It was great to follow along with the demo. I'll try it without the audio next time to further push myself. I also learnt that we may not need to project down every single corner - I'll try that next time too, to see which corners I can leave out.

Finally! Today I squeezed the time to quickly — and somewhat “dirty” — test this Perspective Model in a physical, experiential way, which connects abstract knowledge with the intuitive approach I want to develop. I’m a hands-on person; abstract thinking only takes me so far. Without further ado...drums rolling...I tested my side of the deal @Marshall Vandruff and @Carlos Javier Roo Soto What I was able to answer with this neat testing method I came up with is: 1. On Distortion and the Picture Plane Perspective distortion is defined by the relationship between the Station Point (observer) and the object. The Picture Plane is simply the slice in space that captures or frames how the light bouncing back to the viewer’s eye is perceived. Sliding the PP (changing its distance between the Viewer and the Object) only affects the scale of what appears inside the drawing window/panel. In the physical world, the draftsman is usually 1–2 feet away from the PP. In the abstract world, we can slide the PP as far from the Observer as we want without changing distortion. 2. On Corners Touching, Behind, or Crossing the PP To revisit the question I asked before — how an object touching, behind, or crossing the PP affects distortion — here’s what I found. Yes, it makes a difference, but mainly because the Observer ↔ Object relationship changes, not because the PP itself is altering the projection. How the PP concept affects intuitive rendering: Ex. 1 – Corner Touching: That part of the object appears true to scale. From that anchor point back, everything else is distorted by perspective. Ex. 2 – Entirely Behind: The whole object is affected by perspective, but in a less distorted way — the scale is smaller, the angle of vision is narrower. The PP being closer to the Viewer or to the Object doesn’t change the distortion itself, only the scale of what’s captured in the frame. Ex. 3 – Corner Crossing: The space between the Observer and the PP is technically not captured in the slice. In practice, the artist has to cheat — inventing how to render the front portion on paper while letting the perspective take over behind. 3. On the PP’s Position in Space For the third question, we assumed correctly: in Examples 2, 4, and 5, the position of the PP is irrelevant to perspective distortion. Its location in space doesn’t change the projection. The differences we see come down to my changing relationship (Observer/Station Point) with the Object/Toy Truck.

why did you do it like screenshot 1. and not screenshot 2.? I mean the box in screenshot 1. does look more accurate compared to the orthos, but could it just be that the close angled view really distorts things as much as in screenshot 2.? i hope that the screenshots makes sense. and i tried watching without sound again, and i think im starting to understand planned projections quite well!

Wide angle test done before watching the video.

This is just a distortion that occurs when vanishing points are place too close together and it's considered a classic error in most books that teach perspective.

Did Marshal ever explained if being behind, in front, or on the picture plane affects the actual projected building distortion? How did we arrive unto this particular problem of having the Top Ortho relationship with the Picture Plane? Does the Relationship between the object with the PP affects the position of the object in the frame? I would assume no, but wanted to understand why are we spending time in these differences. Sumimazen Sensei Marshall, I am a Why and What If type of learner, and must understand how these brain breakers relate to my final mental picture of the Perspective Quest.