two point perspective

Two point perspective or 2PP is the most commonly used

construction method in artistic and architectural work, and it
builds entirely on the perspective techniques already introduced.

The presentation of two dimensions of recession, and the

freedom we have to represent the primary form from countless
points of view, makes this framework suitable for nearly all
landscape, portrait and architectural situations. The three
vanishing points of 3PP perspective are usually necessary only
for downward or upward looking landscape views, or hovering
views of buildings or still life objects.

The unifying theme of this page is the correct proportioning of

objects in perspective through methods for rotating vanishing
points to a specific angle of view and locating the measure
points to project in depth the dimensions of a measure bar
established to a specific image scale on the image plane.

Working with two vanishing points creates some practical

problems when the points are spaced very far apart. I discuss
some approaches to solving the problem.

The problem must be solved rather than ignored, because

vanishing point spacing is critical to the correct appearance of
objects in space. The final sections explain why, and describe
methods to identify the center of projection — the optimal
location for viewing the image — and the original circle of view,
using only clues within the image itself. This can be done for any
1PP, 2PP or even 3PP image where we can reconstruct diagonals
or vanishing points from the forms in the image.

two point perspective

Central or one point perspective represents a static and
symmetrical view of space and the objects within it, with an
emphasis on central recession in space — the recession of
perspective gradients and the edges of forms exactly coincide.
Two point perspective represents a turning or moving aside, a
glance to the left or right, an approach to the primary form that
is more informal, idiosyncratic and complex, composed as it is of
two adjacent sides of every object woven into a single
perspective view.

This view is usually associated with the orientation of the

objects, which are simply turned at an angle to the image plane.
But we have already seen that 2PP arises from a direction of
view — a sideways view — that is no longer perpendicular to
the primary form. These sideways, intimate or idiosyncratic
views greatly expand the range of pictorial effects and emotional
associations a perspective image can create.

Defining Features of Two Point Perspective. The diagram

shows the simplest 2PP situation, in which a cube is centered in
view but rotated 45° to the image plane.

two point perspective (2PP): the basic geometry

In 2PP there are two vanishing points for the object (vp1 and
vp2) which form a right or 90° angle. Each vanishing point also
has its own angle to the direction of view, shown in the diagram
as the angle between the thick blue lines at the top of the circle
of view and the median line (direction of view in the visual ray
setup). If one of these angles is x°, then the other angle must
be 90°–x° — the two angles together must equal the 90° angle.
All edges and lines parallel to the horizontal edges of the cube
converge on one of these vanishing points.
There is no third vanishing point for the vertical edges and lines
parallel to them, because these are parallel to the image plane.
This is rarely a disadvantage in the 2PP drawings of architectural
verticals, such as the walls of interior rooms or exterior facades
viewed from ground level. In these limited situations the
distortion in vertical proportions is usually insignificant.

Now the perspective gradients created by recession along the

direction of view form one characterization of physical depth,
while the object's recession toward the two vanishing points
creates another. This creates a palpable contrast between the
viewer and the object, highlighting the accidental or arbitrary
viewpoint of the viewer, or the distinctive physical presence of
the object. In traditional architectural renderings, standard
angles between the object and the direction of view to the object
— either 45°/45° or 30°/60° — have been used to control this
contrast.

When the cube is turned at a 45° to the direction of view, one of

the diagonal vanishing points (dvp) is now coincident with the
principal point (dvp = dv) and the other diagonal vanishing
point disappears, as its visual rays are parallel to the image
plane, and the contrast between viewer and object recession is
minimized or balanced.

No matter what orientation the object vanishing points make

take, the dv still defines the recession in depth (changes in
apparent size and textures) produced by the viewer's central
recession, and the dv is still still used to project a unit
dimension in depth away from the viewer along the ground
plane and planes parallel to it.

However recession along the lines defined by the object —

changes with distance in the spacing of object features, or in the
spacing of a unit dimension away from the object along the
street plan or geometrical grid defined by the object itself —
now create a separate system of recession in space. Depth in
this system is controlled by two measure points (mp1 and
mp2) which are used to project a measure bar or unit dimension
into the recession created by each vanishing point.

rotating the vanishing points

In 2PP, the cube can be rotated around its vertical axis to any
position, as long as the vertical edges remain parallel to the
image plane. The side planes of the cube, and all their horizontal
edges, are no longer parallel to the image plane. The first
perspective construction problem is to locate the two vanishing
points for these edges.

To review, in the visual ray method of perspective

construction, the radius of the circle of view is equal to the
distance of the viewer from the image plane. So the geometry of
the vanishing points is solved by placing the viewpoint at the top
of the circle of view. In this position, we are looking down on the
viewing geometry. The vertical radius of the 90° circle of view
represents the distance from the viewpoint to the image plane;
the horizon line represents the image plane viewed "edge on"
from above, so it shows the location on the image plane of all
vanishing points perceived from the viewpoint; and the median
line represents the direction of view.

In this setup, we locate the left and right vanishing points

through the angle of rotation between the front face of the
primary form and the image plane, which is equal to the angle
between a side face of the primary form and the direction of
view. The "primary form" is simply the cubic or rectangular solid
that defines most of the perspective edges in the drawing. For a
room interior, it is the floor plan that defines the visible floor and
walls. For an external architectural view, it is the visible sides of
the largest building in view.

With the viewpoint placed at the top of the circle of view, we find
the angle of rotation by drawing the plan (floor plan or aerial
view) of the primary form within the top half of the circle of
view, with the corner nearest to the viewer placed on the
location of the viewpoint on the image plane. Then the two
vanishing points are found by extending the two front sides of
the primary form from the viewpoint to the image plane or
horizon line (diagram, below).
 object geometry added to the circle of view
primary form in the orientation for two point perspective

This angle of rotation can be established exactly (by using a

protractor, or architect's triangles with their standard 30°, 45° or
60° corner angles), or approximately, by eye or feel. A useful
way to identify this angle from a photograph or physical
viewpoint is to mark on the plan of the primary form the point
where the front corner seems to cut the back side of the form,
creating the back edge cut.

Alternately, if the view is from a sufficiently far distance, you can

estimate the visual proportions between the two front sides of
the form (e.g., the left side is visually 3 times wider than the
right side), then rotate the plan around the viewpoint until the
distance between the side corners and the median line are in
matching proportions.

If the circle of view is very large, the rotation can be worked out
on a reduced scale. With a compass, draw a circle of view with a
7.5cm radius (15cm or 6" wide), and mark the compass pinhole
as dv. Scribe the vertical median line over the pinhole, and
locate the viewpoint at the top. Then draw the horizon line
perpendicular to the median line and extending beyond the circle
of view on both sides. Next, lay a sheet of paper over this circle
with one corner at the viewpoint, and rotate the sheet around
this corner until you have the approximate orientation of the two
sides you want. Make sure the corner is exactly aligned with the
viewpoint, then mark the two places where the paper edges
cross the horizon line. Measure the distance (in centimeters)
from these two points to dv, and multiply by 20. You now have
the measurements of the two vanishing points from dv in a 3
meter (~10 foot) circle of view.

Alternately, you can use a protractor centered at the viewpoint

on the circle of view to mark off the exact angles of the two
sides — just be sure the two angles are exactly 90° apart.
Extend these angles as lines from the viewpoint to the horizon
line, measure and multiply by 20, as before.

The simplest (though nontraditional) method is to derive the

vanishing point locations as proportions of the length of the
circle of view radius at whatever size you construct it. Any
pocket calculator will deliver these trigonometric ratios
directly, as the tangent of the angle of any side in relation to
the direction of view. Landmark values are tabulated below for
reference.

VP spacing
for sides of a right angled object
(1.0 = radius of 90° circle of view)
angle to dv
left VP right VP
(degrees)
5 0.09 11.43
10 0.18 5.67
15 0.27 3.73
20 0.36 2.75
25 0.47 2.14
30 0.58 1.73
35 0.70 1.43
40 0.84 1.19
45 1.00 1.00
50 1.19 0.84
55 1.43 0.70
60 1.73 0.58
65 2.14 0.47
70 2.75 0.36
75 3.73 0.27
80 5.67 0.18
 85 11.43 0.09

In the example rotation diagram (above), the lefthand face of

the cube is at a 30° angle to the direction of view, so vp1 is
located 0.58 radius lengths on the lefthand side of the horizon
line, measured from the direction of view dv. The righthand face
of the cube must be at a 90°–x° (90°–30°) or 60° angle, which
means vp2 is located 1.73 radius lengths along the right side of
the horizon line from the direction of view.

The tangent derivation is very handy as it applies to any surface

or edge at any angle to the direction of view — for example, the
five sides of the USA's Pentagon. All that is necessary is the
angle of any side to the direction of view; the angles of all other
sides can be derived by addition or subtraction, and the tangent
of these angles locates the vanishing points as fractions of the
circle of view radius along the horizon line.

locating the measure points

The next problem is: how do we determine the spacing along
vanishing lines as objects recede from view? In central
perspective the single vanishing point (the principal point)
defines recession in space along the orthogonals (vanishing lines
to the principal point), and the diagonal vanishing points project
units of measurement from the image plane onto the
orthogonals.

In 2PP, the principal point still defines the viewer's central

recession and the perspective gradients that the direction of
view creates on the ground plane and all planes parallel to the
direction of view. But the object vanishing points define their
own recession (vanishing lines) in two directions, and the task is
to establish units of measurement along these vanishing lines.

We can still transfer a unit of depth established along the

vanishing lines toward one vanishing point onto the vanishing
lines toward the other vanishing point, by means of the object's
diagonal vanishing point located within the 90° circle of view.

However we need a separate method for transferring units of

measurement from the image plane onto the vanishing lines
defined by either vanishing point. This transfer is done with
measure points, as first explained by Brook Taylor in his New
Principles of Linear Perspective (1719).

Geometry of Measure Points. In the context of the visual ray

method of perspective construction, the problem is to project a
distance scale or unit dimension, defined along the ground line,
into perpspective space along a vanishing line to one of the
object vanishing points.

the geometry of a measure bar

image triangles Gaa' and GAA' are isosceles triangles in physical
space: the physical angles at a, a', A and A' are equal and lines
parallel to aa' or AA' divide the physical sides aG and a'G into line
segments of equal length

defining an isosceles triangle — a triangle with two equal sides and

two equal interior angles. One equal side of this triangle is in the image
plane, and the other side is in a vanishing line.

Every vanishing line ends in two points: its vanishing point and
its intersection with the image plane (perspective rule 4). Thus
the vanishing line VG (diagram, above) must define an interior
angle VGA at its intersection with the image plane. This is the
image plane angle (x), and it is the apex of the isosceles
triangle we want to construct.

To find the base of the triangle, we construct an arc in physical

space from G with radius GA', the distance along the vanishing
line from the ground line intersection to the front corner of the
primary form or line segment we want to measure in perspective
space (diagram, right). This arc intersects the ground line at A.
Then GA' = GA, the interior angles (z) at A and A' are equal,
and the triangle A'GA is an isosceles triangle. Then the line
segment A'A, extended to the horizon line, defines the measure
point mp1 of the vanishing point vp1.

The purpose of this construction is that all lines parallel to A'A

define equal line segments in both the ground line and in the
vanishing line. Thus, the lines aa' and bb', both parallel to AA',
define a line segment ab in the ground line that is exactly equal
in length to the line segment a'b' in physical space.

Equivalently, the unit dimension BA in the ground line is shifted

into physical space as the measure bar B'A', which represents
dimensions along the ground line as seen in perspective space at
any distance we require.

Because all parallel lines intersect the same vanishing point

(perspective rule 6), any pair of lines through mp1 project a
unit of measurement, defined in the image plane, into
perspective space along the vanishing line VG. So we first find
the measure point, then draw a line from mp through the
anchor point A', align a measure bar with A', then rule off the
dimensions we require by connecting the measure bar back to
mp. Where these measure lines cross the vanishing line, we
have the measurements in correct perspective along the
vanishing line.

Locating the Measure Points. So how do we locate the

measure points? We cannot draw an arc around G, as this is
foreshortened into an ellipse on the image plane. Instead, in the
visual ray setup, draw an arc from each vanishing point,
from the viewpoint to the horizon line (image plane) to find the
measure points, as shown below. This simply defines the
required isosceles triangle in the plan view of the area between
the viewpoint and the image plane.
 two point perspective: locating the measure points

Thus, the arc from vp1 intersects the image plane at B; the
triangle VAB is an isosceles triangle in the ground plan between
the viewpoint and the image plane (when folded along the
horizon line into the 90° circle of view), and its base VB is the
visual ray that intersects the image plane at measure point
mp1. The arc from vp2 intersects the image plane at Y; the
triangle VXY is an isosceles triangle and its base VY is the visual
ray that intersects the image plane at measure point mp2.

A little more care is necessary now when using a measure bar

than was needed in central perspective: it matters which side of
the figure the bar is placed on, and which measure point you
use, because we have separate points for each side of the
figure.

The guiding rule is that you are projecting measurements onto

vanishing lines, and the vanishing lines recede to a vanishing
point. So you use the measure point defined by an arc from
the vanishing point. This is the measure point opposite the
vanishing point that controls the vanishing line you want to
measure.
 two point perspective: projecting forward or
backward from a measure bar

The diagram (above) shows the four possible combinations (in

2PP) for projecting from a measure bar located on either side of
the anchor point. In all cases the correct measure point is the
one that was defined by an arc from the vanishing point that
controls the line that must be measured (as indicated by the
black dot). The measure point you use is not determined by
whether the measure bar is left or right of the anchor point.
Note also that a point can be projected both backward and
forward from a measure bar; a visual ray from the dvp verifies
these forward projections.
As shown above, it is also always useful to identify the diagonal
vanishing point dvp (alias the principal point in central
perspective) when rotating the vanishing points. This point can
be used to project unit dimensions in depth, for example to
tesselate a plane along the vanishing lines it bisects. The
location of the dvp also provides an informal measure of the
perspective emphasis in the image. Perspective appears more
dramatic if the dvp is outside the 60° circle of view, and more
classicizing if the dvp is close to the direction of view.

If you are using a protractor centered on the viewpoint, in order

to define the rotation of the vanishing points precisely, then the
image plane angle is the angle between the vanishing point
and a horizontal line drawn through the viewpoint (labeled x,
below).

visual ray location of a measure point

any object side BC whose vanishing line intersects the ground line at
A defines the image plane angle x at the ground line; then the
vanishing point is at angle 90–x from the direction of view and the
corresponding measure point is at angle x/2 from the direction of
view on the opposite side
Then the vanishing point for the object edge or side (vp1) will be
located 90-x degrees from the direction of view (dv), and the
measure point will be located x/2 degrees from the dv, on the
opposite side. In the example, the front face of object BC
(shown in plan) is rotated 30° to the image plane; therefore x is
equal to 30°. This means vp1 will be rotated 60° away from the
dv on one side, and its measure point will be located mp1 or
15° to the right. These relationships hold, no matter what
orientation the object has to the image plane.

For example, here is the geometry for central perspective

(diagram, right), in which a cube's faces are either parallel or
perpendicular to the image plane. This means the angle of the
faces at the ground line is either x = 0° (there is no intercept
and therefore no angle) or x = 90° (edges or faces are
perpendicular to the image plane).

• For faces parallel to the image plane (x = 0°), the angle of the
vanishing point to the direction of view is 90°–x = 90° (the
vanishing point is in the image plane, because the direction of
view is perpendicular to the image plane), and the measure
point is x/2 = 0° (the measure point is 0° from the direction of
view, and is therefore the principal point).

• For faces perpendicular to the image plane (x = 90°), the

angle of the vanishing point to the direction of view is 90°–x =
0° (the vanishing point is the principal point), and the measure
point is x/2 = 45° (the measure point is the diagonal vanishing
point).

The only finesse here is to distinguish between the measure bar

on the image plane and the measure bar in perspective space.
This is the difference between a ruler we lay on the paper we
draw on, and the drawing we make of the ruler laid next to the
object in space. It is always more convenient to use the ruler in
perspective, because then we can align it with the object by
placing one end against the anchor point. But this means we
need to scale the length of the ruler to match the scale of the
object in space. No problem: just apply the drawing scale of
the object to the ruler length, and use this scaled length
(measured from the image of the anchor point on the paper) as
your measure bar.
 constructing a 2PP cube
Once you have located the two vanishing points and two
measure points, constructing a cube or rectangular solid in 2PP
follows the same steps as in 1PP, except that a measure bar is
necessary to define the two front sides.

two point perspective: locating the anchor line

As always, the first step is locating the anchor point and its
anchor line. This can be the back corner of a room, the front
corner of a building, or the nearest tree on a leafy walk. This
vertical defines the scale and view of the whole drawing. If
you're not sure where to put it, work out the image composition
with a few perspective sketches.

Connect the top and bottom ends of the anchor line to each of
the vanishing points (blue lines). Define the measure bars for
the front sides of the primary form, using the drawing scale
methods. The measure bar will be equal to the vertical anchor
line if the form is cubic, and different if it is rectangular.
Remember, there is no perspective foreshortening of the anchor
line, so you can use it as your unit of measurement by rotating
it into the correct orientation (as shown by the arc, below).
 two point perspective: using the measure bar

Now place one end of the measure bar at the anchor point, and
a draw line from the other end of the measure bar to its
corresponding measure point. The measure bar is shown
(diagram, above) in two locations, to define the lengths on the
two sets of vanishing lines. In each case the line from the
measure bar is to the mp that was defined by the controlling
vanishing point.

two point perspective: drawing the side verticals

Construct the two side verticals, from the intersection of the

measure lines with the two bottom vanishing lines to the
vanishing lines above. The vanishing lines define recession on
each side of the anchor line; the side edges of the primary form
are shorter than the front edge (anchor line).

two point perspective: drawing the fourth vertical

Draw vanishing lines from the ends of each side edge to the
vanishing point opposite it. These new lines intersect at the top
and bottom ends of the fourth vertical edge. Construct it.

two point perspective: the finished drawing

Connect the ends of the verticals with horizontal lines, showing

only those lines that are visible from the viewpoint. (The figure
shows an open cube, to reveal more of the perspective drawing.)
When finished, erase the vanishing lines, the vanishing and
measure points, and any other guide marks.
There are often many other forms in the drawing besides the
primary form. In that case, locate the front and side verticals
first. Locate any forms or perspective details such as sidewalks,
trees or streets that are in front of or at either side of the
primary form. Finish these in outline, then go back and finish the
primary form. Last, fill in any background forms or structures
that are not occluded by the objects already in view.

inclined lines & inclined planes

In most architectural and landscape applications of perspective,
inclined lines and planes are critical components of the primary
form. It is essential to understand the geometry of inclined
vanishing points and vanishing lines, and to be able to construct
them in specific situations.

I use the 2PP framework as this is still the routine basis for
architectural purposes, but the underlying geometry applies to
1PP and 3PP drawings as well.

For our purposes an inclined line is any line that is not

parallel or perpendicular to the ground plane. The
vanishing point of the line will therefore not be in the horizon
line, but displaced some distance above or below it.

This vanishing point will be contained in a plane, and this plane

will have a vanishing line. There isn't a unique vanishing line for
a single inclined line, because a line can be contained in an
infinite number of planes (all of them rotated around the line as
an axis). However two or more inclined lines that recede to the
same vanishing point do define a unique plane that contains
them both, and this plane has a unique vanishing line.

Any inclined line defines a plan image in the ground plane. The
plane that contains both the inclined line and its plan image will
be perpendicular to the ground plane, and its image line will be
perpendicular to the horizon line (perspective rule 16). In
addition, the plan line recedes to a vanishing point already
established for horizontals (either vp1 or vp1), and this
vanishing point will also lie on the vanishing line for the plane
that contains the inclined line and its plan (perspective rule 14).
Therefore the vanishing line for the plane that contains the
inclined vanishing point (ivp) can be constructed as the vertical
line through a horizontal vanishing point (diagram below).
This vertical plane is convenient because it represents any
vertical structure that contains or defines the inclined line — the
wall edge of a roof or pediment, the side wall of a stairway, the
embankment or wall of a traffic ramp, a sloping architrave above
a vertical window, the slope of a hillside, and so on.

Vanishing Point by Construction. The traditional methods for

locating the vanishing point for an inclined line all construct the
image of the inclined line as the first step, then extend the
image line to the vanishing line of its plane. The methods only
vary in how the image line is constructed.

two point perspective: projected vanishing points for

inclined lines

The example (above) illustrates three different methods:

• The upper end point of the inclined line (y), if it is the peak of
a gabled roof, is usually located on the midline of the wall
underneath; the midline passes through the bisection point at
the intersection of the wall diagonals (x). Then the vertical
distance ca is projected to the horizontal vanishing point vp1
from a vertical measure bar to locate c; y is at the intersection
of the vertical midline with the vanishing line from c. Then
extend ay to the vertical vanishing line (through vp1) to find the
inclined vanishing point ivp1.

• If the upper end point (y) of the inclined line is not on the
midline of the wall or vertical support (as, for example, the side
of a stairway), then it is more convenient to project the
horizontal (plan) location of its upper end point (e) with a
horizontal measure bar to the appropriate measure point, along
with a second horizontal point (d, shown in elevation) that
locates the intersection of the diagonal fy with the horizontal ab.
Once these points are located on ab, y is found at the
intersection of the vertical ex and the diagonal df, and the line
ay is constructed and extended as above.

• If the inclined line is extended, or lacks specific end points,

then it can be found from its pitch or slope (as a slope
horizontal/vertical ratio or an angle in degrees) as follows. Draw
an elevation (cross section) of the slope as a right triangle,
whose altitude is equal to the image height of the lower end of
the inclined line above an anchor point in the ground plane (e.g.,
the distance af). Align this plan along the vertical af, and project
its horizontal width forward from the appropriate measure point
to intersect the plan vanishing line from the vanishing point, at
g. Then the line ga is the vanishing line for the inclined line ay,
and this also intersects the vanishing point ivp1. The vertical
that defines y must still be defined using diagonal bisection or a
horizontal or vertical measure bar, as before.

In many cases, especially roof construction, what goes up must

come down. The vanishing point ivp2 for the inclined line on the
far side of the roof will the same distance below the horizon line
that ivp1 is above it; this can be found by an arc drawn from
vp1 through ivp1 to the vanishing line opposite. Or it can be
located by extending the line yb to the vertical vanishing line.

Inclined Lines Parallel to Image Plane. It can happen that

the inclined lines are parallel to the image plane — for example,
the front gables of row houses viewed from the street.

In central perspective, the image of the front face of a cube

remains square no matter where it is locate on the image plane;
an inclined line drawn inside the square (e.g., its diagonal)
would therefore have a constant angle on the image plane as
well. So there is no perspective adjustment for inclined lines
parallel to the image plane in central perspective.

two point perspective: inclined lines parallel to

image plane

In 2PP an inclined line parallel to the image plane is essentially

an oblique diagonal inside a rectangular solid that is oblique to
the image plane; this solid is constructed using the normal 2PP
vanishing points, and the inclined line then drawn within its
envelope (diagram, above).

It should be no surprise that, despite the changing angle of view

onto the rectangular armature and the changing shape of its
outline in 2PP projection, the interior diagonal remains constant.
We've defined it as parallel to the image plane, and the shift
foreshortening of a two dimensional figure parallel to the
image plane does not alter the size or shape of its perspective
image.

Vanishing Point by Rotation. The alternate, analytical method

starts by identifying the inclined vanishing point and constructs
all lines from there. This is done by creating an auxiliary
viewpoint, a method that is explained in detail on the next
page.
 two point perspective: exact vanishing points for
inclined lines

The rotation is performed in the following steps:

1. Identify the vanishing line of the plane that contains the

inclined line(s). We have already established that this is the
vertical vanishing line through vp1, the horizontal vanishing
point.

2. Draw a line parallel to this vanishing line, through the

principal point. This line already exists, as the median line.

3. Identify the intersection of this line with the 90° circle of view
(point x).

4. From vp1, draw an arc through x, the vertical vanishing line,

and the horizon line outside the 90° circle of view. The
intersection of this arc with the horizon line identifies a new
point A, the auxiliary viewpoint.

5. Rotate around A the visual rays that define the slope of the
desired inclined lines. In the example, a slope of 45° is
demonstrated. The intersection of these rotated visual rays with
the vertical vanishing line defines the two inclined vanishing
points, ivp1 and ivp2.
Vanishing lines from these vanishing points through the vertical
end points b and c intersect at a, the peak of the roof; the
vertical of the peak does not have to be located.

These vanishing points control all parallel inclined lines. Thus the
edges of the roof at the opposite end of the structure recede to
the matching vanishing points for the front edges: no to the
same vanishing point as ab, and np to the same vanishing point
as ac. In other words, triangle nop is parallel to triangle abc,
and all parallel planes converge to the same vanishing line
(perspective rule 14).

Vanishing Line for Inclined Plane. Two parallel or

intersecting lines are necessary to define the surface of a plane
(perspective rule 10). In most architectural problems, the
second line is a horizontal or vertical element joining the inclined
line. In the example (diagram, below), the second line is
provided by the horizontals an and bo in the trapezoid abno,
which intersect the parallel inclined lines ab and no.

two point perspective: vanishing line for inclined

plane

These horizontal lines are controlled by the vanishing point vp2.

Since the vanishing line of a plane contains the vanishing points
of all lines in the plane (perspective rule 14), the vanishing line
of plane abno is necessarily the line containing ivp1 and vp2;
these two points define the vanishing line (perspective rule 3).
Similarly, the vanishing line of the plane acnp is the line
containing ivp2 and vp2.

The vanishing point vp2 is, of course, the vanishing point for all
lines in the plane abno that are horizontal (parallel to the
ground plane).

two point perspective: vanishing line for inclined

plane

Lines to vp2 are gradient lines that indicate all points on the
plane at an equal height above or below the ground plane. Lines
to ivp1 are fall lines perpendicular to the gradient lines that
represent the lines of steepest descent or the direction of
gravitational pull across the plane — the direction in which water
would flow or round objects would roll down a perfectly smooth,
flat surface.

All 2PP lines perpendicular to any inclined plane will be

perpendicular to the vanishing line of the plane, in the same way
that 1PP or 2PP verticals (lines perpendicular to the ground
plane) are perpendicular to the horizon line.

Finally, regardless of its orientation to the viewer, the vanishing

line for a plane is always a line (perspective rule 9), not a curve
as maintained by the theorists of curvilinear perspective.
Note the similarities and differences between the location of
vanishing lines for planes that are slanting, sloping or inclined:

• The vanishing lines for slanting planes pass through the

principal point, but are not parallel to the horizon line; they
correspond to roll in airplane terminology, and are rotated by
turning the horizon and median lines, with their diagonal
vanishing points, around the principal point.

• The vanishing lines for sloping planes are parallel to the

horizon line but do not pass through the principal point; they
correspond to pitch in airplane terminology, and are located by
rotating a visual ray from the left or right diagonal vanishing
points.

• The inclined planes discussed here may combine roll, pitch

and yaw or a left/right turning. These planes are found first by
establishing the 2PP vanishing points; one vp is the horizontal
vanishing point for the gradient of the plane, and the other is
the vp for the vertical vanishing line that contains the vanishing
point for the fall line (the inclined line) in the plane.

The point is to understand the differences among the various

oblique plane representations, and how to construct them in a
perspective drawing.

distance point projection

Using the 90° circle of view to rotate vanishing points and locate
measure points, either by construction or using the
trigonometric ratios, is the most accurate method of creating a
2PP perspective space. However it requires a large working area,
and can be cumbersome when objects that have a unique
orientation to the image plane require separate vanishing point
systems to be constructed.

Fortunately, the distance point projection method, devised in

the 16th century, permits the construction of any 2PP object in
any orientation using only the principal point (pp), a diagonal
vanishing point (dvp), and a elevation and plan of the object.
The image object itself is then used to find the vanishing points
and measure points, and these can be used to construct
incidental objects in the same recession.

As an example I will use a pentagon (plan in black, right), which

requires five vanishing points for the five corners. Note that this
is an irregular pentagon (the sides are not of equal length).

The plan is projected onto two measure bars, P (magenta) and

D (green), aligned perpendicular to each other. Each bar locates
all corners in the plan view that are necessary to define the
form. The P bar represents the corners of the pentagon along a
perspective transversal (perpendicular to the direction of view)
and the D bar represents the corners along a perspective
orthogonal (parallel to the direction of view); the vertical dashed
lines to P represent parallel lines that converge to the principal
point (the direction of view). The orientation of the pentagon (or
any other figure) to these lines will determine the orientation of
the figure in the ground plane. The closest part of the figure to
the viewer is placed at the bottom of the plan; this is the corner
marked x.

Divided Distance Scaling. The first steps are to determine the

distance of the object from the viewer and the size of the object
in the same units of measurement (we'll use meters).

If you are drawing a real scene, you must find out the actual
dimensions and distance of the object; if you are composing an
imaginary scene, the choice is arbitrary. Let's decide that this
(imaginary) pentagon is 3 meters wide (the length of P is 3
meters) and the front corner (x) is at a distance of 11.5 meters
from the viewer.

We can find the location of the anchor point using the methods
described under scaling the drawing, but let me show you the
traditional approach. It is based on the divided distance
principle:

Given any arbitrary distance measured from the median line to a

point d in the ground line, then a line from this point to the
diagonal vanishing point dvd on the opposite side of the median
line intersects the median line at a point d', which is the
distance d from the ground line in perspective space.

This principle is again based on the triangular proportions.

The unit distance can be any arbitrary length; the diagram
(below) uses the viewing distance to the image plane (the radius
of the 90° circle of view) as the unit distance in order to keep
the diagram compact. Then the diagonal vanishing line projects
this distance into perspective space as the point d' on the
median line.

In the diagram, the diagonal vanishing line to d is the blue line

connecting to the opposite dvp. This dvl intersects the median
line at d', which is the image location of the unit distance (the
viewing distance, 1.5 meters) projected into perspective depth
— as measured from the ground line, not the viewpoint or
station point.

divided distance method of projecting a unit

dimension

However, the added benefit here is that if we divide the arbitrary

unit distance by any proportion (one half, one quarter, etc.),
then draw a line from this proportional point through d', the line
intersects the horizon line at the same proportion, as shown by
the magenta line from the 1/4 unit. In this way both the unit
dimension and the horizon line can be divided into the same
proportional units.

What happens if we connect the end of the unit dimension to

one of the increments in the horizon line, for example from d to
the point at 1/4 on the horizon (black line)? In that case we
have projected the unit distance into perspective space by the
reciprocal of the proportion in the horizon line. Given our unit
dimension of 1.5 meters, and the reciprocal of 1/4 is 4, then the
line from d to 1/4 intersects the median line at a perspective
distance of (4*1.5) = 6 meters from the ground line into the
image space.

We would find the same intersection with the principal point

orthogonal, and the same proportional divisions on the horizon
line, if we extended the unit dimension along the ground line to
6 meters and then drew a line from its end to the opposite dvp
(green line). But we won't do that, because the whole point of
divided distance scaling is to confine ourselves to a workable
drafting area: we can project distances farther into perspective
space than we can draw as unit dimensions along the ground
line.

We would also find the divisions in the horizon line if we

projected them from a much smaller unit dimension, for
example one centimenter long. But we don't do that either,
because it obviously makes the construction more difficult and
more inaccurate; it's advisable to use the longest ground line
dimension that is practicable.

Again, projecting distances into perspective space is more

quickly (if less elegantly) done by calculation, as the reciprocal
of the distance multiplied by the radius of the 90° circle of view
— the distance measured from the principal point to the ground
line — as explained in the section on perspective gradients.
For example, if your assumed viewing distance is 1.5 meters,
and you want to locate a transversal in image space that is 37
meters from the viewpoint, you first subtract the viewing
distance from the object distance, then take the reciprocal of
what's left: 37 - 1.5 = 35.5 and 1/35.5 = 0.028; finally you
multiply this number by the length of the median line, and
measure that distance from the principal point. If you are
drawing with a circle of view of radius 30 cm, then this is 30 *
0.028 = 8.4 mm below the horizon line.

In the original problem, with an object distance of 11.5 meters,

we first subtract the viewing distance (11.5 - 1.5 = 10), then
take the ratio of this distance to our circle of view radius (1.5/10
= 0.15), then measure downward from the principal point a
distance equal to 15% of the length of the median line.
Distance Point Projection. Having established the transversal
in image space of an anchor point 11.5 meters from the
viewpoint, we can project on the image plane the pentagon plan.

First we rescale the plan using formula 2. The object size Z (the
object width, P) is 3 meters, the object distance (X) is 11.5
meters, and the viewing distance (x) is 1.5 meters, so the
image size (the width of the object in the image) is 3*(1.5/11.5)
= 0.391 meters (39.1 cm) or about 26% of the radius of the 90°
circle of view.

Then we place the front corner x as the anchor point on the

distance transversal. Notice that where we place the figure to
the left or the right of the median line does not affect the length
of 39 cm image dimension that we have just calculated, because
of shift foreshortening. However, we have to invert the plan
when we do this, so that x is at the top, otherwise the figure will
appear in perspective space as the mirror image of the plan.

Next we want to locate the corner points of the plan in

perspective space. This is done by relying on the distance
point principle:

Any point in a plan diagram is located in perspective space along

its anchor line orthogonal, at a perspective distance from the
anchor line equal to the plan distance from the anchor line.

That is, we first construct orthogonals for all points, then

measure the plan distance of each point from the anchor line,
then project this distance into perspective depth using a
diagonal vanishing line.
 projecting the plan: plan orthogonals
shown within the 60° circle of view; note that the plan must be
inverted, top to bottom, to project the correct image

The first step in the distance point method is to carry all the
important object points from P up to the anchor line with
perpendicular lines. Recall that these are actually lines parallel to
the direction of view, so once the point a defines the (new) point
x and b defines point y on the anchor line, we construct the
plan orthogonals from these points back to the principal point,
as shown above (blue lines).
 projecting the plan: plan diagonal vanishing lines
shown within the 60° circle of view

The next step is, for each point, to carry its plan distance from
the anchor line (green line, D) back to the anchor line with by
an arc centered on its anchor line intersection (pink lines,
above). This is the method of rabattement or plan rotation first
attested in the 17th century.

Thus the distance ax is transferred to the anchor line by an arc

centered on x, defining the point a' on the anchor line; similarly
the distance by is transferred to the anchor line by an arc
centered on y, defining the point b'; and so on for all the other
points. The only restriction here is that all the arcs must be
carried to the same side, either to the left or the right: in the
diagram, they are all rotated to the left.

Finally, we project all these distances into perspective space,

using vanishing lines drawn from these new anchor line points to
the diagonal vanishing point on the opposite side from the arcs.
In the diagram, the arcs are carried to the left, so the right side
diagonal vanishing point is used to project them onto the
orthogonals.

Each intersection between an orthogonal and its corresponding

diagonal vanishing line locates the plan point in perspective
space. Thus, the intersection of orthogonal y and diagonal
vanishing line b' locates the point b in perspective space.

All that remains is to connect the points in the image plane. This
traces the perspective image of the pentagon plan at an 11.5
meter distance — all without constructing any additional
vanishing points, or using a work surface larger than the 90°
circle of view radius.

the ground line framework

It will be useful to conclude the discussion of 2PP with a brief
look at the perspective setup, standardized in the 19th century,
that is most commonly taught in perspective tutorials: the
ground line framework. For a fuller introduction and detailed
instructions, see the references by Robert W. Gill or Michael E.
Helms.

The ground line framework is economically defined by the

principal point, the station point (distance point), and three
horizontal lines (diagram, below).

the ground line framework

The utility of this framework is that the important attributes of

the image can be adjusted directly, by the relative location of
these two elements:

• The location of the ground line defines the level, adjacent to

the primary form, at which the viewer is standing; it also defines
the image plane on which all object dimensions are measured.
• The horizon line defines the viewing height as a proportion of
the height of the primary form; it also defines the angle of view
in relation to the true horizon.

Ground line drawings usually start with a blueprint or set of

plans for the primary form (diagram, right). The plan image is
critical for scaling the width and depth of the perspective image.
The elevations are critical for exterior details and contrasting
surface features of the front and side faces.

deriving measurements in the ground line method

The first step is the projection of vanishing points and primary

form measurements onto the horizontal and vertical
measurement lines (diagram, above).

The station point is established in relation to a plan of the

primary form, using the plan scale to determine the object
distance. For example, if the scale of the plan is 1/4" = 1', and
the form will be viewed from 50 feet, then the station point is
located 12.5" from the near edge of the plan outline.

This object distance and orientation is usually judged by drafting

a large isosceles triangle with an internal apex angle equal to
the desired circle of view; the object is then moved toward the
apex of this triangle until it just touches both sides, while
turning the object so that the plan orientation gives the desired
direction of view.
The horizontal measurement line is drawn perpendicular to
the line of sight (center of the cone of vision), typically so that
the measurement line passes through a front, prominent feature
of the plan. Divergent sightlines are drawn from the station
point through the principal features of the plan, and their
intersections with the horizontal measurement line are marked
and labeled, along with the location of the 2PP horizontal
vanishing points and the line of sight (the "sight point").

The corresponding vertical measurement line is projected by

parallel lines from the elevations of the primary form, including
its intersection with the ground line.

deriving measurements in the ground line method

Next, the horizon line and ground line are located in the image
area to produce the desired image composition, specifically the
height of the viewpoint to the primary form, its distance from
the viewer, and the angle of view in relation to the ground plane
(diagram, above).

The horizontal measure line is located below the image area,

parallel to the horizon and ground lines, with the sight point
vertically aligned with the center of the image area. Vertical lines
are used to project the horizontal plan and vanishing point
measurements onto the ground line.
The vertical measurement line is located on the ground line. Its
measure points were not projected from the station point,
therefore they must be projected from the horizontal vanishing
points forward or backward from the ground line, and these
projected measurements carried by horizontal lines into the
image of the primary form. Note that the vertical measurement
line can be freely shifted along the ground line, if convenient;
the horizontal measurement line, because it was scaled to a
specific location of the station point in relation to the primary
form, must be exactly aligned with the sight point and cannot be
moved.

There are many interesting methods of scaling and projection

with the ground line method that I omit in this brief outline. To
conclude, I mention four principal shortcomings to the ground
line method:

• procedural geometry: The ground line framework is basically

a scaffold built expressly to deploy specific procedures for the
construction of an image; it has a weak connection to perceptual
geometry. In particular, it is more difficult to deduce the
construction principles for a new geometry, because important
basic concepts (such as measure points or vanishing point
rotation) are typically excluded. The better ground line tutorials
discuss what to do if you discover that the perspective view is
not optimally oriented, or is incorrectly scaled, after the drawing
has been started; those kinds of problems result from the
narrowly focused, piecemeal nature of the ground line method.

• errorful, inflexible scaling method: The ground line

method of scaling an image, which requires the plan be oriented
to scale and then projected by diverging lines onto a horizontal
measure line, is only practicable for large objects seen from a
relatively close vantage point; otherwise the method becomes
inaccurate. It also requires greater precision, as drawing errors
are magnified by the expanding lines. If the decision is made to
change the angle of view on the primary form, the entire scaling
operation must be repeated. In the 90° circle of view
framework, scaling to measure points compresses measurement
errors, and a new rotation of the vanishing points allows the
same measure bar to be used from different perspective views.

• complex line construction: All the ground line

demonstrations that I have seen require a large number of
construction lines — at a minimum, the projection onto the
measurement lines, the projection of the measurements across
the image area, and the joining of vanishing lines.

• adapted to drafting tools: The ground line framework is

adapted in various ways to technical drafting tools, and when
used with those tools it is very efficient. But this means the
framework is less effective as a general, artist oriented
perspective model.

For these reasons, and in particular when linear perspective is

taught to photographers and painters, I strongly prefer 90°
circle of view method.

who has a 12 foot table?

Unfortunately it is fairly common to start with the primary form
in an orientation that puts the two vp's inconveniently far apart.
In the previous cube construction example, assuming a 10 foot
circle of view, the cube is oriented so that the two vp's would
about 11 feet apart — one 3.2 feet to the left of the dv, and the
other 7.7 feet to the right. This isn't very convenient for a
drafting table.

If you have a 12 foot table, push pins and lots of string (or the
specialized drafting equipiment that rescales vanishing point
locations within a small work area), you can work out the
geometry of a cube at any size, no problem. If you're lacking the
table, you can lay the support on any large bare surface, for
example a clean kitchen floor or concrete patio, and work there
— using tape instead of pins to hold the string.

If those alternatives don't appeal to you, then you can rescale

the drawing. The basic geometry of the vp's works exactly the
same no matter how big or small the circle of view is assumed
to be. So just get a large sheet of paper, draw the 90° circle of
view to a conveniently small size (20cm works well), work out
the vp's and perspective drawing in that format, make a careful
outline drawing in perspective, then transfer the drawing to the
painting support, enlarging it as you make the transfer. You can
control the enlargement by squaring the diagram or by using
a surface projector, adjusted so that the size of the image
matches the length and location of a reference vertical (front
vertical edge) marked in the right place on the support.
When one or both vp's are really far from the drawing surface,
it's possible to calculate the relative sizes of edges and angles in
a drawing without ever anchoring the vp's with string or ruler:
you just need to work out a few key measurements on a
calculator, and you need to know the exact distance of the two
vanishing points from the principal point (dv), which is found
either with a careful rotation around the viewpoint, or by
multiplying the radius of the 90° circle of view by the
tangent of the vanishing point angle to the direction of view.

method for scaling new lines without vanishing

points

The diagram shows all the points required for these calculations.
The procedure is simple once you understand it: go through the
instructions slowly and carefully, and you should have no
trouble. (Caution: use a metric or engineering ruler for
these tasks.)

There are two situations: the anchor line is either entirely above
(or below) the horizon line, or it straddles the horizon line.

Start with the straddled line (right side of the diagram). The key
measurements you must know in advance are: (1) the length
from dv (the direction of view) to c (the vanishing point), (2)
the length of the anchor line above (A1 to A2) and below (A2
to A3) the horizon line, and (3) the distance from the direction
of view to the anchor line (d to a).

Once again, the triangular proportions provides the frame of

reference. First, by subtracting the distance dv-a from the
distance dv-c, you determine the distance ac from the anchor
line to the vanishing point. (If the anchor line is on the opposite
side of dv from the vanishing point, you add the two distances
to get ac.) Now you want to insert a new line N1 to N3 which
has the same height in depth as the anchor line.

First, determine how far to the left or right of the anchor line the
new line should be placed: this defines ab, which gives bc when
subtracted from ac. Then the ratio bc/ac tells you the length of
the new line N2-N3 in relation to the length of line A2-A3, and
the length of the new line N1-N2 in relation to the length of line
A1-A2. For example, if bc/ac equals 0.80, and the upper part of
the anchor line A1-A2 is 2cm long, then the upper part of the
new line N1-N2 will be 0.80 * 2.0 = 1.6cm long. Repeat for the
line segment below the horizon line (N2-N3).

If the new line is closer to the direction of view d than the

anchor line, or on the opposite side of d from the anchor line,
then you would add ba to ac. In that case the ratio bc/ac will
be greater than 1.0, and the new line will be correspondingly
larger.

If the line is entirely above (or below) the horizon line (left side
of the diagram), then the ratio bc/ac is applied to the length
A1-A3 to get the top end of the new line, and to the length A2-
A3 to get the bottom.

How do you define the crucial distance dc (from the direction of

view to a vanishing point) in the first place? The easiest method
is to use my vanishing point calculator to get the
measurements of the vp's and mp's, and adjust the viewing
distance to the object and your angle of view until you get the
proportions that seem desirable. Or, as described above, you can
reduce the circle of view to a workable size, use the method for
rotating the vanishing points to determine the locations of
vp1 and vp2, measure the distance from these to dv on the
diagram, then scale those distances back to life size.

Unfortunately this method, even after you get the hang of it, still
forces you into a lot of poking of a pocket calculator, and is
hopelessly tedious and prone to error if many lines must be
inserted in your drawing. The ultimate solution is to generate a
recession grid for the distant vanishing point, and use this grid
to determine the perspective reduction for any verticals in the
drawing.
 using a recession grid for distant vanishing points

First work out the angles and distances of your point of view
within a reduced (20cm) circle of view drawn on a large sheet of
paper. Carefully measure with a metric ruler the distances from
dv to the two vanishing points vp, the diagonal vanishing point
dvp and the two measure points mp, then multiply these by 15
to get them in the same scale as the 3 meter circle of view (the
scale of the perspective drawing). Locate the horizon line, dv
and the two measure points on your support.

Now draw a vertical line on the lefthand side of the drawing,

anywhere that is convenient — the line should be farther to the
left than any major form in the drawing area. Mark off
increments on this line above and below the horizon line using
any convenient interval of measurement.

Next, draw a similar line on the righthand side of the drawing,

again putting it far enough to the right so that it won't obstruct
any major forms in the drawing.

Now you want to find a reduced scale of measurement for this

righthand line to represent perspective recession from the
lefthand line toward the vanishing point. You already know how
to do this: treat the lefthand line as the anchor line, figure out
the distance from this line to the vanishing point (ac), then the
distance from the righthand line to the vanishing point (bc), and
finally the ratio bc/ac. This is the reduction in the scale of
measurement required for the righthand line. For example, if the
intervals on the lefthand line are in inches, and the ratio bc/ac
is 0.80, then the intervals on the righthand line are in 0.80
inches.

When you have intervals marked on both vertical lines, connect

the corresponding points to make a recession grid of converging
lines (parallel lines in perspective). These lines show you the
slope of any horizontal converging to the distant vanishing point.
You can either draw the horizontals along an inscribed recession
line (as in the base of the building in the diagram), or draw
horizontals between and roughly parallel to any two lines (as in
the top of the tower of the building in the diagram). This grid is
especially convenient if you must work out the perspective
recession for many repetitive or similar lines, for example the
windows, columns, cornices and ledges on the front of a
building.

vp spacing from an object drawing

Why not just say ... heck with it, I'll just draw the cube at
whatever size fits the drawing, at whatever angles look good to
me, and let the vanishing points fall where they may?

You can do this, especially in a freehand drawing of the object

from life. In that situation the principles of linear perspective
guide you to look at the edges and faces and proportional sizes
of the parts, and to draw these elements more accurately in
relation to their fixed vanishing points. This "imagined"
perspective context is useful because you can introduce
expressive distortions to the perspective facts, controlling by eye
how obvious or subtle they appear.

However, if you are drawing an imaginary or remembered form

from scratch, such as that cute little cottage you saw on
yesterday's hike, then your placement of the vanishing points
can go badly astray without the visual example in front of you.
And once you have drawn the primary form, you still have to
draw everything else to match its vanishing points, direction of
view and horizon line.

The most common drawing fault is placing the vanishing

points too close together. The informal recommendation is
simply to put the vanishing points very far apart ... no, farther
than that ... keep going ... — with the idea that inaccuracies in
widely spaced vanishing points are harder to see.

Let's start with a perspective constant: the distance between

2PP vanishing points depends on the viewing distance to
the object. The closer an object is to our view, the closer
together its two perspective points will be in relation to the
object size. This has a very powerful effect on the perspective
view, as is apparent in these four cubes of exactly the same
vertical size drawn as they would appear at increasing viewing
distances.

2PP cube seen from four different distances

a cubic box 2 meters high seen from (left to right) 3 meters, 6
meters, 12 meters and 24 meters

The shape of the cube alone tells us a lot about its distance from
us. The flattening in the "far" cube (24 meters, at right) is what
we'd expect to see in binoculars or a telescopic lens, while the
bulging in the "near" cube (3 meters, at left) mimics a wide
angle lens. This "near" cube resembles many badly done
perspective drawings, because the cube is too large relative to
the vp's.

So the perspective problem is to find a vanishing point

separation that matches the apparent distance to the
object we want to represent. And this is a problem that the
circle of view framework is designed to solve. Fortunately, if
we start with an acceptable 2PP drawing of the front sides of the
primary form, we can reconstruct the 90° circle of view from the
object drawing using the semicircle of Thales construction.
The circle of view then can be used to locate the vanishing
points.
 using a semicircle of Thales to find the 90° circle of
view

Let's take as our starting point a rough, freehand drawing of a

cubic box 2 meters high viewed from about 6 meters. We made
this drawing on the back of an envelope in the field, and now we
want to build a more finished drawing upon it.

First, extend the front edges of the primary form on either side
until they meet in two vanishing points, vp1 and vp2. Connect
these points with a straight line, which is the vanishing line for
the primary form; if the form is level and upright to the ground,
such as a building, then this is also the horizon line.

This is the point to make any esthetic corrections. For example,

if this is the horizon line, it should be level. If it is not, redraw it
level and relocate the vanishing points on it by moving them
vertically up or down. Then redraw the vanishing lines from
these points back to the object drawing.

Next, find the midpoint M on the horizon line between the two
vanishing points, using a ruler or the line bisection method.
Then draw a semicircle around the midpoint M from one
vanishing point to the other. This is the semicircle of Thales.

The useful geometrical fact is that the 90° angle of a right

triangle must lie on a semicircle, if the diameter of the semicircle
is also the hypoteneuse of the right triangle. This right angle
corner is of course the viewpoint that we use to rotate the 2PP
vanishing points. This viewpoint must lie on the semicircle of
Thales.

But where? To find it, we have to locate the direction of view.

This is a somewhat arbitrary decision, but usually the dv is
located on the horizon line somewhere around the front edge or
center of the form. From the dv, extend a line perpendicular to
the horizon line up to the semicircle of Thales, which locates the
folded viewpoint. The distance from dv to the rotated
viewpoint is the radius of the 90° circle of view.

I claimed that the cube in this example was cube 2 meters high
viewed from 6 meters. Let's check. The direction of view (dv) is
located about 3/4ths up the front edge, so the viewing height is
about 1.5 meters above the ground. As the horizon line is
always at the same level as the viewpoint, this corresponds to
our standing height on level ground when viewing the cube.

By definition, this 1.5 meters is also the radius of the 90° circle
of view, and is also the implied viewing distance to the
finished image.

In the drawing, the vertical of the cube is 16% of the diameter

of the circle of view, or 48cm; this is the drawing size. So we
have the viewing distance (150cm), drawing size (48cm) and
object size (200cm). With formula 3, we find that the object
distance from the viewpoint must be 3.2 times the object size,
or 6.3 meters.

Thus, from a rough but accurate perspective drawing, we have

reconstructed the location of the vanishing points and the circle
of view. We now have the framework to insert accurately details
of the primary object, and to add objects around it in the same
perspective space. The spacing of the vanishing points in
relation to the drawing size is not merely "good enough," but
represents the spatial relationships we intend to portray.

where is the center of projection?

The methods just described can also be used to locate all the
perspective elements implied by a finished painting. This is a
problem of more interest to art historians than to artists, but I
will describe the methods here for both 1PP and 2PP paintings.
Here again are the perspective elements that we need to identify
in the approximate order we locate them:

• Median Line. This is parallel to the side edges of a

rectangular image format, or perpendicular to the floor when the
painting is correctly hung. The median line is nearly always
through the center of the image format.

• Horizon Line. This is usually parallel to the bottom or top

edge of a rectangular or square image format, or parallel to the
floor when the painting is correctly hung, at the height of the
eyes of standing figures (for a standing artist and viewer), or
in similar proportion to windows, tables, walls between floors
and ceilings, and so forth. The horizon line is rarely through the
center of the image format.

• Direction of View. This is at the intersection of the horizon

and median lines.

• Distance Points. In 1PP perspective these can be found as

the diagonals of any square element receding to the dv,
commonly the floor tiles of Renaissance paintings or frescos.

• Vanishing Points. In a 2PP painting these are located from

the edges of any suitable rectalinear (right angled) object in the
image, of convenient clarity and size.

• Circle of View. The radius of the circle of view is determined

by the distance points in central perspective, or by the method
of the semicircle of Thales in two point perspective.

• Center of Projection. The implied correct perspective

location for viewing the painting (the perspective center of
projection) is at a distance equal to the radius of the circle of
view along a line perpendicular to the direction of view dv.

1PP Construction. A straightforward example is provided by

Raphael's Philosophy, his first fresco decoration on a large wall
of the Vatican chambers. The image I can provide is drastically
small (the original is a 27 feet wide), but a large format
reproduction is available in most Renaissance art textbooks.
 1PP reconstruction of the center of projection

By examination we conclude that the fresco is done in central

perspective, which means we are looking for the direction of
view (dv) and the distance points or diagonal vanishing points
(dvp's). These give us the center and radius of the circle of view
and the implied center of projection.

The orthogonals necessary to find dv are found in the receding

barrel vaulted passageway at the center of the image. I chose
the square edged capitals of the columns along both sides,
which define two orthogonals (red lines) intersecting between
the figures of Plato and Aristotle.

Since the composition is in central perspective I know the

horizon line is level and the median line perpendicular to it, so I
go ahead and draw these in (blue lines) from the dv, extending
the horizon line far off the picture to one side.

The obvious place to prospect for diagonals is in the tiled floor at

the foot of the fresco. However, the visual angle on these floor
tiles is rather small, making them hard to see clearly; also, I
may be wrong to think they are true squares. So I take a second
diagonal from the diagonal corners of the capital of the front
rectilinear column, which conventionally would be square in
classical architecture. These diagonals (orange) intersect the
horizon line in close agreement (thank you, Raphael!), so I
conclude I really have found the diagonal vanishing point.

A circle with center at dv through the dvp defines the 90° circle
of view, so the distance between dv and dvp is also the viewing
distance to the painting. The width of the painting is 27 feet, so
by calculation the center of projection should be about 31.5 feet
directly in front of dv. I haven't been to the Vatican chamber
where this fresco is located, but the photographs I have
examined suggest the center of projection is not in a practicable
viewing position. (It is approximately 10 feet above the floor and
several feet on the other side of the opposite wall!)

The horizon line also lets me locate the implicit location of the
painter in terms of the room represented in the fresco, which is
roughly at the height of the white robed figure to the right of the
dv (if the artist is assumed to be standing), or at the height of
the central figures at the top level (if the artist is assumed to be
sitting).

From the dvp I can also determine the circle of view of the
painting. Drawing a straight line from dvp to the top of the
fresco defines a 20° angle. So the barrel vault boundary of the
fresco represents a 40° circle of view.

2PP Construction. In the case of two point perspective, the

necessary elements are the same, except that you must start by
finding a rectangular form or forms that will reveal at least two
vanishing lines for each of the two vanishing points. This object
does not have to be square, but it must contain a right angle at
the intersection of two sides.

These vanishing points in turn determine all the other

perspective elements. The intersection of each pair of lines
defines a vanishing point, and the two vanishing points define
the horizon line. Orthogonals, if visible, will point to the direction
of view on the horizon line; if there are no orthogonals, then the
median line of the format can be used to locate the dv.

The final step is to reconstruct the right triangle whose

hypotenuse is the horizon line between the two vp's and whose
right angle lies on the median line drawn from dv perpendicular
to the horizon line. This is easiest to find simply by dragging the
right angle of a drafting triangle, or the corner of a large sheet
of paper, up the median line until both sides can be aligned over
the two vanishing points: the right angle corner is then on the
folded vanishing point on the circle of view. Or, we can use the
semicircle of Thales method.
 2PP reconstruction of the center of projection

In this painting by Edward Hopper, I ignore the suggestion of

3PP in the slightly upward flaring sides of the house and tilt of
the telephone pole (we'll come back to this later).

The diagonals from the eaves and base trim of the windows
(orange) are a little sloppy, but my best guess puts their
intersections (and the horizon line) at the bottom of the picture.
(This construction fundamentally determines everything else, so
it should be done as carefully as possible, using as many
vanishing lines as you can find.)

The median line and direction of view (dv) are arbitrarily located
on the midline of the painting.

To find the folded viewpoint on the circle of view, move the right
angle corner of a drafting triangle up the median line until the
two edges lie on both vanishing points: the right corner is then
on the circle of view; or use the semicircle of Thales method by
bisecting the distance between the two vanishing points.

We discover several things from this construction:

• Hopper's eye level (the horizon line) is level with the sidewalk
in front of the house, which implies that the house is at the top
of a hill and the artist was downhill from the house when
painting — how far downhill depends on whether he was seated
or standing.

• The radius of the circle of view is approximately 1.8 times the

width of this 50cm wide painting, which locates the center of
projection (viewing distance) about 35 inches from the painting
surface; for best effect the painting should also be hung slightly
high, with the bottom edge at eye level of an average sized
viewer.

• By taking the largest circle around dv to the edge of the

image, then measuring the angle at the folded viewpoint (25°)
defined by the radius of this circle, we determine that the image
is enclosed by a 50° circle of view, which creates the slightly
bulging appearance of the front angle of the building.

• However, the outward flaring in the sides of the building is

directly contrary to the perspective geometry: viewed from
below, a building's sides (and edges parallel to them, such as
the telephone pole) should seem to converge toward a third
vanishing point far above the horizon line, not below it. The fact
that they flare outward as the rise above the viewer is a
perspective distortion explicitly introduced for its dramatic
effect, as it gives the old pile a characterful dynamism.

The Renaissance artist and his modernist colleague have kept

their art well within the commonly recommended 60° circle of
view but have allowed some perspective distortion for dramatic
or esthetic impact. Creatively "adjusting" perspective
distortion has been one of the subtleties of painting for almost
six centuries.

3PP Construction. Finally, it is even possible to identify the

center of projection and circle of view in a 3PP perspective
drawing, provided that all three vanishing points can be
established from edges or lines within the image. The method
for doing this is complex, but is explained on the next page as
the perspective sketch method of 3PP construction.

N E X T : Three Point Perspective

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