Rectification — where it appears
Named by 22 essays across 9 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Flattening a façade out of the photograph
Four corners of a rectangle whose proportions are known are enough to undo the projection of one plane. After that the plane can be measured with a ruler — lengths, angles, areas, all of it — in units of the rectangle's own width, and lengths the map was never given come back to fifteen digits.
Measuring a room off the page
A perspective picture of a floor has to be rectified before anything on it can be measured, and the rectification is a fit that amplifies the marking error. An oblique picture of the same floor is already rectified — the page is the plan, at one scale, and a ruler on the paper is a ruler on the ground.
Anamorphosis is only a viewpoint
A smear on a wall that resolves into a skull when the viewer stands in one particular place off to the side. It is not a trick added to perspective — it is perspective, with the centre of projection put somewhere nobody would naturally stand, and it is the clearest demonstration there is that every picture has such a point.
The plan hidden in the photograph
Rectifying the ground is the same operation as rectifying a wall, and it turns a photograph into a site plan. The horizon is not an input to it and comes out as a consequence — the plan's points at infinity land on it, at first order, which is the check that the plan is a plan and not a plausible warp.
A projection of a projection
Photograph a photograph and the composite map is a homography — four marks determine it and every other lands where they say, to 1e-13 px. Roll the print and the same four mispredict the rest by 30.5 px, which is why straightening a page of a thick book never quite works.
A projector is a camera run backwards
Turn a projector fifteen degrees from square and it throws a trapezium; keystone correction cannot add light outside it, so it shrinks the picture until it fits and discards a sixth of the panel. And the instrument itself comes back out of the picture it threw — 2880 panel pixels recovered against 2880, by the function the wrong field wrote for hand-drawn cubes.
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.
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.
Straightening does not move the eye
Correct a photograph's converging verticals and what comes out agrees with a level camera at the same point — one the correction was never shown — to 3e-13 px, with the verticals parallel to 0e+0°. The cross-ratio of four points along a ground line reads 1.3333 before and after, so the corrected picture measures exactly what the original measured, from exactly where the original was taken and nowhere else.
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.
The floor that is not a plane
A shadow on a flat floor is a homology, so four marks determine the whole map and the rest of the outline comes back exactly. Dish the floor and the same four marks mispredict the rest by 5.67 mm; ridge it and 9.07 mm; put a step in it — two planes, each of them exactly a homology — and 74.95 mm. The receiver's shape is what breaks the projective description, and it breaks it worst where the surface is flattest.
One picture and three people
A curved screen can be pre-warped for one seat, and the search over which seat to choose returns the middle one to a quarter of a per cent — there is nothing to be clever about. What the correction buys the sofa as a whole is six per cent, and the worst seat grows at fourteen pixels for every metre of audience, with no width at which it is zero except one person.
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.
Undoing a picture made on a curve
Three rounds of work here have measured what a curved receiving surface costs going forward — 5.67 mm on a dish, 9.07 mm on a ridge, 529.4 mm on a vault. None of them asked whether the design can be got back. It can, exactly, and the price is stated precisely: you have to supply the surface. Told the floor, the recovery returns a design to 1.1e-12 mm; told nothing, and fitting the four marks every rectification tool fits, it is 111 mm out.
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 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.
How well the floor has to be known
“Supply the surface” is an instruction with no number in it, and an instruction with no number is a wish. Here is the number: the error in the recovered design is very nearly proportional to the error in the assumed curvature — the constant varies by 1.4% across a twentyfold range — so about nine parts in a thousand of the curvature buys one millimetre on a design 1800 mm wide, and 40% out costs 43.5 mm.
The floors that unroll
A ridged floor curves visibly and can be laid flat without stretching anything — 7.4e-9 of strain across the patch. A dished floor curves less and cannot be laid flat by any means whatever. The difference is one number, Gaussian curvature, and it is the number Gauss proved no bending can change: 0 for the ridge, 0.0144 per square metre for the dish, and no cleverness in the flattening touches it.
A projector in the viewer's eye
A projector paints a wall along its own rays, so from the projector's own position the wall's shape is invisible — exactly, on a cylinder, on a dome and on a plane alike. Move a hand's breadth away and the residual is pixels. The one place a projector can stand and ignore the shape of what it is throwing onto is the eye of the person watching.
Three constructions, one map
A shadow cast on a floor, an anamorph painted on one, and a reflection in a mirror are usually treated as three different subjects, each with its own derivation and its own figure. Decomposed into their fixed points and lines, three of them are the same kind of map — a central collineation with a line of fixed points — and the fourth, a rectification, is not. That difference separates changing where a picture is seen from, from changing one picture into another.
Which reference to measure from
Given four candidate scale bars in one photograph, the best is not the longest and not the nearest — it is the longest in the picture. A five-point-two metre bar near the horizon is the longest thing in the scene and the worst reference in it; a four metre bar close to the camera is the best. Walk one bar outward and the term it controls falls as one over its length in pixels, with a fitted exponent of −1.08.
A rectification's free shift is free only near the pair
Sliding a rectified pair's principal points apart adds a constant to every disparity, and a constant changes nothing about where points are — on paper. A whole-pixel reading is not paper. The same slide moves every depth the reading can report, and for a wall ten metres away the choice between the best shift and the worst is 1.71 metres. Near the pair it is millimetres. A matcher with half a pixel of its own error erases the choice, and pays more than the worst shift did.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
HomographyProjective mapsingle-view metrologyCross-ratioDemonstrationerror propagationGround plane rectificationline at infinityPicture planeResidualVanishing pointAnamorphosis