Do you think it is possible to convert 2D to linear perspective to perfection using physics? Because I already did it 😎

[IridiumBoy]

During quarantine, one of my purposes was to improve my knowledge about perpective.

While I was working on it, I found something, a method that is able to convert information in 2D to linear perspective to perfection, but the most important, to viceversa too.

I think that it's like if I had found how both languages are connected between them, the key to translate from one to another.

And I am not sure why it works or what it represents, I just know it works.

I called this method The Principle of Infinity.

What I am going to expose next is the proof that it works, not how it does. You will have to wait for that for now.



Let's get started:

In the step number 1 we draw a random scalene triangle and the mediatrixes of the three edges that conform the triangle.

In the step number 2, using my method, we draw exactly the same triangle and the mediatrixes in linear perspective.

But, how can we know now if the triangles in both steps are the same at 100% and not only similar?

To know the answer we continue in the step number 3. Using Thales's theorem we divide the red-coloured edge in 3 parts. Now, from one of those parts, we draw a line until one of the vertex of the triangle, de violet line, the one that unites the green circumference and the red one.

Where the 3 mediatrixes cut, we have the blue circumference. From there, we are going to draw a line until the green circumference, the yellow line.

And now we are going to measure the angle of the vertex between the yellow and violet line.

The number in red is the value obtained.



As you can see, we established a simple pattern with the intention to compare both triangles.

So in the step number 4, we are going to repeat the same pattern but this time in the triangle in linear perspective. It is possible to use the Thales's theorem in perspective, and the rest of the lines are easy to draw.

As I said, if It is possible to convert 2D into linear pespective using my method, it is possible to convert linear perspective into 2D too.

To finish the step number 4, we convert the yellow and violet lines into 2D using the method, moment when we can measure the angle between them without any kind of distortion.

The value in blue is the answer the method gives.



The red value and the blue one are completely equals with such accuracy that I cannot think it is only a coincidence, it must mean that the two triangles are exactly the same with no margin of error.



Summarizing, what I am really interest to know now is if something like this method has been already made or I am the first person who discovers it. I tried but I found nothing even similar to this, what makes me think. This method is so easy to use that learning perspective in school should be like, first lesson, learn about the horizon line, second lesson, learn what vanishing points are, third lesson, my method, and you are done, you mastered linear perspective.

But If I never heard nor read about this It could mean, just maybe, that this has not been already discovered before.

And the most important part of this method is not about geometry if not how much of the concepts behind it can be extrapolated to other sciences, specially physics.

Because if you can say the universe is made of numbers then you can also say the universe is made of lines, given that geometry is nothing but visual mathematics.



This method works as a charm, every time I used it the accuracy was absolute, I never got even the minor error. Perfect. Always. Like a law of physics.
 

 

 

To begin with, let's find out if something similar to this has been already discovered. Ask your teachers, mates, anyone interested in geometry, technical drawing, maths, physics, etc. Download the image and share it, share this deviation wherever you want too, share if you think this could be something big and you want to be part of it. Big things have small beginnings too.


An then we will see. I don't expect much in the short term, but who knows in the long one.



For now, what I have found out thanks to all of this is that universe is nothing but a singularity, and that it is not infinite.


 

Universe is the infinite itself.

 

 

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, IridiumBoy said:

During quarantine, one of my purposes was to improve my knowledge about perpective.

While I was working on it, I found something, a method that is able to convert information in 2D to linear perspective to perfection, but the most important, to viceversa too.

I think that it's like if I had found how both languages are connected between them, the key to translate from one to another.

And I am not sure why it works or what it represents, I just know it works.

I called this method The Principle of Infinity.

What I am going to expose next is the proof that it works, not how it does. You will have to wait for that for now.

You seem to have stumbled upon what is called projective geometry.

 

Well done for that. +1

 

This is one step up from ordinary euclidian geometry and was much studied by the Victorians and part of the school curriculum until about 1930.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=projective+geometry&source=hp&ei=RmOJYZezKKWJjLsPwNmIkAI&iflsig=ALs-wAMAAAAAYYlxVq4nlx8ovc4Tp-ElMP9Zy91-FdD8&oq=projective+geometry&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEOg4ILhCABBCxAxCDARCTAjoLCAAQgAQQsQMQgwE6CAgAEIAEELEDOg4ILhCABBCxAxDHARDRAzoOCC4QgAQQsQMQxwEQowI6CwguEIAEELEDEIMBOhEILhCxAxCDARDHARCvARCTAjoFCC4QgAQ6CAguEIAEELEDOgsILhCABBDHARDRAzoLCC4QgAQQxwEQrwFQAFjIJ2DcKmgAcAB4AIABvgOIAfAVkgEKNS4xMS4xLjAuMpgBAKABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwiX7tP4qYn0AhWlBGMBHcAsAiIQ4dUDCAg&uact=5

You should also look for

'The line at infinity' and 'the point at infinity' in geometry.

 

There are further steps up the geometric ladder.

[IridiumBoy]

I have been reading today about those concepts and no, this is something different. 

 

No maths, nor coordinates nor algorithms are needed to make this work. Only a pencil, a piece of paper and some drawing skills, given it only uses lines.

 

And even then, it is 100% accurate. Why? it would be interesting to know. 

 

Here you can find more examples of this method mate. 

 

 

 

Thank you for your comment! 

 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Phi for All
No advertising, please.

[cladking]

I once had a TV that I had needed to repair several times.  Like so many such things it was highly "quirky' and required experience to even operate.   

When it went out "completely" the picture was replaced by two narrow horizontal lines across the center.  The sound still worked so before I bought a new TV I would continue to use it once in a while for old movies or the like.   One day an ad I had never seen before was on and before they said the phone number I knew what it was.   It took me a while to figure out how I knew but if I looked at the bottom of the screen and quickly looked upward I'd get a pretty good image of the entire picture. So I got a piece of glass and flipped it up and down in front of the screen rapidly and it worked.  I even motorized the glass for optimum viewing.  

I bought a new TV anyway.  

[studiot]

16 hours ago, IridiumBoy said:

I have been reading today about those concepts and no, this is something different. 

 

No maths, nor coordinates nor algorithms are needed to make this work. Only a pencil, a piece of paper and some drawing skills, given it only uses lines.

 

And even then, it is 100% accurate. Why? it would be interesting to know. 

 

Here you can find more examples of this method mate. 

Some explanation of your diagrams would help and perhaps draw more discussion.

I, for one, have no idea what you are showing in your diagrams.

Perhaps also you could fill in the blank space following  your here is some more comment ?

[IridiumBoy]

On 11/14/2021 at 12:20 PM, studiot said:

Some explanation of your diagrams would help and perhaps draw more discussion.

I, for one, have no idea what you are showing in your diagrams.

Perhaps also you could fill in the blank space following  your here is some more comment ?

OK I left a link there but they deleted it.

Just write IRIDYSCENZIA Deviantart on Google to find my profile in Deviantart to see more examples.

I didn't cheat with the results, so if I am right any architect in the world would want to use this method to draw in linear perspective to perfection, not only 'by eye'. Besides, it could even improve the perspective in any 3D software.

Thank you four your time mate, really appreciated.

[IridiumBoy]

As Salvador Dali once said: "whoever wants to engage people’s interest must provoke them." So the title of this forum thread was just to get your attention, now that I already have it, let me introduce what I've done.

In 2020 during quarantine I discovered a method that successfully connects the different dimensions at a visual level. That way it is possible to convert 2D into 3D and vice versa.

This method not only completes to perfection linear perspective, but it could also lead to an endless number of different applications. In addition, it could be useful in different sciences.

Recently, I uploaded a video to Youtube showing how it works:

 

 

 

This is the cube that I created in the video, it looks like a render made with a 3D design program but it's just a drawing.

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure what I found, but I tried to explain it the best I could. And this video is not a tutorial, that's why I don't explain what I'm really doing. But if there is enough interest, I can do tutorials.

From now on, we can discover together the potential of all of this. We only need the right person to see it, that's why the best way to contribute to this discovery is by sharing the video.

Thank you very much for your time! and feel free to let me know your opinion.

 

 

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Can you explain this for science discussion WITHOUT the video? Part of our rules state that we don't want to worry about wasting our time on someone who just wants YT video hits for their channel. Videos are problematic when it comes to discussion because referencing visual information means we have to watch your video over and over again, something we didn't want to do in the first place. Videos can be highly deceptive. And we can read so much faster than we can watch. 

If the members are willing to talk about your idea, I'm willing to let that happen, but it's against our rules to make it mandatory to watch a video in order to participate in the discussion. So can you give us a written overview, or should this be a discussion for another site? I'll be removing the video shortly.

 

[studiot]

Interesting use of projective geometry.

Towards the beginning of your video you spell distortion as distorsion. I see you are Spanish so no bother I mis-spell words all the time but hey you might like to correct this.

I have a friend who is an artist and a draftsman. Very non scientifically technical, non computerate.

Yet although I can calculate the effect on shapes, and he cannot,  I cannot anywhere near match the way he has taken to drawing programs and can produce the most amazing pictures intuitively and takes equally intuitively to the use of the computer to automatically perform the calculations for him.

 

Which brings me to my point that although you have really used your time well, you have not discovered anything new.

Sorry.

 

Mathematicians call your infinity point :   "the point at infinity"  so a good match.

This is a branch of projective geometry which was developed in the 19th century. This is not taught much today, but of great use in compter graphics.

It is also of great use in cartography, where it is used to take out the distortion that arises in aerial photography and also to provide information in the 3rd Dimension (Height in this case). This branch of cartography is called photogrammetry.

 

Hope this helps and go well.  +1

 

By the way, phi, I liked the embedding of the video as it plays on SF, but my older computer no longer renders YT etc.

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Similar threads merged

 

[Sensei]

On 11/13/2021 at 9:17 PM, cladking said:

When it went out "completely" the picture was replaced by two narrow horizontal lines across the center. 

The CRT monitor has two deflection systems, horizontal and vertical.

If the horizontal deflection system is faulty, you have a straight vertical line.

If the vertical deflection system is faulty, you have a straight horizontal line.

If both deflection systems are malfunctioning, you have dot in the center.

https://www.google.com/search?q=vertical+deflecting+system

[IridiumBoy]

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Can you explain this for science discussion WITHOUT the video? Part of our rules state that we don't want to worry about wasting our time on someone who just wants YT video hits for their channel. Videos are problematic when it comes to discussion because referencing visual information means we have to watch your video over and over again, something we didn't want to do in the first place. Videos can be highly deceptive. And we can read so much faster than we can watch. 

If the members are willing to talk about your idea, I'm willing to let that happen, but it's against our rules to make it mandatory to watch a video in order to participate in the discussion. So can you give us a written overview, or should this be a discussion for another site? I'll be removing the video shortly.

 

Well I tried to explain this at the end of 2021 with an image and some words and there was no way.

That is why this time I have decided to share it in a video.

If you think you should delete the video, go ahead, I didn't mean to offend.

Those who want to search for the video on their own, just write these words on Youtube, the video thumbnail is colored yellow:

 

How reality works visually | The Principle of Infinity

 

Thank you

 

 

22 hours ago, studiot said:

Interesting use of projective geometry.

Towards the beginning of your video you spell distortion as distorsion. I see you are Spanish so no bother I mis-spell words all the time but hey you might like to correct this.

I have a friend who is an artist and a draftsman. Very non scientifically technical, non computerate.

Yet although I can calculate the effect on shapes, and he cannot,  I cannot anywhere near match the way he has taken to drawing programs and can produce the most amazing pictures intuitively and takes equally intuitively to the use of the computer to automatically perform the calculations for him.

 

Which brings me to my point that although you have really used your time well, you have not discovered anything new.

Sorry.

 

Mathematicians call your infinity point :   "the point at infinity"  so a good match.

This is a branch of projective geometry which was developed in the 19th century. This is not taught much today, but of great use in compter graphics.

It is also of great use in cartography, where it is used to take out the distortion that arises in aerial photography and also to provide information in the 3rd Dimension (Height in this case). This branch of cartography is called photogrammetry.

 

Hope this helps and go well.  +1

 

By the way, phi, I liked the embedding of the video as it plays on SF, but my older computer no longer renders YT etc.

 

Believe me, I thought I had corrected all the possible misspellings. I checked the video numerous times but it's obvious that I made one. In any case, if the rest of the video is perfectly written in English, I'm satisfied. I can't delete it and upload it again due to a minor mistake, but I thank you anyway.

Until I shared it, it was impossible for me to know if this had potential or not.

On the other hand, for me the concepts that make this work are more important than the method itself.

Maybe they are correct or maybe not, but if they are they could be very interesting.

I'm just a designer, your knowledge in these areas is of course greater than mine. That's why I had to share it with all of you.

Thanks for your time mate.

[studiot]

2 hours ago, IridiumBoy said:

Thanks for your time mate.

Glad to be of assistance.

Re-reading my last post I see my spellung wasn't perfect either !

 

If you need any references for example for the photogrammetry I can easily supply some.

[IridiumBoy]

On 1/12/2023 at 7:57 PM, studiot said:

Glad to be of assistance.

Re-reading my last post I see my spellung wasn't perfect either !

 

If you need any references for example for the photogrammetry I can easily supply some.

 

 

The pleasure is mine, mate

 

It seems that photogrammetry is something quite complex.

Precisely what calls the attention of what I have done is that it is very simple in its behavior. And at the same time, very accurate.

 

Look at this example, I was able to convert with my method a random scalene triangle and all its perpendicular bisectors from 2D to linear perspective, establish a pattern using Thales's first theorem also in perspective, measure the same angle and obtain the same value with that precision.

And using only lines.

Maybe this is useless in 3D software but at least it could be important in perspective drawing.

And more interesting than the method itself, could be the concepts that I used to make it work.

 

For example, what I have done has a lot to do with infinity, and it is the visual equivalent to 1/0=undefined

Which does not make much sense with numbers, but it is easier to appreciate with lines.

 

Thank you for your time!

 

 

 

Edited January 16, 2023 by IridiumBoy