Adv Perspective Techniques PDF

handprint : advanced perspective techniques Page 1 of 48
advanced perspective techniques technique

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

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

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.
http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/perspect5.html 6/3/2019
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)
spoke no. angle to DOV proportion of

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 rectangle, and the circumference of the ellipse marked off
from the aligned end points at the 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 three methods for constructing an
ellipse of fixed height and width
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 be about 2.3 meters; and the base of
the cup about 58 cm below eye level.
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.
perspective drawing of a chalice
3. The intersection points were brought by vertical lines to the Piero Uccello (c.1450)
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
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 VC*/AD*
Diameter (AD*)
0.5 90° [VC greater than 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 cross
section, the projection square, will have vanishing points
different from the perspective cube and its plan.
sphere inside a perspective cube

and a projection cube
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've 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 plane and the direction of view. In the
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. a cone with base parallel to the
ground plane
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 mp2). 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 (mp2). 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 mp1, 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 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 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 Projection. 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.
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.
Charles Sheeler's Interior (1926)
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 toward the center of the
image yet implicitly strengthens the sense of personal presence
through the rapidly increasing divergence in the approaching
orthogonals (lines in the floor).
square columns and tile floor drawn
in linear perspective
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 take a view of the subject from a large distance, so that
it fits within a reduced circle of view, or to take an oblique
view 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.
same setting as drawn in curvilinear
perspective
I present here a simplified method for making your own (from Ulrich Graf, 1940)
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.
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 German 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.
N E X T : Shadows, Reflections & Atmosphere
Last revised 07.I.2015 • © 2015 Bruce MacEvoy

Adv Perspective Techniques PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Adv Perspective Techniques PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adv Perspective Techniques PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

handprint : advanced perspective techniques Page 1 of 48

advanced perspective techniques technique

Next, I provide a tutorial on projecting a building, which is just curvilinear perspectives

The methods of paraline perspective, based on the geometry

I conclude with a brief discussion of curvilinear perspectives,

perspective of complex plane figures

Projecting A Circle. Let's start with the simplest case,

Circle Without a Plan. There is a very useful method to

projecting a circle without a plan

Begin with any square established in perspective at the

1. Construct the full diagonals, ab and matching.

2. From the full diagonal intersection (center of the square),

3. Construct two quarter diagonals, c to d and matching on the

4. From the intersections of the quarter orthogonals with the full

5. Construct the two rectangular diagonals from each corner of

6. Near each corner, mark the intersection of the rectangular

7. Finally, join the twelve points, freehand or with a French

This method is "nearly accurate", because points x and y stand

Circle With a Plan. Using a plan results in a slightly more

projecting a circle with a plan

Begin with any square established in perspective at the

1. In the plan (projection square) and image square, define the

2. In the plan and image square, divide the square half by a

3. Construct two quarter diagonals, c to d and matching on the

4. From the intersection of quarter and full diagonals (e and

5. Mark the intersection of the circle with the full diagonal, at g

6. With eight vertical lines, carry the eight points d, b, a, g, f, e

7. Finally, join the twelve points, freehand or with a French

Note that a and b are already defined in the image square; d

Circle with Trigonometric Ratios. Finally, an even more

uccello's method of projecting the circle

1. Divide the circle plan with 16 equally spaced "spokes"; these

2. Carry the 17 intersection points to the projection line, and

3. Mark the intersection of each orthogonal with a major

4. Identify the point intersections of each transversal with the

The elegance of the original plan bisection is that each

The location of these points along the width of a projection line,

unit ratio locations

spoke no. angle to DOV proportion of

Ellipse Construction. Now an important constant in

A circle in physical space always appears as an ellipse on the

This means we can circumvent the whole rigamarole of

Every ellipse can be described by its height and width

The diagram (right) shows how to construct an ellipse from fixed

The alternative and more efficient trammel method (B) is to

The third method (C) uses two concentric circles, centered on

However, there is a problem. The circle construction diagrams

This is the same difficulty that produces the visual discrepancy

This is a principal reason why architects traditionally used ellipse

The method for estimating the foreshortening of a circle (the

Given a perspective square located near the median line, draw

In the illustration (counting in pixels), A = 101 and B = 187, so

Photoshop note: Because a circle is an ellipse whose major and

Perspective Distortions (Reprise). It should not be

The example below is an extreme case, but if you compare it to

perspective distortion in a 1PP constructed circle

This is not just an artifact of the 1PP perspective: if we use a

perspective distortion in a 2PP constructed circle