Projective stratification — where it appears
Named by 11 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The diagonals find the middle
Three taught methods for spacing a receding row are all wrong, and the best of them misplaces a post by three and a half metres. There is a fourth, it needs no measurement and no vanishing point, and it is exact at every camera and every depth — because 'the diagonals of a rectangle cross at its centre' is a statement about which lines meet where, and that is the one kind of statement a projection cannot damage.
What one picture of a plane determines
A photograph of a tiled floor fixes that floor's geometry up to a projectivity, and no further. Supplying the horizon buys back the midpoint — exactly, and nothing else. Supplying the image of one circle buys the right angle and the ratio of two lengths at right angles. Three stages, three prices, and a quantity a stage does not determine has no value rather than a wrong one.
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.
An angle is a cross-ratio
A projection destroys angle, which every account of perspective says and a direct measurement confirms. It destroys it only in the sense that the picture no longer carries it for free — because an angle is a cross-ratio taken against two particular points, and once those two points are located in a photograph the world's angles can be read off it directly, with no rectification, no camera, and nothing measured but which lines pass through which points.
The two points a picture hides
The stratification rung says a photograph of a plane is projective, becomes affine when the vanishing line is known, and becomes metric with one more fact. The one more fact has a size and a shape: it is two points, complex conjugates on the vanishing line, and a rectification built from those two and nothing else returns every world angle to a tenth of a picodegree and every ratio of lengths to five parts in a quadrillion — and refuses to name a length.
An angle on the ground
An angle needs no length at all — it is scale-free, so the one thing a single view cannot give is not the thing an angle wants. What it wants instead is the plane's shape, and the difference is measurable — assume the reference rectangle's aspect a quarter wrong and the angle moves 11.5°, a length running into the picture is out by exactly that quarter, and a length along the reference's own direction does not move at all.
Seeing the scene fences in the plane at infinity
A reconstruction made without the calibration does not know which of its planes is infinitely far away. Requiring every point to lie in front of both cameras rules out every candidate that would tear the courtyard, and what is left is a convex region — 32 per cent of a generous slice — that always holds the true plane and never shrinks to it.
Five facts that close the same gap
The gloss that one length has to come from outside the photograph names a single option, and there are at least five — a length on the ground, the camera's own height, a repeated object of unstated size, a standing object of known height, and the focal length with the horizon. All five give an answer on the same picture with the same noise; their spreads run from 0.36 to 3.60 per cent, a factor of ten, and which one is available depends on the photograph rather than on the arithmetic.
Where each closure enters the stratification
The five facts that turn a photograph's ratios into metres do not all do the same job. Read on four quantities through the map each supplies — a cross-ratio, a ratio along a line, an angle, a length — three of them return all four exactly and two return only the first three. Set the free scale ten per cent wrong and the whole ten per cent appears in the length and nothing appears in the other three, to thirteen digits.
A wrong model shows at its own level
Give a single-view measurement the wrong length and the error stays in the length. Give it the wrong model — a slope where it assumed level ground, a horizon five pixels out, a focal length off the barrel — and the error lands on the level that model belongs to and on every level above it, never below. That is a diagnostic. Two equal things at different depths catch a wrong plane; two equal things at right angles catch a wrong shape; marks read to 0.4 px see a slope of 0.38°. A wrong length, alone, nothing in one picture can see.
A plumb wall tells a slope from a horizon, faintly
A sloping ground and a misplaced horizon fail the ground's depth test alike. A wall standing plumb beside the ground separates them in kind: a slope leaves the wall's test at 1e-16, and a horizon moves it. But it moves it a tenth as far as it moves the ground's — 0.20 per cent for a horizon five pixels out, against 2.11 — so a pair of windows a metre wide cannot see the difference, and a whole facade six metres wide can tell a one-degree slope from its matching horizon 95 times in a hundred. A wall running straight away from the camera sees nothing at all.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Cross-ratioSimilaritysingle-view metrologyAffine structureline at infinityMetric structureRectificationVanishing lineCircular pointsConicHomographyHorizon