5 ms·
The mind salivates at the idea of sub-$100 and soon after sub-$10 Lidar. We could build spatial awareness into damn near everything. It'll be a cambrian explosi
by zemvpferreira 8mo ago
The mind salivates at the idea of sub-$100 and soon after sub-$10 Lidar. We could build spatial awareness into damn near everything. It'll be a cambrian explosion of autonomous robots.
- esskay 8mo agoRIP to every single camera in existence if that happens. Lidar is awful with damaging camera lenses.
- hinoki 8mo agoI had to look this up, because I had never heard of it. How could a lens be damaged by infrared lasers? It turns out it’s the sensors that are easily damaged by high powered lidar lasers. https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/keeping-lidars-from-zapping-camera-chips-2650277956 https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/keeping-lidars-from-zapping-ca...
- shinycode 8mo agoThere is complains that some Volvo cars damaged iPhone cameras. It’s not even clear if Apple takes those under warranty. We’ve seen car review YouTubers that got their iPhone camera sensors damaged captured (by a second camera) while reviewing
- mikeyouse 8mo agoOne such review where Marques shows how it happened to his phone https://youtube.com/shorts/oeHtfMFdzIY?si=cANJDT5BLfdd9ZUT https://youtube.com/shorts/oeHtfMFdzIY?si=cANJDT5BLfdd9ZUT
- RobotToaster 8mo agoOne highlight from the video, he says most cameras are fine, it's just iphones that don't have a very good IR filter. Which sounds correct, in my experience most cameras have pretty substantial IR filters that have to be removed if you want to photograph IR. I also wonder if the smaller sensor size on phones contributes, since the energy is being focused onto a smaller spot. Either way, for that to happen he was filming the LIDAR while active, for a decent amount of time, from right next to the car. I assume under normal conditions it wouldn't be running constantly while the vehicle is stationary?
- Crespyl 8mo agoIs it possible that the iPhone filters are weaker due to FaceID requirements? I seem to recall that FaceID (and similar systems, like Windows Hello) depend on IR to get a more 3D map of the face, so it'd make sense that they want to be more sensitive in that range. Laptops aren't generally being used in the same areas as cars though, so you wouldn't expect to see as many cases involving Windows Hello compatible laptops/cameras.
- SkiFire13 8mo ago> The biggest concern is not photographic cameras but rather the video cameras mounted on autonomous cars to gather crucial information the cars need to drive themselves. So they don't care if that breaks my phone camera? Wtf?
- cyanydeez 8mo agoThe Epstein classes argument is: If youre not my property, why should We care?
- b112 8mo agoIf this is true, the eyes are no better. Especially as it can't be seen, who will look awsy? And at night, with open irises? There was someone who had his eyes damaged by sitting next to a heater.
- zamadatix 8mo agoAre the eyes really "no better" in this scenario? From the above article it seems we tuned the behavior to the eye specifically (but not necessarily image sensors): > Moving to a longer wavelength that does not penetrate the human eye allows new lidars to fire more powerful pulses and stretch their range beyond 200 meters, far enough for stopping faster cars. Now a claim of lidar damage to the charge-coupled-device (CCD) sensor on a photographer's electronic camera has raised concern that new eye-safe long-wavelength lidars might endanger electronic eyes. > Producers of laser light shows are well aware that laser beams can damage electronic eyes. “Camera sensors are, in general, more susceptible to damage than the human eye,” warns the International Laser Display Association "doesn't penetrate the human eye" seems a bit hand wavy, but I take it to mean "these length pulses in this wavelength are tuned to have the power not be enough to damage the eye". Camera lenses may not have the same level of IR filtering/gathering area or, if they do, there is nothing implying the image sensor has the exact same tolerances as the inside of the eye. From the same: > Sensor vulnerability to infrared damage would depend on the design of the infrared filters A heater usually damages the eyes through drying out/heating up the outside layer with constant high intensity, not by causing damage to the retina (post filtering). https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q12691/ https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q12691/ > Furthermore, since the eye blocks the IRR, the eye begins to overheat leading to eye damage and possible blindness. Because of this, you should not look at the heater for an extended period of time. Enough intensity of any wavelength is enough to damage any camera or eye of course, but the scenario here seems to be built around that question for the eye. Similarly, I've heard of Waymo's causing 6 mph accidents but no reports of eye damage from any car LiDAR. Despite that, in the above YouTube clip Marques Brownlee actively shows his camera being clearly damaged as its moved around.
- aeternum 8mo agoThe next headline will be that it also damages human retinas. It's not safe just because it's infrared. And the claims that it's safe because of the exposure time is highly questionable, would you be okay with that for any other laser?
- Ringz 8mo agoWhat? Please explain!
- natch 8mo agoSensor damage https://youtube.com/shorts/oeHtfMFdzIY?si=hpLBgqom_kHVPuhL https://youtube.com/shorts/oeHtfMFdzIY?si=hpLBgqom_kHVPuhL
- ladberg 8mo agoiPhones have had lidar for years, have cameras been affected?
- KoolKat23 8mo agoOther cameras. When the lidar laser points at the camera sensor.
- pedro_caetano 8mo agoIs there any deeper study on long term effects regarding retinal damage? I would imagine, even with safe dosages, there would be some form of cumulative effect in terms of retinal phototoxicity. More so if we consider the scenario that this becomes a standard COTS feature in cars and we are walking around a city centre with a fleet of hundreds of thousands of these laser sources.
- eurekin 8mo agoSome lidar units simply use the wavelength that the human eye is opaque to. The grandparent comment is about camera lenses with little to no near infrared cutoff filter. Some older iPhones were like that and that was the original breaking story.
- IsTom 8mo ago> human eye is opaque to Absorbing the laser isn't necessarily any good. Very hypothetically it could lead to cataracts.
- eurekin 8mo agoSun emits much stronger IR, near-IR, UV
- IsTom 8mo agoAnd staring directly at the sun is not recommended.
- bregma 8mo agoAbsolutely, and is a major cause of cataracts. Somewhat near 100% of people with lenses in their eyes will get cataracts eventually if they are ever exposed to unfiltered sunlight.
- jayd16 8mo agoThat's why we don't look at it.
- lencastre 8mo agoTIL! Thanks! What a headache
- kleiba 8mo agoCould be a gain for privacy ;-)
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- micromacrofoot 8mo agowe'd likely see new coatings and sensor designs that avoid it, not trivial but also not the end of the world
- culi 8mo agoI wish this was true. It'd immediately be the best way to fight surveillance systems like Flock
- oblio 8mo agoAnd, I guess, even more advanced surveillance.
- echelon 8mo agoThe minute internet became widespread it was game over. Pros and cons. :/ It'll never happen, but we need a bill of rights for privacy. The laypeople aren't well-versed or pained enough to ask for this, and big interest donors oppose it. Maybe the EU and states like California will pioneer something here, though? Edit: in general, I'm far more excited by cheap lidar tech than I am afraid of the downsides. We just need to be vigilant.
- chha 8mo agoThe EU already has. GDPR and the AI Act puts a lot of limits on what you can do in the open space, although it doesn't always go far enough.
- jonplackett 8mo agoAnd barely gets enforced
- StopDisinfo910 8mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDPR_fines_and_notices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDPR_fines_and_notices Top 5 fines: 1 - Meta - Ireland - €1.2 billion 2 - Amazon Europe - Luxembourg - €746 millions 3 - WhatsApp - Ireland - €225 millions 4 - British Airway - UK - £183 millions 5 - Google - France - €60 millions I wish every law barely got enforced this way.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- throawayonthe 8mo agopretty pathetic, but people keep insisting you can regulate capital
- moffkalast 8mo agoThere are already very good sub-$100 lidars, especially for 2D since they were made en masse for vacuum cleaners. E.g. the LD19 or STL-19P as they're calling it now for some reason. You need to pair them with serious compute to run AMCL with them, plus actuation (though ST3215s are cheap and easy to integrate now too) and control for that actuation which also wants its own compute, plus a battery, etc. the costs quickly add up. Robotics is expensive regardless of how cheap components get.
- coredog64 8mo agoI think the difference is that these are intended for automotive use and have a much longer range than the ones in your Roomba.
- moffkalast 8mo agoTrue, you have to go up to $120 for the 25m version, or $450 for Unitree's L2 which gets 30m in 3D. That's about as much you could possibly ever need unless you're making high speed vehicles that need more reaction time. In which case you probably shouldn't be relying on the cheapest thing on the market :)
- SubiculumCode 8mo agoRIP to humans under authoritarian regimes?
- culi 8mo agoThe short-range stuff is already $150-300 per unit. If you're thinking indoor robots that's already technically feasible. Over 25% of all Chinese cars being produced today have LiDAR. Even mid-range sensors used in ADAS systems only cost $600-750. The long-range stuff that's needed for trucking or robotaxis is $1,500–6,000