Talk:Perspective (graphical)

message: I've just merged all the information from Linear perspective in to Perspective (graphical). It's a real mess right now, but I'll be cleaning it up over the next few days. I'm also going to be re-writing a lot of the information so it's actaully understandable to a unexperienced person. Since no one has touched either article in a year, I hope no one will mind. Zhatt 22:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made linear perspective redirect here, rather then have the same information on two pages.  Tried to clean up the whole One-point et cetera sections.  There is certainly no reason to have the information on another page, when it works well as part of the general perspective page.  Sir Isaac Lime 14:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: The article references Van Eyck, but it doesn't say which one.  Wikipedia already has two, and both painters, so which one is it?  The name should also be a link. -Volfy 04:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Van Eyck 

message: I added a cleanup tag to this article as it's not following the manual of style in some areas and it's not really telling the reader what perspective is. It talks a lot about where it comes from, how to make it and why it works, but not what it is.
I've been drawing for some time now, and one of my favorite things to do is a strong perspective, but I don't understand half of what's being said in this article. The average person should be able to read this article and have a good understanding of the concept of perspective. I mean, there's barely even mention of the horizon in this article!
I also recreated the linear perspective article as all the content that was once that article has been edited out of this one. 
A lot of work needs to be done on these articles. Maybe I'll be able to start on some of it later.
Zhatt 20:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, a lot of the content that I thought was edited out was, in fact, and old vandal. I reverted, but there's still a lot to be done. Zhatt 20:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the tag - it looks to me like these issues have been addressed. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup Tag 

message: Removed the following text:
:freehand sketching aided by instruments.A photograph automatically shows a scene with correct perspective for the location of the camera. It follows that an artist wishing tp paint a picture of the scene with true perspective needs only to draw an accurate copy of the photograph. If his painting  is to be of a different size from that of the photograph he must accurately scale it  up or down. This may easily be done by using a Proportional Divider, sometimes called  a Variscaler, set to give the scaling ratio which is required to fit the scene on to his painting support
As I see it, the problems are: 
*A photograph is not technically correct perspective, it is simply what looks most correct to us. A photograph is technically spherically warped (as can bee seen when multiple photos are put together to make a larger picture.)
*It is not technically constructing perspective, it is simply copying a previous perspective construction.  In the same vein, a xerox machine could be listed if you use it to make copies of a perspective drawing.
I moved it to its own item (cut down), but even that may be unnecessary. Sir Isaac Lime 21:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: variscalar

message: (copied this over from Talk:Perspective_projection after merging --Allefant 19:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I think the [Perspective projection]] should probably just be merged & redirected into Perspective (graphical), just as linear perspective was.  They all discuss the exact same thing.  The "projection" template actually seems to be the main thing that Perspective projection has that Perspective (graphical) does not.  The template, however, seems less important than the information that is already at the head of the article (the diagram of perspective & the table of contents).  Perhaps it should be slipped into the "basic concept" section?Sir Isaac Lime 14:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think there's actually no information in the current Perspective projection text which is not already here, also the figure doesn't seem to fit the paragraph besides it. The list of concepts likely isn't that useful either as they are already used in the article (I think they all are), and that external spanish link should go away anyway. So the merge should be rather trivial. Whether or not Template:Views is really needed is another question - I'd just place it on Perspective (graphical) initially, and if it's not liked, maybe it should eventually be phased out from all articles who currently have it. --Allefant 15:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge (Perspective Projection) 

message: I removed most of the external links. World of Escher is a commercial site that sells posters or something, two other links had only Spanish text. In general I see little point in putting examples of various types of perspective into the external links. If more illustrations would be helpful, they should be taken from free images and integrated into the article.—Graf Bobby 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: This section is a little bit unclear. The image could use an example of a projection where foreshortening does not occur. SharkD (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreshortening

message: I believe the historical section jumps too quickly from classic Greece to the Middle Ages.
There are several examples of Roman frescoes with excellent one point perspective:
http://www.didaskalia.net/studyarea/visual_resources/rometemp3d.html
Others can be found with a search for Skenographia or house of Augustus.
I have tested sight lines on a couple, and they demonstrate that the Romans had a fine understanding that the lines should meet at one point at eyelevel.
Carpets (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be great to have more info on Roman perspective.  Are there any articles you can find that discuss Roman perspective?Sir Isaac Lime (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The article is indeed flawed on this point. Perspective was not a post-medieval invention, but rather a technique developed in the Ancient world whose popularity waned to the extent that the concept essentially had to be rediscovered during the Renaissance. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Perspective 

message: Fourth and fifth perspectives should be added..Mohamed Magdy (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th and 5th perspectives  

message: The section "Example" seems to be referring to a picture that is not present on the page. It refers to the "gray lines", the "orange line". etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.77.148.61 (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture missing? 

message: Specifically this part:
As the result when made into an infinite point version (i.e. when the amount of vanishing points exceeds the minimum amount required), a four point perspective image becomes a panorama that can go to a 360 degree view and beyond - when going beyond the 360 degree view the artist might depict an "impossible" room as the artist might depict something new when it's supposed to show part of what already exists within those 360 degrees.
This sentence seems to be missing a lot of punctuation, among other issues. "As the result" what? Try to simplify this sentence by removing sections that shouldn't change the overall meaning of the sentence (parenthetical remarks, for example, and anything after that misplaced hyphen).
As the result when made into an infinite point version, a four point perspective image becomes a panorama that can go to a 360 degree view and beyond.
Still confusing. Should there be a comma after "as the result"? If that's the case then "a four point perspective" doesn't make sense.
As a result of this sentence being confusing, I'm posing this "talk" section. As the result of this sentence being confusing is this talk section being posted I'd suggest changing it. In fact, I'd change the sentence to not begin with "as the result" since that obviously made my last sentence confusing too. Also I'm having a hard time figuring out how "as the result" can fit into a sentence that doesn't include the word "of" or "is" immediately following.
If I understood what this sentence was trying to say I'd go ahead and fix the run-on and fix the wording. Perhaps "A four point perspective, when made into an infinite point version, becomes a panorama with a view angle of 360 degrees and beyond." The sentence fragment after the hyphen is far more clear, though could still use a bit of rewording. --StarkRG (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing wording and run-on sentences 

message: 1. There is no evidence, as far as I know, that Giotto used an "algebraic means" to determine the spacing of the transversals.
2. The statement that "the apparent distance between a series of evenly spaced lines actually falls off with a sine dependence" is simply not true.  "Sine" should read "inverse quadratic".
3. I also object the assertion that "To determine the ratio for each succeeding line, a recursive ratio must be used.[6]"  The Bott's recursive formula is very cumbersome to use.  For example it you want to determine the spacing of the 15th and 16th transversals you have to do 15 iterations.  A simple algebraic formula is available (when the viewing distance and the height of the 'eye' are given.  But these data or their equivalents are also needed to apply Bott's formula.)  Therefore the word "must" in the original statement is misleading.
laotou@verizon.net  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.227.193 (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Although of course many say they just took it from the Indians.... Johnbod (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know that. The source I was reading was focusing on the relationship between Islamic and European perspective. It does make sense, however, when I am reading what was already written in the article. What I was just wanting to make clear was where it all came from. If the chain doesn't stop in the Islamicate world, then that is also worthy noting.--MartinezIJV (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematics 

message: 1) "A two-point drawing would have lines parallel to two different angles" 
Lines can not be parallel to angles, only to other lines.
I can see what the writer intended to convey: the notion of two distinct vanishing points with two sets of lines converging on the two points, respectively.  (There would be a constant angle between any line from the first set and any line from the second set, which I suspect was the idea underlying the use of "two different angles", although to introduce angles at all in this part of the description probably introduces unnecessary and confusing geometrical ideas).
Perhaps something like the following would be better:
"A two-point drawing would have distinct sets of parallel lines converging on two different vanishing points"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.113.48 (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaningless sentences 

message: None of this says anything about linear perspective nor does it relate to Perspective in the sense of  the article. I may have left too much. Prior to the Renaissance, Alhazen (al-Hasan Ibn al-Haytham, d. ca. 1041 AD), in his Book of Optics (Kitab al-manazir; known in Latin as De aspectibus or Perspectiva, written in 1021), explained that light projects conically into the eye. Alhazen's geometrical, physical, physio-psychological optics resolved in this the ancient dispute between the mathematicians (Ptolemaic and Euclidean) and the physicists (Aristotelian) over the nature of vision and light.  He also showed that vision is not merely a phenomenon of pure sensation (namely what results from the introduction of light rays into the eyes), but that it involves the faculties of judgment, imagination and memory. Alhazen's geometrical model of the cone of vision was theoretically sufficient to translate visible objects within a given setting into a painting, and this was also supported by his experimental affirmation of the visibility of spatial depth; hence of offering a proper ground for the idea of perspective. Moreover, Alhazen presented a geometrical conception of place as spatial extension  (a postulated void), and he refuted the Aristotelian account of topos as a surface of containment. Alhazen's mathematical definition of place was more akin to Plato's notion of Khôra or Chora as  'space', yet conceived on pure geometric grounds to facilitate the use of projections. In all of this, Alhazen was concerned with optics, with vision, light and the nature of colour, as well as with experimentation and the use of optical instruments, and not with painting as such. Conical translations are mathematically difficult, so a drawing constructed using them would be incredibly time consuming. However, what Alhazen named a cone of vision (makhrut al-shu'a') corresponded also with the idea of a pyramid of vision, hence, offering a model that can be more easily projected in orthogonal drawings of side views and top views that are needed in the geometric construction of perspective. J8079s (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  article hijacking 

message: I have reverted out these additions because they do not seem to be encyclopedic. The article should not contain how-to information WP:NOTHOWTO, unreferenced counter arguments, and comments on the text belong on this talk page. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Un-encyclopedic additions.  

message: There are five methods listed in "Methods of construction" and a section "Example" right below it explaining (some of it?). I suggest there should be 5 sub-headings under "Methods of construction" explaining each method. All the text in "Example" should be cleaned up/truncated since it reads as a "how-to" and put under (one of those 5 sections?). I question all of this because its so badly written its hard to tell what goes where. The information in "Example" reads like a combination of "Freehand sketching", constructing some form of "perspective grid" and "Mimicry". The claim that there are 5 methods needs supporting reference. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methods of construction/WP:NOTHOWTO cleanup 

message: The page reads: "The two most characteristic features of perspective are that objects are smaller as their distance from the observer increases; that they are foreshortened..." I think it would be better: The two most characteristic features of perspective are A)that objects   appear to be smaller as their distance from the observer increases and B) that they are foreshortened... Juan Kis Solt (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of perspective 

message: The first image in the page "Staircase in two-point perspective." doesn´t have any further explanation nor is it realted to any part of the page´s information. 
Otherwise it could say: "Staircase in two-point perspective" for whose drawing six vanishing points have been used: two horizontal (for the treads and breathing spaces), two in height (for the ramps) and two auxiliary (measuring points). But although all this is true, it would be confusing to the neophyte, so I would leave out "in two point" because that particular part does not contribute to explain what can be seen. Besides that, I would move it to the part of the page it should be in.
How can I get authorization to make the corresponding editions on the page?Juan Kis Solt (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staircase in two-point perspective 

message: I created another image which shows the effects of foreshortening. SharkD  Talk  02:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreshortening 

message: The article says, "A zero-point perspective view is equivalent to an elevation." Can someone explain this? How does a perspective projection suddenly become a parallel perspective due to irregularities of the subject being drawn? I don't understand this. SharkD  Talk  20:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero-point perspective 

message: It seems odd to cite the 'Lamentation' of Mantegna as an example of 'perfected' foreshortening technique when it definitely is not.  The linked article on that painting itself recognises that the feet are far too small to be in accurate perspective.  I would add that the head is far too large (unless Jesus was hydrocephalic) and the shoulders are probably too broad.109.149.91.155 (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mantegna 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Perspective (graphical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061219020504/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/mirror/classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.11.x.html to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/mirror/classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.11.x.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080622055904/http://mathdl.maa.org/convergence/1/?pa=content&sa=viewDocument&nodeId=477&bodyId=598 to http://mathdl.maa.org/convergence/1/?pa=content&sa=viewDocument&nodeId=477&bodyId=598
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130721102550/http://timvandevall.com/two-point-perspective-grid-tutorial/ to http://timvandevall.com/two-point-perspective-grid-tutorial/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Perspective (graphical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071224161931/http://wings.buffalo.edu/AandL/Maecenas/italy_except_rome_and_sicily/pompeii/ac880907.html to http://wings.buffalo.edu/AandL/Maecenas/italy_except_rome_and_sicily/pompeii/ac880907.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: I don't understand a single vanishing point perspective, can some explain this Tshire777 (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single vanishing point perspective 

message: I'd like to offer you to insert the following section as the first section after the introduction. I hope you all agree. Sciencia58 (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Its kind of wordy and confusing. Actually I can't make out what you are trying to explain after reading it several times. The first paragraph seems to be a stand alone lead in to support the second paragraph, perhaps that should be expanded elsewhere. Its single sourced to someones essay and reads like an essay. At least three of the image examples are unreadable at thumb size. Images need to be clear and readable at thumb.  Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Perspective vision and depth perception are not exactly the same, although they are strongly related. The article should not only explain what perspective images look like and how they are created, but also why human eyes recognise them as such. It is good for the comprehensibility of the article, even for the layman, to describe the most important neuro-physiological processes first. Then the details are dealt with in the following sections. I didn't use one source but two. There is a plenty of other sources saying the same things in Englisch that can be added if you think it is necessary for such statements, which are more or less trivial for a biologist and neurophysiologist. The photos could also be shown in a different layout so that they are larger and easier to see without having to click on them. I always click on all the pictures in Wikipedia. That's what this function is for. Sciencia58 (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

text: This is what the article in the German Wikipedia looks like . Sciencia58 (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is graphical Perspective, representation on a flat surface of an image as it is seen by the eye, so a treatise on Visual perception is off topic. The suggested text straddles Visual perception, depth perception and (estimated size?). Within paragraphs it seems to stray off into further topics that are not explained or well written, which again just makes it confusing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

text: I am sorry for those who are confused by interdisciplinary approaches. It is true that this article is specifically about the graphic representation of perspective. Yes, it would also be possible to place the section on perception in the article depth perception or, alternatively, to make a small article of its own out of it, with an introductory sentence and link to the article Perspective (graphical). Sciencia58 (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph about visual perception 

message: Visual perception of perspective in real space, in rooms, in settlements and in nature, is a result of several optical impressions and the interpretation by the visual system. The angle of vision plays an important role for the apparent size. Objects closer to the eye are perceived as larger while objects further away appear subjectively smaller.Grundlagen der Optik. page 24. Still the interpretation by the visual system can be more precise when seen in context with other structures in the visual field, especially convergent lines which are important in depth perception. Vision with two eyes, stereoscopic vision, is not essential for the perception of perspective, but it enhances the impression of the spatial. Regardless of whether the light rays entering the eye come from a three-dimensional space or from a two-dimensional image, they hit the inside of the eye on a surface, the retina. What a person sees in this process is based on a reconstruction by the visual system, in which one and the same retinal image can be interpreted both two-dimensionally and three-dimensionally. If a three-dimensional interpretation has been recognised, this receives preference and determines perception.Georg Eisner: Perspektive und Visuelles System – Wege zur Wahrnehmung des Raumes page 102–103 
08913-Perspective Run.jpg|
Perspektivisches Sehen und Interpretation.png|Context-dependent interpretation of the size.
Study in Vanishing Perspective.jpg|The horizon line is at the height of the armrests. 
Spatial vision and perspective.jpg|View from a window on the 2nd floor of a house.
Mountain panorama in France 3.jpg|Mountain peak near the snow line and several mountain peaks above the snow line.
ISS-40 Sicily and Italy.jpg|
In spatial vision, the horizontal line of sight can play a role. In the picture taken from the window of a house, the horizontal line of sight is at the level of the second floor (yellow line). Below this line, the further away objects are, the higher up in the visual field they appear. Above the horizontal line of sight, objects that are further away appear lower than those that are more nearby. To represent such spatial impressions graphically, one can use a vanishing point.Georg Eisner: Perspektive und Visuelles System – Wege zur Wahrnehmung des Raumes page 181
When looking into far distances, perspective effects also partially result from the angle of vision. Measurements and calculations can be used to determine the proportion of the curvature of the earth in the subjectively perceived proportions. 
Sciencia58 (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Its kind of wordy and confusing. Actually I can't make out what you are trying to explain after reading it several times. The first paragraph seems to be a stand alone lead in to support the second paragraph, perhaps that should be expanded elsewhere. Its single sourced to someones essay and reads like an essay. At least three of the image examples are unreadable at thumb size. Images need to be clear and readable at thumb.  Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Perspective vision and depth perception are not exactly the same, although they are strongly related. The article should not only explain what perspective images look like and how they are created, but also why human eyes recognise them as such. It is good for the comprehensibility of the article, even for the layman, to describe the most important neuro-physiological processes first. Then the details are dealt with in the following sections. I didn't use one source but two. There is a plenty of other sources saying the same things in Englisch that can be added if you think it is necessary for such statements, which are more or less trivial for a biologist and neurophysiologist. The photos could also be shown in a different layout so that they are larger and easier to see without having to click on them. I always click on all the pictures in Wikipedia. That's what this function is for. Sciencia58 (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

text: This is what the article in the German Wikipedia looks like . Sciencia58 (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is graphical Perspective, representation on a flat surface of an image as it is seen by the eye, so a treatise on Visual perception is off topic. The suggested text straddles Visual perception, depth perception and (estimated size?). Within paragraphs it seems to stray off into further topics that are not explained or well written, which again just makes it confusing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

text: I am sorry for those who are confused by interdisciplinary approaches. It is true that this article is specifically about the graphic representation of perspective. Yes, it would also be possible to place the section on perception in the article depth perception or, alternatively, to make a small article of its own out of it, with an introductory sentence and link to the article Perspective (graphical). Sciencia58 (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual perception of perspective in real space 

message: The two pictures of the cubes showing how a perspective drawing is generated are the same, just different shading. One of the two should be eliminated. I vote to eliminate the first one and keep the second one, --Gciriani (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Eliminate one of the two pictures of cubes

message: I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited material in need of citations

message: At first I thought, many of the images are just more of the same, and intended to remove one or two. But looking at the examples for "One-point perspective", nearly all of them, except for the graphic, the bad first one and pic of the rails, have actually two-point perspective, since their traversing lines are not parallel to the picture plane. So I'll remove these. Sorry. MenkinAlRire 19:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustrations