Drawing system — where it appears
Named by 40 essays across 7 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
What the removed roof buys
The Japanese convention of drawing an interior with its roof lifted off is usually explained as a way of seeing inside. What it actually buys is uniformity — every room reports the same share of its floor, to the last sample, where the eye that frames the same building reports three different numbers.
The picture whose lines spread
In a Byzantine icon the sides of a table diverge with depth. The standard account says the vanishing point is behind the viewer. It is not — it sits below the near edge, in front of the eye, and it is the vanishing point of a direction running down and away.
Measuring a room off the page
A perspective picture of a floor has to be rectified before anything on it can be measured, and the rectification is a fit that amplifies the marking error. An oblique picture of the same floor is already rectified — the page is the plan, at one scale, and a ruler on the paper is a ruler on the ground.
A picture with no size–distance signal
In a system with no diminution the drawn size of an object falls at exactly zero pixels per metre, so nothing in the picture says how far away anything is. Depth has to be carried by something else, and what carries it is height on the page — linearly, and without a horizon.
Every row is a different camera
A shutter that reads its rows one after another images each of them from wherever the camera was at that instant, so a frame is a stack of projections indexed by height — a handscroll with the roll running down the picture. Its rays miss their own best centre by the spread of the eye's track, at a ratio of 0.988, and a global shutter's meet to 2 × 10⁻¹⁶ m.
A centre and a measure are exclusive
Eight drawing systems, measured on five questions, with the pinhole as a row rather than the header. Exactly one has a centre of projection and it is exactly the one with no true measure — and loosening the measure test by a hair lets it in, which is what says the boundary is real.
Each system answers its own question
A comparison in which every system wins its own column proves nothing if the columns were chosen after the systems. The test that makes it a result is whether any system wins something it was not designed for — and two of them do.
A carpet and the people on it
A Persian miniature draws the ground as though from above and the figures standing on it as though from in front. The two views want optical axes exactly ninety degrees apart, and the plan view does not shorten a standing figure — it replaces its height with its distance from the point under the eye.
Assembled from several views
An Egyptian relief takes each part of a figure from the direction that identifies it — head in profile, eye and shoulders frontal, a pond in plan. What that buys is exactly measurable: any single viewing direction keeps at most √k of k perpendicular aspects, so the best compromise view retains 58% of each.
What perspective gave up
The field ends by turning its own battery on the system it has been comparing everything against. Four quantities a pinhole destroys that the other systems keep, each measured by the same computation as the systems it is set against, and each the price of the one thing perspective has and they do not.
Any three lines you draw are a cube
Four earlier essays said that cavalier projection is not the projection of anything — because its axis scales sum to three where every orthographic projection sums to two. That is true of orthographic projection and false of projection. Three lines from a point, drawn by hand, are a picture of an actual cube seen from an actual direction, and the cube and the direction come out of the drawing in closed form.
Oblique is a shear, and the shear is the whole system
Cavalier and cabinet are usually introduced as easy perspective for people with a set square. They are not a simplification of anything — they are the answer to a demand no orthographic projection can meet, which is a front face at true size and a depth axis at full length at the same time. The two are locked on a unit circle, and buying both costs exactly 45° of obliquity.
The arcs a curvilinear drawing uses
The taught way to draw a very wide view by hand is to run every straight edge of the world as a circular arc. That recipe has been repeated for sixty years without a surface attached to it, and it turns out to name one exactly — fitting a general conic to the image of a straight line returns a circle to nine decimal places under stereographic projection and returns nothing like a circle under any of the other standard picture surfaces.
A picture with two eyes in it
Several traditions draw the floor from one place and the people on it from another. No single camera produces both, as an earlier essay showed. What such a picture actually is has a measurement attached: give the rays their world points and ask for the one place they all pass through, and at a stride of separation the best answer misses them by six tenths of a metre.
A yes in the table is a price
The comparison table says isometric, cavalier, the elevation and the plan oblique all keep measure. Priced on four hundred boxes, with each picture handed its own best ruler, the four charge 0%, 0%, 33.3% and 0% for an edge — and a pinhole charges 39.5%, only 6.2 points more than the elevation it is filed against. Turn the boxes and three of the four yeses cost something; only the plan oblique's stays free.
A ruler on an isometric drawing
Isometric drawing has one scale — 0.8165 — and every account of it stops there. But that number is about three directions and a drawing has infinitely many, so a length measured off the paper and divided by 0.8165 comes back anywhere between √(1/2) and √(3/2) of the truth: 29.3% short to 22.5% long, with nothing in the picture to say which.
A page is bounded by a divide, not a centre
A pinhole draws the whole of an infinite ground in a bounded patch of page — each doubling of distance half the one before — while a handscroll spends the same page on every doubling and an isometric drawing spends three quarters of its page on the last one. It is tempting to credit the centre. A crossed-slits camera, whose rays miss any common point by 0.46 m, is bounded too: what does it is dividing by depth in both directions of the page.
The drawing does not say which corner is nearer
The Necker cube is filed under optical illusion, as though the flipping were something the eye does. It is not: a parallel drawing of a cube is a drawing of exactly two cubes, mirror images of each other, and they project to the identical picture to the last bit. Perspective rules the second one out at a rate exactly inverse in the eye's distance, and never entirely.
Counting the eyes needs the room
How many eyes made a picture is not a question the picture can be asked. Told what the room really measures, the rays refuse to meet and a second eye has been caught; told instead that the room is the one the picture is consistent with, the same rays meet exactly, at the first eye. The refusal is real and it belongs to the room.
The ellipse the drawing office draws
Every isometric ellipse template is cut to a construction of four circular arcs, and every account of it calls the result an ellipse. It is not one and cannot be: a circular arc has constant curvature and a conic's varies, so the two can agree at four points and nowhere between. The four-centre curve reaches 2√2/3 of the true semi-major axis — 5.72% short — and its minor axis is 3.53% too long.
Two grounds, and what the second one costs
The miniature convention wants its floor drawn from overhead and its figures drawn from in front, and the two optical axes it asks for are exactly ninety degrees apart. Read as a picture with two centres rather than as a picture with none, the arrangement stops being a contradiction and becomes a quantity: the rays of the composite miss their own best point by more than a metre, and the absorbed reading is a floor that leans.
A camera count needs a tolerance
Asked how few cameras could have drawn a splayed picture, a constructed stack answers four, three, two or one depending on how many pixels of redrawing a reader will allow — one camera at 17.6 px, two at 11.1, three at 4.6. The count is real: a picture built with two groups hidden in it gives back exactly those two, anywhere between nothing and 47.0 px. What it is not is a property of the picture alone, and the floor under it belongs to the hand — a one-camera drawing made by a hand that scatters its far corners by σ splits below about 0.57σ, where the 0.57 belongs to that hand and runs from 0.17 to 1.34 across a hundred and twenty of them.
A parallel floor under a perspective room
Draw the floor without diminution and the people on it with it, and the picture has a centre at infinity glued to a centre in the room. The same map absorbs it — but there is no shear this time, and there cannot be: bringing a point in from infinity is not something an affine map does, so the room the picture is equally a picture of has its midpoints moved as well as its angles.
Six tangents and the point nobody drew
Brianchon's theorem is a test a reader can run on a finished drawing with nothing but a straightedge — six tangents, three diagonals, and a question about whether they meet. Pointed at the drawing office's four-centre ellipse it rejects the curve by 1.7 per cent of the figure's own width, 546 times the instrument's own floor, with no true ellipse to compare against.
The tenth row has neither
A crossed-slits camera divides by depth in both page directions and its rays miss any common point by 0.354 m. Put on the comparison table it prices 38.8% on length, 69.9% on area and 58.2% on angle against a pinhole's 39.5%, 70.8% and 60.9%, and its midpoint drift is 15.6% — the pinhole's own figure. It keeps a true scale in no direction at all, and it bows a straight run of ground by 1.11 px, which no row with a centre does. Giving up the point buys nothing and costs a third thing besides.
The exclusion is two conditions, not ten rows
Ten systems have been measured and none has both a centre and a true measure. Ten is not a proof. Swept across the whole two-slit family — eighty-one members, both parameters run out to infinity — a centre appears at exactly the eight members whose slits sit at one finite distance, a measure at exactly the seventeen with a slit at infinity, and at none of them both. The case the two conditions appear to leave open is closed by the rays themselves: one divide is a slit, and eight page points use 6.02 m of it.
The dimetric the set square draws
An orthographic direction has two parameters and produces three axis scales, so the achievable triples are a surface rather than a list. The drawing office's dimetric — one axis at 1 in 8, the other at 7 in 8 — has the right three scales exactly and the wrong two angles, and the picture it makes is an oblique projection of a cube rather than an orthographic one.
What one oblique drawing shows
A parallel projection is a linear map from three dimensions to two, so it has a direction it throws away. Slide any point along that direction and its mark does not move — which makes every parallel drawing the drawing of a three-parameter family of solids, and the depth scale a convention chooses is one direction through the family rather than a boundary of it.
A circle off the coordinate planes
An ellipse template is cut at one ratio, and the ratio is the cosine of one angle: between a coordinate plane's normal and the direction of projection. A face tilted out of that plane needs a different ratio and — the half that gets drawn wrong even when the ratio is close — a major axis pointing somewhere else, perpendicular to the drawn normal rather than to any edge.
Three-point, laid out with a straightedge
Recovering a camera from a drawing is the familiar direction. The other direction — stand somewhere, measure a room, and lay the picture out — had never been taken in three-point, because the third axis needs a measuring point on a line nobody draws. With it, every corner lands where the camera puts it to three parts in ten million million of a pixel, and nothing anywhere is judged.
A grid on the wall is a scale without a projection
An Egyptian canon rules a wall into squares and counts a figure's height against the ruling — no horizon, no centre, and a length recovered to 1.4e-14% of error where the same reading taken off a pinhole misses by 58%. Applied instead to a pinhole picture, the furthest of six equal figures reads at 19% of its true height.
The shadow rules that hold here
Drop the foot, run a line from the top at forty-five degrees, take the intersection: the drawing manual's shadow construction is exact in a parallel drawing, to arithmetic noise, at every point of the picture and with one set square. It is where the rule came from, and carrying it into a perspective picture is what broke it.
The drawing that gives the solid back
One parallel view of a general point determines nothing: two equations, three unknowns, and the kernel is free. What closes it is not a second view but the correspondence — knowing which drawn edge runs along which world axis — and with it the whole solid comes back out of one drawing, exactly.
The ball a drawing does not draw round
An orthographic drawing of a sphere is a circle wherever the sphere is, and its centre is the image of the sphere's centre, exactly. A cavalier oblique drawing of the same sphere is an ellipse of aspect exactly √2 — and the drawing office reaches for a circle template. One formula covers both and the camera as well, and only the camera moves the centre.
No view draws a curved plate true
The auxiliary view is descriptive geometry's answer to a foreshortened plane — turn until the plane is parallel to the paper and it draws at true shape. A bent plate has no such direction and a dished one has none twice over: the best view of the first is out by 1 − cos w and the best of the second by 1 − cos²w, worse by exactly 1 + cos w, because its normals need two parameters rather than one.
The drawing and the development
A bent plate gets two flat pictures on the same sheet and each is exact in what the other loses. The parallel drawing keeps the generators at one scale and stretches the arc over a factor; the development keeps every length on the surface and keeps nothing of the shape in space. Neither is the plate and the pair of them is.
A drawn fold has a phantom
A Necker cube has two readings and so does a drawn fold, and the fold's second reading is not the supplement of the first. The drawing fixes each plate edge's component in the picture and leaves its component along the ray free up to a sign; a reflection identifies two of the four sign pairs, so there are exactly two plates — and a hundred-degree fold reads as eighty-seven as well.
Two outlines are two curves
The whole method of multiview drawing is the transfer line — a feature at a position in the front view is at the same position along that axis in the top view. On a flat-faced solid the feature is a vertex and the rule is exact. On a ball the two views draw two different great circles, meeting in exactly two points, and the transfer line joins places that are √2 radii apart.
The arcs the five-point construction actually draws
The taught five-point construction draws circular arcs between five vanishing points and instructs a draughtsman to graduate the radius evenly. Read that way, the arcs miss a straight line's true image by up to 3.75 pixels on a 300-pixel disc. Read at the stereographic scale instead, the same arcs are exact to 4.3e-13 pixels — the construction was always drawing one projection, and the taught scale was never it.
The hook is the centre, and the eye is not
Dürer's string frame projects from a ring of iron driven into a wall, so its centre of projection has a position anybody can measure with a tape. A hook 120 centimetres behind a frame 56 centimetres wide makes a drawing correct from 34.3 centimetres shown 160 millimetres across, with its principal point 161 px off the middle of the sheet. The gridded veil projects from a head instead, and 30 millimetres of head moves its marks by 13.27 millimetres.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
DemonstrationParallel projectioncentre of projectionOrthographicForeshorteningOblique projectionFree parameterStation pointArea scalePicture planeAxis scalereconstruction ambiguity