Model error — where it appears
Named by 17 essays across 8 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The lens a pavement can hide
A photographed pavement reads as a correct drawing up to a radial coefficient of about four tenths — a lens strong enough to bow a straight edge across the page by nearly six pixels and to print as twenty per cent distortion at the frame's corner. The reason is that a pavement sits near the principal point, which is the one part of the frame a radial map barely touches.
A pane gives a product before it gives two numbers
A flat pane of glass displaces every point it is seen through, and the displacement at small angles is the thickness times one minus the reciprocal of the index. So the two numbers arrive multiplied together. Four panes from 6.5 to 13.2 millimetres thick, with indices from 1.35 to 2.1, agree to under two microns over an eight-degree fan and separate by more than a millimetre over sixty — and a fit over the narrow fan returns whichever pair it started near.
A fitted radius is wrong before it is uncertain
A sphere and a paraboloid of the same vertex radius agree to second order, so a fit over a small aperture cannot separate them. What it does instead is return a confident radius that is wrong by a stated percentage, with a residual far below any measurement floor — 0.03% of bias behind a residual of three ten-thousandths of a degree. The residual only clears a two-hundredth of a degree at six times the aperture, by which point the bias is thirty-six times larger.
A camera count needs a tolerance
Asked how few cameras could have drawn a splayed picture, a constructed stack answers four, three, two or one depending on how many pixels of redrawing a reader will allow — one camera at 17.6 px, two at 11.1, three at 4.6. The count is real: a picture built with two groups hidden in it gives back exactly those two, anywhere between nothing and 47.0 px. What it is not is a property of the picture alone, and the floor under it belongs to the hand — a one-camera drawing made by a hand that scatters its far corners by σ splits below about 0.57σ, where the 0.57 belongs to that hand and runs from 0.17 to 1.34 across a hundred and twenty of them.
A wedge of glass turns the camera behind it
A pane with parallel faces moves every point and no direction, so the camera recovered through a window is the camera that took the picture. Tilt one face 2° and every direction turns, by 1.04° on the axis and 1.67° forty degrees off it. The best rotation of the frame, 1.14°, still leaves 0.94 px, and no homography does much better, so the picture is no longer a projection from the camera's centre. The camera recovered from three vanishing points through the same glass is turned 3.37° — three times as far — because vanishing points lie where the glass bends most.
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 over seventy-five degrees it follows every one of them three to five times more closely, and below sixty the polynomial is still the better model.
The wedge recovered with the camera
Admit the glass into the model and the fit finally has something left over. A two-degree wedge is invisible to a reading confined inside eighteen degrees of the axis — the fit calls the whole displacement a rotation of the camera and is right to — and by fifty-five degrees it comes back to 0.07 of a degree. What the picture does not separate is the ordinary glasses — assuming an index of 1.50 for a true 1.52 costs one per cent in the angle and 0.07 pixels of residual.
What survives being copied
A workshop copying a drawing from a drawing is a random walk — the spread across lineages grows as the square root of the generation, with a fitted exponent of 0.5001. A workshop copying the method is not, and its exponent is 0.012, which is no growth at all, and after forty generations two lineages started from different originals end up 5 × 10⁻¹⁵ apart. Copying the marks loses the picture; copying the recipe loses the original and keeps the recipe.
The floor a better camera cannot reach
Sweep the marking error from four pixels down to a hundredth and the measurement's error falls thirty-fold and then stops — at 6.0 per cent, which is exactly the six per cent the reference's assumed shape was wrong by. With the closure exact the same sweep keeps falling to 0.06 per cent. The crossing is at half a pixel, and it can be computed before the photograph is taken, which makes it a decision about equipment rather than a discovery about it.
The workshop that throws drawings away
Adding a rule that discards a drawing which looks wrong turns the mark copyist's spread from a growing random walk into a stationary process — the fitted exponent falls from 0.542 to 0.022, indistinguishable from the method copyist's 0.033 — and the two mechanisms then separate only by where they settle, 0.7002 against 0.8000, seven and a half spreads apart.
The residual has a shape
A flat-floor map mispredicts a shadow by millimetres on any floor that is not flat, and the number everybody quotes is the worst one. Tune a dish, a ridge and a step until all three mispredict by exactly 25.0 millimetres and the scalar can no longer tell them apart — by construction. The signed residual around the ring still can. The second harmonic of it reads 0.09%, 2.79% and 19.37%, a factor of two hundred across three floors the headline number calls identical.
The floor is a choice of coordinates
Four rungs of this field have measured what a curved floor costs a shadow reading, in millimetres. It costs nothing. A shadow mark sits on the ray from the lamp through the occluder's edge, and where along that ray the floor caught it is a fact about the floor alone — so un-casting in rays returns the occluder to three parts in ten thousand of a millionth of a millimetre on a plane, a dish, a ridge and a step alike, while the same shadow read in the plan is wrong by up to 216 millimetres.
The lamp comes out in rays and not in plan
One drawing of three posts and their shadows yields two points, and a curved floor treats them completely differently. The lines through each post's top and its shadow's tip meet at the lamp's image to a ten-thousandth of a pixel at every curvature, because a top and a tip are two points of one real ray. The lines through each foot and the same tips meet 113 pixels from the lamp's foot — and the lamp placed from an exact point and a wrong one lands 1.3 metres away.
How many lamps a drawing has
The shadow field recovers a lamp by intersecting drawn lines. Two lamps make that a partition rather than an intersection — and two centres fit any bundle better than one, on a one-lamp drawing as readily as on a two-lamp one, so a count is a decision that needs a noise level before it exists. A criterion built on a penalty instead of a noise level returns four.
An error with two terms
Two results from machineries with nothing in common have now found the same shape. A panorama's parallax separates into a term that halves every time the frame count doubles and a term with no frame count in it at all; a silhouette's error into an excess that falls as one over the square of the view count and the area of a concavity that is the same number at four views and at a hundred and twenty-eight. Fitting both terms turns the distinction into a measurement, and pointed at seven of this collection's own laws it reads every one of them the way its own essay does.
A floor cannot fake a second lamp
Cast the same two lamps onto four floors at four curvatures and ask how well one centre explains the drawing. Every one of the thirteen answers is 138.3277 pixels — the same to fifteen digits, because a floor decides where along a ray the shadow's tip landed, and a line through a point and another point that has slid along it is the same line.
A floor with a referent
Recover a focal length from two vanishing points and measure more points along each line. Through a pinhole the error falls from 0.34 per cent to 0.05 and the instrument finds no floor at all. Through a lens of k₁ = −0.05 it falls, turns, and rises to 0.70 per cent — because the noise the extra points removed had been partly masking the lens's bend. The floor is 0.72 per cent of the focal length, and doubling the distortion coefficient doubles it to 1.44. It is not noise and not conditioning; it is the model, priced.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
ResidualConditioninginstrument limitleast squaresReconstructionVanishing pointerror propagationReceiving surfaceShadow projectionAttributionBiasCamera calibration