perspective in the world technique

Linear perspective originates in the common appearance of the

real world, yet it seems to follow the abstract constraints of
the texture of space
geometry. It can visualize the infinite reach of three dimensional
space by organizing everything around a single, precisely located four perspective facts
viewpoint. These foundation topics are presented in this page.
creating the perspective view
If you already have some perspective training, then my approach
will be unfamiliar. Most perspective tutorials are focused on the the perspective setup
object you want to draw. My emphasis is on the viewer: linear
perspective is the two dimensional image of a unique basic rules of perspective
viewpoint and direction of view. I introduce linear
perspective as embedded in our natural view of the physical image plane, viewpoint &
world and as connected to basic facts of vision, then present a direction of view
geometrical summary of the perspective method, the
perspective distortions
assumptions behind its presentation in pictorial art, and the
ways its limitations can be used in effective artistic design.

I postpone the "how to" drawing tutorial because awareness of

the foundation themes can cure a student's hackneyed or
mechanical application of perspective construction. To get a feel
for what perspective is really about, one must realize that it is
visible everywhere and in everything — even when architectural
edges and corners are nowhere to be seen.

the texture of space

Vision creates an image of the physical world from the weave of
light around us. How does it do this? One way to address that
question is to answer a more specific one: how do we "see" that
an object is near or far from us?

Anything that helps us see the relative distance of objects in

space is called a distance cue. Fundamentally, all distance cues
are made possible by the geometrical regularity of three
dimensional space, and it is this regularity that linear
perspective attempts to simulate.

First, vision takes advantage of the fixed characteristics of our

two eyes to make sense of what we see. The most powerful
distance cue, binocular parallax, is the disparity between the
images created by the two eyes that arises because they are
located about 5cm to 7cm apart. This causes near objects to
shift back and forth against a distant background as we close
first one eye and then the other. The mind uses this parallax to
infer the distance of objects in the field of view: the larger the
left to right shift, the closer the object. We also use
motion parallax, which occurs when we move our head, stoop
or turn, walk or run through the environment. Parallax is a very
powerful and accurate distance cue, and it is effective across an
enormous range of distances — binocular parallax from the tip of
our nose out to about 20 meters, and motion parallax
(depending on the speed of movement) out to several
kilometers.

Parallax cues depend so heavily on the fixed attributes of space

and the location of our eyes that it takes infants only about four
months to learn how to use parallax to guide reaching and
grasping. Other cues related to eye position, such as lens
focusing (accommodation) and crossing the eyes to see close
objects (convergence), are comparatively weak — they are
only useful within a few feet.

However, in the two dimensional, fixed surface of a painting, all

the cues from parallax, convergence and accommodation
disappear. So the artist must rely on other distance cues to
create the illusion of three dimensional space.

Some cues appear in the optical properties of monocular

(single eye) retinal images. In three dimensional space, objects
close to us appear larger than those far away, so retinal image
size is an important distance cue, especially for objects we
recognize. Objects at our feet or just overhead appear much
lower or higher in relation to the horizon than objects far away,
so the vertical position of objects in our visual field —
compared to each other or to the horizon — also serves as a
distance cue in natural environments.

All these distance cues seem related to our view of detached

objects. However, equally powerful depth cues arise in the visual
appearance of surfaces, especially the textures and colors of the
natural world.

distance cues in changing textures

The American photographer Ansel Adams had a superb eye for

perspective facts in visual design. His photograph of an arid
landscape contains not one straight edge anywhere, and
confronts the world head on, making the landscape appear flat.
Yet the sense of depth in space is powerful and pervasive.

In the foreground, within our physical range of motion, we

usually distinguish separate objects, in part by using the
occlusion of one object outline by another. The simple rule is,
whatever covers is closer, and this rule applies across any
distance (even when the sun sets behind a far mountain).

distance cues in overlapping forms

This collection of circles illustrates that a complete break in the

outline of one form by another indicates the unbroken form is
closer (in front), opaque and probably solid. If the covered
outline is partly visible (like the mountains through the shafts of
light), we infer the closer form is partly transparent. If two
objects meet in an outline that is irregular to both (large circles
at right), then the distance relationship between them is
ambiguous.

However, the main distance cue in the Adams photo is the

change in visual textures across space, called a perspective
gradient. The foreground rocks appear large and extremely
rough; with distance they grow smoother, the spacing between
them becomes smaller, and the rocky surface appears flatter,
less irregular. Beyond the rocks, the mountains and clouds have
irregular outlines but appear smoother than the rocky plain. And
beyond everything is the sky — the only perfectly textureless
"surface" in nature.

If the object or surface is far enough away, it is "behind" a

considerable distance of atmosphere, which can obscure the
object with suspended particles of dust, smoke or molecules of
water vapor. The cumulative effect of these obscuring particles
creates aerial perspective in large objects visible from a great
distance, especially mountains, buildings and desert or ocean
horizons. Depending on the time of day and strength of light,
aerial perspective can make distant objects appear less distinct,
less saturated and darker or lighter in value. Smoke or dust
shifts the hue of distant objects warmer (toward red, yellow or
yellowish white), while water vapor shifts landscape hues toward
blue.

We have to use the recognizable continuity of an object's outline,

or its "completeness of form," to see occlusion, which is more
difficult if objects are far away or very small, dimly illuminated,
or unfamiliar to us. Look again at the Adams picture, and you'll
see that one rock clearly covers another at the bottom of the
image, but in the middle distance these overlaps become harder
to see. Instead, everything merges into the average spacing or
spatial frequency of the rocks — that is, the rocks do not
separate themselves from the texture as distinct forms.
Wherever objects become too small or complex to show
occlusion clearly, texture takes over.

This transition from form to texture means that visual experience

is a combination of objects filled in by visual textures.
Increasing distance in space transforms the appearance of
objects into structurally or visually related textures. And at
extreme distances, texture itself dissolves into pure color. So we
have the following sequence that applies to large vs. small or
near vs. far visual elements:

pattern —> texture —> color

perspective transforms pattern into texture and color

In this illustration, the band at the top of the image is made of

the same green and red squares as the band at the bottom, but
the squares are too small to see individually: instead they mix
visually to make yellow or gray. There is a fusion threshhold
for every texture, beyond which it is blended by the eye (in
visual fusion) into a single homogenous color. Color TV screens,
a distant mountain slope and a sandy beach are all composed of
tiny discrete forms beyond the visual mixing threshhold.

Occlusion works because we can compare the outlines we see

with our idea of the objects we look at: anything partly
covered is a "broken" or "altered" form of itself. So our
knowledge and expectations of the world are essential to create
effective distance cues. However, the boundary between what we
"see" with our eyes and what we "know" with our memory and
mind is not at all clear. In fact, we can create the illusion of a
recognizable form entirely through the visual completion
induced by forms around it.

Finally, these transitions from occluding objects to patterns to

textures to colors as distance increases do not happen in the
same way for all objects — unlike the effect of aerial perspective
or fog, which causes all forms to fade equally from view.
Increasing distance creates characteristic visual
transitions in different objects, especially in natural forms
where there is a distinctive structure at different scales of view.
Trees are the classical example, much studied by 19th century
artists, because different species of trees express a different
branching pattern that is recognizable from twigs up to large
branches; the tree's branching pattern, in turn, determines the
tree's overall form and the clumped appearance of the trees in
copses or forests.

the unique sequence of patterns created by

perspective changes in oak trees

Many kinds of vegetation, rock formations, clouds and water

flows show similar interrelated patterns across large changes in
viewing distance. The point is that the painting brushstrokes,
color mixtures and shading that artists use to represent the
objects must change with the object's distance: a distant tree
is not a miniature image of a tree nearby, as crude
perspective thinking might suggest. It has a completely different
visual character. The artist's challenge is to find the right
representation for the object's appearance at the appropriate
distance, not just to paint larger or smaller versions of the same
thing. This can be done by understanding the fundamental
structure of the object, and how this structure changes in
apparent form, texture and color across perspective space.

Linear perspective is space drawn as the geometrical idea of

itself. But we do not see the idea of space: we see a world of
light, colors, textures, objects and opportunities for action. As
we explore the artistic uses of perspective, we will repeatedly
grapple with the fact that our visual experience of the world is
much richer and more complex than our idea of the geometrical
space in which it appears.

four perspective facts

Linear perspective simplifies the world in order to create a
coherent visual representation of the world. It includes some
facts that determine our view of the world (three dimensional
space, light, surfaces) but excludes others (movement,
atmosphere, texture). It includes some features of visual
experience (recession in space, convergence of parallel lines) but
not others (color, optical fusion, binocular parallax). All these
restrictions arise from the four key facts on which perspective
methods are based (diagram, right).

1. Light travels in a straight line between any two points

in space. This is the foundation of linear perspective: the
behavior of light can be described through traditional Euclidean
geometry.

When light encounters the naturally dull and rough surfaces of

the physical world, it is reflected or scattered in all directions.
This means light is always abundantly radiating in all directions
on all sides. But then the question arises: how can this dense
tangle of light create a perceptible image?

2. An image is formed by light passing through a single the four perspective facts
point. This is the viewpoint. The viewpoint exactly matches (1) light travels in a straight line or "light ray"; (2) an image
the properties of a pinhole camera, which creates images by is formed by light rays passing through a single viewpoint;
passing light through a tiny hole in a screen. Because this (3) the viewpoint defines a visual cone centered on a
pinhole forms images, it can geometrically represent the images direction of view; (4) all visual rays appear "end view" as
points on an image plane
formed by a lens, such as the artist's eye or camera.

All light rays that intersect the viewpoint (pass through the
pinhole camera), and equivalently all lines of sight emanating
from the viewpoint, are called visual rays. The only visual rays
that matter to our view of the world are those that converge on
the viewpoint: all other light rays are excluded. The dense
tangle of light becomes an image.

The eye is really a small sphere, and we normally see with two
eyes, so we have to simplify the facts of sight somewhat,
depending on what we mean by looking at the world. If we
mean a camera or single immobile eye, the viewpoint is the
nodal point of the optics, which in the eye is located slightly
behind the center of the lens (because light has already been
refracted by the cornea). If we use one eye but look in different
directions, the viewpoint shifts to the rotational center of the
eye. If we use both eyes, the binocular viewpoint is
approximately located between the two eyes.

3. Visual rays through the viewpoint define a visual cone

centered on a direction of view. We can't see light through
the back of our head, and light does not enter a camera through
both sides of the pinhole screen. In nearly all optical systems,
images are created by light arriving from the "front half" of the
surrounding space (diagram, right).

The visual rays from the "front half" of space form a cone,
known as a visual cone or visual pyramid, with the viewpoint at
its point or apex. This cone has a central axis, known as the
optical axis, which defines the center of a camera image or our
visual field. In linear perspective this optical axis is called the
direction of view (or sometimes the central ray or principal
visual ray).

The human visual field actually has a very complex structure —

crisp central vision and fuzzy peripheral vision — but linear
perspective assumes that any visual ray inside the visual cone
contributes equally to an image. This is a specific example of
how linear perspective does not represent what we actually see
with our eyes, but rather what we know about optics and the the visual cone and visual rays as points on an image
geometry of the physical world. plane

4. Every image is a cross section through a visual cone. An

image is not formed at the viewpoint, because a point has no
dimension. Instead the image is formed by making a slice
through the visual cone at some point other than the viewpoint,
either in front of or behind it.

This slice cuts across all the visual rays, so that we only see
visual rays "end on" within the visual cone. As a result, all
visual rays appear as points on an image plane. The image
is really a surface of compacted points, each point signifying a
visual ray that has reached the viewpoint from a specific location
in physical space.

This description of light rays as straight lines, arriving from

objects in space to a viewpoint with a specific direction of view,
allows us to use a geometrical method for describing the
visible world on a two dimensional surface from a single
point in space. This is called a central projection. Geometry in
turn gives us the procedures necessary to construct these
central projections using the simplest tools: a pencil, a straight
edge and a compass.

creating the perspective view

Now let's apply the four perspective facts to create a standard
perspective setup, which will be the mechanism that the the
artist can use to construct representational drawings. My
explanation proceeds in small steps so that you can see how the
mechanism actually works and understand the assumptions that
it is based on.

The Light Environment. We start with the light environment

as a viewer would experience it naturally. The space around the
viewer is filled with a dense, rich scattering of light, coming at
him from all directions and distances, reflected from every
surface and even scattered by the atmosphere.

the light environment

The viewer is also alive and continually moving — shifting his

gaze, turning his head, leaning to one side or another, stepping
forward or backward, walking or sitting or lying down. Before
motion picture cameras, there was no way to capture this
dynamic complexity.

The Stationary Viewer. The first step in perspective is to

exclude all the dynamic aspects of visual experience and limit
the problem to a stationary viewer. The viewer takes in visual
rays only from a fixed location in space, in a fixed posture
(including both body position and orientation of the head), and
facing in a fixed direction (with a fixed position of the eye or
eyes). To my knowledge this is not explicitly characterized in
perspective texts, but a stationary viewer is the fundamental
premise of a perspective drawing.

the stationary viewer

Once we freeze the viewer's location, posture and gaze, we

necessarily fix the viewer's visual cone (what we would call the
visual field in other contexts). The light comprised by this fixed
visual cone represents a single place, a single view of the world,
experienced uniquely by a single viewer: no one else can
experience exactly the same stationary view at the same time.

The fixed visual cone is defined by a fixed apex, the viewpoint,

and a fixed direction of view (also called the central ray, axis
of sight or principal visual ray), which represents foveal ("in
focus") vision at the center of the visual field.

The third and final dimension is the width of the visual cone. Any
two visual rays within the visual cone define a visual angle
measured at the viewpoint, which corresponds to the visual
distance between two points in the visual field. So what is the
visual angle of the visual cone? This was determined by
medieval optics to be 90° (one quarter of a full circle), and later
perspective practice adopted this 90° limit as a convenient
standard (for reasons explained below). This creates a circular
diameter to the visual cone, centered on the direction of view,
know as the 90° circle of view.

We know from our own visual experience that we see clearly

only in foveal vision, at the center of view: we can't read unless
we look directly at the words. However this central clarity is not
acknowledged in linear perspective. Because of the fixed position
and viewpoint, motion parallax and binocular parallax are
excluded as well. We also cannot decide whether the image
represents a glance or a steady gaze, the view of a moment or
of eternity. These omissions give the images created by linear
perspective their surreal clarity and static perfection. Clarity and
perfection are really cognitive, not perceptual, attributes:
perspective commits us to draw what we know, not what we
actually see.

The Ground Plane. The perspective act — the fixed visual

cone, viewpoint and direction of view — looks out on abstract
space. We have a point of view, but nothing to look at. So the
next step is to establish a physical space that creates the
visual rays converging on the viewpoint. The simplest and most
elegant way to do this is simply to provide the viewer with
someplace to stand: the ground plane.

the ground plane

The ground plane is essentially the representation of spatial

extent: it goes off into the distance. By convention, the ground
plane is made as abstract as possible: flat and perfectly level.
In terms of visual experience, it represents the spatially largest
or dominant level surface below the viewpoint. In this location it
symbolizes all architectural surfaces and the great flat layers of
geology — tilled fields, alluvial meadows, dried lake beds, and
large bodies of water. By convention, the viewer is normally
standing or sitting, spine upright and head erect to balance the
downward pull of gravity, with eyes facing forward. This puts the
viewpoint at a fixed distance above the ground plane: the
viewing height.

As it extends outward in all directions, the ground plane cuts the

visual cone almost in half, blocking the range of vision
downward. This naturally orients the direction of view straight
ahead, which is fixed by a second convention: the direction of
view is parallel to the ground plane. The viewer stands or
sits upright and perpendicular to the ground plane, head
upright, balanced against the downward pull of gravity.

Although it is abstract, the ground plane is extraordinarily rich

with significance. It is the here and now of the perspective act,
and signifies that this place is important to experience. It also
characterizes the perspective stance of the viewer — his
location, posture and focus of attention within a specific physical
setting.

Distance Measurement. The ground plane is our reference for

location in space, and therefore the distance from the viewer to
any objects in space. To specify these concepts of location and
distance, the next perspective step is to define a metric grid
on the ground plane.

dividing the ground plane with a metric grid

The most convenient approach is to partition the ground plane

by a grid of squares 1 meter on a side. We can if desired create
a second grid in a plane perpendicular to the ground plane, so
that we can measure distance in three dimensions.

By convention, all lines in the grid are defined either parallel or

perpendicular to each other and to the direction of view.
This allows us to measure distances in any direction in relation
to the viewpoint — 10 squares ahead, 2 squares to the left — in
the same way we would locate points on a sheet of graph paper.
The vertical grid allows us to measure distances in height above
(or below) the ground plane or the direction of view. This metric
space allows us to extend or verify the facts of linear perspective
by means of geometrical proof.

This grid on the ground plane is one of the most primitive

conventional elements of linear perspective. Early Renaissance
artists actually included the measurement grid in their finished
paintings and frescos, as a pavement of square tiles, often in
a strongly contrasted checkerboard pattern.

The Physical Geometry. The visual cone is filled with an

infinite number of visual rays, arriving to the viewer from every
visible object and surface in physical space. However, thanks to
the metric grid, we can define the spatial location from which
visual rays originate. For example, we can limit our attention to
visual rays from intersections in the metric grid, and ignore the
rest. We assume (correctly) that any insights we obtain from
these few visual rays will apply to any other visual rays in the
visual cone.

visual rays in physical space

In the figure, five of these points are shown in orange, and

labeled d, c, b, a and x along one side of the direction of view;
a matching row of unlabeled orange points is shown along the
opposite side. Each row of points lies on a single straight line,
and the two lines are parallel to the direction of view. At the
same time, the matching pairs of points define the sideways or
transverse lines in the metric grid, perpendicular to the direction
of view.

The visual rays from these points define the geometry of visual
rays in physical space. And they allow us to address two
fundamental questions about recession, or changes in object
appearance with object distance:

• What happens visually at different distances to objects

arranged along a straight line parallel to the direction of view (as
defined by the line dx and the matching line on the opposite
side)?

• What happens visually at different distances to objects

arranged in equally spaced rows perpendicular to the direction of
view (represented by the transverse lines ending at each labeled
point)?

The next perspective steps clarify the answers to these

questions.

The Perspective Geometry. By limiting the perspective view

to a handful of visual rays from the intersections of the metric
grid, we have started to simplify or abstract the viewing
situation, reducing it to its geometric essentials. Let's complete
that process.

the basic perspective geometry

First, we excuse the human viewer and retain only the fixed
location of his viewpoint.

The viewpoint has a specific location in relation to the ground

plane directly underneath it. This is called the station point. A
line between the station point and viewpoint is perpendicular or
"square" to the ground plane, signified by the small square at
the base of the line.

(Traditional perspective tutorials refer to the viewpoint as the

station point, but I feel it is very useful to have a separate term
for the viewpoint and its ground plane location.)

The distance between the viewpoint and station point is the

viewing height above the ground plane. As we've seen, this
depends on the viewer's physical height and location in relation
to the ground plane (sitting, standing on the ground, or standing
at the top of a tower).

The viewpoint is at the tip or apex of the visual cone, and the
origin of the direction of view. We have already conventionally
decided that the direction of view is parallel to the ground
plane. So we can define a median line on the ground plane,
extending from the station point and parallel to the direction of
view, which divides the ground plane into symmetrical left and
right halves.

Finally, we can specify a object distance between the viewpoint

(or station point) and any object within the visual cone.

At this point linear perspective becomes a precise measurement

system. All the distance measurements within the metric grid,
and the visual angles of visual rays from the grid to the fixed
viewpoint and direction of view are defined by basic
trigonometry. In fact, as linear perspective developed during the
Renaissance, it was closely associated with developments in
surveying, mapmaking, navigation and astronomical
observation. The tools and procedures for measuring the
physical world and for making perspective images were often
explained in the same book.

Making the viewing situation geometrically abstract imparts a

similar abstraction to the identity of the viewer of the image.
Paintings that create an identity or presence for the viewer as an
individual recognized by persons in the painting, as in
Velázquez's Las Meninas, are rare in the perspective tradition,
especially in academic or history paintings. More often the
perspective viewpoint implies a timeless or universal witness, an
abstract vantage that can be filled equally well by any
anonymous passerby.

The Image Plane. Next we turn to making a perspective

image. To do this, we insert an image plane through the visual
cone. This corresponds to the fourth perspective fact described
above: an image is a cross section through the visual cone. It is
the "window" of perspective imagery.

an image plane in the basic perspective geometry

To keep the geometry simple, and to mimic the vertical viewing

position of a vertically hung painting or wall fresco, the image
plane is conventionally a flat surface perpendicular to the
direction of view and to the ground plane. (Linear
perspective works just as well if there are no right angles in the
setup, or if the image plane is curved rather than flat, but these
situations are geometrically more complex and were not clearly
analyzed until the early 18th century.)

The image plane does not have fixed dimensions — its limits are
only determined by the size of the visual cone or by the size of
the support that we make the image on.

However, the image plane does have a fixed location: the

ground line directly underneath it. This is equivalent to the
base of a vertical wall on which the painting or fresco is
displayed.

Finally, the ground line is at a fixed distance from the station

point: this is the viewing distance.

The Perspective Image. The image plane is commonly

described as a window looking onto the world. This means all
visual rays pass through the image plane on their way to the
viewpoint.

perspective image on the image plane

The final step is to identify where each visual ray passes through
the window — the point where it intersects with the image
plane. This point is its perspective image. In the figure, point
a' is the intersection between the image plane and the visual ray
from point a on the ground plane to the viewpoint; that is, a' is
the image in perspective space of the point a in physical space.
Point b' is the image of real world point b, c' is the image of c
... and so on for all the points on those two parallel lines of
points we decided to study.

Physical lines — edges, tracks, borders, wires — can also be

projected onto the image plane. The collection of all projected
image points and image lines is the perspective image of the
corresponding points and lines in physical space.

We have defined a way to map three dimensional space onto a

two dimensional surface, by locating the image points for every
detail of the visual cone. For an optical image, these points are
plotted for us by rays of light. In artistic practice, perspective
constructions are typically made by plotting visual rays point by
point. To simplfiy this task, the emphasis is on significant
points, especially vanishing points and corners or edges that can
be connected by straight lines or freehand curved lines.
Perspective drawing does not proceed by mechanically
connecting dots with lines, but by choosing the dots that locate
all essential elements in the perspective image.

The image plane is conventionally divided by two

representations of the viewer's perspective stance. The
horizon line corresponds to the visual limit of the ground plane
if it extended infinitely far. This divides the image plane
horizontally. The median line corresponds to the median line on
the ground; it extends vertically upward from the ground line
and is perpendicular to the horizon line. The two lines intersect
at the principal point, which locates the direction of view as it
passes through the image plane.

Because we have defined all the relevant elements as parallel or

perpendicular to one another, the principal point anchors two
basic dimensions of the perspective image. The distance
between the principal point and the ground line is
viewing height to the image plane; the distance between the
principal point and the circumference formed where the 90°
circle of view intersects the image plane is the
viewing distance.

Two important details: the horizon line is not necessarily defined

by the visible horizon on the surface of the earth; we
conventionally assume this. As we'll see later, it can alternately
be defined as the pupil line (visual horizontal) of the artist's
head. (There would be a horizon line in outer space.) Similarly,
the image plane does not have to be perpendicular to the
ground plane, or even to the direction of view, but defining it
that way makes it easier to work out practical perspective
problems.

The Viewing Geometry. Once the artist has used these

principles to transfer the three dimensional world onto a two
dimensional canvas, and from the significant points and lines
developed a completed perspective painting, a second situation
arises that must be governed by perspective principles: the
cultural encounter between the perspective image and a
human viewer.

If we whittle this encounter down to its essentials, we are left

with the vertical (wall hanging) orientation of a faceless museum
or gallery painting, and the ghostly center of projection,
perpendicular to a line from the center of the painting, which is
the viewpoint implied by the perspective facts in the image.

the visitor and the artwork

If the museum visitor stands so that his viewpoint

from one eye (or through a peephole) exactly coincides with
the center of projection of a perfectly consistent perspective
painting, all the visual rays from the surface of the painting will
recreate the visual rays from the original scene, within the limits
of accuracy of the painter's representation.

This is the illusionistic use of perspective, and it is only

effective when (1) the drawing is in strict perspective, (2) the
drawing contains the kinds of receding lines and planes that
make the strict perspective construction visible, and (3) the
drawing is viewed through a peephole or eyepiece at the center
of projection. (Most photographs, excluding most wide angle
photographs and including all telescopic photographs, are also in
linear perspective.)

It should be said that most paintings from most historical

periods contain perspective inconsistencies, such that they
define several similar centers of projection; and indeed most
images (the Adams landscape photograph above, or a
photograph of the Museo Guggenheim in Bilbao; photo, right) do
not clearly define a center of projection because they lack the
edges, corners and distance cues that identify clear vanishing
points or vanishing lines. In these cases, viewers by default
assume a viewing position that centers the image in their field of most images do not define a distinct center of
projection
vision, perpendicular to their direction of view, at a distance that
brings the whole image into a comfortable circle of view. This
intuitive "center of projection" is simply eye level, facing, and
comfortably far away.

Imagination does the rest. Because the viewers of paintings and

frescos rarely choose (or are able) to stand at exactly the center
of projection, the symbolic or informal use of perspective —
to convey the idea of being in a certain place at a certain time —
plays a much greater role in the stance viewers typically take
toward a painting or photograph. Paradoxically, the linear
perspective in the image must be reasonably consistent and
accurate to be acceptable, but the linear perspective of the
painting in the viewer's eyes does not. We see the painting
surface as an object, not a window.

Even when a painting is viewed from exactly the center of

projection, a perfect perspective drawing may create apparent
perspective distortions that become intrusive or objectionable
when the painting is viewed with both eyes or from different
points of view. As this is how people normally look at paintings,
artists spent three centuries attempting to understand and
minimize these effects. Eventually, in the process, they learned
to use the distortions for expressive purposes.

the perspective setup

We have progressed by logical steps from the four perspective
facts to a basic geometrical framework for mapping objects in
space onto a two dimensional image plane. Now it is time to
step into the viewpoint and examine this framework as the
viewer sees it.

To do this, I will create the perspective image of my running

example, the point intersections in a metric grid. The most
primitive and explicit way to do this, which was the standard
method in early Renaissance paintings, was to define the
perspective geometry in paired horizontal and vertical diagrams
of the entire viewing situation — the viewpoint, image plane and
every object to be drawn on the image plane.

These diagrams are known as the elevation and plan, as

shown in the figures below and at right.

the perspective framework in elevation (above) and

plan (right)

The plan (view from above) is based on an image plane parallel

to the ground plane, with all points in physical space projected
onto it by parallel vertical lines perpendicular to its surface. The
elevation (view from the side) is always perpendicular to the
plan and ground plane (like a wall), again with points behind it
projected onto its surface by parallel horizontal lines. (There is
no convergence to a viewpoint in a plan or elevation.)
Conventionally the elevation is parallel to the sides of the
architectural form it portrays, but for our purposes it is parallel
to the direction of view.

If we make a plan and elevation at actual size, and very

accurately specify the locations of the viewpoint and the image
plane, then we can draw visual rays from objects to the
viewpoint, measure where they intersect the image plane in
these views, then transfer these horizontal and vertical
measurements to the painting format.

The figures (above) show this done twice: horizontal green lines
for measurements done on the elevation (which gives the
distance of the points above the ground line), and vertical green
lines for measurements from the plan (which gives the distance
of the points to the left or right of the median line).

If we make and measure these schematic drawings carefully,

then connect the dots to construct the perspective image of
our metric grid on the image plane, we discover that the
receding rows of points appear as converging lines of image
points, as shown below.

perspective image of the metric grid on the ground

plane

Terms introduced in the discussions of perspective geometry,

the image plane and the perspective image are shown in
plain italics; if any are unfamiliar or unclear, please review those
sections carefully.

Now we see that the image plane roughly fills the visual field; it
slices through the visual cone to create the 90° circle of view
(or any other size circle of view we want to define), centered on
the principal point — the intersection of the direction of view
with the image plane. The principal point and horizon line also
show the viewing height.

Now let's examine the perspective image of the metric grid. First
of all, we find that it still consists of straight lines (in red).
Connecting pairs of metric points parallel to the direction of view
has created the image orthogonals (the mathematical term for
"perpendicular," which reminds us that the orthogonals are
perpendicular to the image plane).

Now we immediately see that image lines parallel to the

direction of view converge at the principal point, which is
therefore their vanishing point (abbreviated vp) — the term
coined by the English mathematician Brook Taylor in 1715.
Because this vanishing point is identical to the principal point
(the direction of view), it controls recession in space toward the
focus of attention. (Perspective drawings based only on the
principal point are in central perspective, as discussed on the
next page.)

Despite what we see, we know the lines in the metric grid on

the ground plane are constructed parallel to the direction of view
and are equally spaced (we can confirm this in the plan view,
above). So we can conclude that the orthogonals define an
interval of constant width in perspective space.

Connecting pairs of metric points parallel to the image plane

creates the image transversals, which are parallel to the
ground line. Again we immediately see that transversals become
more closely spaced as they approach the horizon line. Yet
because we know they represent equally spaced lines in physical
space, we can conclude that the transversals define intervals
of equal depth in perspective space, from the ground line
toward the horizon.

We can hardly appreciate today the extraordinary sense of

discovery that early Renaissance artists experienced as the
first perspective drawings took shape under their hands, and the
paradoxical relationship between see and know came into view.
We sense their delight and awe in their manuscript attempts to
solve more and more intricate perspective problems, and in the
reverent accuracy with which they transformed these drawings
into finished works of art.

A basic principle was recognized early: the spacing between

transversals narrows more quickly with distance than the
spacing between orthogonals (the vertically elongated squares
of the metric grid at the ground line become horizontally
elongated rectangles in perspective distance). Artists had
unlocked the fundamental proportions of foreshortening, which
is the compression of the visual angle of a dimension or
distance as the dimension becomes more parallel to the
direction of view. Indeed, the earliest illustrations of artists
studying perspective problems usually show them studying the
effects of foreshortening — for example, in Dürer's illustrations
that show how to draw, point by point, a foreshortened lute or
a human figure.

Several decades later, artists also realized that that the two
diagonals within the squares created by the orthogonals and
transversals must also be parallel lines (like the parallel
diagonals of a chessboard) and therefore must also converge to
vanishing points on the horizon line on either side the principal
point. These are the diagonal vanishing points (abbreviated
dvp), first described by the French cleric and diplomat Jean
Pélerin in 1505.

Pélerin described how contemporary artists used the dvp's to

find equal intervals of depth (the transversals) from orthogonals
of equal width measured along the ground line. For this reason
the dvp's were traditionally called distance points, because in
central perspective they are used to transform a measure of
physical distance along the ground line into an image
recession in perspective space. (They are also called distance
points because the distance on the image plane between a dvp
and the principal point is exactly equal to the viewing distance
from the viewpoint to the image plane. This means the diagonals
can be used to reconstruct the center of projection implicit
in a perspective painting.)

The Circle of View Framework. The final step is to

standardize or abstract the insights we have drawn from the
perspective image of the metric grid, and formulate them as a
perspective machine. This is the circle of view framework.

The key element is that the viewing distance (x, the distance of
the viewpoint from the image plane), the viewing height (the
distance of the viewpoint from the ground plane or plane of
orthogonals) and the radius of the circle of view are all equal.
We also require, as a simplification of the perspective problems
we want to analyze, that the direction of view is parallel to the
ground plane and the image plane is perpendicular to both the
ground plane and the direction of view. This creates the physical
arrangement illustrated and labeled in the diagram (below).

the circle of view framework: basic terms

the 90° visual cone with viewing distance set equal to viewing height

We choose the 90° circle of view as the framework for

perspective operations because this circle has a radius of 45°
visual angle around the principal point, so it contains all possible
diagonal vanishing points. In addition, 90° is the visual angle
accepted since the Renaissance as the outer limit of images
projected onto a plane, so we have no use for a larger visual
span.

To create the 90° circle of view, we simply define the viewing

distance as equal to the viewing height, which aligns the
ground line with the base of the circle of view. Then the
framework proportions integrate the diagonal vanishing points,
the viewpoint, the viewing distance to the image plane, the
viewing height and the ground line around the powerful
central recession toward the principal point that is created by
the direction of view.

the circle of view framework

the 90° circle of view as it appears from the viewpoint

The central vanishing point (vp) defines recession along all

lines parallel to the direction of view — the convergence of all
orthogonals. The horizon line and median line intersect at
the principal point, dividing the circle of view into quadrants.
Two pairs of diagonal vanishing points lie on the horizon and
median lines on opposite sides of the circle of view. And because
the viewing distance is equal to the viewing height, the ground
line, median line and circle of view all intersect at a single point,
the bottom dvp.

If we need to be precise in how the perspective view is

implemented, then the specific measurements depend on the
stature or vantage of the viewer. However, as a general rule, an
average size adult has a viewing height of about 1.6 meters (63
inches), so the circle of view at the image plane will be about
3.2 meters (10.5 feet) wide. (Note that the viewing height is
always measured from a viewer's eye level, not the top of her
head.)

The 90° circle of view is a very convenient framework for

working out perspective problems, but drawings that completely
fill the circle are subject to perspective distortions that most
artists find objectionable. For that reason, the actual image area
typically is fitted into a much smaller circle of view, such as the
60° or 40° circles shown in the diagram. For example, a
watercolor full sheet (22"x30") would appear as shown in the
diagram — nicely contained within a 30° circle of view. Even the
massive emperor sheet (40"x60") only fills a 50° circle of view
at a 3.2 meter viewing distance.

Because the 90° circle of view framework explicitly links

together the principal point, viewing distance, viewing height,
ground line and all diagonal vanishing points, it can be applied
to solve any perspective problem. It does not just provide a
system for copying nature point by point in order to make a
painting. We've actually invented a system of perspective
construction which can be used to create new images at our
pleasure and imagined worlds from any viewpoint.

basic rules of perspective

At this point you should have a clear understanding of how
linear perspective connects the three dimensional physical world
to a two dimensional perspective image. So this is the
appropriate point to review some of the basic and always
trustworthy perspective rules that can guide you in making a
perspective drawing. The rules can be pounded out by
geometrical deduction, but I will simply state them in a logical
order.

A Perspective Glossary. First, a summary of the key terms.

(1) Physical space refers to the three dimensional, real world;
(2) the ground plane is an idealized flat, level surface
representing the pedestrian surface of architectural forms (lawn,
pavement, floor), or the average of flat natural terrain (desert,
salt flat, surface of a lake or ocean); (3) the viewpoint is the
unique location in physical space of the nodal point of the
observing eye or camera, the convergence point or center of
projection for light; (4) the station point is the point on the
ground plane directly underneath the viewpoint; (5) the
direction of view is the optical axis of a camera or the line of
sight of a viewer located at the viewpoint, typically aligned so
that it is parallel to the ground plane; (6) the image plane is a
two dimensional, flat surface, aligned so that it is perpendicular
both to the ground plane and to the direction of view, on which
the perspective image is projected; (7) a visual ray is any line
that intersects (passes through) both the viewpoint and the
image plane; (8) the visual cone is a cone, with apex at the
viewpoint, axis along the direction of view, and a base diameter
on the image plane just large enough to comprise all the visual
rays contributing to an image.

(9) An image point is the intersection of a visual ray with the

image plane; an image line is a line drawn on the image plane
between two image points, or the line formed by the intersection
with the image plane of a plane in physical space; (10) the
principal point is the intersection (image) of the direction of
view with the image plane; (11) the ground line is the
intersection of the ground plane with the image plane; (12) the
median line is a line on the ground plane directly underneath
the direction of view, and also the image of this line as a line
perpendicular to the ground line and through the principal point;
(13) the horizon line is an image line through the principal
point, parallel to the ground line and coincident with the horizon
in physical space of a "flat" surface such as the ocean.

For an image plane perpendicular to the ground plane and to the

direction of view, (14) the viewing distance is the distance
between the viewpoint and image plane and/or between the
station point and ground line; and (15) the viewing height is
the distance between the viewpoint and the station point (in
physical space) and/or between the ground line and the principal
point (on the image plane); (16) the circle of view is the
intersection of the visual cone with the image plane, measured
as a visual angle from the viewpoint or as a radius from the
principal point on the image plane.

(17) A perspective image is the projection of physical space

onto the image plane by visual rays converging at a viewpoint;
(18) a plan is the projection of physical space onto a horizontal
image plane (e.g., the ground plane) by parallel vertical lines;
and (19) an elevation is the projection of physical space onto a
vertical image plane by parallel horizontal lines.

Again, as simplifying assumptions, (a) the image plane is

perpendicular to the direction of view; (b) the image plane is
perpendicular to the ground plane; (c) the direction of view is
parallel to the ground plane; (d) the viewer is standing or sitting
upright on the ground plane; and (e) the viewing distance and
viewing height are equal. These assumptions define the 90°
circle of view framework and make the perspective rules easier
to understand and apply.

The Basic Rules of Perspective

1. The image of a visual ray is a point on the image plane.

A visual ray is any line that intersects the viewpoint and passes
through the image plane. The intersection of a line and a plane
defines a point. This corresponds to the fact that when we look
straight down any line or edge in physical space, its image is
only a point in our visual field. Thus, the direction of view only
appears as the principal point, the origin of any visual ray
appears as a point, and any number of separate points on a
visual ray all appear as a single point on the image plane.

figure 1

In figure 1, the visual ray (the line from the viewpoint V)

intersects the image plane at a single point; in this case,
because the visual ray is the direction of view, this point is the
principal point (pp). Points a and b are located on the same
visual ray, therefore their point images are identical with pp.

Figure 1 also shows that any feature of physical space can be

projected downward as a plan in the ground plane. The point
g is the image of the principal point projected into the ground
plan (as shown by the dotted line); the station point (S) is the
image of the viewpoint in the ground plan, and the median line
is the image of the direction of view.

figure 2

2. Any straight line in physical space that is not contained

in a visual ray projects a straight line on the image plane.
That is, a straight line or edge in physical space always appears
as a straight line in the perspective image, no matter which way
the line is turned to the direction of view. (The sole exception is
when the physical line is contained in a visual ray, when
according to rule 1 it appears as a point.)

In figure 2, the line AB in physical space does not intersect the

viewpoint V, and therefore it is not a visual ray. The visual rays
AV and BV do intersect the viewpoint, and therefore they also
intersect the image plane at X and Y. All the points between A
and B can be projected in the same way, and these create the
image line XY (green line) on the image plane.

The image of line AB in the plan is the line ab. Note that when
the points a and b are connected to the station point S by lines
in the plan, they intersect the ground line at x and y, the plan
image of the points X and Y. Note than the plan image is
constructed by parallel lines perpendicular to the ground plane
(as shown by the dotted lines).

3. Any two points on a straight line, projected onto the

image plane, define that line on the image plane. Thus, a
straight line drawn between the two points X and Y creates the
image line XY in figure 2.

Note that if the line has infinite length, then any two distant
points will serve; but if the line has a fixed length (a line
segment), then the two end points are necessary to define its
length. This leads to the most economical method of perspective
construction: we project only the end points of a line onto the
image plane, then connect them by a straight line. For example,
we can define the edges of a cube by projecting only its
significant points or defining elements — the six corner points
— onto the image plane, and then connecting the appropriate
corner points with straight lines to construct the edges.

figure 3

4. The image of an extended line must end in two points:

its intersection with the image plane and its vanishing
point. If we have drawn a cube in perspective, what would
happen if we extended an edge of the cube to make an infinitely
long line in physical space? Would that make the image line
infinitely long as well? The answer is no: the image line must
end in two points: its intersection with the image plane and its
vanishing point.

The only exceptions to this rule are lines parallel to the image
plane (they never intersect the image plane, and they do not
converge to a vanishing point), and visual rays, for which the
intersection and vanishing point are the same (see rule 1).

In figure 3, the infinitely long line AB in physical space

intersects the image plane at B and recedes toward the virtual
point A, which is not a physical point (and therefore is shown in
blue) because vanishing points are only points on the image
plane, not points in physical space. The vanishing point is also
the intersection of visual ray AV with the image plane. The
vanishing point projects into the plan as x, and x lies on the line
AS, the plan image of the visual ray AV.

This rule, which the English perspective theorist Brook Taylor

called "the principal foundation of all the practice of
perspective," has important consequences that we will explore in
the next page.

5. The vanishing point of a line is the intersection of the

parallel visual ray with the image plane. If our direction of
view is exactly parallel to any line, then we are looking directly
at the vanishing point for that line; and given a fixed viewpoint,
there is only one vanishing point for any physical line and
therefore only one visual ray parallel to that line. (These
fundamental principles of recession were first proved
geometrically by the Italian mathematician and astronomer
Guidobaldo del Monte in 1600.)

In the metric grid perspective example used above, the

elevation and plan show that the direction of view is parallel to
the gridline of points abc, so those two lines never actually meet
in the real world. Even so, the visual angle between the
direction of view and any point on the gridline becomes smaller
as the point moves farther away from the viewer — the visual
angle between point d and the principal point p is much smaller
than the visual angle between p and a. When the points are
very distant from the viewpoint, the visual angle between the
points and p becomes imperceptibly small and the points merge
with the principal point, as we see in the converging
orthogonals of the metric grid.

In figure 3 (above), the visual ray AV passes through the

vanishing point for image line AB, as does its image AS in the
ground plan; therefore AB, AV and AS are parallel.

figure 4

6. All parallel lines in physical space converge to the same

(single) vanishing point. If any two lines are parallel to a
third line, then they are parallel to each other, which generalizes
rule 5 to any number of lines. Note again that vanishing points
only exist on the image plane, they have no location in physical
space.

An important corollary: any visual ray defines the vanishing

point for all physical lines parallel to that ray. This allows
us to work backwards, from the perspective image to physical
space. Thus, in figure 4, if we pick any arbitrary point C on the
image plane, and draw the image line Cvp (green line), then
this is the image of the line AC in physical space, and we can
deduce that lines AB, AC, AV, AS, Ab and Ac are all parallel.

7. Lines parallel to the direction of view appear to

converge at the principal point. This is only a specific case of
rule 6, but it is very useful. We concluded in the previous
section that orthogonals define a constant width across the
receding transversals in an image. The principal point, and its
associated orthogonal lines, define the primary dimension of
depth or recession in any perspective image.

This is a fact of everyday vision as well. Straight railroad tracks

on level ground (right) are the most striking example. (Here a
camera lens, rather than the eye, creates the perspective parallel railroad tracks converge toward the horizon
viewpoint.) Sunlight provides another case — the sun is so far
away that its light "rays" are essentially parallel at the earth's
surface, and therefore seem to converge when broken into
shafts.

parallel sunbeams converge toward the sun

figure 5

8. Lines through the image plane that intersect the

extended line VS create image lines perpendicular to the
horizon line. The exceptions are visual rays, which pass
through the viewpoint V and therefore appear as image points
on the image plane (perspective rule 1).

The key is that line VS, the viewing height from the ground
plane to the viewpoint V, is perpendicular to the ground plane at
the station point S. Extended without limit, this line is equivalent
to the head midline of a standing viewer. If a line intersects
VS, its plan line will intersect S, and the two lines will lie in the
same plane as VS, which is perpendicular to the ground plane.
Therefore the line image of the plane (perspective rule 10) will
also be perpendicular to the ground plane, the vanishing line of
the ground plane (horizon line) and its intersection with the
image plane (ground line).

Three examples in figure 5 demonstrate that the direction of the

line or its intersection point with VS do not affect the vertical
orientation of the image line. Line AB intersects the line VS at
B, and creates the plan line ab which intersects the station point
S; BS is perpendicular to the ground plane; the image line is
vertical from the intersection ip1 to the vanishing point vp. Line
CS in the ground plane is its own plan line; it forms a triangle
with the visual ray CV and its image line is perpendicular from x
to vp. Finally line DE intersects the ground plane at E and forms
the plan line ES; its image line extends from ip2 to the image
point e'.

In each case, the plane figures (ABSa, VCS and DES) contain
some part of the line VS, which is perpendicular to the ground
plane, so the plane figures and their intersections with the
image plane are also perpendicular to the ground plane.

Rule 8 explains why reflections from bodies of water always form

a vertical smear directly under the light source (image, right):
the reflections all lie along a line from the base of the light
source to the station point, and therefore form a vertical line on
the image plane.
reflections appear vertical in all directions
As a corollary of this rule: for an extended line VX through V
and perpendicular to a plane at X, lines that intersect VX
will form image lines perpendicular to the vanishing line
of the plane. This means reflections on a wetted wall will be
horizontal, perpendicular to the vanishing line for the wall, and
reflections on a sloping wet street will appear at an angle from
vertical perpendicular to the sideways slope of the pavement in
the direction it is viewed.

The rules developed for lines can also be applied to planes. By

knowing the location and orientation of a plane, we also partially
define the location and orientation of any lines it contains. In a
perspective construction, points are used to define line edges,
and edges define the planes that contain their lines.

9. A plane that contains a visual ray intersects the image

plane as a line. This matches rule 1 for lines. If a plane
contains a visual ray then its surface disappears, like a playing
card viewed edge on, and all we see is its straight line
intersection with the image plane.

A useful corollary: any straight line through a point in

perspective space is the intersection with the image plane of the
plane that contains the visual ray passing through that point.

10. The perspective image of any two lines, that either

are parallel or intersect in physical space, defines the
image of the plane containing those lines. This is the
matching principle to rule 3 for lines.

In figure 4 (above), the two image lines Bvp and Avp are
parallel, because vp is a vanishing point; therefore the
perspective image of lines ABC defines the plane ABC. The
same would be true if vp were a point where the lines
intersected in physical space.

figure 6

11. The image of an extended plane must end in two

lines: its intersection with the image plane and its
vanishing line. This is the matching principle to rule 4 for
lines, and similarly the only exceptions are planes parallel to the
image plane and planes that contain a visual ray — for these the
intersection line and vanishing line are the same.

In figure 6, a plane (magenta area) intersects the image plane

at ABC (green line). All lines in this plane that are not parallel to
the image plane recede to its vanishing line XYz. I have drawn
this plane so that it is tilted to intersect the ground plane also;
this intersection is the line CK in physical space. The vanishing
point for CK is Y, the point where the image vanishing line
intersects the image horizon line; and the line YC is the
perspective image of the line CK. Note as before that y lies on
the plan line KS.

As a important corollary, the intersection line and vanishing

line of a plane are always parallel on the image plane. Thus,
in the figure above, the lines ABC and XYz are parallel. In
figure 4 (above), the parallel lines AB and AC define the image
of the plane ABC as the image lines Bvp and Cvp; the
intersection of this plane with the image plane is the straight line
passing through B and C (rule 3); and the vanishing line for the
plane is the line that passes through vp parallel to BC (rule 9).
Similarly, the ground plane defines the ground line (its
intersection with the image plane) and the horizon line (its
vanishing line), and these two lines are always parallel to each
other in a perspective image.

12. The vanishing line for any plane is the parallel plane
containing a visual ray, or the line connecting the
vanishing points for any two lines parallel to the plane. A
plane that contains a visual ray intersects the viewpoint V, which
means the plane is seen "edge on" as a line on the image plane
(rule 9). This matches rule 5 for lines.

13. All parallel planes converge to the same (single)

vanishing line. This matches rule 6 for lines. In the standard
perspective setup, the horizon line is the vanishing line for the
ground plane and all planes parallel to it, such as floors, ceilings,
water surfaces and cloud layers.

14. The vanishing line of a plane contains the vanishing

points for all lines in the plane and all lines parallel to the
plane. This is an extremely powerful rule, because it makes the
vanishing line of an important plane the "attractor" for all lines
parallel to it. Thus, the horizon line, which is the vanishing line
for the ground plane, contains the vanishing points for all lines
constructed level to the ground — that is, the horizontal edges
found in nearly all buildings and their diagonals — even when
the building walls are not parallel to the image plane.

15. The vanishing line for any plane parallel to the

direction of view intersects the principal point. This
matches rule 7 for lines.

All planes parallel to the ground plane any distance above or

below it must converge to the vanishing line for the ground
plane, which is the horizon line (rule 13). In the vertical
dimension, all vertical planes parallel to the direction of view on
either side of it must converge to the vanishing line for the
median plane, which is the median line. Finally, any plane tilted
at an angle to the ground plane but parallel to the direction of
view will create a similarly tilted vanishing line, which again will
pass through the principal point on the image plane.

16. Any plane that contains both a line and the plan
image of the line is perpendicular to the ground plane,
and defines a perpendicular intersection line and
vanishing line on the image plane. This matches rule 8 for
lines. Reciprocally, if the vanishing line of a plane is not
perpendicular to the horizon line, then none of the lines
contained in that plane will be perpendicular to the ground
plane. Rule 16 is useful for the construction of inclined lines, and
for defining the light plane of shadows.

17. Finally, although they are not rules per se, it is important to
memorize the criteria for the four different types of
perspective drawings (discussed in later pages):

• in one point perspective (or central perspective) there is

only one vanishing point, which is identical to the principal point
located on the horizon line and the median line. Central
perspective or 1PP requires all six faces of all square solids to be
either parallel or perpendicular to the image plane and direction
of view.

• in two point perspective (2PP) there are two vanishing

points, neither of which is the principal point, that define a single
vanishing line, usually (but not necessarily) the horizon line. 2PP
requires that two faces of all square solids must be
perpendicular (not parallel) to the image plane and parallel (not
perpendicular) to the direction of view.

• in three point perspective (3PP) there are three vanishing

points, none of them the principal point, that define three
vanishing lines, none or any one of which may be coincident with
the median line, the horizon line or any other line on the image
plane. 3PP requires that no face of any square solid is
perpendicular or parallel to the image plane or to the direction of
view.

The most common type of drawing requries mixed

perspective, in which some objects appear in one type of
perspective and some objects in another. In this case each
object or group of similarly arranged objects must be treated as
a separate perspective problem; they are combined as a single
image because they share a common circle of view.

image plane, viewpoint & direction of view

Now it's appropriate to come back to the specific viewpoint and
direction of view that are the core of any perspective image, and
consider how these relate to the image plane and to the features
of the scene or landscape.

Image Plane Orientation. First, let's revisit the point

mentioned earlier that the image plane is not necessarily
perpendicular to the ground plane (for example, in a 3PP
image), but is always considered to be a flat surface,
perpendicular to and centered on the direction of view.

In terms of projective geometry, we can just as easily and

accurately record the optical facts of the world on an image
plane that is not perpendicular to the direction of view (or to
anything else). And we can use a curved surface just as
effectively as a flat one, as was commonly done with the ceiling
frescos created for the domes and barrel vaults of European
Baroque churches and palaces and, more recently, is used as the
image plane in curvilinear perspective.

In other words, the flatness and perpendicular orientation of the

image plane are essentially conventional. The convention arises
from the way we typically (conventionally) make and show art.
We assume the image plane is perpendicular to the ground plane
because we expect the finished image will be hung for viewing
on a vertical gallery or museum wall. We assume the image
plane is flat because stretched canvas and drawing paper are
flat. We might think of these as display conventions contained
in the perspective geometry.

We display images the way we conventially do because that

makes them easy to view for people who adopt a convenient
posture and position: that is, standing in front of the image
surface. We might call these the viewing conventions
contained in the idea of the image plane, because "the right way
to hang the painting" depends on our assumptions about "the
right way to look at the painting." We can specify these in terms
of the the orientation of the viewer's head in relation to the
image plane, as shown below.

viewing conventions toward the image plane

The human sense of visual orientation ("up" and "down")

depends on the head, not the body. The head orientation is
defined in three dimensions: a pupil line drawn through the
pupils of both eyes, a direction of view perpendicular to the
pupil line, and a head midline perpendicular to both the pupil
line and the direction of view and usually parallel to the erect
spine. (This is the posture for binocular vision. If the image
plane represents a "peep show" view from one eye, then the
direction of view is the optical axis of that eye.)

By convention the standard rectangular format of the painting or

photograph are aligned so that (1) the direction of view is
roughly through the center of the format and perpendicular to
its surface; (2) the pupil line is parallel to the top and bottom
edges of the format or the horizon line within the image; and (3)
the head midline is perpendicular to the floor and parallel to the
image plane. All these conditions are met if the viewer is
standing squarely in front of the painting with head erect, and
the painting is hung at eye height and level to the floor —
display and viewing conventions that are summarized as eye
level, facing, and comfortably far away. Note that despite these
ideal viewing conventions, paintings are routinely displayed at
heights or in locations that make that impractical.

Finally, there is a third kind of structure folded into the image

plane, which is the projection assumption that defines the
artist's view of things. The convention here is simply that the
"artist's view" (or camera view) at the time the image was
created explains the appearance of the world in the image. The
projection assumption governs the interchangeable use of "we"
or "the artist" in art critical narratives ("in this painting, we are
looking down into Niagra Falls" or "in this painting, the artist
is/was looking down into Niagra Falls"). We expect, for example,
that if the horizon line is parallel to the top and bottom of the
image plane, then the artist's pupil line was parallel to the
horizon, even though the artist may have been leaning or
crouching while working. We experience the book
reproductions of Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel paintings as
vertical and flat, even when they are located on curved walls or
over the viewer's head — and in execution required the painter
to lean backward or lie on his back.

The crux is that the display convention, viewing convention and

projection assumption fuse the artist's view, the painting image
and viewer's stance within a common, conceptual visual
framework. The "right view" of a visual image and our
interpretation of it is anchored in spatial orientation: we cannot
recognize faces, or correctly judge the relationships among
objects, when they are "turned the wrong way" (images, right).
The "right orientation" is embedded in our head axes, and these
must align with the image contents and its format borders to
produce an acceptable image display.

These conventions are so powerful, and so basic to visual images are uninterpretable in the "wrong" orientation
experience, that we enforce them even for paintings by Jackson
Pollock or Bridget Riley, where they mean nothing to the visual
texture of the work; or in the "conceptual" wall drawings of Sol
Lewitt, where echoes of the display or viewing conventions belie
the claim that the drawing instructions only respond to the
limitations of the drawing site.

Paintings gain visual drama or impact when there is an obvious

difference between the projection assumption and viewing
convention — for example, when the artist's direction of view
was downward or upward in relation to the ground plane. These
elevation differences are acceptable because they still imply a
shared upright stance ("balance") in both the artist and viewer.
In contrast, we are usually intolerant of image tilt in which the
artist's pupil line or horizontal camera frame are not parallel to
the ground plane (as if the artist's head was tilted toward one
shoulder, or the camera was askew when the picture was taken).

Object Orientation to the Direction of View. Dramatic

changes in the image occur by changing the angle between the
direction of view (or camera sightline) and the surfaces of a
primary form. That is, image perspective changes with the
direction of view, even when the viewpoint stays the same.

Two photographs (below) show a Roman arch in two separate

views from exactly the same viewpoint, made with a pinhole
camera — a camera that focuses light through a tiny hole
instead of a lens. This exactly reproduces on film the perspective
optics from a single center of projection.

effect of changing only the direction of view

the viewpoint is fixed and the direction of view remains parallel to
the ground plane; from M.H. Pirenne, Optics, Photography and
Painting (1970)

The only difference between the two photographs is in the

direction of view, and therefore in the orientation of the image
plane in relation to the frontal planes of the arch — the pinhole
was kept in exactly the same location. The image at left shows a
direction of view perpendicular to the face of the arch; the
horizontals appear parallel to each other and to the horizon line.
When the direction of view is shifted 25° to the left, the
horizontals now appear to converge, and only those at the
horizon are parallel to the horizon. That is, simply by changing
the direction of view, we've transformed a central perspective
view into a two point perspective view.

If the camera were instead rotated up or down, so that the

direction of view was no longer parallel to the ground plane, the
image would morph into a two point perspective image with the
vanishing points on the median line; if it were rotated both
horizontally and vertically, the image would shift into the even
more complicated three point perspective view. Linear
perspective is not just about a viewpoint or about a direction of
view: it is defined by a specific viewpoint and a specific
direction of view.

The crux is that the design of a perspective image does not

consist simply in the choice of viewpoint onto a primary form
such as a building, but the direction of view (location of the
principal point) as well. The guidelines for adjusting or choosing
the viewpoint and direction of view are somewhat subjective,
and depend heavily on the intended impact of the image, but
some suggestions are provided in the section on drawing from
blueprints or plans.

Horizon Line and Viewpoint. An important and useful fact of

perspective is that all objects at the same height as the
viewpoint are intersected by the true horizon line. This
rule holds regardless of how far above level ground the
viewpoint may be, and even when the direction of view is not
parallel to the ground plane.

horizon line and viewpoint in landscape perspective

from J.T. Thibault, "Application of Linear Perspective in the Graphic
Arts" (c.1860)

The French artist J.T. Thibault created a compact illustration

(above). The top, middle and bottom views correspond to the
sitting, standing or elevated standing viewpoint of the blue
figure at left, who represents the viewing height of the artist in
each image. (Blue man's standing height is indicated by the
brown line fixed in front of the stairs.)

All the perspective relationships between other figures or objects

in the image and the true horizon line (the orange line, not the
apparent horizon line defined by the hills) change with the
viewing height. When the viewer is sitting, the horizon line
passes through his head and therefore appears to cross the
waist of standing figures around him. When he is standing on
level ground, the horizon line passes through his head and
through the heads of all standing figures as tall as he is — no
matter how near or far they are from the viewer. When the
viewpoint is from a raised platform, all figures on the ground
below appear below the horizon line. (Note also the changing
location of the horizon line against the roadside pillar.)

This fact arises from rule 12: all parallel planes converge to the
same vanishing line. In this case, the first plane is the ground
plane, whose vanishing line is the horizon. The viewing height,
extended in all directions, creates a second plane parallel to the
ground plane, like the surface of a large lake up to the height of
the viewpoint. This surface will also converge to the horizon line.
Regardless of the direction of view, all objects lower than this
plane will be "under water" and therefore below the horizon line.
All objects above it will be "above water" and above the horizon
line.

In the photo of train tracks above, the horizon line intersects

the bottom edge of the red passenger car, just above the
wheels. This is somewhat lower than the standing height of a
man, so we can infer that the photographer was crouching or
sitting (or the camera was on a low tripod) when the picture was
taken.

Many visual illusions of size depend on the position of the object

relative to the visible or presumed horizon line, even when other
perspective cues are removed. The famous and delightful Ames
room (right), contrived by Aldebert Ames Jr. in the 1940's, is a
large trapezoidal enclosure that appears perfectly square and
level when viewed through a peephole near one corner. Figures
appear to grow or shrink in opposite corners of the room
because the "short" corner on the left is substantially lower and
farther away than the "tall" corner on the right, reducing both
the apparent size of the figure and her relative position to the
"horizon line" defined by the windows and floor. an ames room

perspective distortions
The standard demonstration of linear perspective — drawing on
a sheet of glass the view from a fixed location as seen through
one eye — shows that the geometry of linear perspective really
works: what you see is what you get!

Viewing Distortions. However, a perfect perspective drawing

or optically flat photograph reproduces three dimensional space
on the viewer's retina only when we view it with a single eye,
located at the center of projection and looking along the correct
direction of view implied by the perspective geometry.

And there's the catch. Even if the perspective drawing accurately

represents a specific viewpoint, we typically don't look at the
perspective drawing from the "correct" center of
projection. The drawing may be done at a scale that
conveniently fits the space available within the picture format,
but creates a center of projection that is too close to or too far
from the picture surface; the painting or fresco may be
positioned too far above the floor; or the painting may be
viewed from different distances or angles as it is hung in a room
or gallery; and, of course, we always look at it with two eyes.

What happens if we look at a perspective drawing from a

different location? The following diagram illustrates the crux of
the problem.

perspective geometry and viewing distortion

We start by viewing from a distance of 5 feet (60") a very large

(40" x 60") painting of a rectangular office building, conveniently
drawn so that its vanishing lines are at 45° to our direction of
view. This places the diagonal vanishing points of the drawing
exactly at the diagonal vanishing points of our 90° circle of view,
and the drawing perfectly recreates the illusion of three
dimensional space.

But this is a large painting, so we decide to step back a few feet

(to 90") and look at it again. Now the drawing vanishing
points no longer correspond to our visual vanishing points
as defined by our 90° circle of view. As a result, the edges and
angles of the building seem to place the vanishing points too
close together, and the building appears exaggerated in
perspective proportions — the front angle of the building seems
more like 70° than 90°.

Of course, linear perspective can produce compelling illusions,

but not easily — the image must be in exact perspective, the
edges of the image must be hidden, and the image must be
viewed with a single eye from the center of projection, in what is
called a "peep show" or peephole arrangement. Binocular
photography and a special binocular apparatus that presents
each image to a separate eye can create very vivid depth
illusions, but even slight changes in the point of view will destroy
the effect.

Foreshortening Distortions. There is a second problem

caused by oblique (sideways, upwards or downwards) angles of
projection onto the image plane. This is related to the
perspective fact of foreshortening, but a distinction between
two kinds of foreshortening is necessary to understand what is
going on.

foreshortening and the triangular proportions

(top) rotation foreshortening causes the object surface XY to
become oblique to the image plane; (bottom) shift foreshortening
causes the object surface AB to remain parallel to the image plane;
both examples are an equal distance from the direction of view and
appear identically foreshortened (by 25°) at the viewpoint

In shift foreshortening, a two dimensional surface is shifted

away from the direction of view (the principal point) but remains
parallel to the image plane; the actual surface always appears
foreshortened because it is at an oblique angle to the viewpoint.

In rotation foreshortening, the surface is rotated so that it is

no longer parallel to the image plane; the actual surface may or
may not appear foreshortened, depending on whether it is at an
oblique or perpendicular angle to the viewpoint.

These different types of foreshortening have different

perspective effects.

perspective image of flat forms

shift foreshortening has no effect on the perspective image of a two
dimensional surface parallel to the image plane

The figure above shows the correct perspective projection of an

identical row of windows (center). In the top row, the windows
are kept parallel to the image plane but become increasingly
oblique to the direction of view (shift foreshortening); in the
bottom row, the windows are rotated in place to remain
perpendicular to the viewpoint, which puts them at an oblique
angle to the image plane (rotation foreshortening).

Surprisingly, even though it produces a foreshortened view of

the actual two dimensional object, shift foreshortening has
no effect on a perspective image. A window shifted 45° to
one side is exactly the same size on the image plane as a
window centered on the direction of view. This occurs because,
at the location of the perspective image of the window, the
image plane is also foreshortened by the same oblique angle
of view, and this "secondary" foreshortening matches the
foreshortening seen in the surface.

In contrast, rotation foreshortening always alters the

perspective image. The image becomes "distorted" in the
direction perpendicular to the axis of rotation, regardless of
whether the object is central or peripheral in the circle of view
and even when the rotation eliminates any foreshortening in the
actual object! Remember: rotation foreshortening is still a
completely correct perspective view of the rotated object, when
viewed from the center of projection; it just looks wrong when
we view the image from farther away.

The distorting effects of rotation are caused by the recession

that creates vanishing points. As explained in the discussion of
the orthogonals, an equal physical displacement of the object
from the direction of view produces a smaller and smaller
perspective displacement from principal point as the object is
farther from the viewpoint. Rotation pushes one half of the
surface farther away from the image plane, the other half closer
to the image plane, which makes the recession shift unequal on
the two sides.

The objectionable perspective distortions occur in the oblique

view of a three dimensional object that has only been shift
foreshortened on the image plane. In these cases, what
"rotates" is not the plane surface of a two dimensional object
but our view of a plane cross section through its three
dimensional form.

perspective image of rounded forms

in a 90° circle of view; from M.H. Pirenne, Optics, Painting and
Photography (1970)

The diagram (above) shows a perfectly correct perspective

image of a regular row of cylindrical columns with flat top
surfaces supporting regular spheres. If you could use one eye to
examine this figure from the true center of projection (directly in
front of the central sphere, at a distance equal to the radius of
the circle of view, roughly 5cm or 2" from your computer
screen), you would discover that all the forms really are in
perfect perspective.

But because we view the drawing from much farther away (and
with both eyes), the spheres and columns appear grossly
distorted. The columns give the illusion of being viewed head on,
when in fact those near the circle of view are seen from one
side, so that the front and back of the forms define their cross
section. These are not the same distance from the image plane,
so they display unequal recession toward the principal point,
which elongates the form.

These distortions have distinctive features worth memorizing:

• Radial thickening. The spheres and columns displaced from

the direction of view appear thicker than those at the center of
view; this thickening is along a line from the object to the
principal point.

• Displacement exaggeration. The amount of thickening or

distortion depends on the displacement of the object from the
principal point (the visual angle between the object and the
direction of view); the distortion becomes more extreme toward
the 90° circle of view.

• Diagonal exaggeration. The distortions appear most

extreme in the diagonal directions, because these combine the
effects of the height and width displacements.

• Radial tilting. Horizontal surfaces, such as the orange flat

tops of the columns, appear tilted along the radial line of
thickening rather than downward or upward in relation to the
viewer.

• Peripheral crowding. Equal intervals between three

dimensional objects (such as the spaces between columns) close
together as displacement increases; eventually the spaces
between the columns disappear and the columns seem to
overlap.

Cures for Perspective Distortions. If we keep in mind that

these rotation "distortions" are in fact accurate perspective
images when viewed from the center of projection, then it is
clear that the reason they appear as distortions is because the
image is viewed from somewhere else. Managing the distortions
is therefore a concession to the uncertain viewing geometry
that governs image display.

The traditional diagnosis for perspective distortions is that the

width of the drawing is too large in relation to the 90°
circle of view. This is equivalently expressed as "the vanishing
points are too close together", or "the distance points are too
close to the principal point", or "the viewing distance is too close
to the image plane." In effect, the viewing distortions are
more obtrusive when a painting encompasses a large circle of
view.

If the image vanishing points were much farther apart (that is, if
the image were enclosed by a smaller circle of view), then the
drawing would represent objects as they appear from a
viewpoint much farther away, and changes in the the viewing
geometry would cause smaller proportional changes in the
image circle of view.

In effect, the viewing distance to the image is a smaller

proportion of the apparent distance to the objects in the image,
so the drawing can be acceptably viewed from a wider range of
viewing distances. In addition, the rotation distortions and
crowding of serial forms that become exaggerated toward the
90° circle of view are cropped out of the image entirely.

The practical limit for an acceptable visual cone has historically

been a 60° circle of view — a suggestion first made by Piero
della Francesca in c.1470 and repeated often since then. In fact,
depending on the geometry of the principal form and the
location of the vanishing points, a 40° circle of view or less is
much more typical.

Leonardo da Vinci devoted many pages in his notebooks

(c.1490) to the analysis of perspective distortions, and he
especially disliked the exaggerated apparent size of the
perspective grid as it reached the ground line of the image plane
(for example, as in the ground squares of this image). He
recommended painting an object as it appears from a distance
of 3 to 10 times its actual dimensions (e.g., a standing
figure 1.75 meters tall should be viewed from 5 to 18 meters).
This is equivalent to placing the figure within a 19° to 6° circle
of view. In fact, modern vision research has found that most
people say an object "fills their field of view" once it occupies
approximately a 20° circle of view; the classical French rule
has been to contain the image within a 30° circle of view. I use
a 25° circle of view as a rule of thumb when designing or
analyzing an image, which corresponds to a viewing distance
to a finished painting of about 2.5 times its height, width or
diagonal. (These issues are explored further in the section on
display geometry & image impact.)

So the restricted circle of view "cure" for perspective distortions

was well known to artists from the beginning of perspective
practice (even if the necessary "dosage" was ambiguous). But
these artists also realized that some distortions are more
intrusive than others to a casual viewer. Apparent distortions
in rectangular forms are more objectionable than distortions in
curved forms; distortions in the horizontal direction are more
obtrusive than distortions in the vertical direction (in part
because the format is usually wider than it is high); distortions
in unfamiliar objects are more acceptable than distortions in
familiar objects; distortions in the apparent location of vanishing
points are more acceptable than distortions in the outline of
forms; distortions in a mixed perspective drawing are more
objectionable than those in a rigorous perspective drawing; and
so on.

As a result, if artists were working with a large fresco or canvas

format, or wanted a panoramic effect, they adopted a radical
practice guided by the context of the painting: they would
simply "correct" or disguise perspective distortions
wherever they appeared objectionable. This was almost
always done for figures, rounded forms, the spacing between
columns of a facade, and so on. Often several kinds of
"corrections" were used at the same time.

raphael's school of athens (1511) from an elevated

viewpoint

A fine example is Raphael's large fresco The School of Athens

which fills an almost 30 foot wide section of Vatican wall. This
huge format clearly imposes a panoramic context on the image
design, which Raphael utilized in novel ways. He framed the
perspective construction within a relatively restricted 40° circle
of view, which crops extreme distortions from the image —
although as a result the correct perspective viewing point is not
even in the room.

The perspective distortions are disguised through numerous

clever omissions from the picture space. The vanishing point of
the enormous central passageway is hidden by the two
approaching figures. Most of the picture space is filled by walls
parallel to the picture plane. The pair of square columns on each
side are cropped at the top and hidden at the bottom by
standing figures, eliminating the repeated sideways intervals or
diagonal corners that would accent perspective distortions. The
semicircular front arch of the barrel vault is cropped at the top,
because it would otherwise appear to be elongated vertically.
The floor tiles on either side of the foreground are hidden by
groups of figures. The foreground stairs help to separate the
figures vertically and interrupt the perspective continuity of the
tile floor.

Most important, all figures are drawn as if centered on the

raphael's school of athens from a human viewpoint
direction of view — that is, with no perspective distortion. This
is easiest to see in the two astronomers shown holding celestial
globes (at right). Both figures are located at the righthand edge
of the fresco, beyond the 30° circle of view. Rather than draw
the spheres with the correct but elliptical perspective
projections, Raphael simply drew them perfectly round.

Thus, the architecture enclosing the figures is cropped and

oriented as a carefully edited and arranged perspective speace,
while each of the figures is drawn in its own, "head on"
perspective space. Yet this hodgepodge of perspectives appears
coherent and harmonious.

The last piece of the puzzle is that the fresco is normally viewed
correction of perspective "distortions" in Raphael's
from a vantage too close to the image plane and several feet
School of Athens (1511)
below the center of projection, which causes a distinct upward
convergence in the image verticals (image, below). Yet in
context the convergence lends a soaring grandeur to the image,
and by means of this esthetic impact the overall perspective
space appears harmonious and convincing.

Expressive Uses of Distortion. As painters developed dozens

of similar tricks to exclude, hide or counteract perspective
distortions, thus minimizing the effect of viewing a painting from
"incorrect" locations, they discovered that perspective
distortions could be used for expressive effect or to
counteract unfavorable display conditions.

The earliest examples are image manipulations necessary to

produce the desired visual effect in fresco images viewed from
various locations on the floor of a large building. Michelangelo's
famous Last Judgment demonstrates a dual compensation: the
"celestial" figures high on the wall are almost 50% larger than
the "damned" figures at its base (photos, right). The sacred
figures carry clearly even to the back of the chapel; but viewed
from the altar, the higher figures are 50% farther from the
viewer than those at the base of the wall, so that the visual
differences combine as a balanced overall composition.

The most extreme examples are anamorphic images —

relative scale of figures high and low in Michelangelo's
especially popular in the 16th and 17th centuries — which
"Last Judgment"
appear as unrecognizable smears or blurs unless viewed from an
extreme angle or with a corrective mirror. These strange
paintings suggest how far artists were willing to play with the
geometrical implications of perspective in search of new artistic
resources.

In general, rendering a single three dimensional form within a

circle of view greater than 40° (that is, as the form would
appear to the naked eye from a close distance) has four
important effects on its visual impact:

• principal forms become more dynamic — buildings or

figures seem to loom, surge and expand

• perspective space is enhanced — the convergence among

vanishing lines is more emphatic, creating a vertiginous depth of
space

• the front surfaces of the form dominate — the sides of the

form may disappear from view, or appear smaller or highly
foreshortened, and the side surface textures are viewed at a
more grazing angle

• vertical dimensions dominate — in particular, the extreme

corners of the form may appear to jut or loom out of proportion
with the rest of the figure.

Renaissance and Baroque artists who experimented with these

effects understood that perspective paintings are effective even
when they are not viewed from the center of projection. This is
sometimes called Zeeman's paradox, but the paradox is purely
conceptual: it assumes we view a perspective representation as
a retinal simulation, when in fact we view it as a two
dimensional painting. In other words, perspective
constructions create visual symbols, not visual illusions.
The key is that paintings lack the depth of field cues created
by binocular vision; we are always aware a painting is flat rather
than deep. And that is how our mind interprets it, adjusting our
understanding of the painting to compensate for our position.

Some famous problems are simply cases of incorrect analysis.

For example, artists from Leonardo down to Flocon & Barre
have been vexed by the paradox that long parallel edges (such
as the top and bottom of a straight wall or the sides of a
cylindrical tower) appear to taper away from the viewer; yet
they are drawn (in central perspective) as parallel straight lines.
This is because the same triangular proportions that
foreshorten the parallel edges of the wall or column also
foreshorten the parallel lines in the image. Perspective changes
the apparent dimensions of the wall and the apparent
dimensions of the drawing of the wall: no "curvilinear correction"
is necessary.

As the illusionistic use of perspective was never a serious goal

in painting, artists were free to ignore "exact" perspective
projections and instead exploit perspective for its
representational, expressive effects — mixing correct
perspective buildings with "incorrect" perspective figures,
obeying perspective recession but "bending" long foreground
lines, and always adjusting the circle of view and center of
projection to suit the subject, format, and installation of the
work.

The perspective foundations in ironclad geometry and intricate

drawing disguise how much exploration, improvisation and
creativity artists historically allowed themselves when using
perspective methods. Raphael's figures and celestial spheres do
not need to be in correct perspective because they combine so
well as icons within an elegantly designed symbolization of
space. The rules of linear perspective only help us to create the
symbols, not combine them into works of art.

N E X T : Central Perspective

Last revised 07.I.2015 • © 2015 Bruce MacEvoy