The thread: Taught, and never measured — page 2
Both vanishing points on the paper
Putting the two vanishing points on the sheet is presented as a composition rule. It is a statement about the reader: with the two points one page-width apart the picture is a 90° view, correct from 80 mm, and a reader holding it at arm's length is shown a room five times as deep as the one drawn. The layout that is honest at arm's length puts both points four and a half pages off the sheet.
Constructing a viewBrunelleschi drilled a hole in his panel
The first perspective demonstration in the European record came with its viewing point enforced — a hole through the back of the panel, a mirror held out in front, and one place to stand. That distance is computable from the panel's size and the angle the Baptistery subtends, and the answer lands squarely on the arrangement the account describes.
What survivesThe 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.
Surfaces that are not flatThe arcs a curvilinear drawing uses
The taught way to draw a very wide view by hand is to run every straight edge of the world as a circular arc. That recipe has been repeated for sixty years without a surface attached to it, and it turns out to name one exactly — fitting a general conic to the image of a straight line returns a circle to nine decimal places under stereographic projection and returns nothing like a circle under any of the other standard picture surfaces.
Drawn confidentlyWhich way the drawn circle leans
Two rules are given for the direction a drawn circle's short axis runs in: along the axis of the cylinder, and pointing at the centre of vision. On the optical axis both are exactly right. At the edge of an ordinary frame the first is out by three and a half degrees and the second by seventy-nine. The statement neither of them is comes out of differencing the projection, and it matches the drawn ellipse to a hundredth of a degree.
The real instrumentThe lens a pavement can hide
A photographed pavement reads as a correct drawing up to a radial coefficient of about four tenths — a lens strong enough to bow a straight edge across the page by nearly six pixels and to print as twenty per cent distortion at the frame's corner. The reason is that a pavement sits near the principal point, which is the one part of the frame a radial map barely touches.
What each system gave upA yes in the table is a price
The comparison table says isometric, cavalier, the elevation and the plan oblique all keep measure. Priced on four hundred boxes, with each picture handed its own best ruler, the four charge 0%, 0%, 33.3% and 0% for an edge — and a pinhole charges 39.5%, only 6.2 points more than the elevation it is filed against. Turn the boxes and three of the four yeses cost something; only the plan oblique's stays free.
The other systemsA 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.
Surfaces that are not flatOne parameter between two surfaces
Wide architectural views are usually made on a projection with a number attached to it — a family running from the flat plane at one end toward the cylinder at the other, with everybody using the value one. That value has never been given a geometric defence. Measured across the family with the same battery of tests as every other surface, the worst angular error over the field has a minimum, and the minimum is at 1.04.
Drawn confidentlyThe forty-five degree shadow
Draw the shadow at forty-five degrees and make it as long as the object is tall. In the plan that is exactly a sun halfway up the sky. Applied on the paper it puts four posts under four different suns — altitudes from sixteen to twenty-nine degrees, azimuths thirty-two degrees apart, and shadows between one and three-quarters and three and a half times the height. No drawing angle brings them together.
The rectangle behind the lensThe sharp band is a decision
One 50 mm lens at f/2.8 focused at three metres has a sharp band half a metre deep or an unbounded one, and nothing about the optics changes between them — only how large a blur disc a reader is prepared to ignore. Every quantity usually quoted about depth of field is that acceptance restated, including the rule that a third of the band lies in front, which is true at one distance and nowhere else.
Light and mirrorsA wall does not get darker as it goes away
The inverse square law is about a point source. A surface is not a point source, and the picture of a wall is exactly as bright at twenty metres as at two — the patch one pixel covers grows as the square of the distance and the light per unit area falls as the square of the distance, and a picture records the product. Which is why aerial perspective has to be the air.
Surfaces that are not flatConformal is not undistorted
The most distorted-looking picture in ordinary circulation is the little planet — a 360 photograph re-projected from below, with the ground curled into a ball. Its worst angular error over 160 degrees of the sphere is 4.4e-8 degrees, which is arithmetic noise. Every crossing in the original crosses at exactly the same angle in the result, and what has gone is area, over a factor of 255.
Drawn confidentlyMeasured down from the waterline
Whatever stands so far above the water, draw its reflection the same distance below. Through a vertical picture plane that is not an approximation — it is the reflection, to the arithmetic floor. Tilt the camera twenty-two degrees and it is eleven pixels out. Draw a gull, which touches the water nowhere, and guessing its waterline point wrong by two metres of depth costs fifty.
Mirrors that are not camerasA fitted radius is wrong before it is uncertain
A sphere and a paraboloid of the same vertex radius agree to second order, so a fit over a small aperture cannot separate them. What it does instead is return a confident radius that is wrong by a stated percentage, with a residual far below any measurement floor — 0.03% of bias behind a residual of three ten-thousandths of a degree. The residual only clears a two-hundredth of a degree at six times the aperture, by which point the bias is thirty-six times larger.
Through water and glassOne surface, two images
A water surface reflects what is above it and refracts what is below it in the same photograph, from the same plane. The reflected half has a centre of projection to 1 × 10⁻¹⁴ m and every theorem about central projection applies to it; the refracted half misses its own best-fitting point by 28.6 mm and none of it does. And the landscape manual's rule for drawing a reflection turns out to be the epipole placed at infinity, which is why it costs nothing at zero tilt and 11.5 px at twenty-two degrees.
The real instrumentA barrel model folds at a radius it sets itself
The polynomial every calibration fits to a wide lens stops increasing at a radius fixed by its own first coefficient — 47.49° of field at k₁ = −0.28 — and past it two directions land on one picture radius. The routine that undistorts pictures with it does not refuse there. It hands back wrong directions from 46.75°, by as much as 106.5°, and refuses only at 65.5°: a fifth of the field returned silently wrong.
The other systemsThe ellipse the drawing office draws
Every isometric ellipse template is cut to a construction of four circular arcs, and every account of it calls the result an ellipse. It is not one and cannot be: a circular arc has constant curvature and a conic's varies, so the two can agree at four points and nowhere between. The four-centre curve reaches 2√2/3 of the true semi-major axis — 5.72% short — and its minor axis is 3.53% too long.
Constructing a viewThe horizon, and the fraction
The horizon crosses every upright at the point of it that stands at the camera's own eye height — always, whatever the picture plane is doing. It crosses at the same *fraction* of the drawn height only when the plane is vertical: tilt by 6° and the fractions spread by 0.08 percentage points, tilt by 4° and 0.06. One statement is an incidence and survives; the other is a ratio and does not.
Drawn confidentlyThe rule that draws another room
The taught rule for spacing receding boards — each gap a fixed fraction of the last — is not a projection of anything, and it produces a pavement that is a correct perspective to within a fifth of a pixel. Of a room whose horizon is a hundred and seventy pixels from the one the panel drew. The error is not incoherence; it is a disagreement between two halves of one drawing.
Many pictures at onceA narrow view keeps a second answer, inside out
Six pictures of a courtyard through a 3° field, every mark exact. Started from the scene turned inside out, the adjustment settles there — near points far, far points near — and misfits the marks by under a pixel. The misfit grows in proportion to the field and to the sweep of the cameras, and vanishes only where perspective does.
What each system gave upA camera count needs a tolerance
Asked how few cameras could have drawn a splayed picture, a constructed stack answers four, three, two or one depending on how many pixels of redrawing a reader will allow — one camera at 17.6 px, two at 11.1, three at 4.6. The count is real: a picture built with two groups hidden in it gives back exactly those two, anywhere between nothing and 47.0 px. What it is not is a property of the picture alone, and the floor under it belongs to the hand — a one-camera drawing made by a hand that scatters its far corners by σ splits below about 0.57σ, where the 0.57 belongs to that hand and runs from 0.17 to 1.34 across a hundred and twenty of them.
Drawn confidentlySix tangents and the point nobody drew
Brianchon's theorem is a test a reader can run on a finished drawing with nothing but a straightedge — six tangents, three diagonals, and a question about whether they meet. Pointed at the drawing office's four-centre ellipse it rejects the curve by 1.7 per cent of the figure's own width, 546 times the instrument's own floor, with no true ellipse to compare against.
The real instrumentThe lines that calibrate a lens
One straight edge through the centre of a picture says nothing about a lens's distortion, and one 180 px from the centre determines k₁ to 9.0 × 10⁻⁴ — the precision rises in proportion to the offset. But distance from the centre is not enough. Crowd three edges on one side and, the moment the distortion centre is also unknown, the coefficient is ten times worse, because a bend on one side looks like a moved centre; put one edge across the centre and it barely changes.