The thread: Determined up to something — page 4
A loop's far side is a length
The worst camera on a closed loop of twenty-four is 411 mm from certain along the line from the start and 64 mm across it. A picture taken across the ring from the start tripod measures directions and moves the worst camera from 418 mm to 405. One distance measured across the ring to 10 mm moves it to 74, and a four-metre length measured on the start wall to 112. What the far side of a loop lacks is not a connection but a length.
The other systemsWhat two parallel views leave free
Two perspective pictures give shape and no size. Two parallel pictures do not even give shape: the metric upgrade has six unknowns, two views supply six equations, and the system comes out rank five — a one-parameter family of solids that redraw both pictures to 7e-16 m. A third view closes it, and the mirror image survives every count.
The second projectionMatching buys one seat
Feeding a curved screen its own picture surface makes the picture exact at one point and worse everywhere else than the flat picture it replaced. Forty centimetres along the sofa the two cross, and past that the matched picture is the worse of the pair — because a flat picture is mediocre everywhere and a matched one is perfect at a point and falls away from it faster.
Measuring from one pictureThe answer is an ellipse
A mark read with a round error does not come back as a round region on the ground. The ray is grazing, so a pixel across the picture is worth a little and a pixel up it is worth a great deal, and the recovered point's uncertainty is an ellipse pointing at the camera — 5.07 to 1 at eight metres from a camera 1.62 m up, which is the depth over the height. Propagated and sampled agree to 0.5 per cent, and a ray that is not grazing gives a disc.
What a pair is forA 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.
Through water and glassThe wedge recovered with the camera
Admit the glass into the model and the fit finally has something left over. A two-degree wedge is invisible to a reading confined inside eighteen degrees of the axis — the fit calls the whole displacement a rotation of the camera and is right to — and by fifty-five degrees it comes back to 0.07 of a degree. What the picture does not separate is the ordinary glasses — assuming an index of 1.50 for a true 1.52 costs one per cent in the angle and 0.07 pixels of residual.
Many pictures at onceA survey is trusted at its own accuracy, unless its error has a shape
Entered into an adjustment with a stated accuracy, a survey whose errors are random gives the smallest shape error when the stated accuracy is the true one — at 1, 5 and 20 mm alike. Stated twenty times too tight it can cost thirteen times the error; twenty times too loose, almost nothing. But twelve surveys all 10 mm out in fixed directions are best trusted anywhere from 0.3 mm to 10 mm, and the size of their error cannot say which.
The second projectionThe distance at which the eyes part
The two eyes' disagreement on a curved screen was measured at each screen's own sitting distance and reported as a null result. The sitting distance is a parameter and the chair moves — swept, the raw difference falls like the cube of it and the residual like the fourth power, and a viewer twenty-nine centimetres from a curved monitor crosses the fusion limit the null result was quoted against.
Measuring from one pictureWhich 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 second eyeSeeing the scene fences in the plane at infinity
A reconstruction made without the calibration does not know which of its planes is infinitely far away. Requiring every point to lie in front of both cameras rules out every candidate that would tear the courtyard, and what is left is a convex region — 32 per cent of a generous slice — that always holds the true plane and never shrinks to it.
Mirrors that are not camerasTwo mirrors are three cameras
A photograph with two mirrors in it holds three views of the scene from three places, at baselines of 2.90, 3.10 and 2.26 metres. Two of the three pairwise geometries are mirror pairs and are skew; the third is a rotation by twice the angle between the mirrors, and it is not new evidence — five numbers read off the print rebuild it to 9.4 × 10⁻¹⁴ pixels, where a general three-view arrangement needs eighteen.
Many pictures at onceA start needs the sign of its depths, not their size
Started part of the way from a courtyard toward its inside-out twin, a bundle adjustment returns to the truth from every start less than 42 per cent of the way — a start with a sixth of the true relief, the right way round — and falls into the twin from every start past 56. Between, neighbouring starts settle in different answers. The band sits in the same place at a 3° field, where the twin misfits by under a pixel, and at 25°, where it misfits by seven and a half.
What a pair is forThe 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.
The real instrumentNo design separates the two coefficients
Separating a squared term from a fourth-power one was supposed to need marks at radii far apart, which is a statement about where edges are placed. It is not: one straight edge already runs from 20 px to 326. Spreading ninety-six marks over three edges or sixteen changes the answer by 23 per cent, spreading the offsets makes it 19 per cent worse, and the correlation stays at −0.98 whatever is done. What a plumb-line calibration determines is one number, to 1.52 thousandths, and which number depends on the model.
What each system gave upA vanishing line with a slope in it
Turn the plane about the view direction and no family of any surface's edges is level; each vanishing line acquires a slope, and a group must agree about two numbers rather than one. The count does not change character — a hand of four pixels costs the test 3.00 px at no slope and 3.27 at thirty-eight degrees of it. What the slope does expose is the redraw: holding each far edge at its drawn height charges 0.95 px to a picture one camera really took.
The other systemsWhat one oblique drawing shows
A parallel projection is a linear map from three dimensions to two, so it has a direction it throws away. Slide any point along that direction and its mark does not move — which makes every parallel drawing the drawing of a three-parameter family of solids, and the depth scale a convention chooses is one direction through the family rather than a boundary of it.
Measuring from one pictureThe 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.
Many pictures at onceThe cameras decide where a narrow view settles
Scatter a narrow-field bundle adjustment's starting depths and the answer it reaches stops following them: of eighty scattered starts whose depths had the right sign, twenty-six fell into the inside-out twin, and of a hundred with the wrong sign, forty-three came home. Split the start in two and the reason is plain. With the cameras where they are, the courtyard comes home from its own inside-out points; with the cameras on the twin's side, it falls in from the true ones.
The second eyeA parallax length is a height over a depth
After a known plane's map, every raised mark's displacement points at the other camera's image, and its length carries the mark's height above the plane over its depth — but not as the ratio of lengths it looks like. That ratio departs from the point's own number by up to 45 per cent. Read as a coefficient on the epipole, the same length gives height over depth from the first camera to four parts in a hundred trillion, the same from every second picture.
What a pair is forRectifying 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.
The real instrumentA known target sharpens the fit and does not separate it
Printed circles of stated size were supposed to break the −0.98 correlation between a lens's two radial coefficients, because a circle puts every mark at one radius and no straight edge can. They do not: every design of circles leaves the pair 0.979 to 0.9997 correlated, and for circles of known size the figure is exactly the cosine between r³ and r⁵. What a known target buys is precision — 3.8 times the straight edges' at the same budget — and only if its size in the picture is known to about a thousandth.
What each system gave upA tiring hand draws a different habit
A painter whose bays creep two per cent wider down a strip has drawn, to within a fiftieth of a pixel, what a steady painter with a different habit would draw — and on a weakly splayed floor the difference is the whole distance from a hand's even rows to a camera's log placement. One strip cannot tell fatigue from habit. A whole picture can, because a creep counterfeits a habit in proportion to the number of bays over the logarithm of the splay, and that is different on every strip.
What survivesTwo lines at infinity
A picture of a plane has two of them and they are not the same line. One is the horizon, where the plane's own infinity went; the other is where the picture's coordinates run out. The words ellipse and hyperbola are about the second, and every scrap of metric information is on the first — so a circle whose photograph is a hyperbola calibrates exactly as well as one whose photograph is an oval, to 7e-14 of a degree.
Where to standThe height a flat floor cannot give
The marks of a floor anamorph name the eye's position on the floor exactly and say nothing about how high it was — every candidate height explains them perfectly, to one part in a thousand trillion. That is a fact about planes rather than about anamorphs. Ripple the floor by six centimetres and the family collapses: the true height explains the marks exactly and the nearest wrong one, five centimetres away, leaves two millimetres on a design 1.8 metres wide.