4 ms·

As a human, I would probably crash into it, depending on what I seen from non-compressed and compressed version. However, camera works differently from human ey

by kiba 5y ago

As a human, I would probably crash into it, depending on what I seen from non-compressed and compressed version. However, camera works differently from human eyes.

ryanSrich 5y ago
Idk. The non-compressed version makes it seem like the truck was very visible. I think any driver paying attention would have at least applied some braking.
- kiba 5y ago
  I watched the compressed version before seeing this non-compressed version, so I was primed to expect the black truck. Maybe I would have stopped. Maybe not.
  - saalweachter 5y ago
    Derailing, I wonder how hard it would be to have emergency lights on a vehicle that trigger after an accident.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      This is already present on many cars. After decelerating fast the alarm lights come on. For instance: https://www.volvocars.com/lb/support/manuals/s60/2015w46/starting-and-driving/brakes/foot-brake---emergency-brake-lights-and-automatic-hazard-warning-flashers https://www.volvocars.com/lb/support/manuals/s60/2015w46/sta...
    - skhr0680 5y ago
      You have to have at least one road flare in your car in Japan or it won’t pass inspection
    - everforward 5y ago
      It seems like it wouldnt be hard to have the hazard lights start blinking if the airbags deploy. I think the issue is that those lights are on the main power circuit, which shuts down if the user turns off the car. That appears to be what happened here, I don't see running lights or anything. I think the person turned their truck off. I honestly don't know if you're supposed to shut your car off after an accident to lower the fire risk, or leave it on to make the car more visible.
      - saalweachter 5y ago
        Two issues that come to mind are (1) keeping the lights on while otherwise shutting off the vehicle and (b) ensuring that the lights don't all get smashed to bits in the accident.
- dymk 5y ago
  Yes, and your human eyes have far better dynamic range than these cameras. Plus, I could tell there was something in the road early on despite the truck not being illuminated, because I saw the oncoming headlines disappearing behind an obstruction. Really shows how Tesla has probably made a big mistake going all-in on camera only vision. And their vision system couldn't make the inference of an obstruction based on the oncoming headlights. Lidar would have been able to detect this easily.
  - blueblisters 5y ago
    How did they even justify the use of a camera-only sensor system for low-light conditions? At least the radar sensors had some complementarity with visible light sensors but they decided to get rid of those too.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
xboxnolifes 5y ago
To me the biggest issue is that there doesn't seem to have been any braking attempt, even at very close distance. Even if it was imperfect or hard to see at a distance, I would expect to see the 75mph reduced even slightly before impact. Every speed reduction is a statistical increase in surviving a crash.
- jaclaz 5y ago
  I concur, it doesn't seem to me like it reacted too late, it didn't react at all seemingly.
toddh 5y ago
Maybe you could. https://twitter.com/TAndersen_nSCIr/status/1473317149171200017 https://twitter.com/TAndersen_nSCIr/status/14733171491712000... Tom Andersen: Your eyes have much wider brightness range than any video camera ever made, and many many times better than the $1 camera on a Tesla. That is not a representation of what human eyes would see. It's a cheap video camera.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
KaiserPro 5y ago
You have to remember that you have a much greater "dynamic range" of vision as a human. That means that you can see much darker and brighter things at the same time. The thing that would(or should) have alerted you as a driver is the reflecting of the truck's lights on the paint of the broken down pickup as it drove past. Although why the truck driver didn't slowdown as it passed a crash is a bit of a mystery. However, Teslas have radar for this sort of things. On the other hand this does kinda underscore the problem of using cameras with global shutter control for self driving. The auto contrast couldnt cope with the oncoming lights, so stopped down the sensitivity of the camera, leaving it blind to that broken truck.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  Do Teslas have radars? I thought their self driving tech was based solely on conventional video cameras? Found: > Beginning with deliveries in May 2021, Model 3 and Model Y vehicles built for the North American market will no longer be equipped with radar. from https://www.tesla.com/support/transitioning-tesla-vision https://www.tesla.com/support/transitioning-tesla-vision, so radar-less is a new thing. That Tesla should have had a radar unless bought recently.
  - KaiserPro 5y ago
    its hw2.5 which does have radar. If its used or not is another matter. either way, having a different class of sensor is wise, to make up for corner cases in the main sensor array.
- vgeek 5y ago
  What is the practical solution for cameras only besides sensors with more dynamic range? Secondary cameras with faster apertures and higher ISOs(or different exposure settings)? Would that also help by allowing triangulation for distances and minimizing false positives for stationary objects? It is more of a technology or cost problem?
  - KaiserPro 5y ago
    Good question. Tesla already have limited number of sensors, and they do most of the driving using monocular(single camera, or single viewpoint with three different zoom levels) inference. This is absolute madness, given the state of current tech. For that night situation, I would be pushing for a different camera type. One that doesn't have a global exposure setting. This means that groups of pixels can be lumped together to have local ISO settings(its more complex than that, and involves integrating processing silicon directly under the sensor, on the same die.). This is a way to get vastly greater dynamic range in a situation where you have lots of point lights (ie headlights) This would require developing and qualifying a new camera sensor from scratch (I don't think generic versions of this type of camera exist yet) Musk is unlikely to do this as he has signaled that everything should be done via ML. Second, using a different wavelength, IR, or near IR. Thirdly, higher wavelength radar. It gives you this information for free, they are cheap and already qualified for vehicles.
fillskills 5y ago
I was driving from Bay Area to a nearby city at night. Lighting was similar. Was driving at about 70-75mph. Saw a flash in the far distance. Had no idea a crash had happened. Out of extreme caution slowed down to 60mph. In about a minute had a truck right in my lane just like this video. Swerved to another lane to avoid crash. The only reason we survived was that we had slowed down based on a random flash. Another thing I don’t understand is why wont Tesla invest in a front only radar sensor to avoid such collisions.

by kiba 5y ago

As a human, I would probably crash into it, depending on what I seen from non-compressed and compressed version. However, camera works differently from human eyes.

ryanSrich 5y ago

Idk. The non-compressed version makes it seem like the truck was very visible. I think any driver paying attention would have at least applied some braking.

kiba 5y ago
I watched the compressed version before seeing this non-compressed version, so I was primed to expect the black truck. Maybe I would have stopped. Maybe not.
- saalweachter 5y ago
  Derailing, I wonder how hard it would be to have emergency lights on a vehicle that trigger after an accident.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    This is already present on many cars. After decelerating fast the alarm lights come on. For instance: https://www.volvocars.com/lb/support/manuals/s60/2015w46/starting-and-driving/brakes/foot-brake---emergency-brake-lights-and-automatic-hazard-warning-flashers https://www.volvocars.com/lb/support/manuals/s60/2015w46/sta...
  - skhr0680 5y ago
    You have to have at least one road flare in your car in Japan or it won’t pass inspection
  - everforward 5y ago
    It seems like it wouldnt be hard to have the hazard lights start blinking if the airbags deploy. I think the issue is that those lights are on the main power circuit, which shuts down if the user turns off the car. That appears to be what happened here, I don't see running lights or anything. I think the person turned their truck off. I honestly don't know if you're supposed to shut your car off after an accident to lower the fire risk, or leave it on to make the car more visible.
    - saalweachter 5y ago
      Two issues that come to mind are (1) keeping the lights on while otherwise shutting off the vehicle and (b) ensuring that the lights don't all get smashed to bits in the accident.
dymk 5y ago
Yes, and your human eyes have far better dynamic range than these cameras. Plus, I could tell there was something in the road early on despite the truck not being illuminated, because I saw the oncoming headlines disappearing behind an obstruction. Really shows how Tesla has probably made a big mistake going all-in on camera only vision. And their vision system couldn't make the inference of an obstruction based on the oncoming headlights. Lidar would have been able to detect this easily.
- blueblisters 5y ago
  How did they even justify the use of a camera-only sensor system for low-light conditions? At least the radar sensors had some complementarity with visible light sensors but they decided to get rid of those too.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

xboxnolifes 5y ago

To me the biggest issue is that there doesn't seem to have been any braking attempt, even at very close distance. Even if it was imperfect or hard to see at a distance, I would expect to see the 75mph reduced even slightly before impact. Every speed reduction is a statistical increase in surviving a crash.

jaclaz 5y ago
I concur, it doesn't seem to me like it reacted too late, it didn't react at all seemingly.

toddh 5y ago

Maybe you could. https://twitter.com/TAndersen_nSCIr/status/1473317149171200017 https://twitter.com/TAndersen_nSCIr/status/14733171491712000... Tom Andersen: Your eyes have much wider brightness range than any video camera ever made, and many many times better than the $1 camera on a Tesla. That is not a representation of what human eyes would see. It's a cheap video camera.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

KaiserPro 5y ago

You have to remember that you have a much greater "dynamic range" of vision as a human. That means that you can see much darker and brighter things at the same time. The thing that would(or should) have alerted you as a driver is the reflecting of the truck's lights on the paint of the broken down pickup as it drove past. Although why the truck driver didn't slowdown as it passed a crash is a bit of a mystery. However, Teslas have radar for this sort of things. On the other hand this does kinda underscore the problem of using cameras with global shutter control for self driving. The auto contrast couldnt cope with the oncoming lights, so stopped down the sensitivity of the camera, leaving it blind to that broken truck.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
Do Teslas have radars? I thought their self driving tech was based solely on conventional video cameras? Found: > Beginning with deliveries in May 2021, Model 3 and Model Y vehicles built for the North American market will no longer be equipped with radar. from https://www.tesla.com/support/transitioning-tesla-vision https://www.tesla.com/support/transitioning-tesla-vision, so radar-less is a new thing. That Tesla should have had a radar unless bought recently.
- KaiserPro 5y ago
  its hw2.5 which does have radar. If its used or not is another matter. either way, having a different class of sensor is wise, to make up for corner cases in the main sensor array.
vgeek 5y ago
What is the practical solution for cameras only besides sensors with more dynamic range? Secondary cameras with faster apertures and higher ISOs(or different exposure settings)? Would that also help by allowing triangulation for distances and minimizing false positives for stationary objects? It is more of a technology or cost problem?
- KaiserPro 5y ago
  Good question. Tesla already have limited number of sensors, and they do most of the driving using monocular(single camera, or single viewpoint with three different zoom levels) inference. This is absolute madness, given the state of current tech. For that night situation, I would be pushing for a different camera type. One that doesn't have a global exposure setting. This means that groups of pixels can be lumped together to have local ISO settings(its more complex than that, and involves integrating processing silicon directly under the sensor, on the same die.). This is a way to get vastly greater dynamic range in a situation where you have lots of point lights (ie headlights) This would require developing and qualifying a new camera sensor from scratch (I don't think generic versions of this type of camera exist yet) Musk is unlikely to do this as he has signaled that everything should be done via ML. Second, using a different wavelength, IR, or near IR. Thirdly, higher wavelength radar. It gives you this information for free, they are cheap and already qualified for vehicles.

fillskills 5y ago

I was driving from Bay Area to a nearby city at night. Lighting was similar. Was driving at about 70-75mph. Saw a flash in the far distance. Had no idea a crash had happened. Out of extreme caution slowed down to 60mph. In about a minute had a truck right in my lane just like this video. Swerved to another lane to avoid crash. The only reason we survived was that we had slowed down based on a random flash. Another thing I don’t understand is why wont Tesla invest in a front only radar sensor to avoid such collisions.