HOME | DD
VinceAndrews — Spacedogs3-pg28
#andrews #comic #comicbook #ink #pen #scifi #vince #spacedogs #art
Published: 2015-07-20 12:46:39 +0000 UTC; Views: 837; Favourites: 20; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Next page: Spacedogs3-pg29Previous page: Spacedogs3-pg27
First page: Spacedogs3-pg1
If you're new to Spacedogs, here's a link to Chapter 1
© vince andrews 2014 - 2015
Related content
Comments: 23
The figures moving down the slope in profile look too compared to the others given the distance between them. Using a cone of recession (two perspective lines receding to a vanishing point - one line for the head and one for the feet forming a cone to fit the figures in) you can figure out exactly what size the figure in question should be at any given distance from the others.
It's good to have a method for extrapolating the sizes of each figure based on a key somewhere in the middle or foreground. Use perspective lines, horizon line and vanishing point to extrapolate/interpolate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, assuming the ground is level that works 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Assuming the ground is level? LOL. No. Perspective doesn't depend on that. This is a basic problem with a basic solution. It's a very simple solution. And you'll benefit from figuring it out yourself, or reading through any book by Loomis.
As for aesthetics versus mathematics - where realism is concerned, they're in the same ballpark. So, here the issue isn't about choosing sides in the conflict between aesthetics and mathematics - it's about being competent with the concepts of dividing space and proportions and being able to apply them to produce credible illusions of distance.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm familiar with the technique. Yes assuming the ground is level and all your characters are the same height, then that method works very well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Familiar as a dilettante who read about it in a book, once? Or, knowledgeable and skilled in its use as a professional illustrator?
The ground doesn't have to be level and the characters don't have to be the same height. If that were the case, the technique would be useless. Take some time to learn how to apply it.
Here's a start
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's my whole point illustrated right there. The figure in the back is not as far away as you assume because the ground isn't level. It slopes up.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes. I can see that. It still looks off, which is why I'm saying it's good to check these things mechanically/methodically/technically - by measuring. All it means is that there is a discrepancy in the visual cues. So which ones are right and which ones are wrong? Determine by measurement and make the correction.
In this case, it looks as if the back rider is either the same size or bigger than one that we know to be closer to the viewer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah I see what you're saying. That's an optical illusion. If you measure from the shoulder to the ankle you'll see their actual spatial relationship.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Here's a better one. 1) Line up all your ducks in a row, including the last one on the hill. 2) draw perspective lines from the top and bottom of each receding to a vanishing point on the horizon. That locates the distance each one is from the eye of the viewer. 3) copy the last one and put him on the hill. In that position he must be the right size and proportions IF the new location is on the same plane - the same distance from the eye - on which you drew him. And he HAS TO BE smaller than the one preceding him. I wager that when done correctly, there will be no optical illusion, except for that of everything being in proper perspective.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
very kind, means a lot coming from you
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Great layout. Great use of perspective and foreshortening on those critters...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thanks! spent a lot of time on them
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wow this page absolutely rocks, I can't wait to see it in colour!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The movement on those pack animals is soooo well done.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
