Baseline — where it appears
Named by 42 essays across 11 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The image of the other eye
Two photographs of one courtyard, and in each of them a point that is the other camera. It is computed from forty-four matched marks and nothing else, and it lands on the projection of the other eye to about a billionth of a pixel.
Depth is a reciprocal
Two eyes measure a shift in the picture, and depth is that shift divided into a constant. So a fixed error in what is read maps to an interval in what is reported that is not centred on the answer, and at forty metres runs sixteen metres nearer and eighty-six further.
The range a pair cannot see past
A stereo rig has a distance beyond which it cannot say "no further than", and the distance is fixed before anything is built. It is the focal length times the baseline divided by the reading precision, and for a human pair of eyes it is fifty-eight and a half metres.
Eight points and the basis they are read in
The linear system that recovers a fundamental matrix is written in whatever coordinates the marks were read in, and pixel coordinates are a bad choice. Centring and scaling them first is worth nothing at a quarter-pixel reading and a factor of thirty at four.
Two rays that do not meet
Triangulation is described everywhere as the intersection of two rays, and two rays in space do not intersect. Read the same two marks to a whole pixel and they miss by 2.77 mm at seven metres, which is a real length and is the part a residual will not report.
A chain and an adjustment
Composing pairwise poses along a sequence is supposed to drift. Measured over five links it wanders instead — one chain ends closer to the truth than its own worst link — and the real cost of chaining turns out to be something else entirely.
Two pictures on one screen
A stereoscopic display puts a point where two sightlines cross, so the depicted depth is b·D/(b−d) and the disparity that reaches infinity is exactly the separation of the reader's eyes — 63 mm, at any screen distance whatever. The depth budget is set by the width of a head and by nothing about the scene.
Four cameras fit, and one of them can see
The essential matrix does not determine a camera pair. It determines four, all of which reproject every correspondence exactly, and the thing that picks one is not more algebra — it is the assumption that the photographer could see what was photographed.
A turn of the head is not a step sideways
The textbook says a short baseline makes reconstruction ill-conditioned. Measured, the algebra does not notice — a two-millimetre baseline recovers the courtyard to nine digits from exact marks. What fails is the ratio of baseline to reading error, and it fails without refusing.
A wrong match is not a small error
Move one correspondence of forty-four by thirty pixels and the recovered geometry is wrong for every other point — the typical one by half a pixel, from a fit that was exact to a part in ten trillion. Least squares has nowhere to put a bad row except across all of them.
Another picture of the same sweep
Going from three views to seven across the same sixty degrees leaves the reconstruction exactly where it started, and at one point makes it worse. What a reconstruction is short of is angular spread, not photographs.
Two views give shape and no size
Every pairwise distance ratio in a courtyard recovered from two photographs matches the real one to fourteen digits. The courtyard's actual size is not merely uncertain — it is absent, and a reconstruction three and a half times larger fits the same two pictures exactly as well.
Turning the cameras inwards
A stereo pair made by rotating two cameras toward a common point puts the same world point at different heights in the two pictures — up to thirty pixels here, on a frame of four hundred. Two eyes level with each other see every point at the same height, so a pair with vertical difference is a pair of pictures of no scene at all.
Far enough away, a pair is one eye
Hold the baseline and walk the scene away, and the parallax a single homography cannot explain falls as the distance to the power −0.968 — one over the distance, which says the ratio of baseline to depth is the whole of it. The recovered translation direction follows it down, from 3.3° at four metres to 74.5° at two hundred and fifty-six.
The depth a pair calls zero
Two eyes verged on a point agree — the same coordinate in both pictures — not on a plane at the fixation distance but on a circle through both eyes and that point. Found by bisection along 121 azimuths and fitted rather than assumed, it is a circle to 0.0000 cm; at 26° off centre it lies 23 cm nearer than a flat wall does.
Whole pixels cut space into shells
A disparity read to whole pixels can report only the depths fB/k, so a stereo pair does not measure distance on a scale — it chooses among 113 shells between half a metre and twelve, 6.7 cm apart at two metres and 1.39 m apart at ten. A level floor comes back as 35 standing plates. And a finer step and a better reading are different purchases: at a quarter pixel with a quarter pixel of matcher error the pair prints 449 depths and can tell 149 apart.
Two pictures of a ball
Two outlines give two tangent cones, and where their axes cross is the ball's centre — with the radius following from either half-angle. There is no correspondence problem, because a ball's outline in one picture and its outline in another are guaranteed to be the same ball; and there is a degeneracy, which is the two eyes and the ball in a line, and the solver refuses it rather than returning something plausible.
One shutter, two views
A photograph with a mirror in it is a stereo pair, and a peculiarly well-behaved one. Its fundamental matrix is skew-symmetric, so both epipoles are the same point; that point is where the camera would see its own lens; and every line joining a mark to its reflection passes through it, to 1.4 × 10⁻¹² px. The baseline is twice the distance to the glass, which is the one number a single view cannot supply and a tape measure can.
Both coordinates agree on a circle and a line
Two eyes fixating a point straight ahead see their horizontal image coordinates agree on a whole vertical cylinder over the Vieth–Müller circle, the same radius at every height to the last bit. Their vertical coordinates agree on almost none of it — 7.35 px apart at 26° aside and 30 cm up, 29.26 px when the fixation is brought to 60 cm. The points where both agree are the circle and one vertical line, and the line is the axis of the motion that carries one eye onto the other.
A scroll through two slits ranges in a straight line
Draw a scroll twice, through a slit leaning 10° forward along the track and one leaning 10° back, and every point appears in both drawings on the same row, separated by 9.169 px for every metre of its depth — at four metres and at fifty-two. Depth is proportional to that separation rather than reciprocal to it, so a pixel of error costs 10.9 cm at every distance, averaging leaves no bias, and there is no range past which the depth runs off to infinity. The price is paid in roll: a 100 m scroll ranges nothing past 283.6 m.
Raise the gaze, and the line is gone
Turn two eyes 20° aside in the plane they share and the horopter keeps its vertical line — but the line stays in the median plane, 1.277 m ahead, not at the point being looked at. Raise the gaze as well and the rule by which each eye rolls decides the rest: Helmholtz's rule keeps a line; Listing's law and Fick's rule make the eyes' relative motion slide 3.93 mm and 7.09 mm along its axis, no point stays put, and the horopter becomes one curve.
A point under water has two depths
The apparent depth of a submerged point is not one number even along one line of sight. The rays it sends to an eye pass through two focal lines, and at 60° from the vertical a point 1.50 m down has an image 0.740 m down and another 0.320 m down. Two eyes side by side read the first, a head moving up and down reads the second, and a pair of eyes tilted between them reads neither — their two rays miss each other by as much as 6.39 mm.
A scroll round a bend loses its straight-line depth
Draw a scroll through two slits leaning ±10° from a track that bends, and the separation that was 9.169 px for every metre of depth stops being proportional. Outside a 100 m bend it is 653.8 px at 256 m where a straight track gives 2347, and it never passes 907.6 px however deep the point; inside a 200 m bend it runs nearly three times ahead of depth and no slit reaches past 165.3 m. The two drawings still share their rows, and the scale along the roll becomes a function of depth.
Square to the camera is the worst mirror
A mirror pair's baseline runs along the mirror's normal, so a mirror facing the camera puts the second eye directly behind the first — the forward-motion arrangement, with the epipole in the middle of the frame and the rays to a mark crossing at 23°. Turning it forty-four degrees opens that to 65° and cuts the worst depth error threefold, and the number to watch is not the angle but where the reflected lens sits on the print.
A mismatch on its own line needs a third eye
Slide one mark of a correspondence 30 px along the epipolar line the other mark fixes, and every test two photographs can run stays at the arithmetic floor — epipolar distance 2.2e-14 px, the two rays meeting to 1.5e-15 m, reprojection 1.1e-13 px — while the point is reported half a metre too near. A third picture exposes it by 21.4 px from a third eye two metres off the first line of sight, and by exactly nothing from an eye on that line.
The lamp is the second eye
One photograph, one lamp whose position is known, and a point's place in space comes back to 9e-16 m — the camera's ray through the point, the lamp's ray through the image of its shadow, and the intersection of two lines. It is triangulation with one of the two eyes replaced by a light, and it degrades exactly like a stereo pair: 5.9 mm of depth per pixel at 39° between the rays, 1 mm at 15.4°.
An epipole in the picture leaves a blind disc
Step a camera half a metre straight forward and the image of the other eye sits in the middle of both pictures. Around it lies a disc where one pixel of reading costs a tenth of the depth or more — 20 px across a surface 2 m off, 247 px at 16 m — and at its centre no depth is recovered at any range.
A third ray is worth what its picture is worth
Three eyes on one point, two at seven metres and one walked back to seventy. The point nearest all three rays in metres is 132 millimetres from the truth and the point of least reprojection error is 34 — the same 34 the near pair gives alone — and the first is pulled 12 millimetres along the line to the distant eye. And arrangement beats count outright — two rays spread over fifty-five degrees beat eight rays inside four, by a factor of 4.4.
The spread a point gets
A track of sixty degrees gives no point of the scene sixty degrees. The nearest receive 89 and the furthest 41, a factor of 2.2, and their errors run from 1.5 to 8.4 millimetres — following the angle at the point as its −1.68 power, with 94 per cent of the variation explained. The arc a track covers is one number for forty-four different situations and predicts none of them.
The stick a stereo pair puts back
Two eyes side by side reconstruct a submerged stick exactly as the sagittal image — kinked 14.96° — and two eyes one above the other exactly as the tangential one, kinked 9.59°. Roll the baseline between them and the two rays to a point miss each other by up to 3.13 millimetres, past the 2.85 a pixel covers at that range, and the reconstruction is a third stick that is neither — 551 millimetres of a one-metre stick, with its tip at 0.405 metres against a true 0.866.
Rectification is a family, not an operation
Turn both pictures of a pair so their epipolar lines become shared rows. A turn about the line between the eyes and a focal length are left free, and every choice puts all 44 matches on common rows to a tenth of a trillionth of a pixel and every point back where it was. What the choices disagree about is the pixels — one stretches its pictures unevenly by 1.77, another by 4.86.
A third eye that lands on the next post
Match one post of a railing to its neighbour and the pair reports it at 19.8 metres instead of 9.0, with every test two photographs can run at the arithmetic floor. A third picture usually exposes that by hundreds of pixels — but at five azimuths in seventy-eight degrees the wrong point lands within three pixels of another post, and the third view confirms the mistake. Narrow the railing to twenty centimetres and those places cover 28 per cent of the arc.
Two mirrors are three cameras
A photograph with two mirrors in it holds three views of the scene from three places, at baselines of 2.90, 3.10 and 2.26 metres. Two of the three pairwise geometries are mirror pairs and are skew; the third is a rotation by twice the angle between the mirrors, and it is not new evidence — five numbers read off the print rebuild it to 9.4 × 10⁻¹⁴ pixels, where a general three-view arrangement needs eighteen.
The second disparity cuts cells
A point off the plane of the eyes has a vertical disparity as well as a horizontal one, and quantising both, on an 86,400-point lattice of a room, gives 7,663 labels where one coordinate gives 179 — a count that belongs to the lattice rather than the room, as the essay after this one found. The gain is entirely vergence's — two eyes looking straight ahead have no vertical disparity at all, exactly — and it is largest where the first reading is already finest: 60.8 in the near metre and 3.7 in the far band.
The residual does not warn
Fit a straight line to the stick a stereo pair puts back and the fit looks best exactly where the reconstruction is least supported: the residual is 0.535 mm at a level baseline, where the two rays meet perfectly, and 0.038 mm at sixty degrees of roll, inside the band where they miss by more than a pixel covers. Over the same sweep the fitted line is 285 to 584 mm short of the stick's metre — fourteen thousand times its own residual at worst.
A fit weighted by the miss trusts only the surface
Weight each point of a reconstructed underwater stick by how well its two rays meet, and the fit hands all but a ten-billionth of its trust to the one point where the stick enters the water — and reports a residual of nothing at every rolled baseline. Floored at the reading error, the weighting changes the answer by a few thousandths of a millimetre. And the miss itself, the one honest number, is exactly zero at a level baseline where the stick comes back 285 mm short.
A scroll of a climbing road measures its grade
Every reading of the two-slit scroll has leaned on its two drawings of a point sharing a row, because the eye is at one height at both moments. On a road that climbs they do not — and what parts them is the height climbed between the two moments over the reach, which on a straight climb is 2·f·g·sin φ for every point at every depth and height. The scroll does not lose its rows to a hill. It gains a third mark, a gradient meter that a level bend cannot counterfeit.
A sliding pair keeps its line only near the middle
Two eyes that roll by Listing's law lose the horopter's straight line as soon as they look up and aside, and the question worth a number is whether they lose it by much. Measured along the line they nearly keep, the disparity is exactly the slide seen by one eye — 3.20 px at 20° aside and 20° up, a metre and a bit away — and the slide does not shrink with distance. At arm's length the line survives to within a pixel only in a narrow cross through the middle of the field.
A sway gives the blind centre a depth, not a good one
A camera driving straight forward cannot see how far away the thing it is driving toward is: the mark at the epipole does not move between pictures. Let one of three pictures sway sideways and the centre gets a depth at once — but a depth resting on the sway alone, which a pixel of reading moves by the focal length's reciprocal times the depth over the sway. For a centimetre of steering wobble at eight metres that is 144 per cent; for a tenth of the forward step, 29. The hole closes; the disc around it stays until the sway is a third of the step.
A rig is right on one surface
Several cameras looking outward have several centres, and no warp registers all of a scene. The residual is a disparity, so the depth the stitch is computed for has an exact optimum — the harmonic midpoint of the depth range, not the middle of it — and the arithmetic middle costs a factor of 2 z_far over the sum, which tends to two.
What a removed wall costs that a removed roof does not
Fitting a single centre to a building with its near wall deleted lands at 3.0e-15 m — the arithmetic floor — because deleting a wall does not touch the projection, only which surfaces are drawn. Fitting the identical routine to the same building with its roof removed does not return a number at all: handed a bundle of genuinely parallel rays, it refuses outright.
A shadow edge read as a profile
A lamp, a stick and a camera recover a stepped object's profile to 4.9e-15 m rms when the marks are exact, and to 10.4 mm once they are read to two tenths of a pixel — the same linear law a fitted exponent of 1.001 confirms. What actually sets that number is the angle between the sweeping light plane and the camera's own ray — the amplification is least, 17.0 times a pixel, broadside at 6°, and grows without bound toward -36.1°, where the plane contains the camera's own eye and the recovery keeps none of its marks at all.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
TriangulationDisparityDepth uncertaintyStereo pairCorrespondenceResidualConditioninginstrument limitFundamental matrixEpipoleDemonstrationParallax