Perspective learning

I think Scott Robertson teaches it in How to Draw.

>>2744182

do you by any chance have a pdf?
I've noticed it long ago floating around /ic

Erik Olson's Perspective Series
Marshall Vandruff has one as well
You can find both on cgpeers I think

>>2744184
It's usually in the book thread

File: david-chelsea-perspective-for-comic-book-artists-1-638.jpg (221KB, 638x908px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 638x908px

"Perspective! for comic book artists" by David Chelsea is a good resource for those interested in perspective. Comic book artist or not.

>>2744176

Learn about boxing perspective, I had some krenz tutorials that explained it in good way.

Btw, that's basically how beloved by /ic/ KJG draws, but he doesn't need to draw boxes around figures and objects anymore.

It's a good technique because it approximates perspective in good way while allowing you to keep consistent proportions. Oh and no drawing VP.

Question: how exactly do you learn perspective? I mean the basics themselves are learned fast. Then all you need is just patience to draw over hundred guides. Is the goal to rely less on guides? So you just sketch with guides until you know perspective by experience? But perspective is pretty complicated. How feasible is it not to rely on guides anymore?

Here's a free, extensive guide from the ground up. A lot of things that are often improperly or incompletely explained in other guides are explained thoroughly and effectively here.
http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/tech10.html

>>2744176

Anyone else notice that the perspective on that spiral staircase is completely fucked?

>>2744176
But wait a minute the perspective on those stairs is fucked unless your going for surrealism or something

>>2749270
>>2749273
The rest is fucked too. The distances along the z-axis are way too stretched out.

>>2749270
>>2749273
>>2749280
I would advice again this books too>>2745459 since the perspective is the most fucked up thing on the cover. On a perspective book, the cover has fucked up perspective

>the dude is looking to his right down, when the airplane (he's supposed to look at?) is on his left side, top
>the left side of the airplane wings, our right, are not in the same perspective. The top one is completely frontal, while on the bottom one the tilted line implies we see a little of it's side too
>we see equally the front and left side of the wheel, but on the airplane we see more of it side perspective than it's frontal one, that's because there is no foreshortening on the tail of the air plane
>on the top wing we see a semi circular gap, space for the frontal pilot I assume (btw we only see the copilot?), but the perspective on it is wrong too, for we should have seen the right inside of this gap if it would have been on the same perspective as the airplane. On the way we see it right, it looks like the airplane would come more towards us than the perspective of the airplane indicates
>the oval for the frontal spinning pallets (?) is distorted correctly on the farther side of us, but not on the closer side. That, or the center of the oval is not the same as the actual center indicated
>the ending circle on that cylinder on the side of the table seems wrong too, for we should see more of a oval than a circle, because we is the top and not the side of it
>finally, the perspective on the buildings is boring, not necessary wrong, but boring. It looks like a copy of picture and not like you are there, for you see all the buildings like they are all in your front, and no building, or anything else, like it was to your side (left side, since the right side is covered by his body)

>>2749270
>>2749273
>>2749280
I am >>2749768 and looking again at>>2744176 doesn't seem so wrong.

It's just the perspective on the spiral staircase is more accentuated than the perspective on the other stuff and while the perspective on the normal staircases is correct, there is no foreshortening

>>2745459
Can testify that this is good also.

>>2745788
Post them