So in the panel where the guy is kind of floating - is it wrong because the horizon passes through his neck, and not his face like everyone else? Or is it wrong because his feet are built off a guy's midsection? Both, I'm guessing.
In the panel where he's illustrating "multiple planes" - I'm not gleaning any new info there. Can someone explain these guidelines?
Cuz if I'm right about the floating guy, then I shouldn't use attach midsections to heads. But Loomis is doing it here.
in left-down, the only problem with the background guy is that he's slightly taller than the other guys, altought most probably the error loomis is trying to show is that sombody pretended to draw the 3 guys aligned but fucked it up.
in right-down, can't see shit, but i'm assuming he moved the height over the labeled "measuring line" to show how tall would be the guy, if he wouldn't be over the stairs.
>>2531366
Nah background guy is too short. and so is your guy since you based his perspective hieght off of the incorrect bg guy
>>2531371
sorry, but this doesn't make no sense.
>>2531398
So the idea is you draw a line to a point on the horizon from the top, and bottom of a figure.
Every figure will be in perspective if he fits within those lines.
The RED line hits our foreground figure below his crotch. This should be true for our background figure as well.
But its not. Our background figure's FEET are touching the red line. He's too short.
In my image blue is correct perspective. Yellow is incorrect. Yellow is too short.
>>2531416
Other anon here.
Doesn't that explanation only work if the background figure is meant to be on the same path as the one you used to draw the blue lines? Its feet are on another perspective line, so it's quite possible that it isn't meant to gel perfectly with mr. blue. No?
And for bottom right.
He's explaining that the measuring line must extend down (from the top of the stairs) to the figure's new surface plane.
You keep the top line.
In this image Red is correct, blue is incorrect
>>2531440
The explanation would only NOT work if he was at a different elevation. Like in the bottom right image.
We know he is at the same elevation because the horizon passes through his neck/chin. As it does with all of the figures.
The exception being the female who is shorter than the measuring line. Explained in the bottom middle image.
Look at the other thumbnails in the OG image.
Notice how whenever a figure breaks the horizon line, every other figure breaks the horizon line at the (appx.) same place on their body?
"Path" won't effect this system. Elevation will.
>>2531416
as already said, this is true only for a line of perfecty aligned blue guys. red line can plausibly represent a different position on the ground
>>2531441
2 of your red guys are actually correct
the requirement is that for 2 guys of the same height and at the same level, the line defined by the top of their heads, and the line defined by the base of their feet, cross precisely at the horizon line.
>>2531465
>red line can plausibly represent a different position on the ground
so, if it did, the only way to make that odd guy look right, would be to add a new fellow, consistent with that line?
this might be helpful
>>2531474
wut? it doesn't look wrong, for starters, but if you feel he does, some environmental cues should do the trick
also, for non trivial perspective, you better do it first in some 3d modeling tool, which is much easier and faster than this archaic method
>>2531292
Thanks OP, I was stuck on this page just yesterday and the explanations here clarified everything
