Every essay — page 6
What survives Constructing a view Where to stand Surfaces that are not flat The other systems Light and mirrors Mirrors that are not cameras Measuring from one picture Through water and glass The real instrument The second eye What a pair is for Many pictures at once The eye that moves Systems that kept the measure What each system gave up What a machine computes The rectangle behind the lens The second projection Drawn confidently
What a pair is for
Depth from two views is a reciprocal, so a fixed error in what is read maps to an interval that is not symmetric and eventually is not bounded. What a stereo pair can and cannot measure, computed rather than described, including the range past which one pixel reaches infinity.
Whole pixels cut space into shells
A disparity read to whole pixels can report only the depths fB/k, so a stereo pair does not measure distance on a scale — it chooses among 113 shells between half a metre and twelve, 6.7 cm apart at two metres and 1.39 m apart at ten. A level floor comes back as 35 standing plates. And a finer step and a better reading are different purchases: at a quarter pixel with a quarter pixel of matcher error the pair prints 449 depths and can tell 149 apart.
Both coordinates agree on a circle and a line
Two eyes fixating a point straight ahead see their horizontal image coordinates agree on a whole vertical cylinder over the Vieth–Müller circle, the same radius at every height to the last bit. Their vertical coordinates agree on almost none of it — 7.35 px apart at 26° aside and 30 cm up, 29.26 px when the fixation is brought to 60 cm. The points where both agree are the circle and one vertical line, and the line is the axis of the motion that carries one eye onto the other.
Raise the gaze, and the line is gone
Turn two eyes 20° aside in the plane they share and the horopter keeps its vertical line — but the line stays in the median plane, 1.277 m ahead, not at the point being looked at. Raise the gaze as well and the rule by which each eye rolls decides the rest: Helmholtz's rule keeps a line; Listing's law and Fick's rule make the eyes' relative motion slide 3.93 mm and 7.09 mm along its axis, no point stays put, and the horopter becomes one curve.
A mismatch on its own line needs a third eye
Slide one mark of a correspondence 30 px along the epipolar line the other mark fixes, and every test two photographs can run stays at the arithmetic floor — epipolar distance 2.2e-14 px, the two rays meeting to 1.5e-15 m, reprojection 1.1e-13 px — while the point is reported half a metre too near. A third picture exposes it by 21.4 px from a third eye two metres off the first line of sight, and by exactly nothing from an eye on that line.
A third ray is worth what its picture is worth
Three eyes on one point, two at seven metres and one walked back to seventy. The point nearest all three rays in metres is 132 millimetres from the truth and the point of least reprojection error is 34 — the same 34 the near pair gives alone — and the first is pulled 12 millimetres along the line to the distant eye. And arrangement beats count outright — two rays spread over fifty-five degrees beat eight rays inside four, by a factor of 4.4.
Vergence moves the shells and does not respace them
Turn two eyes inward and the depths a whole-pixel reading can report stop being planes and become a family of near-circles through both eyes — the twenty-pixel shell standing at 0.74 m forty degrees aside where a parallel pair puts it at 3.82. The spacing between consecutive shells is the same to 0.07 per cent across the whole field, so vergence relabels the rays and does not sharpen them, and the resolution argument for turning the eyes in does not exist.
A third eye that lands on the next post
Match one post of a railing to its neighbour and the pair reports it at 19.8 metres instead of 9.0, with every test two photographs can run at the arithmetic floor. A third picture usually exposes that by hundreds of pixels — but at five azimuths in seventy-eight degrees the wrong point lands within three pixels of another post, and the third view confirms the mistake. Narrow the railing to twenty centimetres and those places cover 28 per cent of the arc.
The second disparity cuts cells
A point off the plane of the eyes has a vertical disparity as well as a horizontal one, and quantising both, on an 86,400-point lattice of a room, gives 7,663 labels where one coordinate gives 179 — a count that belongs to the lattice rather than the room, as the essay after this one found. The gain is entirely vergence's — two eyes looking straight ahead have no vertical disparity at all, exactly — and it is largest where the first reading is already finest: 60.8 in the near metre and 3.7 in the far band.
Rectifying a pair spends what its epipolar lines lean
Counted from the two disparities alone, rectifying a verged pair looks as if it throws away at least 99.7 per cent of what the pair can tell apart. That cannot be true of a warp that loses no ray, and it is not: once the place in the picture is counted, the vertical disparity adds 4.1 per cent for eyes verged at 1.2 m, and rectifying at the same focal length gives back all but 4.0 of it.
A sliding pair keeps its line only near the middle
Two eyes that roll by Listing's law lose the horopter's straight line as soon as they look up and aside, and the question worth a number is whether they lose it by much. Measured along the line they nearly keep, the disparity is exactly the slide seen by one eye — 3.20 px at 20° aside and 20° up, a metre and a bit away — and the slide does not shrink with distance. At arm's length the line survives to within a pixel only in a narrow cross through the middle of the field.
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.
A railing matched one along stands underground
Match every post of a railing to the next one along and two photographs build a perfect railing at 19.8 metres instead of 9.0 — straight, evenly spaced, every post on both its rays. Nothing near it can say so. What convicts it is what it stands on: its feet are 1.32 metres under the ground, and one ground mark read to a pixel shows every foot a whole period out from sixty metres away. Its length helps only through its ends, and once those leave the frame, counting matches prefers the wrong railing.
A facade matched a column out comes forward, not back
A railing matched one post along is rebuilt 2.2 times further away. A facade of windows 2.4 metres apart cannot be: a one-column shift that way needs a negative disparity, and the only mistake left in front of the cameras brings the facade to 6.3 metres from twenty, a third its size, hanging 1.1 metres off the ground with nothing under it to sink into. Its corners hold it only if the wall is assumed flat. Two corners then convict it at every period; one corner and a drainpipe need the pipe half a metre in for windows and four and a half for a fine repeat.
A raised eye reads the storeys as the pair read the columns
Put a third camera 3.5 metres above the left one and its epipolar lines run up the facade: the storeys repeat along them as the columns repeated along the level pair's rows, the roofline and the foot carry depth where the corners did, and a raise shorter than a storey can only pull the windows nearer. The three pictures together refuse the level pair's one-column mistake at every raise except those where the storey over the raise equals the period over the baseline — 1.375 and 2.75 metres here — and even there the facade's lowest storey lands on the ground.
What survives
A projection destroys length, angle, area and the ratio of lengths. One quantity comes through untouched, and almost everything checkable about a picture is checked with it.
What a projection destroys
A projection loses length, angle, area and the ratio in which a point divides a segment. Exactly one quantity comes through untouched, and almost everything that can be checked about a picture is checked with it — including, as it turns out, some things it cannot check at all.
Where parallel lines meet
They meet at a point that is not in the plane, and the horizon is the line made of all such points. Treating that as bookkeeping misses what it buys — a vanishing point becomes an ordinary point of the picture, findable from the drawn lines, checkable, and enterable into any calculation the others are.
Recovering the camera from the picture it drew
Draw a box from a known camera, forget the camera, and get it back from the twelve drawn edges alone. Agreement to one part in 10¹⁵ is a statement about the geometry, because the only thing that crossed between the two halves was a list of line segments.
The circle whose centre moves
The image of a circle is an ellipse, and the image of the circle's centre is not the centre of that ellipse. The gap is 3 or 4% of the ellipse's width in an ordinary view — large enough to see, small enough to be dismissed as a slip by anyone not expecting it, and the reason drawn wheels look wrong.
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.
The diagonals find the middle
Three taught methods for spacing a receding row are all wrong, and the best of them misplaces a post by three and a half metres. There is a fourth, it needs no measurement and no vanishing point, and it is exact at every camera and every depth — because 'the diagonals of a rectangle cross at its centre' is a statement about which lines meet where, and that is the one kind of statement a projection cannot damage.
Two triangles and the line nobody drew
Desargues' theorem is the reason a hand-drawn shadow construction closes. An object and its shadow are two figures in perspective from the lamp; the theorem says their corresponding sides meet, pairwise, on one line — which is the ground line. So the closure a draughtsman treats as confirmation that the work is accurate is a theorem they cannot violate.
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.
Four lines have a cross-ratio
The cross-ratio is introduced as a property of four points on a line. Its dual — four lines through a point carry the same number, and any transversal reads it back — is not a second theorem. It is why the first one is true: four rays from an eye are a pencil, every picture of them is a section of that pencil, and a quantity belonging to the pencil cannot depend on which section was taken.
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.