Concept

Baseline — where it appears

11 essays name this object, across 3 fields. What follows is each of them, and the objects they name alongside it.
epipoleepipoleleft pictureright pictureepipole from 44 correspondences vs the projected eye: 1.1e-9 px2.60 m between the eyes

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.

twoviews · epipole
025507510010203040true depth (m)depth reported from the disparity, with a 1 px reading error5.86–7.33 m13.96–26.69 m23.76–126.49 mat 40 m: +86.5 m against −16.2 munbounded past 58.5 m

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.

depth · disparity
123-2-10baseline (m, log scale)range past which 1 px of disparity error is unbounded (m, log scale)65 mm → 58.5 mrange = fB/δ — 58.5 m at a 65 mm baseline900 px focal length, 1 px reading

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.

depth · disparity
-1012-0.500-0.25000.2500.500how finely each point is read off the picture (px, log scale)worst epipolar error against the exact geometry (px, log scale)raw pixelscentred and scaled1.1× apart at 0.25 px, 29.9× at 4 pxspread 102 against 2.5e+5

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.

twoviews · eightpoint
midpoint — 2.77 mm gapfrom the left eyefrom the right eyegap 2.77 mm at 7.22 mexact marks: 2.2e-16 m

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.

depth · triangulation
-3-2.50-2-0.600-0.400-0.20000.200how finely each point is read (px, log scale)worst camera-centre error, as a fraction of the track's mean radius (log)chained pairsadjusted togetheradjustment is 4.0–9.2× better6 views · identical observations

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.

manyviews · drift
points in front of both camerasR₁, t0 of 44180° from the truthR₁, t reversed0 of 44180° from the truthR₂, t44 of 44chosenR₂, t reversed0 of 44180° from the truththe chosen pose is the true one to 0.0e+0°cheirality, not algebra, picks it

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.

twoviews · cheirality
-10-50-2-10baseline (m, log scale)worst deviation in the recovered shape (log scale)exact pointsread to 1 pxat 2 mm: 4.7e-9 exact, 2.9e+1 read to 1 px6e+9× apart

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.

depth · baseline
00.50011.50010203040correspondenceepipolar error at every OTHER point, after one match is movedmedian 0.54 pxthe moved oneevery point wrong: median 0.54 px, worst 1.7 pxclean fit 2.3e-13 px

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.

depth · outlier
-2.80-2.6034567number of viewsworst camera-centre error (fraction of the track's mean radius, log scale)7 flat7 flat7 flat7 flat7 flat60° sweep, filled in12° per view, wideningfilled in: 1.1e-3 → 2.0e-3widened: 3.2e-3 → 1.8e-3

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.

manyviews · spread
as recovered0.308 across× 3.4 — same two pictures1.046 acrossworst ratio deviation 6.3e-14size fixed only by a supplied 0.80 m

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.

twoviews · scale

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

CorrespondenceFundamental matrixConditioningFocal lengthreconstruction ambiguityRelative poseResidualTriangulationbundle adjustmentCamera matrixcamera trackDepth uncertainty

All concepts