Reference length — where it appears
Named by 18 essays across 9 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The range a pair cannot see past
A stereo rig has a distance beyond which it cannot say "no further than", and the distance is fixed before anything is built. It is the focal length times the baseline divided by the reading precision, and for a human pair of eyes it is fifty-eight and a half metres.
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.
The one thing a single view cannot give
Make the world a hundred and thirty-seven times larger and move the eye a hundred and thirty-seven times further away, and the picture does not change by a measurable amount. Every ratio in a scene is recoverable from one photograph and no size is, and that is not a caveat about the method — it is the shape of the method.
A map along, and a picture across
The midpoint of a segment lying along a scroll's length images to the midpoint of its image, exactly. The midpoint of a receding one lands 22% of the way off. One projection, two answers — and the direction that keeps measure keeps something a perspective picture never offers.
Two views give shape and no size
Every pairwise distance ratio in a courtyard recovered from two photographs matches the real one to fourteen digits. The courtyard's actual size is not merely uncertain — it is absent, and a reconstruction three and a half times larger fits the same two pictures exactly as well.
A ruler on an isometric drawing
Isometric drawing has one scale — 0.8165 — and every account of it stops there. But that number is about three directions and a drawing has infinitely many, so a length measured off the paper and divided by 0.8165 comes back anywhere between √(1/2) and √(3/2) of the truth: 29.3% short to 22.5% long, with nothing in the picture to say which.
The marks name the place, not the height
Run the camera-recovery round trip on an anamorph — hand it the floor marks and ask for the eye back — and it returns the spot on the floor to eleven decimal places with nothing assumed at all. It does not return the height. What the marks fix is the product of the eye's height with the design's aspect ratio, and no amount of looking at the floor separates the two.
A scroll round a bend loses its straight-line depth
Draw a scroll through two slits leaning ±10° from a track that bends, and the separation that was 9.169 px for every metre of depth stops being proportional. Outside a 100 m bend it is 653.8 px at 256 m where a straight track gives 2347, and it never passes 907.6 px however deep the point; inside a 200 m bend it runs nearly three times ahead of depth and no slit reaches past 165.3 m. The two drawings still share their rows, and the scale along the roll becomes a function of depth.
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.
A scroll can be asked its own radius
The two marks a bend leaves separate exactly. The along-roll scale alone fixes the angle in the disparity, so one point and a neighbour at its depth give back the radius and the depth in closed form — 200 m and 40 m returned to a part in 10⁹, with no search. The two answers are not equally held: a scale read one per cent too large under-reads the depth by one per cent and over-reads the radius by tan(φ − α)/α, which is 50 for a point ten metres from a five-hundred-metre bend. And a painter who evens the scale out by eye reports a gentler bend, never a bend that was never there.
A set cut for one eye
Build a colonnade four metres deep and cut every column so that its picture is the picture of one eighteen metres deep. The taper is forced rather than chosen — height and width both scale as the real depth over the intended one — and the match from the design eye is exact to sixteen decimal places. What gives it away is the second eye, and not by the ratio anybody would predict.
Counting is a measurement
A tiled floor gives its area with no reference length at all — count the tiles and multiply. The count is an integer, so it is exact wherever it can be made, which is a completely different error law from the rectifier's smooth decay. And the distance at which it fails is set by the tile's depth edge, which foreshortens as one over the depth squared, so 18.7 m for a 62 cm tile, where the across edge alone would have allowed 217.
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.
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.
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.
A scale bar is worth its ends, not its tape
A length measured at the start of a walk round a ring pins the walk's scale — but only to the precision with which the pictures place the length's two ends, 3.4 mm here, whatever the tape says. Measured to a thirtieth of a millimetre or to three millimetres, a one-metre bar leaves the worst camera at the same 89 mm. So a short length is not a long one measured well: a bar under about 13 cm tells the walk less about its scale than the walk already knows. And on an open walk no length at the start does better than 214 mm, because what is left there is drift, not scale.
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.
Figures on a street that slopes
Equal-height figures have their heads on one line, and the taught rule says the line is the horizon. On a street rising at 8.33 per cent the heads are still collinear to 2.8e-14 pixels and the line is 58.9 pixels above the horizon — the street plane's own vanishing line. The taught rule loses 1.46 m of a 1.62 m figure at the far figure, and runs out of figure altogether at 19.4 m.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
single-view metrologyscale ambiguityConditioningerror propagationinstrument limitDepth uncertaintyDisparityArea scaleBaselineBiasDemonstrationForeshortening