4 ms·
It's really a question of timeframe. You are completely right that we theoretically only need two cameras. But by limiting yourself to 2 cameras (or cameras + o
by argonaut 9y ago
It's really a question of timeframe. You are completely right that we theoretically only need two cameras. But by limiting yourself to 2 cameras (or cameras + other non-lidar sensors) you're just making the problem a lot harder for yourself. That's a lot more computer vision tasks your research team is going to have to solve, a lot more models to develop, a lot more failure cases (less redundancy).
Some of these vision problems have uncertainty over how long it will take to perform at human-level accuracy. Whereas if you go with lidar, I don't think there's any doubt the costs will go down. IMO on the market, a $5k sensor cost is also nothing if your car is actually fully self-driving.
- semi-extrinsic 9y agoTheoretically you only need one camera - there's plenty of people who've lost sight in one eye that learn how to drive and get their drivers licence.
- Neliquat 9y agoI will attest to this. One of the most talented drivers I used to race with had a glass eye from a childhood incident. Also met a delivery driver with one blind eye. The problem is mostly software. And it is far from solved right now. But it will be. My money is still on driver augmentation.