3 ms·
Lidar will give you XYZ (z = distance) on a single datapoint, cameras give you XY and you need to calculate the Z from multiple cameras. Lidar is ugly and expe
by theshrike79 3mo ago
Lidar will give you XYZ (z = distance) on a single datapoint, cameras give you XY and you need to calculate the Z from multiple cameras.
Lidar is ugly and expensive, but requires way fewer cycles to calculate distances. And it works through fog and even some obstacles, nor does it care about glare or get "scared" of shadows.
If we had infinite compute in the car, cameras would be the obvious solution ...but we don't. You can get "Pretty good" with cameras, but still people find specific spots where the car is 100% sure a shadow under a bridge is a car or something stupid like that.
- huflungdung 3mo ago[dead]
- thebruce87m 3mo ago> you need to calculate the Z from multiple cameras. You can get 3D depth estimation from a single 2D image but I don’t know how good it is for automotive. https://huggingface.co/tasks/depth-estimation https://huggingface.co/tasks/depth-estimation
- parl_match 3mo ago"depth estimation" precision matters! and it's still prone to optical illusions and other issues (many solutions struggle with road shadows, for example. sound familiar?) I think the natural solution is a 360 lidar as a source of truth, followed by optical for everything else