Exercises to practice cubes/shapes

I saw the Erik Olson course mentioned a few times. Would that help me improve my cubes and shapes in perspective? My difficulty is both perspective and "feeling" the volume accurately

>>2869155
Is this Krenz's exercises?

Can you post something else?

File: heads-all-positions.jpg (552KB, 1431x1261px) Image search: [Google]

552KB, 1431x1261px

I think this is too but I'm still not great at this one either

>>2869282
This looks like a good idea

https://www.youtube.com/user/moatddtutorials
this guy has a ton of videos on box exercises

>>2869158
I honestly feel like Erik Olson is a meme. It's 80+ hours of video and he o let goes up to 2 point perspective. You are better off learning the basics ala norling or vandruff and then putting those other 70 hours to use by actually drawing. I truly don't understand why so many people recommend such a lengthy course that isn't even complete.

>>2869418
He teaches you all there is to know about perspective, once you're done with Olson, you're likely to be a god at knowing what to expect.

>>2869418
But what would be most useful for construction? Like drawing cubes at various perspectives or doing them smaller/larger on the same plane?

Does the Dynamic Sketching course help at all?

>>2869418
The problem is that most people try learning from him before they're ready. Are you at a basic level? Learn from others, apply it, and make it natural. Ready to get deep into it like Scott Robertson level? Learn the tricks and how to apply those. Normally though most people on here don't need that level of perspective. It's 80+ hours of video, but when you get to the point where your gains for drawing 80+ hours aren't as good then it's not such a bad tradeoff. You're also free to skip to what you need.

>>2869418

There's nothing taught in 1 and 2 point perspective when it comes to moving around 3D space that cannot be applied to 3 point perspective. It is literally inconsequential if he doesn't touch 3PP at all, if he did he would literally be reiterating the same concepts as 2PP.


I really don't understand your concern.

>>2869842
But do you think it's necessary do get all the tools like the protractor and triangles and stuff? Is it necessary to do all those little technical exercises just to understand his level of perspective?

I want to draw from imagination so I know I need to learn. But I'm wondering how much detail I need to study and if Erik's exercises will really help me draw forms accurately from my head

>>2869418
ngmi

>>2869848

Yes, the answer is yes and you should stop asking this question and invest the time in the videos instead. Perspective is a CORE fundamental skill, and possibly the most important one as it will make the learning of other complicated subjects such as lighting grow exponentially. It's literally the most important skill if you want to draw from imagination.


There's no way around it, get a good coffee or whatever stimulant drugs you fancy and start grinding. I just finished a 14h drawing session right now and I am off to bed. Believe, if you want to git gud, you need to do the tough, boring and tedious crap you don't want to do.

>>2869868
>get whatever stimulant drug you fancy and start grinding

You're great, anon.

>>2869868
ty anon good advice. Sometimes I need the raw truth from others who have been through it.

Any chance you know what materials are in that course? I have slow connection but am working on the dl and would like to have my materials ready once it's completed.

I know he requires a protractor but I'm not sure what else. Is a ruler enough?

>>2869890
There are people in the archive that just drew along and took notes with photoshop i think; couldn't you just do that?

>>2869890

I did it with a protractor, two triangles (a 90 and a 60 degree, very useful), and just whatever ruler.

He does an awful lot of set ups that require referred angles to 60 and 90. It's just as well to get them anyway. For me they were about $8-$10 a piece. So it was just a thing.

You could do without, I guess, but it would be pretty difficult and a huge set back if you did.

>>2869890
I would recommend a few different colors of lead. He switches between a few and I just used red, blue and black to go along with him. Been a while since I went through it but that's all I can remember that >>2869904 didn't mention.

>>2869155
Lift.
I'm not kidding.

>>2869890
>>2869904
>>2869913
Olson also uses a compass to set up the cone of vision. One of those could be useful if your free-handed circles aren't good enough yet.

>>2869919

Oh, fuck. Yeah. How the fuck could I forget.

You do so many cones I guess it just slipped my mind completely. Whatever. I feel stupid.

Anyway, yeah, get a compass.

To all of you Olson people, post some work. Not b8ing. If it's so helpful then I'd like to see some progress or atleast where your skill is now.

I'm also thinking of working with the dynamic sketching course that was ripped with Peter Han--anyone done that and can comment on how it helps construction?

The only courses I've done so far is the early Proko figure stuff which covers bean, robo-bean, and similar imaginative stuff. But we've all seen Proko's kanga so I'm looking for other resources covering imaginative drawing

File: fig7.jpg (22KB, 949x299px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 949x299px

I started doing drawabox but got confused as to how the vanishing points move when rotating a box. Reading the Scott Robertson book helped me a lot when I actually measured out where all the points with a protractor. Still, I find it difficult to guess the locations of your vanishing points to draw 90 degree angle in perspective, especially when the points arent on the page. I assume it gets easier after drawing a shit ton of boxes.

>>2869868
>Perspective is a CORE fundamental skill
so much this and everyone says it from loomis to people like feng, and even old masters. Don't fall for the memes master perspective and everything will become easier.

>>2870209
Because everything is just simple shapes in perspective.

>>2869868
There's no denying perspective is the most essential skill, but the question is whether the videos are worth it.
I went through Norling, Drawabox, Vandruff and Scott Robertson (respectively) and honestly I think I understand it and from here it's just about mileage.
Now I'm planning to construct insects and move on to environments (similar to FZD curriculum) and I encourage other anons to use the same approach. 80 hours of studies is a fuckload of time, use it wisely.

>>2870154
Drawabox is mainly for freehanding perspective. For accurate perspective, go with Vandruff or already mentioned Scott.

>>2870267
So you recommend Vandruff over Erik Olson? And did you start right with perspective lessons or did you have some prior training?

I like your idea of doing an FZD-style curriculum but god damn it's hard to find the right materials.

>>2870267

Good idea on following the FZD syllabus, I am doing the same.

>>2870630
Got a blog so I can follow you?

File: R3mbr4ndt Baby.jpg (147KB, 1068x670px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1068x670px

>>2870635

No, and I doubt you'll want to follow me anyway. All the hours grinding fundamentals like a robot are going to be applied drawing pony porn anyway.

>>2869785
Dynamic sketching assumes you already have a basic understanding of perspective. The CG Masters course actually teaches Perspective first then Dynamic Sketching second.

Olson's helps, it really does. If by different perspectives you mean different vanishing points, again, Olson teaches all that. That the station point is relative to a 45-degree measuring point, that 2 point systems form a 90-degree with the station point, etc. That's actually what's meant to be going on in stuff like example C of the OP post.

My advice to people who think Olson is too slow: watch it in VLC at 150% speed.

Or, alternatively, take a more complete crash course on the subject.
1. Perspective Made Easy (because it's the basics without a lot of formal stuff until the end)
2. GNOMON - Fundamentals of Perspective with Gary Meyer, more formal but also much quicker than Olson's (at the cost of being less thorough. For instance this course will not teach you the methods of constructing a diminishment grid). At the very least his is somewhat "complete" because it goes to 3-point, though he doesn't do much with it. Constructing it formally is tedious. I still recommend Olson's Course though, he is very thorough and what you learn going through that course will stick.

>>2870274
Short answer: Yes.

I watched about 2 hours of Erik Olson and honestly I felt like he talks about "what" to do, but not "why" to do it this way.
If you want to understand how perspective works the way it does, Vandruff and Scott is the way. A torrent to Vandruff's videos has been floating around /ic/.

>>2870630
>>2870640
Good luck anon, construct that pony ass as if it was the next Sistine chapel.

>>2870834

Thanks Anon, I wish you good luck too.

>>2870791
Awesome advice ty anon, I just looked at CGMA courses and their very first intro course does teach perspective before dynamic sketching. So I guess that is the best place to start.

Will check out Gary Meyer too I'm basically looking for anything that'll help with construction

>>2870267
>>2870630

Either of you have a rough outline for the FZD curriculum? How are you creating your lessons?

I haven't seen any public FZD syllabus covering all the exercises/lessons they do, but I'd love to base my study off an FZD syllabus if one exists

File: 9ff579.jpg (84KB, 736x526px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 736x526px

>>2870973
Basically they learn Scott Robertson's perspective and apply it to constructing simple wildlife (pic related). Then they do some creature and character design and move on to vehicles, exploded views and environment layouts - this takes them about half a year to go through. From there they take on different design projects that challenge what they've learned. An important thing to note is that they only work with lines and values for the first two terms. Color and rendering comes later.

Here's a summary of the topics. You can find plenty of student work on Feng's blog and Pinterest + he often talks about the school in his Design Cinema.
>http://fzdschool.com/fzd-courses/one-year-diploma

>>2871004

How do you even do those construction grids on Photoshop without spending hours and hours just laying it out? Does FZD have any video where we can see the process?

>>2871032
Well I don't think it would take that long to lay them out but it is all about repetition. When I went to FZD, we did all the fundamentals in pen. After 6 weeks of boring fundamentals, you get the hang out being able to "lay it out" quickly

>>2871004

Is Scott Robertson's perspective just his "how to draw" book? Cause it doesn't seem like a beginner book and it certainly doesn't cover everything about perspective.. but does he have a perspective video course or something?

That seems like the best place to start is nailing that down. Especially if FZD also focuses on perspective first

>>2871165
Oh shit I didn't see you went to FZD and studied there. Kudos on the bootcamp training.

Any other resources you recommend for practicing perspective like that? Clearly FZD has a system that works but I assume anyone could learn on their own given the time and the right resources.

I do agree with this poster >>2871032 those perspective grids look tough to rough into place

>>2871032
It's just a bunch of lines, man. You don't need to measure everything, just enough to be able to freehand the rest.
Either start with a line and add to it, or start with a box and cut into it. Read Scott's book, it's all there.

>>2871227
Once again, to understand how perspective works, watch Vandruff - though I think you could even figure it out on your own.

Perspective is the phenomenon of objects and distances appearing smaller the farther away they are. Logically, a distance between two parallel lines has to appear shorter until it disappears - which creates a vanishing point.
A box is just a bunch of parallel lines. Spin it on its Y axis and you get your horizon line. Spin it on its X or Z axes and you'll get a vanishing trace.
Measure angles and distances by bringing them out of perspective and projecting them back, move through space by following either X, Y or Z axes and use a picture plane to capture it all.

That's it, simple and logical. How to draw will teach you the practical methods of construction, but it's vital to understand perspective on Norling's and Vandruff's level before you break your teeth on Scott.

Surprised no one here mentioned Handprint perspective yet, if you really want to UNDERSTAND WHY perspective methods and techniques work look no further, the writing style is really hard and unclear though but still worth it

http://handprint.com/HP/WCL/tech10.html

>>2871366
Forgot to say to go through handprint after you do Vandruff/D'amelio and get familiar with perspective first

>>2869418
not my fault you're ngmi

>>2869890
negro just use sketchbook pro it's got frenchcurves and t square built in

>>2871379
I'd rather use traditional pencil because it carries over to drawing from life

>>2871438

Might as well use mud and sticks because it carries over to documenting on cave walls.

>>2871375
You're ngmi. You dumb fucks will watch 70 hours of videos instead of actually drawing. Name me one pro who recommends watching that much. Feng himself has said that it's much more beneficial to draw instead of watching videos. And if it works so well and makes you a master of perspective then why can't you show me anyone's work whose completed the course?

Keep wasting your time looking for hidden knowledge when all you really need to do is get down the basics and grind. Watching videos isn't "grinding". Ngmi

>>2871468

Bring your digital tablet with sketchbook pro out into the lawn and draw your car. Bring it to the park and sketch people. Take a walk with your laptop+SBP and find a nice place to settle down, boot up your laptop, then paint digitally from reference. Oh better bring that battery backup too.

Totally more reasonable then just using a fucking sketchbook and pencil.

>>2871515
It's called surface pro, Grandpa. Get with the times already...and stop watching boomerang, the classics are gay.

File: 1481139649296.png (250KB, 617x710px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 617x710px

>>2871503
>Feng himself
post discarded...wait let me address first
>You dumb fucks will watch 70 hours of videos instead of actually drawing
Don't know about anyone else but I take stellar notes. I'm real autistic when it comes to note taking and applying to 3D software so speak for yourself, kay?
>Keep wasting your time looking for hidden knowledge when all you really need to do is get down the basics and grind.
No you see you just don't know how to learn. Art is more of a game of analytically thinking. I'm sorry you were born dumb to plan ahead.

Boy this thread devolved fast.

Anyone wanna recommend other FZD-type curriculum learning resources?

>>2871528

The anon is being kind of an ass (okay, they're being an ass), but taking notes on Olsen's stuff won't be enough.

In his lectures he stresses having to use and actively apply the lessons he's teaching between each one. You do have to draw and use the processes to get better.

Just sayin'.

>>2871548

Seconding this. Would be interesting at least.

>>2871548

Feng Zhu mentions Scott Robertson a lot, and I am sure they teach his techniques in the school. I am guiding myself by looking at the type of homework they get send, then replicate it and finding out what someone would need to know to do it.

>>2872275
I have his Gnomon course so I'm hoping that helps. If I had 40k and had the ability to waste a year in Singapore I'd just attend the school, just for shits. But I don't have that kinda time and I dont wanna be a concept artist so idk

>>2869904
So for Olson's perspective course it's good to have:

- a protractor
- a 90deg triangle
- a 60deg triangle
- a ruler
- a compass

Seems like a lot but I'll buy this stuff assuming it makes a difference in the quality of practice. Anything else required to go through his perspective course?

>>2873925

Some cheap ellipses and circles guides wouldn't hurt.

>>2872463

Yeah, If I had the money I would too. I'd probably bring in a lot of Modafinil with me though. Those peeps hardly sleep with the shiton of work they get.

>>2873925
A coffee machine. A tv remote to pause.

>>2873984
>>2873987
I'm ready for this you guys I really think I can do it. This has been one of the most uplifting threads I've ever read on this board and I know we're all gonna make it

>>2871004
I have a question, do you know if they use this approach to figure construction? just curious

>>2874213

Go forth to victory, Anon.

>>2873925
>- a ruler
I really recommend the Wescot c-thru B-85 rule, the longer the better. This thing is critical for getting parallel and perpendicular lines without a T-Square.

Also take your notes on bigger paper. Bigger paper is very useful for when working with formal perspective, having enough space to find the station point, auxiliary vanishing points, etc.

>>2874213
You can do it, Anon. In fact, we all can do it. We're all gonna make it!

>>2873925
There is nothing called a 90deg triangle, you mean a 45deg one, and I recommend you get a Set Square like this one, it combines a protractor, a triangle, and a ruler for parallel and perpendicular lines all in one object

http://www.rotring.com/en/rulersset-squares/24-centro-geo-set-square-4006856823028.html

and pls share the notes you take with the community, you will help tons of people with them

>>2874213
We're all gonna make it, brah

>>2874232
I doubt it, things like mirroring curves and measuring angles isn't worth shit when it comes to something as organic and asymmetrical as human figure.
However, you should learn Scott's perspective to improve your visualisation which you can then apply to human figure.

From what I've seen and heard they don't really bother with figure drawing at FZD.
Squeezing something so comprehensive would simply eat too much time of their 1-year course and is not even that vital for concept design.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (99KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1280x720px

>>2874989
> things like mirroring curves and measuring angles isn't worth shit when it comes to something as organic and asymmetrical as human figure.
>asymmetrical as human figure.

would it be unfair of me to charge that you dont know what you are talking about?

the human figure is symmetrical. if by some of chance you were referring to it in perspective then sure but then mirroring and measuring angles becomes extremely useful in tracking the other side of the figure.

take the tilt of the eyes for example.

>>2875059
So, you like, do the entire mirroring construction just to find the other eyebrow when you could just eyeball it?
That sounds more than unnecessary.

>>2875059
>would it be unfair of me to charge that you don't know what you are talking about?
Post work if it works well. Literally no one ever in the history of art has mirrored every curve when constructing the face. They use basic perspective lines to find the right position and placement of features but mirroring everything would be a massive waste of time and the end product may actually end up looking worse than if you just drew it by eye and basic perspective. You are the one who has no idea what you're talking about.

>>2875096

Definitely unnecessary once you go through it and fully understand it, definitely extremely beneficial for someone who hasn't done it to spent hours or even day making sure that's completely clear and he can reproduce it. Mostly because it gives you techniques and mindset necessary to design stuff, not just recreate what you see.