8

graphical projection of a house I have been creating 2D artwork with buildings drawn like the image above.

For inspiration I have looked at a lot of isometric illustrations but obviously this is much flatter and does not have the sides projected on angles. I think this type of projection could be considered oblique? But as the front and side are projected head on it could also be considered orthographic?

Example below of my houses used in one of my poster designs.

my artwork (Leigh-on-Sea Poster)

The closest I can find is probably top-down oblique (as used in many clasic games) but the obvious problem is that my house isn't top-down more side on...?

I would appreciate any help in classifying this type of projection/illustration style, mainly out of interest, but also because I cant find any other examples of it.

  • 3
    Isn't that a flat "elevation" drawing, but viewed obliquely, so not a projection really. There is no vanishing point in your version, parallel lines remain parallel, and it appears to have a uniform scale. If you rotated it, the front would disappear and become just a vertical line. It's not an isometric projection because the bottom of the structure is flat on the horizon. Wikipedia's article on projections: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_projection – user8356 Feb 16 '17 at 14:46
  • Thank you @user8356 I hadn't thought of it as a flat elevation. I suppose, yes, you could say viewed obliquely. I have studded the wikipedia page on graphical projection but it is odd that this type of view is not represented anywhere. It is most similar to 'top-down oblique' but with the projection being vertical rather than horizontal. I wonder if perhaps this type of angle has a name in the art and illustration world rather than the technical drawing world? – Neil Fendell Feb 16 '17 at 15:52
  • 1
    I believe, as @Neil says, that it is simply an "elevation". I am not sure you can say that is is "viewed obliquely". It is simply just an elevation of a house that is rotated on the ground (around its own vertical axis). If there were a house right next to it that weren't rotated it should be drawn as the "elevation" example on the Wikipedia page. But I guess it is considered to be a "projection" - just a real simple kind. The camera has no rotation around the x-axis. – Wolff Feb 16 '17 at 16:09
  • 2
    @user8356 I think you mixed up the terms projection and perspective. Vanishing points are for perspectives. This is an orthographic elevation, a special variant of a parallel projection. Usually these kind of elevations are drawn perpendicular to the sides of an object, like in architectual or other technical drawings, for instance the very common multiview orthographic projection with top, left, right side views. They're useful because they can display the original measures of the sides. But this "perpendicularity" is not always possible or even wanted, like in the example. – AAGD Feb 16 '17 at 16:28
  • 1
    Yes, I agree with @MadsWolff this could be considered an orthographic elevation view viewed from a 45 degree angle on the vertical axis (the corner). – Neil Fendell Feb 16 '17 at 18:04
4

It's a parallel projection. The wiewing direction is horizontal. All horizontal surfaces are squeezed to horizontal lines (only 1 here - the floor plane).

When one watches distant objects by having a a strong telescope, the perspective gets nearly thislike flat. Not exactly, but the smaller is the object compared to the distance, the flatter is the perspective.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.