5 ms·

I compare it to the backup camera in my car. While close up at night it is good, if something or someone is a short distance away I can barely make them out. Ho

I compare it to the backup camera in my car. While close up at night it is good, if something or someone is a short distance away I can barely make them out. However, looking in my mirrors I can see them or at least make out that someone or something is there.

mozumder 9y ago
A camera can have pretty good dynamic range at night, but it needs a big sensor, a huge lens to operate with a fast shutter speed. In the video, you can already see the motion blur, indicating shutter speed is slower than what it needs to be to identify nearby objects in low light. Autonomous cars are never going to be viable. Just looking at the cost of high-end SLR sensors and lenses that you'd need to match human eye dynamic range, and you're already looking at an expensive setup, before we even get to things like 360-degree vision and IR/LIDAR/Hyperspectral imaging. And that's in addition to all the compute problems. Sorry Silicon Valley tech-bros, but it's a fantasy you're chasing that's never going to happen. The quicker we can end this scam industry, the better. People really need to be told "no". Probably better to chase after flying cars..
- jader201 9y ago
  I think you’re comparing object detection to high quality photography though. There are plenty of options that can detect objects at night. Even cheap infrared technology, I would think, would be sufficient for picking up moving objects at night.
  - jakeogh 9y ago
    Wetware is astonishing stuff. All the propaganda to anthropomorphize machines is showing here... cheap IR sensors are not the issue. AI is not intelligent and inanimate objects have no self. They should pivit to augmenting drivers, not attempting to drive for them. I would happily utilize a properly designed HUD (meaning I have source access) connected to a fast MerCad or bolometer array.
    - mozumder 9y ago
      > Wetware is astonishing stuff. It really is. The eye can detect a single photon. Fingertips can detect 13nm bumps, smaller than a transistor on Coffee-lake CPUs. We're better off acknowledging machine limits to work on other problems instead.
    - scoggs 9y ago
      Sorry for lack of input or varied discussion but I just had to stop and say how goddamn friggin cool it would be to have bolometers hooked up to a smart HUD that didn't interfere with your vision of the road. Something really translucent that smartly blended it's color scheme as to not interfere with the coloration of signs and details beyond your view on the road / around the road. But you are right, though. I think augmenting drivers sounds like a great idea in the sense you talk about. The kind of augmenting drivers I don't want are those stupid headbands you'd wear that beep like crazy if your head starts tilting in a way that resembles falling asleep. If you are in danger of falling asleep at the wheel and need a device like that I think it's pretty obvious one should take a nap on the side of the road or in a free parking lot, haha. Hopefully if we do wind up headed in that direction the people inventing will have a similar way of thinking and inventing.
  - mozumder 9y ago
    High-quality exists because the human eye is that sensitive and discerning. And there aren't plenty of options that can detect objects at night. IR isn't any cheaper, and then you have to figure out what IR bands you want to detect.
- masklinn 9y ago
  > A camera can have pretty good dynamic range at night No. A camera's dynamic range is pretty much fixed. If you can capture low-light objects it means high-light objects are completely blown out.
  - zip1234 9y ago
    They could have 2 cameras--one for low light, one for high-light fairly cheaply.
    - masklinn 9y ago
      1. A good start would have been to put a good camera in the first place because that one is absolute crap. 2. I'm not sure you can fix the exposure on "fairly cheap" dashcams. 3. "high-light" in night settings are likely much lower than standard daylight, let alone bright daylight. Though I guess you could have an auto-exposure dashcam standard and add a low-light one which is only active in low light conditions.
  - imaginenore 9y ago
    No. The dynamic range of the camera depends on the ISO. http://i.imgur.com/dhcr6YO.png http://i.imgur.com/dhcr6YO.png So the comment above you is correct. A larger sensor can shoot at a lower ISO in the same lighting conditions, because its noise levels are lower.
  - Drdrdrq 9y ago
    Which is the same as with our eyes. There are ways around that limitation.
  - todd8 9y ago
    I've read (see [1]) that humans have a low-light ability that approximates ISO 60,000, a pretty large value and larger than simple video cameras provide. However, very high end pro/enthusiast SLR's go considerably higher, see this real-time astrophotography with the Sony a7s at ISO 409,600 (youtube video [2]). The same Sony will work great in full sunlight too. The Canon ME20F-SH is a video camera reaches ISO 4,000,000. This camera has a dynamic range of 12 stops and is available at B&H for $20,000. [4] Of course, this isn't exactly the challenge that cameras face when assessing a scene. The dynamic range happens within a single scene all at the same time. Wide dynamic range (WDR) is the term I've seen used in describing video cameras that can handle both bright and dim areas within the same scene. [1] http://lightartacademy.com/blog/tutorials/camera-vs-the-human-eye/ http://lightartacademy.com/blog/tutorials/camera-vs-the-huma... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRzXgSMbBu0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRzXgSMbBu0 [3] https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.ht... [4] https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1187825-REG/canon_1002c002_me20f_sh_multi_purpose_camera.html?ap=y&c3api=1876%2C%7Bcreative%7D%2C%7Bkeyword%7D&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI2PGTiPuA2gIVwbXACh09XgorEAQYASABEgJxxvD_BwE https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1187825-REG/canon_100...

mozumder 9y ago

A camera can have pretty good dynamic range at night, but it needs a big sensor, a huge lens to operate with a fast shutter speed. In the video, you can already see the motion blur, indicating shutter speed is slower than what it needs to be to identify nearby objects in low light. Autonomous cars are never going to be viable. Just looking at the cost of high-end SLR sensors and lenses that you'd need to match human eye dynamic range, and you're already looking at an expensive setup, before we even get to things like 360-degree vision and IR/LIDAR/Hyperspectral imaging. And that's in addition to all the compute problems. Sorry Silicon Valley tech-bros, but it's a fantasy you're chasing that's never going to happen. The quicker we can end this scam industry, the better. People really need to be told "no". Probably better to chase after flying cars..

jader201 9y ago
I think you’re comparing object detection to high quality photography though. There are plenty of options that can detect objects at night. Even cheap infrared technology, I would think, would be sufficient for picking up moving objects at night.
- jakeogh 9y ago
  Wetware is astonishing stuff. All the propaganda to anthropomorphize machines is showing here... cheap IR sensors are not the issue. AI is not intelligent and inanimate objects have no self. They should pivit to augmenting drivers, not attempting to drive for them. I would happily utilize a properly designed HUD (meaning I have source access) connected to a fast MerCad or bolometer array.
  - mozumder 9y ago
    > Wetware is astonishing stuff. It really is. The eye can detect a single photon. Fingertips can detect 13nm bumps, smaller than a transistor on Coffee-lake CPUs. We're better off acknowledging machine limits to work on other problems instead.
  - scoggs 9y ago
    Sorry for lack of input or varied discussion but I just had to stop and say how goddamn friggin cool it would be to have bolometers hooked up to a smart HUD that didn't interfere with your vision of the road. Something really translucent that smartly blended it's color scheme as to not interfere with the coloration of signs and details beyond your view on the road / around the road. But you are right, though. I think augmenting drivers sounds like a great idea in the sense you talk about. The kind of augmenting drivers I don't want are those stupid headbands you'd wear that beep like crazy if your head starts tilting in a way that resembles falling asleep. If you are in danger of falling asleep at the wheel and need a device like that I think it's pretty obvious one should take a nap on the side of the road or in a free parking lot, haha. Hopefully if we do wind up headed in that direction the people inventing will have a similar way of thinking and inventing.
- mozumder 9y ago
  High-quality exists because the human eye is that sensitive and discerning. And there aren't plenty of options that can detect objects at night. IR isn't any cheaper, and then you have to figure out what IR bands you want to detect.
masklinn 9y ago
> A camera can have pretty good dynamic range at night No. A camera's dynamic range is pretty much fixed. If you can capture low-light objects it means high-light objects are completely blown out.
- zip1234 9y ago
  They could have 2 cameras--one for low light, one for high-light fairly cheaply.
  - masklinn 9y ago
    1. A good start would have been to put a good camera in the first place because that one is absolute crap. 2. I'm not sure you can fix the exposure on "fairly cheap" dashcams. 3. "high-light" in night settings are likely much lower than standard daylight, let alone bright daylight. Though I guess you could have an auto-exposure dashcam standard and add a low-light one which is only active in low light conditions.
- imaginenore 9y ago
  No. The dynamic range of the camera depends on the ISO. http://i.imgur.com/dhcr6YO.png http://i.imgur.com/dhcr6YO.png So the comment above you is correct. A larger sensor can shoot at a lower ISO in the same lighting conditions, because its noise levels are lower.
- Drdrdrq 9y ago
  Which is the same as with our eyes. There are ways around that limitation.
- todd8 9y ago
  I've read (see [1]) that humans have a low-light ability that approximates ISO 60,000, a pretty large value and larger than simple video cameras provide. However, very high end pro/enthusiast SLR's go considerably higher, see this real-time astrophotography with the Sony a7s at ISO 409,600 (youtube video [2]). The same Sony will work great in full sunlight too. The Canon ME20F-SH is a video camera reaches ISO 4,000,000. This camera has a dynamic range of 12 stops and is available at B&H for $20,000. [4] Of course, this isn't exactly the challenge that cameras face when assessing a scene. The dynamic range happens within a single scene all at the same time. Wide dynamic range (WDR) is the term I've seen used in describing video cameras that can handle both bright and dim areas within the same scene. [1] http://lightartacademy.com/blog/tutorials/camera-vs-the-human-eye/ http://lightartacademy.com/blog/tutorials/camera-vs-the-huma... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRzXgSMbBu0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRzXgSMbBu0 [3] https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.ht... [4] https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1187825-REG/canon_1002c002_me20f_sh_multi_purpose_camera.html?ap=y&c3api=1876%2C%7Bcreative%7D%2C%7Bkeyword%7D&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI2PGTiPuA2gIVwbXACh09XgorEAQYASABEgJxxvD_BwE https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1187825-REG/canon_100...