5 ms·

Self-driving. Ideally you want something around 1000fps and low latency, so it has time to react. I'm sure military and sports applications are obvious too.

raverbashing 6y ago
Doubt Humans reaction times are much slower than that. In fact for some things it can take a whole second https://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/reactiontime.html https://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/reactiontime.html Maybe racing sports have shorter reaction times, but I'd be frankly surprised if it was something < 100ms 10fps for your average drive should be more than enough
- cm2187 6y ago
  Answering my own question. Possibly industrial applications like detecting objects on a fast conveyor belt. A recycling facility for instance.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  100ms is generally considered to be the lower bound for a valid start, i.e. 99 would be considered a jump start in F1 iirc
- gcanyon 6y ago
  But machines aren't (yet) as capable as humans at driving-situation-recognition and driving-decision-making. One way they can compensate for those shortcomings is to be superior in other ways: 100% vigilance and super-fast reaction times/decision-making.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  No, that's only if you want the human to be able to make the reaction. If the application was self-driving, you'd prefer the car to react faster than a human. For a military application like projectile detection to avoid or destroy the object, you'd want something even faster.
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  For reference I am making a farming robot that goes at 1 meter per second and I run the main control loop at 10hz. I would absolutely run a car that goes freeway speeds at at least 100hz.
- bufferoverflow 6y ago
  I'm not sure what your argument is. Any self-driving system should strive to be much better than human drivers. It makes complete sense to have reaction time much better than human.
gugagore 6y ago
I don't think you'll find a 1000 fps camera on a "standard" AV platform. And if you did, I imagine it would be too noisy to be useful without a ton of illumination.
- Aeolos 6y ago
  Smartphones offer 960fps video capture since a while now.

raverbashing 6y ago

Doubt Humans reaction times are much slower than that. In fact for some things it can take a whole second https://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/reactiontime.html https://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/reactiontime.html Maybe racing sports have shorter reaction times, but I'd be frankly surprised if it was something < 100ms 10fps for your average drive should be more than enough

cm2187 6y ago
Answering my own question. Possibly industrial applications like detecting objects on a fast conveyor belt. A recycling facility for instance.
mhh__ 6y ago
100ms is generally considered to be the lower bound for a valid start, i.e. 99 would be considered a jump start in F1 iirc
gcanyon 6y ago
But machines aren't (yet) as capable as humans at driving-situation-recognition and driving-decision-making. One way they can compensate for those shortcomings is to be superior in other ways: 100% vigilance and super-fast reaction times/decision-making.
ineedasername 6y ago
No, that's only if you want the human to be able to make the reaction. If the application was self-driving, you'd prefer the car to react faster than a human. For a military application like projectile detection to avoid or destroy the object, you'd want something even faster.
TaylorAlexander 6y ago
For reference I am making a farming robot that goes at 1 meter per second and I run the main control loop at 10hz. I would absolutely run a car that goes freeway speeds at at least 100hz.
bufferoverflow 6y ago
I'm not sure what your argument is. Any self-driving system should strive to be much better than human drivers. It makes complete sense to have reaction time much better than human.

gugagore 6y ago

I don't think you'll find a 1000 fps camera on a "standard" AV platform. And if you did, I imagine it would be too noisy to be useful without a ton of illumination.

Aeolos 6y ago
Smartphones offer 960fps video capture since a while now.