Critical surface — where it appears
Named by 4 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
How flat is flat enough
With exact marks the transition has no width at all — 84° of pose error at exactly coplanar and 0.000° at eight parts in ten thousand of relief. Put three tenths of a pixel of reading error in and the same sweep becomes a slope three decades wide, crossing into usefulness when the out-of-plane parallax reaches about ten times the marking error.
Seven marks, three answers
Seven correspondences leave a two-dimensional nullspace, and the requirement that a fundamental matrix be singular is a cubic in the mix — one or three real roots. Here it has three, and all three satisfy every one of the seven marks to 8.9 × 10⁻⁹ pixels. The eighth mark, withheld, separates them by more than an order of magnitude.
The surface two pictures cannot separate
There is a quadric through both camera centres on which two genuinely different motions draw identical pictures. Built explicitly, forty-two marks satisfy both epipolar geometries to 2 × 10⁻¹³ pixels, and the two scenes they reconstruct place the same mark at 15.6 metres and 35.1. The design matrix's nullspace has two dimensions rather than one, which is the seven-point situation arrived at from the other side.
An ambiguity is not an uncertainty
Eight marks to forty cuts a solid scene's pose error from 19.8° to 0.7° and leaves a flat one at 48°. The two failures look identical from inside — a confident answer, a residual at the floor — and they respond to opposite remedies, so telling them apart is worth more than either measurement.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
AmbiguityDegeneracyEpipolar geometryFundamental matrixMinimal solverreconstruction ambiguityConditioningerror propagationinstrument limitsingular valuesCorrespondenceDegenerate configuration