[Gecko]

I challenged myself a few days back to paint something that I normally don't do.
Something that would make me solve some problems I've been putting away and just been doing 'my thing', the easy way, instead.

It so easily boils down to values and perspective. (To name just a few, these I concentrated on).

I decided to paint a kind of city, built on mountain tops so that it'd have a flat, circular structure to it, and find out how to actually draw the perspective right. I wanted it to look as 'real' as possible, too, to make the pain more severe during the process :).
I think I should post it all here to see if anyone has any help or experience to offer, or just to raise inspiration among anyone interested in the same things.

I know very little about the technical side of drawing, I barely know my way through a 2-point perspective drawing... lately I've been trying out a third vanishing point for vertical lines. These past few days have been raising a bunch of question in me.

So, I'll just guide you through the sketches I started with:

1. This is the 'crappy sketch' as BG calls it. Fast idea on pencil to start figuring out how the circular perspective can be achieved.



2. I painted a color sketch while i was scanning the thing in, and later combined the two to see how it would start working out.



3. So, now we're getting to business. I did a big circle with smaller ones inside it. I did it inside a square 1:1 image to see it was a perfect circle, circular marquee was used. (If there's another way in ps5, and I guess there has to be, I'd like to know where it's hidden). Then I put in some perspective vanishing points on top of the pencil sketch.
Then I put squares (they're not exact squares though, measuring them is a mystery to me) around the circular cities in the sketch, and later distorted my circle image via free transform on top of the sketch. this is what it looks like:




4. The thing is, whatever i painted on the circular guides ended up looking like a miniature toy. I thought it was a value problem, but what I found out was the importance of the vertical vanishing point in showing scale and how we perceive this world. Next thing was to scrap the guide I had so far and go again from the start with a vertical vpoint.
this is where we are going:



5. I then went in to just paint some values in, to see what it starts to look like. Stupid, toyish, unreal, yeah. This is where I'm really uncertain to where to go with this.. just struggling to get a hint of something solid in there, something to base the rest of the image on.



6. Progress image, I tried to look the picture with fresh eyes, just paint over and over until it would start going the right direction. Athmospheric perspective seems to give it sense of scale, but the colors are muted and i feel like drawing fog, what if I want the weather to be really clear and sunny?



7. The point of this excercise is to tackle problems, get a hold of new ground. Not paint fog for the 1000th time. I remove the cloudy feel and start punching in brighter colors, more saturated, and see what happens. I had no clue in how to put the curving surface of earth to work with the same 'lens' or perspective guide as the sky station is portrayed in. It's done by eye, I don't know whether or not it should have the same vertical vanishing point so that possible buildings on ground (not that they would be seen from this far) would face straight up or even face 'downwards' in the lowest part of the image.
I put a little more contrast in the darkest shadows of the station since it seems too dim, but it doesn't seem to help with realism and brings back the toy effect. I just don't know enough. The red spaceship is there to bring another problem in sight:
What to do with foreground objects that come really close, having this 'lens' (assuming this could be a photo in the background or parts of it). If I use the same vanishing points, objects that come close get really distorted, it gives an enormous fish eye-effect and looks very artificial. How do I go about measuring the correct set of vanishing points, by eye? That's what i did, I can't think of a solution to it. From this point on, this picture is raising more problems than answers, I don't know what direction to take it to.





Thanks for taking the time to read this far, if you did :). I have a question to the matte painters here, in case you don't wanna bite in to the problem at hand:
What kind of ways are the most beneficial or should be stressed in the route to learning to paint mattes? There was no photo included in my attempt, should I have had one, or try to achieve the realistic results without photos first, before hiding behind them? I'm not sure if I even know what to ask, any thoughts in this would be absorbed to the last comma. Thanks :)

[The Magic Pen]

Neat

[aColdOldKodiak]

It's interesting to see something that looks like it should be right... look wrong. I personally have not done anything near the level of a matte painting so I can't help you with the painting . But I did notice this, the station's circular parts in perspective look like they'd be the same size as the come closer to view. But when you look at the picture the top looks bigger than the other one, even though perspectively it should be the same size. The distortion of the perspective isn't quite working somewhere, and thus makes it more confusing. You might have already noticed that, but... if it helps might as well say it.

[Hunago]

hey nice one, kudos for taking on such a challenging perspective subject.

I stared at it for a while, remebered that some other perspective paintings have their vanish points positioned further out/down, even as far as 2~3 times the painting's length. that will reduce the camera-view distortion, which might help a bit? not sure in this case though.

also, the spokes get thinner closer to the axel, perhaps that makes them look more fragile and unable to support weight of the out ring?

Awesome work on the clouds and coastal landscape =) thanks for sharing.

[Sumaleth]

Very, very interesting. Can't wait to see it continue to develop.

[Torstein Nordstrand]

Nice effort, Gecko. This is an area I too try to avoid, it's a daunting task. I think what might be wrong in your attempt here is that the vanishing points are too close to the image boundaries. If I remember correctly, things look very distorted by using a wide "cone of vision". I think if you go back to number 3 and crop that image where you've painted the background, it will look more natural, as the VPs will stretch further to the sides. I think.

Oh, and to make a perfect circular selection in PS, hold down Shift while click/drawing. If you press and hold Space, you can move the selction, and release Space to resize again. You can also hold down ALT to make the selection from a center point. All these functions can be used simultaneously, try it!

[Max]

That looks very good Gecko.
Great idea to show us the steps.

[ahw]

Aww, I feel stupid giving *you* advice, but maybe it will help ? Please take anything I write here with IMHO put everywhere

Your first problem is the position of the vanishing points.
The vertical vanishing point should be close to the bottom of the picture when you are almost totally looking down (dunno the name of this type of perspective in english, we call it plungeing perspective in French).
But in your case, this isnt appropriate (I believe), as I believe your space station is almost at your vision level.

To give you an idea, when you are doing a normal 2 points perspective, the vertical vanishing point is placed at the bottom, with an infinite distance. This is why all your vertical lines are parallel.
Now when you camera angle is tilting to look down, the vanishing point comes closer.
I am a bit fuzzy on the numbers, but I believe a 45� tilt would be what you have when the vertical vanishing point is at the bottom of your pic. After that, well, I have a feeling you enter into a 1 point perspective, but I have to try it out before I can be sure

What I do know, is that in the case of your last picture, your vertical vanishing point is way too close. Compared to what I believe is the pitch angle you are trying to depict.

Another problem you mention is the curvature of the Earth. I think you have put way too much of it.
To give you a sense of scale, and IIRC, one degree (one 360th of the circumference) of the Earth measures 100 or so kilometers.
That means that even for a thousand kilometers, you are still only looking at a 36th of a circle, which is not that much of curvature.

Similarly, you want to be careful about the vertical scale. As you mention, it would be hard to think that you could see buildings from this high, but even mountains dont look very high ! After all, the tallest doesnt reach 10km, and with the perspective you have chosen, it means you are looking at a zone several thousands km...

Last thing I thought of, there is no clouds in space. I know it has nothing to do with the perspective issue, but hey, I had to say it.
With the beautiful sky you have drawn, you suggest that we are still inside the atmosphere, quite low, in fact, as IIRC cirrus clouds would be around 10 km high (and they are the highest)
This also mean that from this height we couldnt be seeing that much curvature of the Earth (not in one go, given our field of vision, but of course if you turn around, yeah)

Lastly, maybe you can look for references on the Net ?


Hopefully I said something helpful ?
//edit : d'oh! Me and BB tags...

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: ahw ]

[worthless_meat_sack]

Boy, that is a really ambitious project!

Most of the matte painters that I have seen work use massive amounts of reference, some cannot paint if they are not under a projector (!) Even some big names.

I think this is way too far out on the God side of things (nothing to start with) for a beginning. Most matte artists do simpler stuff at first and then gradually increase the amount of stuff the make up. A really simple set extension would be great to start with, and you learn so much. But something like this there are just way to many unknowns that you cannot even start reasoning with something that you know to be true.

Maybe it is just my own weariness of the matte thing that I would suggest doing something more original, and I know that suits your sensibility as well. Find some good photography and do something to it, but no futuristic cityscapes, please! I can�t help with that, I will become ill.

In the old days at ILM, the budgets of a lot of these shows allowed the model shop to make incredible models for the matte artists. Then they were photographed and printed up a big as you wanted. So if it exists, find a photo. If it doesn�t build a model. 3-d has taken over from the model shop, I guess.

As you get more experience, you will need less and less ref, but you are taking more of a chance that way. Most beginning matte artists need precise ref, and even use it by projecting and copying shapes. As you get better, ref is still very welcome, but it does not have to be precise, and you can interpret things a lot more. Things and lighting situations I have done a lot of I can wing it pretty OK. The ID background has really helped being able to reason through why things photograph the way they do.

The kind of thought process awh uses is very good! That is the way you have to think.

[Leo]

Gecko, in my opinion you're falling too much into the technical side. Design your painting first then go for pesp check/guides etc. In the beginning paint by eye, don't worry about math. Remember that mp is just an illusion (moreover it's a part of the shot). When sketching try to catch right values and lighting. I found them both important. You can do slightly twisted persp and nobody will notice it, but when you use wrong lighting and values the illusion will be lost. Use refs - very helpful. Use any 3d software for the layout grids or those persp tricks posted by eyewoo. Finally, keep in mind I'm not a mp, just a dude. I've started a quick repaint but it turned into the totally different thing so I post it in the finished works. =)

Good luck,

-leo

[Gecko]

a coldoldkodiak + hunago + torstein nordstrand + ahw:

you are very right about the vanishing point issue. i did some pencil studies of buildings around helsinki.. a coal factory, some old decorative balcony etc. i've been neglecting life drawing, the vanishing points can easily be put a long way out of the painting, not near the edges, no way. that's definitely one reason behind the stupid feel on the pic.

that will immediately fix the close-to-camera object distortion as well. now how simple was that to come up with?? :)

ahw, your second paragraph makes very much sense, frighteningly much to be honest. that's just the kind of thoughts I lack, putting some borders and rules to it all, simplifying things down and eliminating as much of the problem as possible.
the same things go on with the curvature of earth and height of mountains. very nice, thank you.
oh yes and the clouds versus how much curvature is seen. that iss photo makes too much sense, no wonder my painting is off scale :).
thank you ahw.

meat_sack:
very interesting. I think I'm looking matte painters too much up thinking everything is created from scrath, although I know the parts of photos are always there. I guess the using gimmicks to get the work done fights against the sijun-given practise-all-you-can thought.
I now see (to some extent) how funny my approach is to this painting, but I'm happy I've bitten something so big it really is worth pondering and practising to get done, even if just some day. it all started here, this day.. hehe.

Models, reference, projecting.. I'm going to need some deadlines that force me into this. I think though, practising it slowly, going by reference, sometimes not, teaches me other side of things, another approach. how to come up with something that isn't there. Painting from life will ease the pain, I hope. Then there are the secrets of trade, the faster, the commonly used ways, they can't be ignored either.
I think I'm going to build some kind of a model myself to get some kind of know-how. 3d comes when it absolutely has to, no shortcuts until I get paid. I will learn 3D, but for a different reason, it's not there to hide some area I didn't want to learn.

It's easier to accept the results when you reveal some of the magic behind the professional matte painters. Bringing it down to Earth for others. Even if you did it just to not crush my dreams and let me find out on my own ;). Really, matte painting, naturalistic painting, going towards realism, these are fascinating things for me right now, I will pursue them, inhaling as much as possible.
These bits of shared experience are the few things to hang on to, thanks for them.

what kind of things did industrial design reveal then, I didn't follow with that.

leo:
great to see you painted something because of someone elses thread :). You make me think, too. I understand how much it limits to have the perspective set up, and trying to color between lines with the right values... it's much harder than with an open canvas. Putting in a starting perspective by eye will come with time, i believe. That way the construction won't get all attention.

To try and tackle both value and perspective problems in a same painting, would require much more planning. I had a color sketch.. one single sketch that was crappy to start with. Then again, I was invading new ground with the grids, doing-by-hand so time wasn't totally wasted on it. But yes, you make an important point of the illusion that counts, no doubt there. I wasn't going full on for the values as I should have, other things had me sidetracked.

whooha. I had to read all a couple of times to get to an answer, was well worth it. I'll go read it all again now. cya.

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Gecko ]

[ahw]

At first when I read Gecko's post, I wasnt exactly sure what the problem was.
But I wanted to try and understand, so I did a few attempts myself.

Hey ! I *had* to give it a try !

But seriously, I have a very strong feeling this thread is on to something.

Think about it, why do we learn that a plungeing perspective is always 3 vanishing points ?
I was stuck with that when I saw a little drawing in another thread (about perspectives) : we dont need 3 vanishing points !
The vertical V.Pt is there to help give the illusion of tilting forward (when it's placed under the horizon).
The usual 2 horizontal waypoints are just there because we are depicting 2 sets of parallel lines that are diagonal to our viewpoint.
It's kinda hard to explain, sadly.

Maybe you can see what I am talking about with this :


The two ships/cubes are tilted from the POV of the viewer, their bearing are not parallel to that of the viewer (I realize now, this means they should have V.Pts that dont match with the point of focus...)
So I used two V.Pts to show the tilt.

But what if I want to draw a ship that flies straight from the POV of the viewer ?
Well, it seems logical that their wouldnt be any need for a secondary horizontal VPt, right ?

I dunno about you, but I have a feeling that their is a circle somewhere in there, centered around the point of focus (where the yellow lines meet)...

I am convinced now that the vertical V.Pt (actually, there could be more) is only used to show that the camera is tilting. Downwards when the V.Pt is down, upwards when it's up. The amount of pitch being relative to distance of the V.Pt from the point of focus.

I just cant put a finger on it.

Can someone see where I am going ?

(did I mention I have no experience whatsoever in matte painting ? I just thought it would be fun to take up a challenge )

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: ahw ]

[Gecko]

I'm going to need to think about that more closely tomorrow, right now I can't get hold of your thought process.