Perspective Video Alternatives to Erik Olson?

[Anonymous No.3538766]

I was spoiled by watching the Marshall Vandruff video lectures first. The guy is so clear and able to intuit evey question that may arise it is almost magic. Sadly its a fantastic conceptual overview but he doesnt provide much in the way of practical detail, examples or exercises. I dont feel able to go off and do complex or advanced perspective work.

As for Erik Olson, God love him for putting so much time and detail into his course but the guy is just not great at explaining his concepts.
He seems to think that if he just repeats the same unclear statement over and over (and over) it will clarify itself eventually. He even says as much at times. After a while it just becomes genuinely stressful for me.
While I would gladly have a beer with him, I can barely stand to watch his course. So its taking me forever.
Problem is I havent found anyone else that goes into as much detail.
Scott Robertsons book, despite its many recommendations and enthusiastic students is dry as sand, and actually not THAT well explained either and seems to tailor his presentation to create a direct route to “vehicles” and “environments” for concept design. He also skips a ton of stuff that Erik and Marshall cover.

I do ok with books but much better after a decent live or video course.

Tl;dr: Is there a magic bullet perspective video course thats as detailed as Erik Olsons, but as clear as Marshal Vandruff?

[Anonymous No.3538776]

>>3538766
>Scott Robertsons book, despite its many recommendations and enthusiastic students is dry as sand, and actually not THAT well explained

I'm gonna stand by Robertson here, he explains enough for you to take on the end of chapter example problems which are where most of your progress is supposed to take place.

Its focus on environments and utility for cars is a natural byproduct of "These are the biggest gains that perspective is going to give you", other possible fields like figure drawing are quicker learned through the human form and through gesture and anatomy.

It being dry is in large part because perspective is a dry subject; it's really hard to make "Lines of convergence meet at a horizon line equivalent to your eye level" something anyone normal would call "fun". Think of it more like "Visiting your doc for a checkup", where it's not fun, but you do it because it keeps you healthy and productive; the things that would make a doctor's appointment fun, much like the things that make studying perspective fun, slow down the proceedings or have nothing to do with what you're trying to accomplish.

[Anonymous No.3538794]

Robertson gnomon videos. If you don't pick up perspective from those, you're a lost cause

[Anonymous No.3538798]

>>3538776
I appreciate your considered reply. You’re right I’m sure.
Case in point - after Marshall’s vids, which I found fun to watch, I am not that much farther along. But I do find it easier to absorb material I read in books more readily as a resukt of having watched them. But perspective books... ugh.
If you look at Olson, he spends hours and gives like 20 demos just on measuring in One-point. The same for elipses. But the way he talks and explains things is just brutal. (No disrespect to him intended).

What first threw me about Robertson was his explanation of elipses. He directly seemed to contradict Vandruff/D’amelio (about where the curves touch the sides of a box - if you placed your elipse within one). He says to ignore the major axis whereas Vandruff did a great explanation showing how the major axis actually falls below the center line of a box in perspective.

I would brush it off except that in a number of Robertsons car sketches I felt that his wheels/elipses actually look a bit wonky compared Vandruff as a result of this major axis stuff.

Or I could be totally confused.

Anyway, I do plan to slog through Robsertsons book.

[Anonymous No.3538809]

>>3538794

Its not that I dont understand as much as its very fast tracked in order to get you drawing those cars and doesnt drill down conceptually. Compare with Olson and you would know what I mean.

Im smart AND retarded at the same time. I can slog through almost anything and progress like a snail. But the right explanation, if it clicks, can trigger rapid, exponential progress for me.

As far as I know there is one 2 hour introductory gnomon lecture that was available on a dvd. The rest are all rendering. There is now a 6 hour Gary Meyer (i believe his name was) course on there - last time I checked.
I found the intro or basic Robertson one on CGpeers but could only find rendering ones besides that.

What am I missing? Where to find?

[Anonymous No.3538821]

>>3538794
Oh I see the other ones - how to draw cars, planes and hovercraft.

Im sure they are great.

If you want to be place people and objects in, say, a theater, train station or in a forrest at different levels, angles and in correct perspective etc.. would you have to look elsewhere?

[Anonymous No.3538925]

>>3538809
sorry you're not smart, just retarded

[Anonymous No.3538930]

>>3538925
Thanks man. Although I do have a masters degree. But that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

[Anonymous No.3538937]

>>3538766
Olson's a tough pill to swallow, but so worth it imo. No other perspective teacher will give you the broad info and very important repetition he does, as well as some fascinating little bits of knowledge on the history of the art industry. It won't improve your art instantly, but it's a big boost in the long run.
Just put on some Lofi hip hop mix - Beats to Relax/Study to [2018]™, take notes and try to get into the flow of things (1.5x speed recommended).

[Anonymous No.3538996]

>>3538930
can confirm. I have a master degree and I'm a low iq subhuman.
It took me nearly one month to understand the loomis head.

[Anonymous No.3539002]

By the way, Olson is pretty much the only one to do 3 pts in details with the "calcul" side.
if you guys know someone else who does tell me pls

[Anonymous No.3539155]

>>3539002

[Anonymous No.3539172]

>>3539155
it's actually easy :^)

[Anonymous No.3539176]

>>3539002
>>3539172
>art
>math
I didn't sign up for this

[Anonymous No.3539204]

>>3539172
Pretty cool actually. Hope Im not too retarded when I get there.

[Anonymous No.3539246]

>>3539172
Yes, it's easy. So easy that I wonder why you would dedicate that much effort to it. The idea of focusing on picture planes and then judging if something is 1,2 or 3 point perspective in relation to it seems like an attempt to try and make something that is simple overly complicated.

[Anonymous No.3539290]

>>3539246
picture plane doesn't matter it's just here to show the tilt between HL and CV

[Anonymous No.3539301]

>>3539290
>picture plane doesn't matter
While I think the entire thing is pointless, if you try to tell Olson that the picture plane doesn't always matter I bet you would fail his class. It's like the foundation upon which all the other stuff is build.

[Anonymous No.3539323]

>>3539301
Im only talking about the pic here >>3539172

[Anonymous No.3539326]

>>3539301
Fuck are you on about?

[Anonymous No.3539329]

>>3539323
So was I.

[Anonymous No.3539361]

>>3539002
What the fuck is going on

[Anonymous No.3539365]

Vandruff is working on a new perspective with Proko.
I won't come out anytime soon tho.

[Anonymous No.3539388]

>>3539002
>if you guys know someone else who does tell me pls
handprint does this same thing too. but you will notice that Erik for reasons i don't remember prefers marking the 60* CoV whereas handprint marks the 90* CoV, and then uses that circle to derive the relative SP for each of the 3 """"horizons"""" that connect the 3 VPs

[Anonymous No.3539412]

>>3539002
"calcul" side? what does that even mean? I don't see anything different in this picture.

[Anonymous No.3539447]

>>3538766
How can you be so fucking clueless?

[Anonymous No.3539451]

>>3538809
>i’m smart because I learn very slowly unless someone is a fantastic teacher that is amazing at getting things through my thick skull

[Anonymous No.3539496]

>>3538766
Where can I find this Olson dude to watch for free?
Preferably DDL and not torrent.

>>3538809
>Im smart AND retarded at the same time.
I am just retarded, I watched Vandruff, read D'amelio and perspective made easy, Halfway through Glen White's perspective for architects and artists.
Read through David Chelsea's perspective for artists and now halfway through his extreme perspective.
Planing to go on reading Robertson and Cheseman vanishing point.
And after all that reading I am no fucking closer to fully understanding perspective.
Its like each of those books touch on various concepts but never goes the full length explaining perspective from A to Z.
I feel the only thing I can do atm is two point perspective and its assuming the vanishing points do not go outside the sheet of paper.

[Anonymous No.3539528]

Literally all you need to know is basic 3 point perspective and distance measuring skills maybe some atmospheric perspective knowledge too. After that it's just practice and intuitive learning. Everyone I know who has gone through this 900 hour course understands everything about perspective and could draw a perfect box and tell you every little thing about perspective but they suck ass at drawing. Learn the basics of perspective and then learn how to construct with perspective via Scott Robertson's method. That's all you need. Don't waste so much time getting bogged down with this shit instead of drawing.

[Anonymous No.3539536]

>>3538766
As to your question, no, I don't think there is.

Think of it this way - remember when Vandruff said
"Don't write this down! You'll find all this stuff along with exercises in the books, right now I need you to pay attention so you /get it/."

When he refers to "the book", imagine he's talking about Scott Robertson. Listen to the lecture, do Scott's exercises and you should be fine.

[Anonymous No.3539552]

>>3538766
Scott Robertson is actually the best one if you want to learn perspective for drawing purposes.

If you learn with Erik Olson there is just 50+ hours of video content. Copying what he does is not real practice either. With Scott Robertson the entire book + some of the video content won't take you more than 10 hours.

10 hours of educational content + 40 hours of practice and you will be 10 times better as an artist than with 50 hours of educational content.

[Anonymous No.3539570]

>protip: watch olsons videos at 1.7x speed and his digital drawover at 2.x speed. this way you wont fall asleep!

[Anonymous No.3539646]

>>3539552
I couldnt get past the “finding vanishingbpoints on the picture plane” in the introductory chapter. The first definitions and walk-through of a set up was amazingly clear. Then this “finding vanishing points..” thing which inexplicably switched to mixing front and plan view with the “flipped down” station point with no explanation of how we got there and what was going on - the same “flipped down” SP Olson was incapable of explaning in his introductory material (he literally says “just trust me for now dont worry if you dont get it” but goes on and on about it).
After this seeming introductory nonsequitir he switches again with no segway into extending boxes which is easy again.

This “flipped down” station point shit (and why both olson and Robertson throw it in at the beginning with no context) is triggering my autism and retardation man.
I get that its a view from above but when they start combining it with the front view (assuming I know what, why, how a top view is available and introduced into the mix), Im like “wtf just happened?!”

God damn. Told you guys Im retarded.

[Anonymous No.3539653]

>>3539451
This is actually fairly acurate. On some subjects. On others Im pretty sharp. Im either a star student/pet or the class retard (usually in mathy and programmy subjects). I never just “get by” it seems.

[Anonymous No.3539664]

>>3539496
Yes thats true. Each book and teacher has a different emPHAsis, and as you say, never seems to go the full length in explaining shit.
Olson just repeats jumbled explanations over and over but does seem to cover everything if you can watch it without killing yourself.

I’ve only seen it on CGPEERS. I’ve also paid NMA for various stretches.

[Anonymous No.3539675]

>>3539570
I’ve done that. Sounds like “Ok. Snif. Blahblahblah. Snif. Blahblah. Just to review, blahblah. Snif. Remember, blah.” But really fast.

Erik Olson. So close yet so far.

[Anonymous No.3539696]

>>3539536
Good advice,

[Anonymous No.3539708]

>>3539653
0/10 be more subtle with bait next time
this isn’t /v/, we have standards here

[Anonymous No.3539713]

>>3539708
Fuck does that even mean? How it bait?

[Anonymous No.3541076]

>>3538766
>Scott Robertsons book
I dont think he even trying to explain 3 point perspective, he does mention it but does not explain shit and by skimping through his book I dont think he even bothers going in depth with 2 point perspective.

Transferring curves on a plane is nice and all but its just another book that does thing halfassedlly.

[Anonymous No.3544041]

>>3539172
holy crap ive been looking for the answer to this question for years. Please somebody explain how the angle of view (pictures on the right) relate to the angles on the cubes (on the left) and how you calculate the 3rd point from this.

[Anonymous No.3544059]

>>3541076
I think it's a lot more he just expects the reader to be able to apply the things he teaches in the most complex ways by giving the simplest examples. Show the student a 20 step process of how to mirror a tilted and reflect plane and next they should be able to freehand sketch a complex mechanical object or interior apparently. It's like telling a kid "6 divided by 3 is 2" and then asking "what's the square root of -7?". There's a lot in between those two things and it isn't a gap so small most will bridge it on their own.

That said, H2D is a thick ass and expensive book and trying to put all the inbetweeny bits will only make it thicker and pricier. But if nothing else it could really do with a workbook a la Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, especially since it's probably going to be held up as a bible of sorts for would-be artists for the next 100 years the same way Perspective Made Easy was.

>>3538766
Pic related

[Anonymous No.3544327]

>>3544041
It's the stationpoint in side view, like the regular station point we use for top view. There are a few ways to make a perfect cube, you'll have to go through the 3 point lectures to fully understand.

[Anonymous No.3545618]

>>3544059

>>3538766 (OP) #
>>Pic related

Yeah, I just started watching that. Right in one of the early vids on definitions he explained something i was bitching about above (the “station point/cov flipping”) very clearly. That it’s basically a plan view and a handy way of finding vanishing points from it. What I didnt realize until then is that Marshall had left that until his last lecture and played it down in terms of importance rather than including it his introductory vocabulary/toolkit like Olson. Hard to explain but it took 4 teachers to make me understand it - not just conceptually but that they were all talking about the same thing.

Marshall and Gary Meyer win for me in terms of clarity and give me the confidence to just focus on them first and then Scott and Erik later or as needed.

[Anonymous No.3545624]

>>3544059
I mean, to be fair, you can't really teach intuition. He already taught you the logic and mechanics behind it, but it's completely up to you to internalize it to the point it becomes intuition

[Anonymous No.3545638]

>>3539646
Cool, I knew I was dumb and seeing people dumber than me is always a moral helper

[Anonymous No.3545651]

>>3545624
OP here. In my experience you’re right, you cant teach intuition. But I think a lot of people who try to teach abstract subjects dont necessarily know where certain basic concepts and logical gaps/leaps start and end - and where extrapolation and pattern recognition (intuition) somewhat naturally arises or collapses from that. At least during *information transfer*. This is less subjective that it may seem at first, but generally only really comes into clear focus when trying to teach skills where the consequences of ignorances are more pronounced, such as with flying planes or surgery.
It really is hit and miss when it comes to being able to intuit this as a teacher, especially in something less dangerous. This is what makes a gifted teacher. But in other areas a lot of effort goes into weeding out hazzardous potential gaps without needlessly complicating or overloading the student.

[Anonymous No.3545655]

>>3545638
Glad I could help.

[Anonymous No.3545940]

>>3538776
>other possible fields like figure drawing are quicker learned through the human form and through gesture and anatomy.

I'm going through the Robertsons book right now. What are some good resources for figure drawing?