5 ms·

I assume LIDAR is needed since the AI isn't advanced enough to do depth perception? If I can drive with two eye balls, then I'd think a circular camera array w

I assume LIDAR is needed since the AI isn't advanced enough to do depth perception? If I can drive with two eye balls, then I'd think a circular camera array would be plenty. Maybe this is what Tesla plans on using (in combination with RADAR).

Animats 9y ago
That's what Tesla used until they plowed into cars partially blocking a lane. Four times for which there's video. I've posted the links previously.
dljsjr 9y ago
While LIDAR and stereo cameras (as well as RGBD depth cameras like Kinect) both effectively do the same thing, LIDAR typically has a much longer effective range while keeping high resolution. To give you an example, this[1] commercially available sensor head can give great resolution stereo depth at around 10m but the included LIDAR unit is good out to around 30m. LIDAR also has the advantage of operating on a different portion of the EM spectrum. It can sometimes be more well behaved in situations where there might be interference on the visible light wavelengths but not on the LIDAR wavelengths which is typically IR (e.g. extremely bright sunny days). I think that there's a place for both in vehicles as a sort of redundancy. While they both mostly do the same things, they do them in different ways, and if LIDAR can be made cost effective then having both is a huge gain. [1]: https://carnegierobotics.com/multisense-sl/ https://carnegierobotics.com/multisense-sl/
- ajross 9y ago
  That sensor you linked looks to have its two cameras about 10cm apart. A car is easily 1.5m wide, giving a very cheap 15x increase in range for far objects and beating the LIDAR quote by a ton (and of course you can have multiple camera pairs for different distance ranges of course). I'm with the grandparent: I genuinely don't understand the obsession with LIDAR in this space. It's complicated and fiddly, and seems to be competing with an "obvious" solution involving $3 camera parts.
  - dljsjr 9y ago
    More cameras still doesn't fix the interaction with ambient light and LIDAR units like the ones produced by Velodyne or Ibeo have ranges out to 200m[1] Again, I think they both have their uses. If LIDAR can be made not so complicated and fiddly, I think it brings a lot to the table. [1]: https://autonomoustuff.com/product/ibeo-lux-standard/ https://autonomoustuff.com/product/ibeo-lux-standard/
    - ajross 9y ago
      Sure, it could. But again its competition is cheap camera hardware that can be had for a few bucks and that outperforms the human eyeballs that we know are safe enough to drive cars on real roads. I don't doubt that LIDAR can work with some development. I'm just shocked that it seems to be the default position in the industry and want someone to explain this to me in a way that makes sense.
- 2_listerine_pls 9y ago
  This is also LIDAR.
melling 9y ago
Don't you always want a real world measurement of distance? Even if AI gets it (mostly) right, getting a second input that verifies your path is clear seems like a good idea.
- valuearb 9y ago
  not for 20% higher vehicle costs.
mrfusion 9y ago
Don’t forget you can also drive reasonably well with one eye closed. The stereo stuff isn’t buying you much for driving.
- olegkikin 9y ago
  Humans tend to move their heads, which is why one-eyed depth perception still works.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Humans can also drive RC cars, airplanes, quadcopters, etc using a single unmovable camera.
    - gruez 9y ago
      Also video games
taeric 9y ago
We don't want something that merely drives as well as a person. We want something that does better. To that end, if it is easier to build sensors that don't have to train so hard on just 2d images, why wouldn't we?
- cryptonector 9y ago
  something that merely drives as well as a person would be _awesome_ today, depending on which person we're comparing it to anyways... :) And if in 15 years it could do much better, great.
Symmetry 9y ago
If you're moving through easy to distinguish objects then optical flow is usually enough to provide depth and avoid hitting things. But not always. Your eye+retina are still a better camera and processing system than anything we can produce artificially at tasks like this. I'd bet a machine could do as well in 5 years or so but not now.
leohutson 9y ago
By analogy, why don't we make planes that are flappy winged ornithopters? It works for birds.
2_listerine_pls 9y ago
Forget about cars, this tech is applicable beyond cars. They could potentially scan colors by changing the frequency, discern materials and even use different resolutions, which could make scans much faster. I have no idea why nobody did it so long ago.

Animats 9y ago

That's what Tesla used until they plowed into cars partially blocking a lane. Four times for which there's video. I've posted the links previously.

dljsjr 9y ago

While LIDAR and stereo cameras (as well as RGBD depth cameras like Kinect) both effectively do the same thing, LIDAR typically has a much longer effective range while keeping high resolution. To give you an example, this[1] commercially available sensor head can give great resolution stereo depth at around 10m but the included LIDAR unit is good out to around 30m. LIDAR also has the advantage of operating on a different portion of the EM spectrum. It can sometimes be more well behaved in situations where there might be interference on the visible light wavelengths but not on the LIDAR wavelengths which is typically IR (e.g. extremely bright sunny days). I think that there's a place for both in vehicles as a sort of redundancy. While they both mostly do the same things, they do them in different ways, and if LIDAR can be made cost effective then having both is a huge gain. [1]: https://carnegierobotics.com/multisense-sl/ https://carnegierobotics.com/multisense-sl/

ajross 9y ago
That sensor you linked looks to have its two cameras about 10cm apart. A car is easily 1.5m wide, giving a very cheap 15x increase in range for far objects and beating the LIDAR quote by a ton (and of course you can have multiple camera pairs for different distance ranges of course). I'm with the grandparent: I genuinely don't understand the obsession with LIDAR in this space. It's complicated and fiddly, and seems to be competing with an "obvious" solution involving $3 camera parts.
- dljsjr 9y ago
  More cameras still doesn't fix the interaction with ambient light and LIDAR units like the ones produced by Velodyne or Ibeo have ranges out to 200m[1] Again, I think they both have their uses. If LIDAR can be made not so complicated and fiddly, I think it brings a lot to the table. [1]: https://autonomoustuff.com/product/ibeo-lux-standard/ https://autonomoustuff.com/product/ibeo-lux-standard/
  - ajross 9y ago
    Sure, it could. But again its competition is cheap camera hardware that can be had for a few bucks and that outperforms the human eyeballs that we know are safe enough to drive cars on real roads. I don't doubt that LIDAR can work with some development. I'm just shocked that it seems to be the default position in the industry and want someone to explain this to me in a way that makes sense.
2_listerine_pls 9y ago
This is also LIDAR.

melling 9y ago

Don't you always want a real world measurement of distance? Even if AI gets it (mostly) right, getting a second input that verifies your path is clear seems like a good idea.

valuearb 9y ago
not for 20% higher vehicle costs.

mrfusion 9y ago

Don’t forget you can also drive reasonably well with one eye closed. The stereo stuff isn’t buying you much for driving.

olegkikin 9y ago
Humans tend to move their heads, which is why one-eyed depth perception still works.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Humans can also drive RC cars, airplanes, quadcopters, etc using a single unmovable camera.
  - gruez 9y ago
    Also video games

taeric 9y ago

We don't want something that merely drives as well as a person. We want something that does better. To that end, if it is easier to build sensors that don't have to train so hard on just 2d images, why wouldn't we?

cryptonector 9y ago
something that merely drives as well as a person would be _awesome_ today, depending on which person we're comparing it to anyways... :) And if in 15 years it could do much better, great.

Symmetry 9y ago

If you're moving through easy to distinguish objects then optical flow is usually enough to provide depth and avoid hitting things. But not always. Your eye+retina are still a better camera and processing system than anything we can produce artificially at tasks like this. I'd bet a machine could do as well in 5 years or so but not now.

leohutson 9y ago

By analogy, why don't we make planes that are flappy winged ornithopters? It works for birds.

2_listerine_pls 9y ago

Forget about cars, this tech is applicable beyond cars. They could potentially scan colors by changing the frequency, discern materials and even use different resolutions, which could make scans much faster. I have no idea why nobody did it so long ago.