shadow vanishing point — where it appears
Named by 8 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
A shadow is a second projection
The construction that puts a shadow on the ground is the construction that puts the scene on the picture plane, with the lamp where the eye was. Shadow drawing is taught as a separate set of recipes and it is one operation with the centre moved, which is why the same code draws both.
Where shadows vanish
The shadows of parallel posts under the sun meet at a point, and that point must lie on the horizon. Under a lamp they meet at the lamp's foot instead. Both are checkable in any photograph, and a picture whose shadows fail the check was not lit by anything.
The shadow of a ball is a conic
A cone cut by a plane is a conic section — which is the definition of the phrase, not an analogy — and the shadow of a ball is exactly that cut. So the shadow closes or runs to the horizon depending on where the lamp is, and the condition is not what anyone guesses: it is that the lamp is above the top of the ball. The ball's distance appears nowhere in it.
The lamp, out of the picture
Two posts and their shadows put the light's position in a photograph, exactly, with nothing given but the drawn lines and the camera's own horizon. Two posts. One gives a residual of zero and an answer that is a whole one-parameter family — the sharpest counter-example there is to the idea that a small residual means a right answer, met again in a new field.
A light far enough away
The evidence in a photograph that its light is in the room rather than at infinity is one number — how far below the horizon the shadow lines put the light's foot. It falls off as one over the distance, from 211 px at 4 m to 10.8 px at 266 m, while the recovered height stays exact to 5e-13 of itself. What fails first is not the arithmetic; it is the evidence, and one pixel of error costs 0.21 mm of height at the near end and 0.07 m at the far one.
The shadow rules that hold here
Drop the foot, run a line from the top at forty-five degrees, take the intersection: the drawing manual's shadow construction is exact in a parallel drawing, to arithmetic noise, at every point of the picture and with one set square. It is where the rule came from, and carrying it into a perspective picture is what broke it.
A lamp behind the camera
A light behind the photographer has no image — the projection refuses it — and the shadows it casts are in front of them, drawn as ordinary shadows. The construction that recovers a lamp from those shadows works anyway, meeting to a ten-thousandth of a pixel at the point the reversed divide puts it, and the taught reading of where the answer lies gets the case exactly backwards.
The arrangement the count cannot see
Five posts laid out five different ways give the same leverage to a sixth and the same separation limit to a quarter, and the sixth arrangement — posts strung out along their own shadows, built to be exactly degenerate — is no worse than the rest. The degeneracy belongs to the family the count does not use, and its conditioning there is exactly zero.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
HorizonPoint lightcentre of projectionLight recoveryResidualVanishing pointConditioningInverse projectionsingle-view metrologyTaught and unmeasuredAffine mapBack projection