/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3519927
There is a way to draw a perfect cube, but the method is different if you are doing it from the front, from 45° or from a random angle and my resource is in my native language so I can't link it to you. But I think you should find the answers to both questions on google.

yes it's basic linear perspective but it's also tedious as fuck since you need decide on the field of view and junk
you're better off reading up about it and then training your critical eye to the point where you can eyeball it for all situations

>>3519927
yeah, it's just linear perspective. Check out handprint.com

>>3519927
there are a few different ways to achieve it depending on the situation, the easiest that doesn't require any perspective knowledge just opening up blender and using the default cube. If you really want to know the specifics I highly recommend Erik Olsen's course, if you have no money handprint elements of perspective is the next best thing, but it's difficult to read.

no.

>>3522205
Yes.

Is it worth doing? Is it necessary?

>>3523071
Yes.

Why would you want to draw cubes anyway?

>>3521186
>easiest way to draw a cube is to not draw a cube
thanks m8

>>3519927
Yes there is
Look at site 49 of How to Draw by Scott robertson he explaines it there
i drew a quick representatioin of to get the surface of the cube

>>3525155
now draw it from another angle

>>3525165
f-fuck you

>>3525165

>>3525085
Brainlet

>>3525447
>>3525197
>>3525155
PHAHAHA Literally NGMI

>>3519927
yes you just draw an hexygon

>>3526898
>fake perspective
you crab

>>3526903
Dumb anon, if you want "real" perspective, just open your eyes and look outside.
Honestly, there's no point in trying to recreate perspective as accurately as possible. Chances are, your painting isn't going to benefit from it, you're better off manipulating the perspective to suit your work.

>>3519927

>>3526999
I don't get it

>>3526999
Wow thanks anon thats actually very helpful

>>3526999
is this loss

>>3526999
explain step 6

>>3526999
I don't understand how you get that angle you used to rotate on 2nd to last, or why you wouldn't just use pic related (swinging the sp into the slope vl to get the 45* vp)?

>>3527119
>>3526999
>>3525447
>>3525197
>>3525155
what is this shit
i just want to draw cute anime girls why do i need this anyway?

>>3527119
>why you wouldn't just use pic related (swinging the sp into the slope vl to get the 45* vp)
Can you logically explain why you think that method works?

In order for two lines to share a single vanishing point, they must share a plane. The diagonals of those two sides do not. They would never intersect in real space.

There is a very easy way to disprove your method. Draw another box placed next to the first box, and see if those diagonals share the same vanishing point.

>>3527116
>explain step 6
Step 6 involves placing the bottom square inside a larger imaginary square that is aligned to our 1 point perspective (i.e. it is not tilted when viewed from above.) That imaginary square is then stood up vertically, making special note of where the corners of the smaller box touches the line of the larger box. A smaller square placed within a larger square and touching all 4 sides, would do so at the same point on all 4 sides. Therefore we can extrapolate the actual length of the lines of the smaller square at the point closest to us, without the effects of perspective. It is rotated until it is perfectly vertical, and used to find the rest of the sides of the cube.

This all seems more convoluted than it really is, and this method can be done without specialized drafting tools or trigonometry. A single triangle would suffice.

>>3527130
You don't need this.

>>3527516
>They would never intersect in real space.
I misworded this. I meant to say they would not share the same vanishing point, since they are not parallel to each other in real space.

>>3519927

Yes. On a perfect cube, the diagonals of any face, when drawn, produce a halfway point at the cross.

This automatically defines a vertical and horizontal subdivision for the rectangular shape, based merely on drawing the vertical line to the edges and wrapping it around.

When drawing freehand, you have a cube when these two subdivisions, plus one further one on the axis you didn’t check, all cross the midpoint lines of one another.

>>3527516
>>3527531


In perspective, all parallel lines even if they aren't visible recede in space to 1 vanishing point, (unless the lines are completely parallel with the image plane).

I transferred the same cube from pic related, and it works the same way, all the 45* go to the same vanishing points. You probably drew the cube outside of the 60* circle of view and that's why yours doesn't look like a cube.

>>3527531
>>3527632
In perspective, all parallel lines even if they aren't visible recede in space to 1 vanishing point, (unless the lines are completely parallel with the image plane).

I transferred the same cube from pic related, and it works the same way, all the 45* go to the same vanishing points. You probably drew the cube outside of the 60* circle of view and that's why yours doesn't look like a cube.

Also you use the vertical 45* vps, the same way in making a 3 point cube.

>>3527516
>>3527531

In perspective, all parallel lines even if they aren't visible recede in space to 1 vanishing point, (unless the lines are completely parallel with the image plane).

I transferred the same cube from pic related, and it works the same way, all the 45* go to the same vanishing points. You probably drew the cube outside of the 60* circle of view and that's why yours doesn't look like a cube.

Also you use the vertical 45* vps, the same way in making a 3 point cube.>>3525447

No.

>>3529750
yes

Nice.

Nice.