Assuming the static scene, with a single camera moving exactly sideways at small distance, there are two frames and a following computed optic flow (I use opencv's calcOpticalFlowFarneback):
Here scatter points are detected features, which are painted in pseudocolor with depth values (red is little depth, close to the camera, blue is more distant). Now, I obtain those depth values by simply inverting optic flow magnitude, like d = 1 / flow. Seems kinda intuitive, in a motion-parallax-way - the brighter the object, the closer it is to the observer. So there's a cube, exposing a frontal edge and a bit of a side edge to the camera.
But then I'm trying to project those feature points from camera plane to the real-life coordinates to make a kind of top view map (where X = (x * d) / f and Y = d (where d is depth, x is pixel coordinate, f is focal length, and X and Y are real-life coordinates). And here's what I get:
Well, doesn't look cubic to me. Looks like the picture is skewed to the right. I've spent some time thinking about why, and it seems that 1 / flow is not an accurate depth metric. Playing with different values, say, if I use 1 / power(flow, 1 / 3), I get a better picture:
But, of course, power of 1 / 3 is just a magic number out of my head. The question is, what is the relationship between optic flow in depth in general, and how do I suppose to estimate it for a given scene? We're just considering camera translation here. I've stumbled upon some papers, but no luck trying to find a general equation yet. Some, like that one, propose a variation of 1 / flow, which isn't going to work, I guess.
Update
What bothers me a little is that simple geometry points me to 1 / flow answer too. Like, optic flow is the same (in my case) as disparity, right? Then using this formula I get d = Bf / (x2 - x1), where B is distance between two camera positions, f is focal length, x2-x1 is precisely the optic flow. Focal length is a constant, and B is constant for any two given frames, so that leaves me with 1 / flow again multiplied by a constant. Do I misunderstand something about what optic flow is?
for a static scene, moving a camera precisely sideways a known amount, is exactly the same as a stereo camera setup. From this, you can indeed estimate depth, if your system is calibrated.
Note that calibration in this sense is rather broad. In order to get real accurate depth, you will need to in the end supply a scale parameter on top of the regular calibration stuff you have in openCV, or else there is a single uniform ambiguity of the 3D (This last step is often called going to the "metric" reconstruction from only the "Euclidean").
Another thing which is apart of broad calibration is lens distortion compensation. Before anything else, you probably want to force your cameras to behave like pin-hole cameras (which real-world cameras usually dont).
With that said, optical flow is definetely very different from a metric depth map. If you properly calibraty and rectify your system first, then optical flow is still not equivalent to disparity estimation. If your system is rectified, there is no point in doing a full optical flow estimation (such as Farnebäck), because the problem is thereafter constrained along the horizontal lines of the image. Doing a full optical flow estimation (giving 2 d.o.f) will introduce more error after said rectification likely.
A great reference for all this stuff is the classic "Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision"