5 ms·
It seems like lidar has a good result in certain safety cases. Is that a parked white truck stopped in front of you? I tractor trailor crossing the road? Is tha
by random5634 6y ago
It seems like lidar has a good result in certain safety cases. Is that a parked white truck stopped in front of you? I tractor trailor crossing the road? Is that a highway divider I'll be steering you into? These are just some of the accidents I think of with vision that might have been avoided with lidar.
In particular, for pedestrians, bicycles, other vehicles, maybe even children running in street, is the limited resolution enough to still substantially increase safety?
Where I got with this - hitting a brick is bad. Hitting a person is much worse. A fair number of never hit type items seem to still be picked up with Lidar.
But all good points.
- sliken 6y agoWell inherently cameras have much better angular resolution. So for current level of tech you get more pixels per object for any given distance. Lidar's big advantage was a distance for each "pixel", but that advantage seems to mostly disappear for pairs of cameras, at least for common objects like pedestrians, bicycles, most vehicles, etc. However that does depend on edge detection or enough visual detail to be able to match an object through two different perspectives. A featureless white wall that consumes the entire camera view would result in no distance for a stereo camera, but would still work with lidar. Not sure if that's enough of a limitation to break things with say a large white 18-wheeler crossing the road. I've heard new interest in mm wave (60 GHz or so) radar, but no idea where it falls compared to lidar and stereo cameras as far as distance and angular resolution and sample rate.