is viewed as it
would appear to an adult standing on level
ground, this height (the height of the
observer, or 68") is equal to a drawing size of
1.63" (2.4% of 68"), so the horizon line
would intersect the anchor line 1.63" from its
bottom end. Instead, I decide to take a
slightly higher vantage of about 8 feet (96"),
as if the greenhouse were viewed from a
raised patio or shallow slope. That puts the
anchor point (the bottom end of the anchor
line) about 2.3" (2.4% of 96") below the
horizon line.
The last step is to locate the horizon line in

relation to the top or bottom of the format.
Start with the horizon line through the middle
of the format, and diverge from that location
for visual effect. Normally an upward view
(viewpoint close to the ground plane) implies
a low horizon line, as the direction of view is
toward the sky; a raised viewpoint implies a
high horizon line, as the direction of view is
downward.
In this case, even though I've chosen a

slightly elevated viewpoint, I also choose a
horizon line that is slightly below the
horizontal midline of the image format, to
provide a view of the setting behind the
greenhouse and off into the distance, which
gives a feeling of open space and the
outdoors. The point where this horizon
intersects the median line — placed down the
center of the format — is the direction of
view.
Circle of View and Drawing Impact.
Because the viewing distance to the drawing

is 18", I have started with the assuumption
that 18" is also the radius of the 90° circle of
view at the image plane (the plane of the
drawing): so the circle of view is 36" or 3 feet
wide. As I have already established the
median and horizon lines, anchor point and
anchor line, I could proceed from here to
draw the circle of view around the principal
point, use the scaled plan to rotate the
vanishing points around the intersection of
the circle of view and median line, and from
these vanishing points establish the
measure points, and start the drawing.
What kind of visual impact does that circle of

view create? To find out, I divide the 62'
object distance by the 27' object size to get
the ratio 2.3. Reference to the circle of view
table indicates that this distance/size ratio
roughly a 25° minimum circle of view for that
object size at that distance. This is well within
the 40° maximum circle of view that keeps
extreme perspective distortions out of the
drawing.
However, simply by enlarging or reducing the

circle of view from its appropriate 18" radius,
I can increase or decrease the visual impact
created by perspective distortion effects.
A smaller circle of view increases

perspective distortions, which will make
the building or principal object appear more
dynamic, will enhance perspective space and
the volume of the object, and will emphasize
the front surfaces or vertical dimensions of
the form.
A larger circle of view minimizes these

effects, which will make the form appear less
dynamic and more "abstract" or idealized, will
flatten the perspective space, will make the
object appear less three dimensional (as in a
telescopic view), and will tend to emphasize
all parts of the object equally.
In this case, I know the owner of the

greenhouse values her peace and tranquillity
... no looming or soaring shapes for her. I
also judge that the basic design of the

greenhouse balances height and floor plan
well, so there is nothing to gain by
emphasizing the vertical dimension. And I
also know that the greenhouse is designed to
merge well with its setting. With these
considerations in mind, I expand the drawing
circle of view by 25% (from 36" to 45"), to
produce a flatter, more idealized conception
of the finished building, and to push the
building visually into its background setting
by flattening the perspective space, much as
it would appear within an 18° circle of view.
Now all the layout considerations — format,

viewing distance, object orientation, drawing
size, scale of view, anchor point, anchor line,
horizon line, median line, direction of view,
object circle of view and drawing circle of
view — have all been carefully thought
through and specified in relation to each
other and to the design goals of the image.
Now I can inscribe the drawing circle of view,
rotate the vanishing points and establish the
measure points, as shown in the figure above.
Measuring the Front Projections. With the

important design and layout decisions
established, the next steps are
straightforward and mechanical. The front
plan is taken first, and scaled to the same
size as the drawing. The actual blueprint or
object elevation can be enlarged or reduced
using a zoom photocopying machine, or the
dimensions can be measured off the original
and scaled with a hand calculator, or the
dimensions can be scaled by construction.
Either way, the amount of reduction required

depends on the scale of the orignal. If the
blueprint is in a standard architect's scale of
1/4" = 1 foot, for example, then it is already
at a 2.1% reduction in relation to the actual
structure. In this case, I've already
determined that my drawing is at a 56%
reduction of the blueprint scale, so I can use
a zoom photocopier to produce plan and
elevation at that scale, or rescale the key
measurements from construction.
constructing from a plan: front

projections
As shown in the figure, I place the scaled

front elevation below the anchor point, with
the right edge of the building exactly
underneath the anchor point. I extend a
horizontal line to the left of the anchor point
as the measure bar (thick magenta line). (If I
am working directly on the drawing, I find it
is clean and convenient to create the measure
by with a single piece of drafting tape; when
I'm finished these measure points and the
measure bar can be removed by simply
peeling the tape away.)
Next, connect the anchor point to the lefthand

vanishing point (vp1 ), drawing the line with a
light graphite or eraseable blue pencil.
Now I carry the important horizontal intervals

in the elevation — the sides of the door, the
width of the entryway, the peak of the roof,
the width of the building — straight up to the
measure bar. I mark these as precisely as I
can.
Finally, I use a long straight edge to connect

each mark on the measure bar with the
appropriate measure point (mp 2 ). The
intervals in the front elevation in perspective
recession are located where these measure
lines intersect the vanishing line to vp1 .
I mark each intersection point carefully, then

a draw vertical line upward from each point
using either very light graphite pencil or an
eraseable blue pencil. Finally, I remove the

front elevation and erase or peel away the
measure bar.
constructing from a plan: side projections

Measuring the Side Projections. Next I

repeat these procedures with the side
elevation, this time drawing the vanishing line
from the anchor point to vp2 , placing the
measure bar on the right of the anchor point,
taking the measure marks from the righthand
measure bar to mp 1 , and drawing the
verticals at the point where each line
intersects the vanishing line from the anchor
point to vp2 .
constructing from a plan: vertical

projections
Measuring the Vertical Projections. The

side and front projections will share a
common vertical line, the anchor line,
extending upward from the anchor point. This
line also serves as the measure bar for
vertical projections — the top and bottom of

the door and entry steps, the covered entry
way, and the eaves and peak of the roof.
If there are distinctly different features on the

front and side of the building — as there are,
for example, in the facade and sides of a
Gothic cathedral — then you must take the
vertical measurements separately for the two
sides. Again, masking tape makes an
excellent removable measure bar.
For this greenhouse drawing, the major

features along the side are defined by the
roof eave, which appears on the front
elevation. So only that elevation is used. First
I have to align the base or foundation of the
building so that it lies exactly on a horizontal
line from the anchor point. Then I carry the
important elevation heights to the measure
bar with horizontal lines.
Finishing the Drawing. The vertical

projections are carried back to both vanishing
points (vp1 and vp2 ), and the vertical lines
marking the important horizontal intervals on
the front and side are trimmed off at the
appropriate heights.
This drawing has a peaked roof, which

requires a little finesse, as shown in the figure
below. The peak of the roof in recession is
indicated by the line extending upward from
b, which was specified from the front
elevation. However its height is indicated on
the front measure bar at a, on a vanishing
line carried back to vp1 . The front peak of
the roof is located where this line and b
intersect, at point x.
constructing from a plan: finishing the

drawing
The eaves are located where their elevation

(indicated by the vanishing line from point c
on the vertical measure bar) crosses the
vertical lines marking the front and left
corners of the greenhouse, the lines
extending upward from d and e. Connecting
these eave elevations to x defines the front
and back pitch of the roof in perspective.
Connecting x to vp2 defines the peak of the

roof along the length of the greenhouse. But
how to find the peak at the back of the
greenhouse? I connect a to vp2 , and locate
the point where this line intersects the line
extending upwards from the back corner of
the greenhouse (f). Then I find the line from
this point to vp1 : then the point x' is located
at the intersection of this line with the roof
peak. Finally, I locate c' by connecting c to to
vp2 , and finish the back pitch of the roof with
a line from x' to c'.
Now I can close up the exterior surfaces,

erase guidelines and hidden lines, and finish
the drawing with as much detail, shading and
backdrop as I want. The approximate layout
of the finished drawing within the 11"x15"
format is shown in the figure.
paraline perspectives
In the introduction to these

perspective materials I stated that the point
of view, not objects in space, is the
fundamental perspective theme. One
consequence of this is that the objects in
space are not always clearly defined. The side
of a building may recede along the direction
of view, obscuring its length, openings or
surface details of the side, or the building
may extend outside the 60° circle of view,
causing the form to appear distorted.
As commerical manufacture, military

As commerical manufacture, military

surveying and industrial engineering extended
their scope in the 18th century, technical
drawing methods were developed for civilian
and military applications that showed the
three dimensional form of objects or sites
while accurately recording their physical
dimensions. These techniques were first
published by Christian Rieger and Johann
Heinrich Lambert in the 1750's and were
extended by the Rev. William Farish in 1820.
difference between central and parallel

projections
The innovation common to these

nonconvergent, paraline projections (a
contraction of parallel line projections) is that
the physical form is projected onto to image
plane by means of parallel projection lines.
This gives paraline images three unique
features (diagram, above):
• there is no viewpoint or convergence

point for the projection lines (technical
sources state this as "there is infinite distance
between the image plane and viewpoint")
• as a consequence of this projection method,

all parallel lines in space are parallel in
the image (in other words, there are no
vanishing points in any direction) — so the
name "parallel projection" is apt in a second
sense
• the image size is independent of

projection distance; paraline projections
cannot represent recession in space.
In contrast, central projections or

perspectives project the physical form onto
the image plane with convergent projection
lines to the viewpoint. This may cause parallel
lines in space to appear convergent,
depending whether the projection is 1PP, 2PP
or 3PP and whether the lines are horizontal or
vertical; in any case, the focus is on the
relative location of the vanishing points. The
image size is now dependent on the object
distance from the image plane or viewpoint
and its orientation to the image plane; depth
dimensions are foreshortened and recession is
represented.
Types of Paraline Projection. The

differences among paraline images can be
defined using one of two conventions
(diagram above):
• analytical: definitions are in terms of (1)

the projection angles between the edges or
faces of a cube and the image plane, and (2)
the projection angle between the parallel
projection lines and the image plane
• graphical: definitions are in terms of the

(1) relative scale of the three dimensions of a
cube in the image, and (2) the three arbitrary
image angles between the edges of a cube in
the image.
The analytical definition derives from

projective geometry, has a mathematical
basis, and defines images in terms of the
projection angles, which typically produce
irrational numbers for the dimension
foreshortening or face angles of a cube; there
is no explicit reference to the image
attributes. At the end of the 20th century this
attributes. At the end of the 20th century this

tradition was adapted to the computational
methods of computer graphics, especially
game programming.
The graphical tradition derives from technical

drawing methods and drawing conventions:
only standardized (template) angles and
dimension scales are used, one dimension is
always vertical in the drawing, and the scale
of any foreshortened dimension is usually a
simple fraction (e.g., 1/2) of the other
dimension(s); there is no explicit reference to
the projection geometry.
Mischief occurs when these traditions are

confused or interbred. It is pointless to define
projection angles for noncomputational,
graphical applications. Many online sources to
the contrary, the graphical definition of
paraline projections must state both relative
scale of the horizontal, vertical and depth
dimensions and the graphical angles between
them. Relative scale is defined as isometric
(all three sides of a cube are drawn in equal
scale), dimetric (two sides of a cube, usually
the horizontal and vertical, are drawn in equal
scale), and trimetric (all sides of the cube are
drawn in different scales).
The diagram (below) presents five illustrative

paraline projections using the same "barracks,
wall and watchtower" example: multiview
orthographic, 30°/30° isometric, 60°/30°
isometric, 42°/7° dimetric, and military
(45°/45° isometric).
paraline or parallel projections
Multiview Orthographic Projections. The

first parallel projections were the elevation
and plan of a building. In the analytical
literature these are termed orthogonal
projections because the projection rays are at
right angles to the image plane, and in the
graphical literature are termed orthographic
views because right angles in a cube appear
as right angles in the image.
To achieve this, two dimensions of the

primary form are oriented parallel to the
image plane. The third dimension is not
simply foreshortened — it is eliminated from
view.
This is the chief disadvantage of orthographic

renderings: each two dimensional projection
entirely suppresses the third dimension, which
forces the reader mentally to combine two or
more different drawings to understand a three
dimensional conception. In the example, it is
not possible to identify the shape of the
barracks or tower roof from the plan, and only
the y/z elevation shows that the barracks

roof has a gable. Hence, multiple orthographic
views are necessary to completely understand
the physical shape of the form.
Axonometric Projections. In axonometric

projections, all three dimensions are
represented as a two dimensional image; the
third or depth dimension is brought into the
image by drawing all three dimensions at an
explicit relative scale and interior angle.
The generic method for developing an

axonometric drawing is as follows: (1) start
with the plan drawn to scale, oriented to
produce the optimal paraline image; the
horizontal dimension is denoted x and the
vertical dimension z; then select the
corresponding elevation at the same scale
and with the same horizontal dimension x and
the vertical dimension y; (2) construct all
verticals y as parallel vertical lines in the
drawing, at either 1:1 scale or a reduced
scale to the scale of the elevation; (3) draw
all x dimensions at a constant angle to
horizontal, either to the left or right of the
end points of verticals, at either 1:1 scale or
a reduced scale to the scale of the elevation;
and (4) draw all z dimensions at a constant
angle and scale to horizontal, on the opposite
side of verticals from the x dimensions.
Within this generic mapping recipe, the only

graphical variations in paraline projections are
the relative scale of the three dimensions and
the angles of the two other dimensions to the
horizontal.
30°/30° Isometric Projection. This is

among the most common paraline projections
used today, so much so that "isometric" has
become synonymous with a paraline
projection. Analytically, this projection is
produced when all three front edges of a cube
are at an equal (~35.3°) angle to the image
plane. Graphically all three corner angles are
represented by equal (120°) interior angles
(e.g., the two nonvertical dimensions are at
30° to a horizontal line), and all three
dimensions are drawn in equal scale (1:1:1).
Graphically, a 30°/30° isometric drawing is

defined as follows: (1) vertical (y) dimensions
are drawn vertical; (2) the x and z
dimensions are drawn at a 30° angle to the
horizontal, and (3) all dimensions are drawn
to the same scale. As a result, both
horizontal and vertical circles are shown as
ellipses.
Standard isometric paraline drawings are

facilitated by the use of a preprinted isometric
grid (which consists of parallel vertical lines
cut by parallel lines at 60° and 30° angles to
vertical) laid under the working surface, or
similarly preruled sheets of architect's vellum,
or the standard 30°/60°/90° drafting
triangles. In computational graphics (for
example, in Sim City), because of the
limitations of pixel representation, the
graphical angles are actually 26.6°, so that
oblique lines can be represented in ascending
or descending two pixel segments.
60°/30° Isometric Projection. Although it

is visually pleasing and approximates very
well a similarly oriented 2PP perspective
drawing, there are two problems with the
standard isometric format: (1) the plan is not
reproduced, but appears compressed in a
lozenge form, and (2) this compression
affects the appearance of many irregular
forms (such as circles and spheres, or
rectangular forms at odd angles to the three
primary dimensions; cf. the "tower" in the
example drawing).
Both these problems are remedied by raising

one of the oblique dimensions to a 60° angle
to the horizontal; now the drawing is
planometric (the plan is reproduced exactly in
the image), and as a result irregular forms
are easier to interpret.
However, this introduces a new problem: the

vertical dimension now appears exaggerated
or elongated. This can be partly remedied by
drawing the vertical dimension at 3/4 or 2/3
scale.
45°/45° (Military) Isometric Projection.
This is also an isometric projection because

all three sides are in the same scale. This is
sometimes called a plan oblique projection or
planometric projection in the graphical
literature because the plan angles and
dimensions are reproduced exactly. (Note that
the military "projection" is not orthogonal but
is not oblique either: analytically, it is not
possible to produce the same image through
parallel lines at an oblique angle to the image
plane.)
The primary objection to military projection,

as with the 60°/30° isometric, is that it
appears to exaggerate the "depth" of the
drawing. As a result the z axis (for sideways
views) or the y axis (for downward views, as
in the example) is sometimes shortened by
1/2, creating a true dimetric drawing: this is
called a cabinet projection.
42°/7° Dimetric Projection. Several

proposals have been made for paraline
projections that more closely approximate
central perspective; these appear on casual
inspection to be perspective drawings (at
"telephoto" or very large object distances)
although each dimension is in an exact,
constant scale to the corresponding elevations
or plan. One proposal orients the two oblique
dimensions at 7° and 42° to the horizontal;
the length of the dimension at 42° is also
reduced to a 1/2 scale.
Although these formats perform very well for

cubic or rectangular forms, they are less
successful for irregular forms, as appears in
the "tower" of the 42°/7° dimetric drawing.
Artistic Importance of Paraline

Projections. Why should artists bother with
the rigid methods of technical drafting?
Because perspective in all its aspects is a
remarkably clear "laboratory" in which we can
study many of the deep or complex problems
of artistic representation.
In terms of art history, paraline projections

characterize classical Chinese and Japanese
scroll paintings. In Europe, paraline
representations became an important style

feature of early 20th century painting; Cubist
paintings abound with examples of essentially
planometric or isometric designs, and Charles
Sheeler produced a delightful painting (image,
right) that combines planometric, isometric
and dimetric images of rectagular or square
forms to suggest spatial volume while
contradicting spatial recession; note the
precise way that the table legs intersect the
square rug pattern behind. Sheeler was
obviously familiar with the conventions of
technical drawing, and could deploy them to
good artistic effect.
Charles Sheeler's Interior
(1926)
At a deeper level, both the orthographic and
paraline projections represent different
solutions to two fundamental and related
artistic problems: simplification and
schematization. All artists, whatever their
style or artistic goals, grapple continually with
these two problems.
Simplification is the decision to throw away

information — details, complexities,
dimensions or features — in a way that
makes other information clearer. In
orthographic projection the third dimension is
eliminated. In both the orthographic and
isometric projections, the object appears as if
viewed from infinitely far away, which
discards information about the physical
location of the viewpoint in relation to the
objects in the image; the viewpoint is
genuinely imaginary.
Yet all projection drawings, paraline and

perspective alike, retain the direction of view
as the average or parallel direction of the
projection lines. The back side of the object is
not represented and all angles are shown in a
specific and consistent relationship, either to
each other or to a vanishing point. This leads
us to the insight that simplification can
quite often be paradoxical — how can
there be a direction of view if there is no
viewpoint?! — and that by throwing away
information we actually create contradictions
or puzzles, in that sense making the image or
visual idea more complex conceptually if less
complex perceptually. Try looking for similar

paradoxes in other kinds of artistic
simplification (cubism, fauvism,
expressionism, abstract expressionism).
Schematization involves smoothing out these

conceptual paradoxes by making them
consistent or equivalent wherever they
appear, or by creating a hierarchy or system
of dominance among them. Although
schematic choices are often arbitrary, and
may depend on subjective esthetic criteria
such as clarity, harmony, emphasis, or
contrast, the schematic criteria can be chosen
because there is a primary external audience
or purpose for the drawing which the
schematic is adapted to serve. Thus, the
objection to some paraline drawings is that
they appear to exaggerate one dimension
over another; the paraline schematization
must be made more complex (for example,
by using a dimetric or trimetric format instead
of a "simple" isometric format) in order for
the resulting image to be easier (simpler) to
interpret.
In general, "artistic style" refers to the

strategies used to simplify and complicate an
image in ways that produce a visually or
esthetically more desirable artifact. The
beauty of paraline projections, and fine
paintings, lies in the way they use
simplification and schematization to create a
more legible and impactful image of the
world.
curvilinear perspectives
One of the most elusive but

apparently inspiring goals of perspective
studies since the 19th century has been
curvilinear perspective, which involves the
representation of space using vanishing
curves rather than vanishing lines. As these
curves seem to converge at both ends, the
horizontal and vertical transversals create two
vanishing points each with a fifth created by
the orthogonals parallel to the direction of
view. Hence the name five point perspective
or spherical perspective for some of these

projection systems.
The appearance differences between linear

and curvilinear perspective are shown in the
exaggerated example at right. The linear
projection seems to push distant objects
farther away, and to make nearby objects
loom too close, appear out of scale and
exhibit gross distortions at the extreme ends.
Curvilinear perspective crowds the side views
square columns and tile
toward the center of the image yet implicitly floor
strengthens the sense of personal presence drawn in linear perspective
through the rapidly increasing divergence in
the approaching orthogonals (lines in the
floor).
Curvilinear perspective has often been

justified as part of a critique of linear
perspective. Many objections arise from the
well known perspective "distortions". The
standard (and completely effective) remedy
for these representational conflicts was to
same setting as drawn in
take a view of the subject from a large curvilinear perspective
distance, so that it fits within a reduced
circle of view, or to take an oblique view (from Ulrich Graf, 1940)
so that the tapering of the horizontal or
vertical elements was consistent with the
effect of one of the vanishing points. However
these evasions are impractical in particular for
the representation of architectural interiors,
such as the nave of a cathedral, where a
restricted circle of view excludes an adequate
view of the architecture.
I present here a similified method for making

your own curvilinear drawings, and a longer
review of the historical justification for
curvilinear methods, with citations to books
where you can find more information.
Unfortunately, the best of these are either out
of print or untranslated, but a good university
library may help you find them.
Constructing Curvilinear Drawings. The

perspective framework for making curvilinear
projections is tedious to set up but not
difficult to work out. Your goal is to make a
template that represents a rectilinear (right
angled) grid of infinite height and width,
parallel to the picture plane, as imaged in the

curvilinear perspective system of your choice.
You then draw this curvilinear grid within a
circle of view, as shown for the spherical
template below.
template for curvilinear transversals in

central (1PP) perspective
shown with 5° transversals and the normal 60° circle of
view, which equals a 70° circle of view in the spherical
projection
To use the grid to map a normal (linear)

perspective drawing or photographic image
into the new perspective space, you must first
square the drawing in the normal way.
However, you must be careful to make the
angular size of the squaring in the linear
image equal to the angular interval of the
transversals in the curvilinear grid, or the
image will appear in exaggerated distortion.
(The template above uses a 5° interval, which
according to the distance/size table is
roughly the same as a 1 foot width seen from
11 feet away.) The final step is to copy the
image into the curvilinear grid, square by
square, then clean up any inaccuracies as you
progress to the final state of the drawing or
painting.
painting.
Constructing a similar grid in two point

perspective is much more complex, as the
vanishing lines are foreshortened front to
back. But good results are possible by
constructing the 2PP drawing in the normal
way, squaring the drawing, and then
projecting the drawing onto the curvilinear
surface using the grid above. (If you know of
a more explicit method for constructing a 2PP
template to any random rotation of the 2PP
vanishing points, please email me.)
Historical Uses of Curvilinear Perspective.

From the 16th to the 20th centuries,
perspective theorists explored the problem of
anamorphic or geometrically distorted
images, which can be rectified back to a
normal perspective image when viewed using
an appropriately curved mirror. These studies
often overlapped with the problems of
projective distortions in two dimensional
images, specifically the difference in
perspective view straight ahead and the view
obliquely to either side.
Curvilinear perspective was proposed at least

as early as 1624, in a pamphlet on meteors
by the Tübigen mathematician Wilhelm
Schickhardt (as quoted in Erwin Panofsky's
Perspective as Symbolic Form, 1924):
Schickhardt's "proof" of optical curves

(1624)
"I say that all lines, even the straightest,

which do not stand directly in front of the
eye, or go through its axis, necessarily
appear somewhat bent." Schickhardt's

argument is that the lines ab or cd appear
large when close to the viewer (at V) but
necessarily and visibly grow smaller as they
recede toward x or y; therefore "the sides
become narrower and necessarily curved; not
like a roof, to be sure, so as to produce a
sharp angle at points o and p, but rather
gently and gradually, indeed unnoticeably,
something like a belly, as is appropriate for
such an arc."
Thus, if we stand at the base of a large

tower, the masonry at eye level appears in
central perspective; if we look up, we see the
sides near the top in converging three point
perspective. The same occurs in horizontal
lines when we stand facing a long wall, then
look toward its end on either side.
However, the argument here is flawed, as

was pointed out by Schickhardt's
contemporary, the Danish astronomer
Johannes Kepler. This becomes obvious if we
express the "proof" as it appears in linear
perspective:
the logical fallacy in optical curves
In this diagram, the break in the vanishing

lines indicates that we are physically unable
to see the image of the vanishing points x
and y while directing our vision straight
ahead; to see them we must alter the
direction of view, and thereby completely
change the perspective geometry. If we
turn our heads to one side while looking at an
infinitely long wall, then the convergence to x
or y is produced by foreshortening of the
image surface, now viewed at an angle, and

this convergence steadily increases as the
direction of view becomes parallel to the
surface of the wall.
These changes in our perspective view must

be accounted for in the diagram by "broken"
vanishing lines, to indicate that different
directions of view apply between x and y.
Schickhardt's curves are the average of an
unaccounted number of different perspective
projections produced as the head and/or the
image plane is slowly turned from one
direction of view to another. In fact, his
argument originated in the observation of a
bolide, which traversed a large part of the
night sky and carried observers' rapt eyes
along with it.
But why stop there? One can also create a

panoramaic photograph with a 360° view,
which is optically impossible because the eye
would then have to be lens in all directions at
the same time that it would be retina on all
sides. At some point, we accept that
composite images do not make valid
perceptual or perspective arguments and we
part company with Schickhardt.
Another 17th century argument was that the

eye is an internally convex surface, and this
must cause the curvature in lines projected
onto it, an argument refuted empirically by
M.H. Pirenne in his Optics, Painting and
Photography (1970). A more contemporary
argument is based on the appearance of wide
angle or fisheye photographs, which show
curved lines projected into a flat photograph
and therefore seem to validate the curviness
of visual space. But in these photographs the
distance points in the image are compressed
in the field of view, which shifts the virtual
center of projection in front of the
viewpoint.
In any case, it wasn't until the 19th century

that curved vanishing lines were offered as
better representations of extended horizontal
or vertical recessions. The eccentric painter
Arthur Parsey (in 1836) and the amateur
artist and astronomer William Herdman (in

1853) published systems of perspective that
replaced parallel transversals in central or two
point perspective with slanting or curved
lines. These systems culminated in the
subjective perspective developed by the
German mathematician Guido Hauck in
1879. Long, lofty church interiors were
especially popular set pieces for early
curvilinear perspective representations, as in
this drawing by Herdman, which is surely
intended as a contrast to the many 18th
century Dutch paintings of church interiors in
perfect linear perspective.
architectural drawing in curvilinear

perspective
Interior of Rosslyn Chapel by William Herdman (c.1850)
Curvilinear perspectives had a fitful history

after the late 19th century, then saw a
resurgence late in the 20th century. Seminal
in this context were Erwin Panofsky's
Perspective as Symbolic Form (1924), based
on Hauck's mathematics; La perspective
curviligne (1967, published in English as
Curvilinear Perspective in 1987) by the French
theorists Albert Flocon and André Barre, the
"hyperbolic" system proposed by the artist
Robert Hansen in 1973, and the "fisheye" or
wide angle perspective developed by artist
Michael Moose in 1986.
Several cultural or technological factors have

been used to explain the development of
these new systems, including 19th century
advances in nonlinear geometries and

compound (wide angle) optics, perceptual
experiments in subjective curvature by
Hermann Helmholtz (in particular, the
demonstration that a row of widely spaced
point lights, moved perpendicularly away from
a viewer in complete darkness, appear to
follow a curved rather than straight line
convergence), the discovery of subtle
curvatures in ancient Greek architecture,
renewed interest in linear perspective
distortions, the study of new types of
mapmaking projections, the unparalleled
"wide angle" vistas made possible by modern
iron towers, skyscrapers and air travel ... the
list is a long one.
I think the primary issue is much simpler.

One of the founding ideas of the Renaissance,
advocated by artists and scientists alike, was
the fundamental unity between seeing and
knowing. In this tradition, linear perspective
was not so much a representation of seeing
as an area where seeing and knowing
overlapped. Throughout the 16th century,
mathematics and projective geometry, the
procedures of perspective drawing, and the
tools and methods of surveying, navigation
and astronomy were treated as different
aspects of the same fundamental discipline,
and several of these topics were often
discussed together in a single book.
At the same time, artists from Leonardo to

Turner were well aware of, and troubled by,
the many ways linear perspective did not
seem to accurately record all of visual
experience. By the 18th century, European
culture began to grapple seriously with
problems of color perception and visual
illusion that demonstrated seeing was a
psychological and subjective process, very
different from knowing and with its own
quirks and powers. This realization created a
fundamental divide that has expanded and
ramified in artistic practice ever since the late
19th century.
Some artists pursued the representation of

visual experience or "visual facts" separate
from the "knowing" that comes from

perception. This was the point of departure
for many 19th century "seeing" artists (from
Constable to Monet to Bonnard), who
described their work as copying whatever was
available on their retinas; and for artists such
as Manet, Seurat or J.S. Sargent, who
analyzed the process of vision by creating
images from painterly visual deceptions,
showing that what we see (or how we see)
does not represent what is "actually there" on
close inspection.
In reaction, other artists rejected the visual

facts in favor of the insight or "knowing" that
seems to be the experiential fruit of
perception. That is, they found ways to
represent "higher realities" as a kind of visual
experience that has no explicit referent in
optical or static images — in particular,
representations of spirituality and emotion.
This highly diverse tradition emerges in
"spiritual," "constructivist", "cubist",
"antiretinal," "conceptual",
"nonrepresentational" or "expressionist"
artists as diverse as Matisse, Kandinsky,
Duchamp, Picasso, Pollock, Riley, Rosenquist
and Martin.
Against that background, curvilinear

perspective seems to be a conservative
reaction, an attempt to recreate the union
between seeing and knowing by altering rules
of seeing to correspond to the intuitions of
three dimensional knowing. Certainly, altering
the rules is explicit in the "argument for
optical curves" advanced centuries ago.
The consensus after more than a century of

debate is that Panofsky and other critics of
linear perspective are factually wrong: no
other two dimensional projection is
superior to standard methods of linear
perspective when the perspective drawing is
viewed with a single eye from the perspective
viewpoint (center of projection). Under those
conditions, a perspective drawing really does
capture exactly the visual angles of the
original scene — as demonstrated by M.H.
Pirenne. Apparent perspective distortions
arise because the image is not viewed from

the correct center of projection and direction
of view, or the perspective geometry is
changed, or different geometries are fused
into a single image.
For me, that's the point: curvilinear

perspective represents the state of looking
at the same time in many directions. In
contrast, I have repeatedly stressed that
linear perspective is the image of a specific
viewpoint and direction of view, and once that
restriction is relaxed or abandoned, images
can easily bend, flow or warp into
unpredictable and highly expressive new
geometries.
place furstenberg, Paris, August 7,8,9

by david hockney
Curvilinear perspective in effect averages or

summarizes the many possible views from a
single viewpoint, much as David Hockney
assembles an image from dozens or hundreds
of localized, narrowly cropped photographs.
In that context, curvilinear methods can be
justified as visually syncretic and
philosophically "postmodern".
Leonardo and many others after him

identified "flaws" in linear perspective only
because they considered the same
perspective situation from two or more
directions of view. Culturally we are no
longer predisposed to see multiple
perspectives or multiple points of view as

disruptive affronts to orthodoxy.
Continue to Shadows, Reflections &

Atmosphere
Last revised 03.31.2007 • © 2007 Bruce MacEvoy

Advanced Perspective Techniques

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Advanced Perspective Techniques

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

handprint : advanced perspective techniques 12/7/09 9:27 PM

advanced perspective techniques

Next, I provide a tutorial on projecting a

The methods of paraline perspective, based

I conclude with a brief discussion of

perspective of complex plane

One of the most common

The solution in each case is the same: to use

The general procedure is: (1) enclose the

Projecting A Circle. Let's start with the

Circle Without a Plan. There is a very useful

projecting a circle without a plan

Begin with any square established in

1. Construct the full diagonals, ab and

2. From the full diagonal intersection (center

intersections with the sides of the square, c

3. Construct two quarter diagonals, c to d

4. From the intersections of the quarter

5. Construct the two rectangular diagonals

6. Near each corner, mark the intersection of

7. Finally, join the twelve points, freehand or

This method is "nearly accurate", because

Circle With a Plan. Using a plan results in a

projecting a circle with a plan

Begin with any square established in

1. In the plan (projection square) and image

2. In the plan and image square, divide the

points where these lines intersect the square,

3. Construct two quarter diagonals, c to d

4. From the intersection of quarter and full

5. Mark the intersection of the circle with the

6. With eight vertical lines, carry the eight

7. Finally, join the twelve points, freehand or

Note that a and b are already defined in the

Circle with Trigonometric Ratios. Finally,

uccello's method of projecting the circle

1. Divide the circle plan with 16 equally

2. Carry the 17 intersection points to the

3. Mark the intersection of each orthogonal

4. Identify the point intersections of each

both sides of the square, and the two point

The elegance of the original plan bisection is

The location of these points along the width of

unit ratio locations

To scale this series, just multiply by the unit

Ellipse Construction. Now an important

A circle in physical space always appears as

This means we can circumvent the whole

Every ellipse can be described by its height

The diagram (right) shows how to construct

copied into the other three quadrants.

The alternative and more efficient trammel

The third method (C) uses two concentric

However, there is a problem. The circle

This is the same difficulty that produces the

circumference of a sphere (equal to the

This is a principal reason why architects

The method for estimating the foreshortening

Given a perspective square located near the

view onto the plane surface of the square at

In the illustration (counting in pixels), A =

Architects do not bother with any of this:

Photoshop note: Because a circle is an ellipse