Inverse projection — where it appears
Named by 10 essays across 6 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Dividing depth by eye
Three methods for spacing a receding row, all of them taught, all of them wrong. Read back as distances, the best misplaces a post by 3.5 metres in a row that is supposed to be spaced 1.4. And the obvious way of checking them gives one of the three a perfect score.
The render is distorted on purpose
A headset renders a bent picture so its lens can straighten it, which is a lens's distortion polynomial run backwards, and the one case in which distortion is introduced deliberately. The round trip closes to a thousandth of a millionth of a pixel, and the price is that one rendered pixel becomes 0.493 delivered pixels at the edge of the field and one at the centre.
The lamp, out of the picture
Two posts and their shadows put the light's position in a photograph, exactly, with nothing given but the drawn lines and the camera's own horizon. Two posts. One gives a residual of zero and an answer that is a whole one-parameter family — the sharpest counter-example there is to the idea that a small residual means a right answer, met again in a new field.
A shadow can be un-cast
A shadow looks like a lossy record — a flattened smear with the shape half thrown away. It is nothing of the kind. The map from the occluder's plane to the floor is a plane projectivity, so it has an inverse, and the outline comes back out of its own shadow exactly. What breaks it is not the light and not the shape: it is the floor not being flat.
A barrel model folds at a radius it sets itself
The polynomial every calibration fits to a wide lens stops increasing at a radius fixed by its own first coefficient — 47.49° of field at k₁ = −0.28 — and past it two directions land on one picture radius. The routine that undistorts pictures with it does not refuse there. It hands back wrong directions from 46.75°, by as much as 106.5°, and refuses only at 65.5°: a fifth of the field returned silently wrong.
The centre, got back out of the picture
The image of a circle's centre is not the centre of the image ellipse — this site measured the gap four phases ago and left the obvious question unanswered. It has an exact answer, it needs a straightedge and the horizon, and it is one sentence: the image of the centre is the pole of the vanishing line with respect to the image conic.
A model that inverts has a horizon instead of a fold
The polynomial every calibration fits turns around at a finite radius and stops being a map from direction to picture. The division model, chosen because it inverts in closed form, never turns around — it rises for ever toward a horizon at one over the root of its own coefficient, so the whole hemisphere of directions lands inside a finite disc. Fitted to the four fisheye laws it follows every one of them more closely than the polynomial at every field from forty degrees to eighty — a hundred times more closely for the equidistant law at forty, and the stereographic law exactly.
The answer is an ellipse
A mark read with a round error does not come back as a round region on the ground. The ray is grazing, so a pixel across the picture is worth a little and a pixel up it is worth a great deal, and the recovered point's uncertainty is an ellipse pointing at the camera — 5.07 to 1 at eight metres from a camera 1.62 m up, which is the depth over the height. Propagated and sampled agree to 0.5 per cent, and a ray that is not grazing gives a disc.
A stereographic fisheye is a division model
The division model divides the picture radius by one plus a coefficient times its square. The fits that compared it with the polynomial were not of that model: they multiplied instead, and the model they measured has neither a fold nor a horizon. Fitted as it is written, the division model follows every fisheye law more closely than the polynomial at every field from forty degrees, and the stereographic law it follows exactly — the law is the model, with a coefficient of minus a quarter. Its horizon then turns out to sit beyond the lens's own ninety degrees, and pinning it there is a trade rather than a free constraint.
A lamp behind the camera
A light behind the photographer has no image — the projection refuses it — and the shadows it casts are in front of them, drawn as ordinary shadows. The construction that recovers a lamp from those shadows works anyway, meeting to a ten-thousandth of a pixel at the point the reversed divide puts it, and the taught reading of where the answer lies gets the case exactly backwards.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Barrel distortionCamera calibrationfield of viewHorizonRadial distortionBrown–Conradycentre of projectioninstrument limitPoint lightAnisotropyBack projectionDepth division