Talk:Forced perspective

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Forced perspective article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Role of light

A miniature model is CLOSER than it appears to be and so requires LESS light. Also the whole argument is irrelevant if shot with homogenous lighting or outside. An object only appears dimmer when further away if moving into an area of less light.

Forced perspective in architecture that isn't Disney or Vegas?

Does anyone know of an example of f.p. not located at a theme park or in Vegas? Something that isn't merely a replica of an existing building? I personally only know of all the postmodern stuff. Tomsintown 23:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do they do it?

Okay, you've defined what f.p. is. Now, would you please describe how they do it? --Uncle Ed 23:45 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not in film but I'll do my best. Will begin within the hour. -- Goatasaur

There is a famous cathedral that has a painting on its ceiling, that gives the impression of a massive domed structure overhead when one looks up, in fact I believe there are birds in the painting... I have seen pictures of it but cannot recall its name. -- Goatasaur

I've added as much as possible without cluttering, but this might now need cleaning up and wikifying. I think 'The Role of Light' could really do with a good quality diagram to clarify the explanation. Bigpinkthing 14:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warning

Spoiler warning needed for 1] end of film, 2] shows resolution of main character's spiritual quest, 3] reveals surprising change of last shot from "character returns to family home" to "character returns to spiritual home". "alyosha" 05:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which film? The article mentions quite a few, and I for one can't see which one this complaint is about.
In fact, that section may well have been deleted in the 6 years since that paragraph was written.
And anyway, Wikipedia policy is against spoiler warnings.

--Thnidu (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible content

Is there any mathamatical principles or rules of thumb when it comes to creating the desired perspective effect? I'm thinking for architecture, if there is a ratio that can be applied. Thanks.

Pictures of Leaning Tower of Pisa?

Almost every tourist that visits the tower takes a picture of themselves in various poses trying to push the tower up, carrying it on their back etc... The photos would make a good illustration

 As a European, I feel aesthetically offended by those ugly US-American tourists in their barbaric clothing standing next to our famous cultural landmarks. Why can't they dress and behave properly? Europe isn't Disneyland! Yanke behave or go home. 217.238.42.61 (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The person "holding up" the Leaning Tower of Pisa is making a White Power symbol (what used to be the 'okay' symbol). Is this suitable for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.83.235 (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subject much too inclusive

Forced perspective means just one thing: the progressive reduction in the size of objects to increase the appearance of depth, usually, but not always, in a two-dimensional image. In some cases, rectangular objects like buildings are built as trapezoids so that their converging lines simulate perspective. (For the seldom-seen Billy Wilder film, Kiss Me, Stupid, the entire town of Climax, Nevada was built on a single soundstage, requiring multiple uses of forced perspective. For example, the entire front of a small house was set to the left of and parallel to the camera position, with the front door at the end of the porch nearest the camera. The door, porch, and steps were full-size, but the facade tapered until the far end of the same porch was only perhaps 5 feet high. On the flat screen, the 10-foot wide trapezoidal facade appears to be a 25 foot rectangle.) In other cases, different elements are made progressively smaller as they recede from the camera. In still others (like the Casablanca example cited) The background objects and people are all uniformly smaller than those in the foreground.

However, an iguana placed in the foreground, far in front of human actors in order to simulate a dinosaur is not "forced" perspective, but simply a different form of trick photography, based on the fact that viewers estimate the size of objects by reference to other, known, objects in the same image. It is not the perspective that is faked but the apparent size. (In the real world, things only appear to diminish in size as they actually recede in three-dimensional space; in the two-dimensional image world, things only appear to recede as they actually diminish on the image plane.)

This article should be re-written. Jim Stinson 21:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NeilCoughlin (talk) I do not believe the story of the filming of Casablanca is accurate. I've just watched the ending of Casablanca on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ElIW9pzm4Y and I see no flat painting of an airplane or where dwarves fit in. There was clearly a large plane or working model of a plane used. I shall investigate further, but recommend that paragraph be removed. —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC).

More examples

One of the best examples I've seen is the part in the original Willy Wonka movie with the shrinking hallway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camel Spiders : snopes.com People scale the spiders by the legs in the background, instead of the hand in the foreground ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nodal point: diagram, please?

The explanation in the last two paragraphs of Nodal point: forced perspective in motion is difficult to follow:

The techniques developed center around a nodal point axis, so the camera's panning axis is at the point between the lens and aperture ring where the light travelling through the camera meets its axis. By comparison, the normal panning axis would be at the point at which light would strike the film (or image sensor in a digital camera).

The position of this nodal point can be different for every lens. However, on wide angle lenses it is often found between the midpoint of the lens and the aperture ring.

Could someone who understands it possibly add a (link to a) diagram? --Thnidu (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best just to delete it - the explanation Cardinal_point_(optics)#Nodal_points is arguably untrue. It's one of those things where the Internet has taken over from science and Wikipedia prefers a commonly-held belief over the truth ! The technique is about camera motion - panning around the nodal point is about eliminating motion of the point of view - precisely the opposite ! I'll be bold ... it's gone

The 'normal panning point' is the centre of gravity of the camera, so it doesn't tilt under its own weight ! Nothing to do with optics at all. If you're both tracking and panning, yes the nodal panning-point might matter slightly, but only if you require a precise distortion. Often they will track for a metre, so a couple of millimetres of nodal error will be no bigger than the variation in the actor's height from morning to evening (we all shrink during the day and grow back at night). No-one will notice it. I tried to link but YouTube is blacklisted - does it work in 'Talk' ? No ! Google it yourself ! (How Lord of the Rings used forced perspective shots with a moving camera VIDEO - YouTube)

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fudged it - a bit better ?

If the camera's point of view is moved, then parallax would reveal the true relative positions of the characters in space. Even if the camera is just rotated, its point of view may move accidentally if the camera is not rotated about the correct point. This point of view is called the 'zero-parallax-point' (or front nodal point), and is approximated in practice as the centre of the entrance pupil.

I guess the pan+tilt but no-tracking situation is notable for those 'indie' film-makers that can't afford computerised camera motion and slaved movable bits of sets. The main point of camera movement is to give the viewer an appreciation of the 3D relationship among the objects in the scene - if you can still fake false perspective, the illusion with a moving camera will be much stronger ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it 'False Perspective' ?

There's one instance in the article ... 'Forced' is just a mis-hearing which has become widespread in an industry that mumbles and an audience that listens to too much loud music on headphones. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm just old ! Satire on False Perspective

There is a redirect from False perspective to Diorama#Full_size_dioramas --195.137.93.171 (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Forced perspective gallery by Francesco Borromini.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an Intro

After reading this article, I am still clueless about what "forced perspective" is. I think it would be better if there was, you know, a "forced perspective for dummies" kind of intro. G41rn8 (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]