I How can I tell how much an object will shrink when it moves away?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter JeffCyr
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
To determine how much an object appears to shrink as it moves away, the ratio of apparent size can be approximated using the formula m/k, where m is the distance of the object and k is the distance of the reference point. For more accurate measurements, especially when the object occupies a large angle in the field of view, a trigonometric correction may be necessary. The concept of similar triangles is crucial; for instance, the relationship between the height of an object and its distance can be expressed through proportional triangles formed by the lines of sight. This method allows artists to calculate dimensions accurately for drawing purposes, ensuring that the outermost lines are used for measurements. Understanding these geometric principles can significantly aid in mastering perspective in art.
JeffCyr
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
How can I find the size an object will appear (Such as on a photo with a ruler) When it is in the distance by knowing how far it is and it's size when closer
This is a weird question that I'm not quite sure how to phrase so I'll do my best.

Reason for the question: I'm trying to learn perspective in art but guides and tutorials aren't helping so I thought of using geometry.

Scenario/question: I'm looking to have a formula I could use to see how far an object would appear in the distance compared to a closer "origin" point. For example how wide a road is 100 meters away base on it's size up close "X" or how tall a building's wall is 10 meters away when it's other end is visible at 0 meters at a height of "Y"

Does this make sense? Sorry I don't know which prefix to use for this I don't know how advanced this question is so I went with undergrad to be safe since I don't think that was covered in high school 10 years ago
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The ratio of the apparent linear size (eg width or height) of an object k metres away to that of a same-sized object m metres away is approximately m/k. When the angle subtended at the eye by the object (the angle between a line from your eye to one extreme of the object - eg top - and a line to the opposite extreme - eg bottom) is large, we need to make a trigonometric correction to this. But for objects that don't fill most of the field of view, that approximation should be fine.
 
  • Like
Likes pbuk
Thank you, since it's for drawing I was planning on using the outer most lines for measurements. So it should be fine for the main shape the rest I'll tweak as need be. Thank you very much! I knew I should have gone to scientists rather than artists to learn perspective!
 
It's a matter of "similar triangles". Suppose you have a vertical stick, of length L, at distance D from you. You look at it through a sheet of glass at distance d from you. The lines of sight from the ends of the stick to you form a triangle with base length L and altitude D. The lines of sight from the points at which those first lines cross the glass form a triangle with exactly the same angles (so similar to the first triangle). Call the distance between the endpoints of the image on the glass L'. The altitude of this triangle is the shorter distance D-d Then \frac{L'}{L}= \frac{D- d}{D} or L'= \frac{D- d}{D}L.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top