Reconstruction — where it appears
Named by 30 essays across 8 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The wall under the paint
An anamorph's design is a set of rays from a known eye, fixed before any paint is applied — so the marks are a calibration target whose rays are known exactly and whose shape is not. One ordinary photograph supplies the second ray for each mark and the wall comes back at the arithmetic floor, on a dished floor, a ridged one, and a floor with a step in it. What it says between the marks is nothing, by the sagitta.
A mirror ball does not know its size
The outline of a mirror ball in a photograph gives the ratio of its radius to its distance and stops there — a ball three and a half times bigger, three and a half times further away, draws an outline identical to the last bit. What breaks the tie is a point of the room, and only a near one: the sensitivity falls as one over the room's distance, so a mirror ball photographed against a landscape has no recoverable size at all.
The dome knows its offset in units of itself
A dome port centred on the entrance pupil bends nothing at all, exactly. One that is not bends rays by an amount that depends on the decentring over the radius and on nothing else, so a ten-centimetre dome six millimetres off centre and a twenty-centimetre dome twelve millimetres off centre are the same instrument, bit for bit. The picture carries the ratio, which means it never carries the radius.
The curvature a shadow reports
A flat floor makes a shadow a homology, so four marks predict the rest exactly and a curved floor mispredicts them by millimetres. Turn that round and the mispredict is a measurement of the floor. It recovers a dished floor's own curvature to a per cent — and returns 0.482 for a floor made of two planes, whose curvature is zero everywhere, with a residual of ten microns.
The caustic is the mirror's own ruler
Four of the five instruments in this row return a ratio and refuse a size. The bright curve a mirror throws is the exception, and the reason is that it is a length lying on the table rather than an angle in a picture. Its tip is the paraxial focus, so a ruler laid from the mirror's vertex to it returns the radius of curvature — 1.5996 m against 1.6, and exactly right on a paraboloid, where there is no aberration to bias the envelope.
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.
One picture of a ball
The outline of a ball in a photograph fixes the cone of rays that graze it, so the cone's axis is the direction of the ball's centre and its half-angle is the arcsine of radius over distance — both exactly, and neither of them separately. A ball a hundred and thirty-seven times larger, a hundred and thirty-seven times further away, draws the identical conic. And the drawn ellipse's own centre is not the image of the ball's.
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.
The screen that names the seat
A flat screen shows a homography of the intended picture from every seat in the room, and an observer's own framing is free to be a homography too — so a flat screen's picture is consistent with every seat there is. A curved one is not, and the seat comes back out of the picture in all three directions, in units of the screen's own radius.
Two pictures of a ball
Two outlines give two tangent cones, and where their axes cross is the ball's centre — with the radius following from either half-angle. There is no correspondence problem, because a ball's outline in one picture and its outline in another are guaranteed to be the same ball; and there is a degeneracy, which is the two eyes and the ball in a line, and the solver refuses it rather than returning something plausible.
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.
The dish no outline reaches
An outline is a pair of numbers per direction and nothing more, so a shape built from outlines has two errors that behave differently. The part outside the convex hull falls as one over the square of the view count. The part inside a concavity is the same area at four views and at a hundred and twenty-eight, because no pair of supporting lines ever reaches into a bite.
What the two eyes are sent
A reader's eyes are two seats sixty-three millimetres apart, so a curved screen delivers each of them a different map — and the part of the difference no homography absorbs is binocular evidence of the glass. Turned into a depth it comes back as the screen's own sag, 49 millimetres against 47 on a television, by a route that never saw the radius.
An outline reaches a waist and not a dish
In a cross-section nothing a silhouette does can enter a concavity. On a solid that stops being true, because a solid has lines a section does not contain. A spool's waist comes back in full from a ring of outlines, and a dish in the same object's lid never does. What decides it is whether a straight line can leave, and the answer is water.
A groove is reached only along its own plane
A groove round a drum is the kind of hollow outlines can clear, and a level ring clears it completely. Raise the camera three degrees and more than half of it stays filled at any number of views. On this object the height of the camera decides the result, and the count of views buys almost nothing.
Two mirrors are three cameras
A photograph with two mirrors in it holds three views of the scene from three places, at baselines of 2.90, 3.10 and 2.26 metres. Two of the three pairwise geometries are mirror pairs and are skew; the third is a rotation by twice the angle between the mirrors, and it is not new evidence — five numbers read off the print rebuild it to 9.4 × 10⁻¹⁴ pixels, where a general three-view arrangement needs eighteen.
A symmetric object is its own stereo pair
A building with a plane of symmetry photographed once gives fourteen correspondences whose joining lines meet at one point to 1.9 × 10⁻¹² pixels, a skew-symmetric matrix, and the object's whole shape to fifteen digits — with no mirror anywhere and no second exposure. What it does not give is the size, and the instrument that decides whether any of it applies is the same meeting point, which opens to 12.7 pixels when the symmetry is half a per cent out.
Two wide pairs are most of a symmetry
A facade with a symmetric frame and an asymmetric middle is still its own stereo pair. Two pairs whose halves stand wide apart find the symmetry plane to 0.40° with marks read to 0.4 px; twelve pairs find it to 0.26°; two narrow pairs only to 1.35°. The middle that pairs with nothing comes back too, to 0.8 per cent, carried along its rays to the wall the pairs have fixed. The risk is not too little symmetry but a false pair — and a window set wider than its partner is one the standard test cannot see.
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 wall convicts a pair set too wide
A window set wider than its partner's reflection keeps every joining line on the mirror's point, so the one test a symmetric photograph was known to carry cannot see it. The wall the other pairs fix can: it says where the partner should be seen, and a window set ten centimetres too wide misses by 6.0 pixels. With marks read to 0.4 px it convicts a 3-centimetre offset eight or nine times in ten and a 5-centimetre one every time. What no single photograph can see is a move along the camera's own ray to the window.
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.
A false pair is named by its neighbours, not by itself
Read against the rest of a symmetric facade, a pair whose right half has moved six centimetres is explained exactly by two stories: the right half moved, or the left half moved the mirror way from a pair standing six centimetres over. Predicted from left to right and from right to left, the pair gives one residual twice. What names the half is a mark that shares a line with it — the window's upper corner names a move across ninety-three times in a hundred at two centimetres — and what the readings recover is the move as the camera sees it, blind along its ray.
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.
What a removed wall costs that a removed roof does not
Fitting a single centre to a building with its near wall deleted lands at 3.0e-15 m — the arithmetic floor — because deleting a wall does not touch the projection, only which surfaces are drawn. Fitting the identical routine to the same building with its roof removed does not return a number at all: handed a bundle of genuinely parallel rays, it refuses outright.
A floor is read along curves
Whatever a shadow says about the floor it landed on, it says only where the shadow is — and a shadow is a curve while a floor is a surface. Shadow curve length grows exactly linearly in the number of lamps, by a fitted exponent of 0.999, and the fraction of floor within two centimetres of one grows more slowly at 0.94, because the curves begin to overlap. At thirty-two lamps, seventy-one per cent of a nine square metre patch has still never had a shadow on it.
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.
The ladder of assumptions is a ladder of conditioning
Push the four corners of a board by one pixel and read three quantities through the one recovered map. A cross-ratio does not move at all — it is read in the picture and never went through the map. A ratio of parallel lengths moves by a tenth of a per cent at twenty degrees of obliquity and by 1.6 per cent at seventy-eight. An angle moves by sixteen thousandths of a degree and by nine tenths. The stratification ladder is usually taught as a hierarchy of what is assumed; it is also a hierarchy of what a pixel costs.
The bias out of reach
A single-view height recovered from the cross-ratio has an error with two terms. The spread of an average of m readings falls as one over the root of m, by a fitted exponent of −0.52 over three decades. The bias does not fall at all — and it is eight microns, against a single-shot spread of six millimetres, so the two cross at 535,000 measurements. There is a floor here and no experiment anybody will run can see it.
The picture contains what is behind the camera
A pinhole maps a direction, and a line has one direction, so a point behind the eye lands on exactly the same mark as its reflection in front — here to 6.4e-14 pixels. The sign the division throws away is why cheirality is a fact supplied from outside the picture rather than measured in it.
The theorem that is obvious one dimension up
Desargues in the plane needs a proof and in space needs none — two triangles in different planes have their corresponding sides meeting on the line where the planes cross, and the meets land 1.0e-14 metres off it. The plane figure is a shadow of the spatial one, and five different solids cast the same photograph to 2.0e-12 pixels.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Conditioninginstrument limitscale ambiguityResidualDemonstrationcentre of projectionReceiving surfaceHomographyModel errorShadow projectionEpipoleFundamental matrix