Concept

Relative pose — where it appears

3 essays name this object, across 2 fields. What follows is each of them, and the objects they name alongside it.
-3-2.50-2-0.600-0.400-0.20000.200how finely each point is read (px, log scale)worst camera-centre error, as a fraction of the track's mean radius (log)chained pairsadjusted togetheradjustment is 4.0–9.2× better6 views · identical observations

A chain and an adjustment

Composing pairwise poses along a sequence is supposed to drift. Measured over five links it wanders instead — one chain ends closer to the truth than its own worst link — and the real cost of chaining turns out to be something else entirely.

manyviews · drift
points in front of both camerasR₁, t0 of 44180° from the truthR₁, t reversed0 of 44180° from the truthR₂, t44 of 44chosenR₂, t reversed0 of 44180° from the truththe chosen pose is the true one to 0.0e+0°cheirality, not algebra, picks it

Four cameras fit, and one of them can see

The essential matrix does not determine a camera pair. It determines four, all of which reproject every correspondence exactly, and the thing that picks one is not more algebra — it is the assumption that the photographer could see what was photographed.

twoviews · cheirality
as recovered0.308 across× 3.4 — same two pictures1.046 acrossworst ratio deviation 6.3e-14size fixed only by a supplied 0.80 m

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.

twoviews · scale

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

BaselineCorrespondencereconstruction ambiguitybundle adjustmentCamera matrixcamera trackCheiralityDriftEssential matrixFundamental matrixrandom walkReference length

All concepts