The thread: What a second picture adds — page 2
A scroll through two slits ranges in a straight line
Draw a scroll twice, through a slit leaning 10° forward along the track and one leaning 10° back, and every point appears in both drawings on the same row, separated by 9.169 px for every metre of its depth — at four metres and at fifty-two. Depth is proportional to that separation rather than reciprocal to it, so a pixel of error costs 10.9 cm at every distance, averaging leaves no bias, and there is no range past which the depth runs off to infinity. The price is paid in roll: a 100 m scroll ranges nothing past 283.6 m.
The second eyeAn ambiguity is not an uncertainty
Eight marks to forty cuts a solid scene's pose error from 19.8° to 0.7° and leaves a flat one at 48°. The two failures look identical from inside — a confident answer, a residual at the floor — and they respond to opposite remedies, so telling them apart is worth more than either measurement.
Mirrors that are not camerasTwo matches are enough
A general fundamental matrix has seven free numbers and needs eight correspondences. A mirror pair's has two, and two correspondences fix it — with a straightedge, on a print, by drawing the line from each mark to its reflection and marking where the two cross. Given the same sixteen marks read to four tenths of a pixel, the constrained fit lands 4.8 times closer to the truth than the eight-point algorithm.
What a pair is forRaise 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.
Through water and glassA point under water has two depths
The apparent depth of a submerged point is not one number even along one line of sight. The rays it sends to an eye pass through two focal lines, and at 60° from the vertical a point 1.50 m down has an image 0.740 m down and another 0.320 m down. Two eyes side by side read the first, a head moving up and down reads the second, and a pair of eyes tilted between them reads neither — their two rays miss each other by as much as 6.39 mm.
The eye that movesA scroll round a bend loses its straight-line depth
Draw a scroll through two slits leaning ±10° from a track that bends, and the separation that was 9.169 px for every metre of depth stops being proportional. Outside a 100 m bend it is 653.8 px at 256 m where a straight track gives 2347, and it never passes 907.6 px however deep the point; inside a 200 m bend it runs nearly three times ahead of depth and no slit reaches past 165.3 m. The two drawings still share their rows, and the scale along the roll becomes a function of depth.
Mirrors that are not camerasSquare to the camera is the worst mirror
A mirror pair's baseline runs along the mirror's normal, so a mirror facing the camera puts the second eye directly behind the first — the forward-motion arrangement, with the epipole in the middle of the frame and the rays to a mark crossing at 23°. Turning it forty-four degrees opens that to 65° and cuts the worst depth error threefold, and the number to watch is not the angle but where the reflected lens sits on the print.
What a pair is forA 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.
Through water and glassA straight stick in water is a kink and a curve
The bent stick is described as one kink at the surface. Traced point by point, the image two level eyes see leaves the surface 14.96° off a stick leaning 30° — the same whichever way it leans — and then keeps turning, by 1.11° when it leans away from the eye and 7.62° when it leans toward it. A photograph from the eye shows the kink and almost none of the curve, 1.63 px over 166 px, and when the stick leans straight toward or away from the eye it shows neither: the picture is one straight line.
The second eyeTwo marks off a known plane find the other eye
Map a courtyard's ground from one picture into the other, and every raised mark lands somewhere the map did not send it — displaced along a line through the image of the other camera, to a fifth of a billionth of a pixel. Two such marks put that image where it is, and with it the whole epipolar geometry.
The eye that movesA scroll can be asked its own radius
The two marks a bend leaves separate exactly. The along-roll scale alone fixes the angle in the disparity, so one point and a neighbour at its depth give back the radius and the depth in closed form — 200 m and 40 m returned to a part in 10⁹, with no search. The two answers are not equally held: a scale read one per cent too large under-reads the depth by one per cent and over-reads the radius by tan(φ − α)/α, which is 50 for a point ten metres from a five-hundred-metre bend. And a painter who evens the scale out by eye reports a gentler bend, never a bend that was never there.
Where to standA set cut for one eye
Build a colonnade four metres deep and cut every column so that its picture is the picture of one eighteen metres deep. The taper is forced rather than chosen — height and width both scale as the real depth over the intended one — and the match from the design eye is exact to sixteen decimal places. What gives it away is the second eye, and not by the ratio anybody would predict.
Light and mirrorsThe lamp is the second eye
One photograph, one lamp whose position is known, and a point's place in space comes back to 9e-16 m — the camera's ray through the point, the lamp's ray through the image of its shadow, and the intersection of two lines. It is triangulation with one of the two eyes replaced by a light, and it degrades exactly like a stereo pair: 5.9 mm of depth per pixel at 39° between the rays, 1 mm at 15.4°.
The second eyeAn epipole in the picture leaves a blind disc
Step a camera half a metre straight forward and the image of the other eye sits in the middle of both pictures. Around it lies a disc where one pixel of reading costs a tenth of the depth or more — 20 px across a surface 2 m off, 247 px at 16 m — and at its centre no depth is recovered at any range.
What a pair is forA 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.
Many pictures at onceThe spread a point gets
A track of sixty degrees gives no point of the scene sixty degrees. The nearest receive 89 and the furthest 41, a factor of 2.2, and their errors run from 1.5 to 8.4 millimetres — following the angle at the point as its −1.68 power, with 94 per cent of the variation explained. The arc a track covers is one number for forty-four different situations and predicts none of them.
The second eyeThe two pencils keep one number
Four lines through the image of the other eye in one picture, and the four epipolar lines they become in the other. The angles between them change by up to 11.4°; their cross-ratio is 3.012836 on both sides, to eight parts in a trillion. Three pairs of lines fix the map between the pencils, and the fourth is predicted to a third of a billionth of a pixel.
What a pair is forVergence 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.
Through water and glassThe stick a stereo pair puts back
Two eyes side by side reconstruct a submerged stick exactly as the sagittal image — kinked 14.96° — and two eyes one above the other exactly as the tangential one, kinked 9.59°. Roll the baseline between them and the two rays to a point miss each other by up to 3.13 millimetres, past the 2.85 a pixel covers at that range, and the reconstruction is a third stick that is neither — 551 millimetres of a one-metre stick, with its tip at 0.405 metres against a true 0.866.
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 eyeRectification is a family, not an operation
Turn both pictures of a pair so their epipolar lines become shared rows. A turn about the line between the eyes and a focal length are left free, and every choice puts all 44 matches on common rows to a tenth of a trillionth of a pixel and every point back where it was. What the choices disagree about is the pixels — one stretches its pictures unevenly by 1.77, another by 4.86.
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.
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.