>>5133902https://cdn2.vectorstock.com/i/1000x1000/57/86/color-circle-perspective-vector-3405786.jpgThis is one of the few images I could find, since most seem to feature straight ellipses rather than the "almost-ellipse" seen above. What most foreshortened circles involve is a geometric ellipse for which the center line has been shifted farther down in order to create the appearance of it being 3-dimensional and therefore no longer symmetrical - the issue here is that the outline/silhouette itself remains symmetrical, and you've merely cheated the eye by moving the line it identifies as being "the center". The proper foreshortened circle not only has a center line which is more than half of the page-length diameter down the shape, but also has a silhouette which is itself no longer symmetrical due to the farther side being bent away from our eye and therefore facing a compression of its line angles themselves.
If you type in "circle in perspective" on Google and compare to my attached drawing, you'll notice a subtle yet crucial difference in the way the link I've given you truly seems to "bend backwards into space" in a way that the other ones do not quite achieve. The reason for this is, as said above, the actual outline itself not being symmetrical, which is how real-life circles appear when I actually inspected them for myself.
I don't think I'm a pro and I know very little about many other areas of art, but I do feel confident that the "circles in perspective = ellipse" idea is simply a myth that somehow managed to stick due to being convenient to illustrate and also due to the difference between it and the proper version being difficult to spot by the untrained eye, or especially with an eye who has only been trained by looking at drawings of foreshortened circles rather than their real-life counterparts. So it's not that I think I am a better artist than all of the websites who use ellipses - only in this one area do I confidently disagree with them.