4 ms·

The failures will continue indefinitely, until Tesla decides to use stereopsis for ranging.

by tbabb 5y ago

gumby 5y ago
Humans don’t really use stereopsis beyond the reach of their arms (which makes sense if you think about it). Beyond that we use semantic cues, which is why we can also understand pictures. Sadly most research in this area went out of fashion 30+ years ago.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  > Humans don’t really use stereopsis beyond the reach of their arms (which makes sense if you think about it). But of course we do. It's how we throw rocks and hit what we aim at. It's how we catch things. It's how we walk around anywhere that has obstacles. We use it beyond the reach of our arms really frequently.
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    I can still throw a rock fairly accurately with one eye closed. I can catch pretty much perfectly with one eye closed. I can walk around without hitting anything with one eye closed.
  - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
    The point was that you don't need stereopsis to do that. Basically, could you do it with one eye closed? Without stereopsis, tasks involving close-up things are harder, but farther away things are not.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      Depends. If I'm hunting with a bow or a throwing stick, I'd bet stereopsis is pretty important. Do I need it? Maybe not, but I'll be more accurate with it. If I'm running through the woods, trying to escape from a bear, stereopsis is pretty useful, because dodging trees while at a dead run is life or death. I don't do either of those, but some of my ancestors probably did. But I play sports. I may be able to catch a ball with one eye. Getting myself to where the ball is going? I couldn't do that as well with only one eye. So: Do I need stereopsis? No. Did the human race? Yes, it was a competitive advantage to have.
      - tbabb 5y ago
        > I play sports. I may be able to catch a ball with one eye I would love to see a sports game where one team can use both eyes, and the other team only has one eye uncovered. I imagine it'd be downright funny.
- tbabb 5y ago
  > Humans don’t really use stereopsis beyond the reach of their arms This is outright false. A person with acute vision can perceive stereopsis out to 1/4 mile. Trivially, 3D movies are projected onto screens which are 10m away. > which is why we can also understand pictures We don't drive using pictures.
rasz 5y ago
But doubling front cameras would add like $200 to the car BOM!!1

The failures will continue indefinitely, until Tesla decides to use stereopsis for ranging.

by tbabb 5y ago

The failures will continue indefinitely, until Tesla decides to use stereopsis for ranging.

Humans don’t really use stereopsis beyond the reach of their arms (which makes sense if you think about it). Beyond that we use semantic cues, which is why we can also understand pictures. Sadly most research in this area went out of fashion 30+ years ago.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
> Humans don’t really use stereopsis beyond the reach of their arms (which makes sense if you think about it). But of course we do. It's how we throw rocks and hit what we aim at. It's how we catch things. It's how we walk around anywhere that has obstacles. We use it beyond the reach of our arms really frequently.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  I can still throw a rock fairly accurately with one eye closed. I can catch pretty much perfectly with one eye closed. I can walk around without hitting anything with one eye closed.
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  The point was that you don't need stereopsis to do that. Basically, could you do it with one eye closed? Without stereopsis, tasks involving close-up things are harder, but farther away things are not.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Depends. If I'm hunting with a bow or a throwing stick, I'd bet stereopsis is pretty important. Do I need it? Maybe not, but I'll be more accurate with it. If I'm running through the woods, trying to escape from a bear, stereopsis is pretty useful, because dodging trees while at a dead run is life or death. I don't do either of those, but some of my ancestors probably did. But I play sports. I may be able to catch a ball with one eye. Getting myself to where the ball is going? I couldn't do that as well with only one eye. So: Do I need stereopsis? No. Did the human race? Yes, it was a competitive advantage to have.
    - tbabb 5y ago
      > I play sports. I may be able to catch a ball with one eye I would love to see a sports game where one team can use both eyes, and the other team only has one eye uncovered. I imagine it'd be downright funny.
tbabb 5y ago
> Humans don’t really use stereopsis beyond the reach of their arms This is outright false. A person with acute vision can perceive stereopsis out to 1/4 mile. Trivially, 3D movies are projected onto screens which are 10m away. > which is why we can also understand pictures We don't drive using pictures.

rasz 5y ago

But doubling front cameras would add like $200 to the car BOM!!1