Talk:Curvilinear perspective

Lots of mistakes in categorization

This page has lots of mistakes in how it categorizes things.

• In general, curvilinear perspective is a general class of techniques, of which Flocon and Barre's method is one. (A definition of it that I use is any single-viewpoint projection that doesn't preserve straight lines.)
• Tiny planet projections are usually based on stereographic projection, not Flocon and Barré.
• Fisheye lenses use several different projections.
• Barrel distortions and pincushion distortions are effects in conventional lenses.

Here's a reasonable survey of some other curvilinear perspectives (see the paragraph on page 4 that begins with "In the nineteenth century..."), and here's a survey of associated curvilinear theories of perception. --Aaronh (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

No mention of Flocon and Barre?

I am astonished that this page has been on Wikipedia for five years with no mention ever of Albert Flocon and André Barre's seminal work, La Perspective curviligne (1968), which was translated into English in 1987. It's a brilliant, thorough explication of the whole process. I don't know if I've made the article any clearer -- it was shockingly vague. The French wikipedia (unsurprisingly) has a much nicer article on it. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No mention of four point perspective

Five point perspective is not the only variant of curvilinear perspective, saying that "it" uses five point perspective like there's only one construction method gives an insufficient impression of the different types of construction methods for linear perspective. The book "Vanishing Point" by Jason Cheeseman-Meyer covers both five and four point (or infinite point) perspective in an easily understandable way if anyone would like to add this to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.144.230 (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Advertising?

• "The book Vanishing Point: Perspective for Comics from the Ground Up by Jason Cheeseman-Meyer, is one of the only simplified "how to do" books that teaches five and four (infinite) point perspective." is in the article - seems like an ad, and what does "one of the only" even mean. 203.153.200.146 (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As Flocon's book on Curvilinear perspective is no longer in publication, this is probably one of (if not the) only book in current publication that still covers this type of perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.245.167 (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Math formula clarification and additions

Should indicate whether the math formula describes the 2D translation of a spherical perspective or other curvilinear perspectives (e.g. conic, parabolic, hyperbolic, etc.). It would be nice to have more formulas added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.31.89 (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, the radius variable in the math section is the only time the radius of a curvilinear system is discussed anywhere in the article 173.44.106.54 (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Expand curvilinear perspective

Hi

I'm new on Wikipedia: can I have an advice?

May I insert an external link to these tutorials http://www.biodomotica.com/tutorials.htm

and expand the explanation with a link to http://www.biodomotica.com/summary_perspective_vanishing_points.htm

Thanks Max Mar (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for asking. I'd say it would probably be best not to use biodomotica.com, as it isn't clear it's what we call a WP:Reliable Source - things like textbooks, scientific journals, museum websites. Perhaps you can find links to suitable textbooks and then look those up for working on the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Chiswick.

I understand.

I'm an architect and I have studied on hundreds of articles and books on perspective for 5 years before writing the tutorials; but it's not sufficient to be an expert.

Anyway, in WP:Reliable Source there are Exceptions: "Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff."

Maybe you or other editors can verify how good are my tutorials at biodomotica.com.

I don't have any problems to be judged :-)

Thanks

Max Mar (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)