The $200 Logitech cameras have 3-exposure HDR support with high frame rate and sensitivity, including IR. No one knows what the specs of the sensors are in the

The $200 Logitech cameras have 3-exposure HDR support with high frame rate and sensitivity, including IR. No one knows what the specs of the sensors are in the car but there are physical limits on what you can do with pure electronic exposure control (fixed iris). If the sensors on the Tesla were really that good, why did they blame them on the accident where it could not distinguish between a white tractor trailer and the horizon? In that case, plenty of light was available so it points to saturation or low dynamic range. If the sensor is saturated and has no way to physically limit the amount of light incident on it, there is no amount of clever software or filtering that can provide anything other than noise, but I’m sure you know this. It’s also a function of heat, all that light heats up the sensor and has to be removed and dissipated some how (and quickly) before the next reading is taken. The more heat, the more noise and depending on the noise process model, the less overall range. High sensitivity and high range are conflicting goals and subject to design trade offs that when both are necessary increase the overall system complexity. The whole “humans can drive via vision” thing is a misnomer because human eyes are extraordinarily sensitive, ultra wide angle, stabilized (basically like having a gimbal), accurately temperature controlled via your body, and don’t have a fixed iris. It seems that in order to make that claim, you’d need to first develop a sensor that at least meets or exceeds the specs of the human eye, which no one has really done yet, at least not in an economically and reliable enough package to put on a car. Given enough time, money and equipment it could be done but the sensor would look (and cost) more like something you’d see on an expensive astronomer’s telescope.