5 ms·
I don't see how you'd draw that conclusion. It seems possible to have a workable, purely optical solution. Our workable solution today relies purely on optical
by abalone 9y ago
I don't see how you'd draw that conclusion. It seems possible to have a workable, purely optical solution. Our workable solution today relies purely on optical (human drivers).
- anindha 9y agoCameras don't have the same dynamic range of the human eye. A more fair test would be giving someone remote control of a Tesla with only access to the video footage. I think cameras will hit parity with the human eye, but the question is will it happen before or after Lidar becomes more affordable and compact.
- byw 9y agoCouldn't you just have multiple cameras of different sensitivity? Cameras are pretty cheap.
- dingo_bat 9y agoThe best cameras nowadays have more dynamic range than human eyes. Although I'm sure Tesla is not using this in its cars.
- Dylan16807 9y agoThe eye's dynamic range at any point in time is actually pretty bad. It's easy to beat the range of the retina with a camera sensor. The human eye can also adjust iris size and light sensitivity, and a camera can match it by adjusting iris size and exposure time. You're probably want a secondary camera for full night vision, but that's not very relevant for driving with headlights anyway.
- robotresearcher 9y agoOptical plus audio, haptic and inertial sensing. And smell, but maybe we can ignore that one.