Perspective projection distorts proportions.

[Max N]

The projection, regardless of the shape (proportions), is distorted to match the original proportion of the image. The video is more clear. Even if you create a 1:16 dinomical projection plane on an image with an aspect ratio of 1: 1, it will stretch and shrink it to a 1: 1 square.

[Gabe]

Hi @Max N,

This sounds more like a feature/improvement request rather than a bug. keeping the aspect ratio would require a new(different) way of handling the projection. Your example is an "easy win" because the edges are somehow equal (top/bottom , left/right), but what about this scenario? Top and bottom are fairly equal, but the left/right are not. So, it has to stretch/compress at some point. Otherwise, if it keeps the same shape and just "crops/zooms to fit" what is the purpose of the projection?  

Moved to feature requests. 

[loukash]

On 4/30/2021 at 2:10 PM, Max N said:

The video is more clear.

In your example, I would actually completely reverse the workflow and use live text with live perspective filter instead:

 

Other than that, I support this "feature/improvement request".

[Max N]

4 hours ago, Gabe said:

Hi @Max N,

This sounds more like a feature/improvement request rather than a bug. keeping the aspect ratio would require a new(different) way of handling the projection. Your example is an "easy win" because the edges are somehow equal (top/bottom , left/right), but what about this scenario? Top and bottom are fairly equal, but the left/right are not. So, it has to stretch/compress at some point. Otherwise, if it keeps the same shape and just "crops/zooms to fit" what is the purpose of the projection?  

Moved to feature requests. 

Perhaps due to the difficulties of translation, I could not convey my idea correctly. I'll try to show it to a picture

 

Let me explain. When forming the image (perspective) Coordinates A and B are not taken into account. Although they are related to the image. But perspective is stretched to X and Y dimensions. As a result, a figure with an aspect ratio of 1:16 will be displayed in 1: 1 with the strongest distortion. The aspect ratio of the object (A: B) is not taken into account when calculating the image, and instead of (A: B), (X: Y) is used. This leads to severe distortion. The cat side can become long and the long one short.

 

 

[Max N]

5 hours ago, Gabe said:

Hi @Max N,

This sounds more like a feature/improvement request rather than a bug. keeping the aspect ratio would require a new(different) way of handling the projection. Your example is an "easy win" because the edges are somehow equal (top/bottom , left/right), but what about this scenario? Top and bottom are fairly equal, but the left/right are not. So, it has to stretch/compress at some point. Otherwise, if it keeps the same shape and just "crops/zooms to fit" what is the purpose of the projection?  

Moved to feature requests. 

 

Even to be more precise.

X and Y - are the dimensions of the document.

A1, A2 and B1, B2 - are the sizes of the selected area.

I expect that:

A = (A1 + A2) / 2

B = (B1 + B2) / 2

the formula is not accurate (for example, it may be difficult to correct it correctly).

In real:

A = Y

B = X

Application of X and Y in the split - gives the accuracy no higher than the use of any random number.

If we take into account the size of the selected area in the calculations, then this can give a more predictable result. I think that the formulas should be more complicated and the algorithms are smarter than those that I suggested. But stretching the area to fit the document without taking into account the shape of the selection is daunting.

 

[Max N]

3 hours ago, loukash said:

In your example, I would actually completely reverse the workflow and use live text with live perspective filter instead:

 

Other than that, I support this "feature/improvement request".

Thanks for the advice. I wanted to record a video of using this tool and how it distorts I found it very old. I thought it was a program error. The distortion occurs not taking into account the shape of the selection, but taking into account the size of the original document.

[loukash]

36 minutes ago, Max N said:

The distortion occurs not taking into account the shape of the selection, but taking into account the size of the original document.

Yes, I understood that. Your new examples are much better.

I also think this is a very counterintuitive concept. The algorithm should at least try to assume the proportions of the selection, otherwise the whole feature doesn't make much sense.

Same for the destructive perspective tool, for that matter. It was driving me nuts when I wanted to crop a distorted square – like a photo of a vinyl LP sleeve taken from an angle – and it just blew it up to the original 3:2 photo proportions. Until I found the live filter which makes it easier to find the correct proportions non-destructively.

[Max N]

On 5/5/2021 at 1:36 PM, Gabe said:

Hi @Max N,

This sounds more like a feature/improvement request rather than a bug. keeping the aspect ratio would require a new(different) way of handling the projection. Your example is an "easy win" because the edges are somehow equal (top/bottom , left/right), but what about this scenario? Top and bottom are fairly equal, but the left/right are not. So, it has to stretch/compress at some point. Otherwise, if it keeps the same shape and just "crops/zooms to fit" what is the purpose of the projection?  

Moved to feature requests. 

Good day. I have added some clarifications. I would like to receive an answer that this is really not a bug and that this is how it works. I am recording a lesson on YouTube, and if this is a mistake, then I will wait for the correction. If this is the way it should be, then I will write down with recommendations how to minimize this effect.

[Gabe]

This is definitely not a bug. As it is designed now, the perspective projection will stretch to fit the canvas. 

[Dazmondo77]

Not sure wether I've got the wrong end of the stick, but I can't see what the problem is?

[Dazmondo77]

A few seconds of tweaking and you have something usable and still remains editable

[loukash]

3 hours ago, Dazmondo77 said:

Not sure wether I've got the wrong end of the stick

You've got the "wrong end".
@Max N was initally talking about the Layer > Live Projection feature. That's somewhat similar to the Live Perspective, but for a different purpose. Hence my proposal to use Live Perspective instead.

[Dazmondo77]

Aaaaaahhhh now I get it - completely forgot about Live Projection, remember having a play, a fair way back, but found it a pain in the rectory to do anything usable with it, so just dismissed it as a frilly pea shooter with laser optics which you can't fit peas into, which is a shame as theres potentially a ton of powerful uses for it