Jacobian — where it appears
Named by 11 essays across 7 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The track and the scene together
Six photographs go in and one hundred and sixty-eight numbers come out — every camera's position and orientation and every point's place in space, solved for at once. Nothing in the solve was ever told where a camera or a point was.
Seven numbers no picture can name
Shift a whole reconstruction by a metre and a half, turn it half a radian, scale it by 2.7, and every photograph of it stays where it was to a hundredth of a billionth of a pixel. Move one point by fifty millimetres and they move by two thirds of a pixel.
Which way the drawn circle leans
Two rules are given for the direction a drawn circle's short axis runs in: along the axis of the cylinder, and pointing at the centre of vision. On the optical axis both are exactly right. At the edge of an ordinary frame the first is out by three and a half degrees and the second by seventy-nine. The statement neither of them is comes out of differencing the projection, and it matches the drawn ellipse to a hundredth of a degree.
Conformal is not undistorted
The most distorted-looking picture in ordinary circulation is the little planet — a 360 photograph re-projected from below, with the ground curled into a ball. Its worst angular error over 160 degrees of the sphere is 4.4e-8 degrees, which is arithmetic noise. Every crossing in the original crosses at exactly the same angle in the result, and what has gone is area, over a factor of 255.
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.
An area, out of one photograph
A patch of ground comes back at 5.205 m² from one photograph, to 1.8 × 10⁻¹⁴, through a homography built from four marks and their four known positions. What is worth knowing is how it degrades — the patch's extent across the picture is read with an error growing as the depth, its extent into the picture with an error growing as the depth squared, and at twenty-eight metres the two are sixteen times apart — which is the depth divided by the camera's height.
The third column is area
This field has measured what each picture surface does to straight lines and to shape. Both are questions for somebody looking at the picture. Somebody counting in it wants a third column, and the same projections have been returning it all along without anybody asking: the equal-area fisheye holds a square degree at one printed area to 8e-8 across 80° off axis, while a flat plane inflates it 191-fold.
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.
Counting cloud by counting pixels
A sky camera looks up and something counts the white pixels. On an equal-area fisheye that answer is right to 0.01%, which is the grid's own error. On an equidistant one it is 9% low, on stereographic 27% low, and on an ordinary flat lens 77% low — against a cover that is known exactly, because the clouds here are caps whose solid angles add. Weighting each pixel by the surface's area scale repairs every one of them to better than a fifth of a per cent.
The stretch decides the band
A design band chosen by geometry — the rays that meet the object — includes rays that graze along it, and a grazing ray lands two design points twenty times further apart than the design says. Cap the stretch at four and a bare floor keeps 55 per cent of its design, a corner 80, and the top of a descending flight all of it.
One face, one scale
A design carried from a point onto a flat face varies in scale by nearly six across that one face; the same design carried along a direction varies by 1.000000000. The stretch is reported here as the two singular values of the local map rather than as one directional difference, which is the honest form and which the previous round owed.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Area scaleAnisotropysingular valuesConditioningnecessary, not sufficientsingle-view metrologyAnamorphosisbundle adjustmentConformalDepth uncertaintyEquidistantEquisolid