Anda di halaman 1dari 7

A Different Angle on Perspective

Marc Frantz

Marc Frantz (mfrantz@indiana.edu) majored in painting at


the Herron School of Art, where he received his B.F.A. in
1975. After a thirteen-year career as a painter and picture
framer, he entered graduate school in mathematics at
Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI),
where he received his M.S. in 1990. Since then he has
taught mathematics at IUPUI and Indiana University, where
he is currently a research associate. He loves the visual
approach to mathematics, especially links between
mathematics and art.

In Figure 1, the angle between a fence post and the fence rail is a right angle. On the
other hand, in a projective image, such as a perspective drawing or the photograph in
Figure 2, the measure of the image of a right angle may well not be 90 . But should all
angles be disregarded in projective geometry? We answer No, and describe a sense in
which certain angles are preserved by projective transformations, although generally
projective geometry disregards all considerations of distance and angle [3, p. xii].

The Casey angle


Consider the four fence posts in Figures 1 and 2. It turns out that from the intersection of the two semicircles, the angle subtended by the inner semicircle endpoints is
60 . This is easy to prove in Figure 1, and easy to check empirically in Figure 2 by
measuring with a protractor. We go on to discuss some applications of the invariance
of these angles to projective geometry, perspective drawing, and photography in hopes

60

= 90

Figure 1. Two angles associated with a fence.


http://dx.doi.org/10.4169/college.math.j.43.5.354
MSC: 51N15

354

THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

60
0 < 90

Figure 2.

of convincing the reader that they deserve to be better known. These are examples of
a concept we dub the Casey angle, after a theorem by the Irish geometer John Casey
(18201891).
Consider any four distinct points on a line, denoted in order by A, C, B, D, as in
Figure 3. Let O be an intersection point of the circles with diameters AB and CD. The
angle = 6 COB is the Casey angle of the four points.

Figure 3. The Casey angle of four collinear points.

Observe that O lies on the circle with diameter AB in Figure 3, hence m(6 AOB) =
90 , where m denotes the measure of an angle. Consequently, the Casey angle satisfies
0 < < 90 . Observe also that unlike the angles 0 and , the Casey angle in Figure 2 is not the projected image of that in Figure 1. For instance, if the semicircles in
Figure 1 were physically in the plane of the fence, their projected images in Figure 2
would be elliptical arcsnot semicirclesand the corresponding angle would not be
60 . Instead, we should think of the semicircles and the Casey angles as compass and
straightedge constructions drawn on the figures. This is the sense in which the Casey
angle is preserved: if we take a photograph of the fence, or a photograph of the photograph, et cetera, the corresponding semicircles may vary but the measure of the Casey
angle remains the same. In fact, this construction serves as a partial check on a perspective drawing of a fence: if the Casey angle corresponding to the four fence post
tops isnt 60 , then there is a mistake in the drawing.
VOL. 43, NO. 5, NOVEMBER 2012 THE COLLEGE MATHEMATICS JOURNAL

355

Caseys theorem
Caseys theorem is based on the cross ratio. The cross ratio (AB, CD) of four collinear
points A, B, C, D is given by
(AB, CD) =

kACkkBDk
,
kCBkkDAk

where each quantity e.g., kACk, is a directed distance. This means that a positive
direction is arbitrarily assigned to the line, so that kACk and kCAk have the same
magnitude but opposite sign. Since there are an even number of directed distances in
the expression, the number of negative directed distances remains even or odd if the
positive direction is reversed, so the choice of the positive direction does not affect the
cross ratio.
A fundamental result of projective geometry is that the cross ratio is projectively
invariant: if A, B, C, D are four collinear points and A0 , B 0 , C 0 , D 0 are their images
under a projective transformation, then A0 , B 0 , C 0 , D 0 are collinear and (AB, CD) =
(A0 B 0 , C 0 D 0 ). The invariance holds when the labels of the points are permuted, so
there is more than one invariant numerical quantity associated with a given quadruple
of collinear points. Although there are 4! = 24 ways to apply the labels A, B, C, D
to four points, it is well known that permuting the labels leads to at most six distinct
values of the cross ratio. Specifically, if one labeling gives for the cross ratio, the set
3 of all cross ratio values of the four points is


1
1

1
,
,
.
(1)
3 = , , 1 ,

1
Caseys theorem expresses the six cross ratio values in (1) in terms of the six
trigonometric functions and the Casey angle:
Caseys Theorem. The set 3 of the cross ratio values of four distinct collinear
points can be written


3 = 3() = sin2 , cos2 , csc2 , sec2 , tan2 , cot2 ,
(2)
where is the Casey angle of the four points.
In textbooks the proof of Caseys theorem is typically left as an exercise (see for
example [4, p. 93], [8, p. 194], or [6, p. 155]). The statement of the theorem may also
include the fact that 2 is the angle at O between (the tangents of) the two semicircles
in Figure 3. We also leave the proof for the reader, with the following hint. The fact
that (AB, CD) = cot2 follows using the formula for the cross ratio and the law of
sines. The other elements of 3() are generated using the formulas in (1), and basic
trigonometric identities. Its also helpful to use the fact that the inscribed angles 6 AOB
and 6 COD are right angles. (Readers familiar with the cross ratio of four concurrent
lines can take a shortcut to this proof.)
As suggested by Figures 1 and 2, the Casey angle is invariant in perspective drawing
and photography. To be more precise, we first state without proof that if A, C, B, D
are collinear points appearing in that order, then their respective images A0 , C 0 , B 0 , D 0
in a photograph or perspective drawing are collinear points appearing in the corresponding order. Thus, as mentioned earlier, we have both (AB, CD) = cot2 and
(A0 B 0 , C 0 D 0 ) = cot2 , where and are the respective Casey angles. The invariance of the cross ratio then gives cot2 = cot2 . It is easy to check that the function
7 cot2 is one-to-one on (0, /2), and hence = .
356

THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

Photographs and drawings


Photogrammetry is the science of extracting three-dimensional information from twodimensional photographic images. Many techniques of photogrammetry also apply to
perspective drawings and paintings. Here we present a simple application of the cross
ratio to photogrammetry, with the Casey angle in a central role.
Our starting point is the perspective image of two books lying on a table as in
Figure 4. The goal is to determine what the indicated angle is between the actual
physical books on the table, omitting the trivial cases in which the angle is 0 or 90 .
Calling this the actual angle, we phrase the question as follows: What is the actual
angle between the books depicted in Figure 4?

Figure 4. What is the actual angle between the books?

Simply measuring the image of the actual angle with a protractor will not give the
correct answer, because of the distortion caused by the oblique point of view. This
is not an angle preserved by projective transformations. To frame the correct answer,
we show the same books in Figure 5, with their sides extended to pairsA, B and
C, Dof vanishing points on the horizon line. Because the actual angle is not 0 or

Figure 5. It is the Casey angle of the vanishing points!

VOL. 43, NO. 5, NOVEMBER 2012 THE COLLEGE MATHEMATICS JOURNAL

357

90 , the vanishing points are distinct. Therefore the four points have a Casey angle .
This angle is the solution we seek.
To explain, we briefly review some concepts from the theory of perspective. Figure 6 is a birds-eye view of an observer looking with one eye from the viewpoint E
through a picture plane at a rectangle lying in the ground plane (or a plane parallel
to the ground plane). In the balloon we have the observers view of the image in the
picture plane, including the vanishing pointsA, Bon the horizon line.

ground plane
rectangle in
ground plane

picture plane

parallel

parallel

what the viewer sees

E
A

B
viewing semicircle
parallel to
ground plane

Figure 6. Observer looking through a picture plane at a rectangle lying in the ground plane.

The key idea is the relationship between the viewpoint, the vanishing points, and
the rectangle in the ground plane. It is a basic fact of linear perspective that every
perspective drawing or photograph has a unique viewpoint, from which the image is
meant to be viewed with one eye [5]. This point is the center of projection when the
real world is projected onto the picture plane. From this viewpoint, the line of sight to a
vanishing point is parallel in space to the lines in the real world whose images converge
to that point. Therefore, since adjacent sides of the rectangle in the ground plane (or
a book on the table) meet at right angles, the lines of sight EA and EB are mutually
perpendicular and parallel to the ground plane. It follows from plane geometry that
the viewpoint E lies on the semicircle AB parallel to the ground plane, indicated in
Figure 6. We call this semicircle the viewing semicircle.
In Figure 7 we look down on an observer viewing a wall-sized version of the picture
of the two books. As in Figure 5, the points A, B are the vanishing points of the book
on the right, and the points C, D are the vanishing points of the book on the left.
The corresponding viewing semicircles, both parallel to the ground plane, determine
the viewpoint E at their intersection. Two edges of the image of the left-hand book
have been extended to meet C, and two edges of the image of the right-hand book
have been extended to meet B. Since the lines of sight EC and EB are parallel to the
358

THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

Figure 7. The viewpoint E is the vertex of the Casey angle of the vanishing points A, C, B, D.

corresponding edges of the actual books, the actual angle between the books is the
Casey angle = m(6 CEB), as we claimed.

Conclusion
In the Renaissance, art lovers had their first experience of seeing realistic twodimensional representations of the real world, in the form of paintings and frescoes.
Today our experience is flooded with the counterparts of these paintings: photographic
images from newspapers, magazines, and the Internet, and we frequently make our
own such images with digital cameras and cell phones. Embedded in these many
images are interesting geometric relationships, including examples of projective invariants. One of the easiest invariants to visualize is the Casey angle, which can be
represented as a single measurement with a protractor. In many cases we can use it to
extract information about the real worlddespite the distortion of perspectiveand
better understand the relationship of the viewpoint and vanishing points in perspective
drawings.
An appropriate selection of photographs, together with straightedges, compasses,
and protractors, can serve as materials for interesting classroom experiments with the
Casey angle. Such experiments reveal surprising mathematical relationshipsright in
front of our eyes all the timeand make an interesting counterpoint to the notion that
angles have no place in projective geometry.
On a historical note, John Casey is perhaps best known for another Caseys theorem, which is sometimes regarded as a generalization of Ptolemys theorem (see
for example [7]). The first prominent mathematician to investigate perspective with
multiple vanishing points as used in this article was Brook Taylor, who wrote two versions of a treatise on the subject for artists [9, 10]. For an interesting account of this
work, see the excellent books by Kirsti Andersen [1, 2].
VOL. 43, NO. 5, NOVEMBER 2012 THE COLLEGE MATHEMATICS JOURNAL

359

Summary. When a plane figure is photographed from different viewpoints, lengths and angles
appear distorted. Hence it is often assumed that lengths, angles, protractors, and compasses
have no place in projective geometry. Here we describe a sense in which certain angles are
preserved by projective transformations. These angles can be constructed with compass and
straightedge on existing projective images, giving insights into photography and perspective
drawing.

References
1. K. Andersen, Brook Taylors Work on Linear Perspective: A Study of Taylors Role in the History of Perspective Geometry. Including Facsimiles of Taylors Two Books on Perspective, Springer-Verlag, New York,
1992.
2.
, The Geometry of an Art: The History of the Mathematical Theory of Perspective from Alberti to
Monge, Springer, New York, 2006.
3. H. S. M. Coxeter and S. L. Greitzer, Geometry Revisited, Mathematical Association of America, Washington
DC, 1967.
4. H. Eves, A Survey of Geometry, Allyn and Bacon, Boston MA, 1963.
5. M. Frantz and A. Crannell, Viewpoints: Mathematical Perspective and Fractal Geometry in Art, Princeton
University Press, Princeton NJ, 2011.
6. A. F. Horadam, A Guide to Undergraduate Projective Geometry, Pergamon Press, Australia, 1970.
7. R. Johnson, Advanced Euclidean Geometry, Dover, Mineola NY, 2007.
8. D. C. Kay, College Geometry, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1969.
9. B. Taylor, Linear Perspective, R. Knaplock, London, 1715.
, New Principles of Linear Perspective, R. Knaplock, London, 1719.
10.

360

THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

Anda mungkin juga menyukai