Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the LIDAR tech GM just bought probably works

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 72 posts

Re: How the LIDAR tech GM just bought probably works

#21

Post by ajross »

dljsjr wrote: post #19
ajross wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sensor you linked looks to have its two cameras about 10cm apart. A car is easily 1.5m wide, giving a very cheap 15x increase in range for far objects and beating the LIDAR quote by a ton (and of course you can have multiple camera pairs for different distance ranges of course). I'm with the grandparent: I genuinely don't understand the obsession with LIDAR in this space. It's complicated and fiddly, and seems t…

More cameras still doesn't fix the interaction with ambient light and LIDAR units like the ones produced by Velodyne or Ibeo have ranges out to 200m[1] Again, I think they both have their uses. If LIDAR can be made not so complicated and fiddly, I think it brings a lot to the table. [1]: https://autonomoustuff.com/product/ibeo-lux-standard/

Sure, it could. But again its competition is cheap camera hardware that can be had for a few bucks and that outperforms the human eyeballs that we know are safe enough to drive cars on real roads.

I don't doubt that LIDAR can work with some development. I'm just shocked that it seems to be the default position in the industry and want someone to explain this to me in a way that makes sense.

Re: How the LIDAR tech GM just bought probably works

#22

Post by olegkikin »

mrfusion wrote: post #15
madengr wrote: post #3

I assume LIDAR is needed since the AI isn't advanced enough to do depth perception? If I can drive with two eye balls, then I'd think a circular camera array would be plenty. Maybe this is what Tesla plans on using (in combination with RADAR).

Don’t forget you can also drive reasonably well with one eye closed. The stereo stuff isn’t buying you much for driving.

Humans tend to move their heads, which is why one-eyed depth perception still works.

Re: How the LIDAR tech GM just bought probably works

#23

Post by Kelbit »

Animats wrote: post #9

Interesting. Frequency-modulated continuous-wave LIDAR is easy to do as a one-point device. Many such devices have been built. But they're usually short range, such as the discontinued Swiss Ranger, and don't reject ambient light as effectively as pulse systems. Being both eye-safe and sunlight-tolerant is hard. Eye-safe is easier if you can increase the diameter of the outgoing beam. Eye safety is measured based on…

You can get some pretty impressive dynamic range out of the new silicon photomultiplier detectors that companies like SensL, Hamamatsu, and Ketek have been putting out.

Despite the name, they aren't related to old-school photomultipliers - they're basically large arrays of very tiny Geiger-mode avalanche photodiodes on a single chip. This solves the low dynamic range issues from traditional large-area avalanche photodiodes. Traditional APDs have a long recovery time, whereas an array of small APDs has both a shorter recovery time per cell as well as a greater overall dynamic range due to the ability of multiple cells to be struck at once by incident photons.

SensL actually has a bunch of videos of their products in use for a LIDAR application: http://sensl.com/applications/lidar1/

Re: How the LIDAR tech GM just bought probably works

#24

Post by baybal2 »

Animats wrote: post #9

Interesting. Frequency-modulated continuous-wave LIDAR is easy to do as a one-point device. Many such devices have been built. But they're usually short range, such as the discontinued Swiss Ranger, and don't reject ambient light as effectively as pulse systems. Being both eye-safe and sunlight-tolerant is hard. Eye-safe is easier if you can increase the diameter of the outgoing beam. Eye safety is measured based on…

Another way for a CW lidar to work is to use diffraction optics trick of some kind, some smart coding scheme, and a lot of computing power to do a lot of Fourier transforms.

Continuous ToF calculation from a specially coded continuous signal is already used in Chinese military rangefinders (coded continuous signal is hard to spot unlike repetitive pulses)

Re: How the LIDAR tech GM just bought probably works

#25

Post by JoblessWonder »

generj wrote: post #2

One of the advantages for solid-state LIDAR has to be an increase in reliability. Nobody wants to buy a car which requires a new LIDAR to be installed after 100,000 miles for the sum of $7,000. Hopefully once production starts and yield rates increase the unit costs can shrink small enough to being becoming feasible for integration into lower-end products like cell phones or laptops. I think there are a lot of cool a…

It will probably lead to the advent of the "car as as service" sales model. Although the pushback from traditional dealers will be huge.

Re: How the LIDAR tech GM just bought probably works

#26

Post by ivl »

JoblessWonder wrote: post #25
generj wrote: post #2

One of the advantages for solid-state LIDAR has to be an increase in reliability. Nobody wants to buy a car which requires a new LIDAR to be installed after 100,000 miles for the sum of $7,000. Hopefully once production starts and yield rates increase the unit costs can shrink small enough to being becoming feasible for integration into lower-end products like cell phones or laptops. I think there are a lot of cool a…

It will probably lead to the advent of the "car as as service" sales model. Although the pushback from traditional dealers will be huge.

Traditional dealers push back against anything and everything, so, that can only be expected.

Re: How the LIDAR tech GM just bought probably works

#27

Post by jacksmith21006 »

generj wrote: post #2

One of the advantages for solid-state LIDAR has to be an increase in reliability. Nobody wants to buy a car which requires a new LIDAR to be installed after 100,000 miles for the sum of $7,000. Hopefully once production starts and yield rates increase the unit costs can shrink small enough to being becoming feasible for integration into lower-end products like cell phones or laptops. I think there are a lot of cool a…

People will not be buying for a long time. Use will come through ride sharing services.

Re: How the LIDAR tech GM just bought probably works

#28

Post by baybal2 »

I genuinely don't understand obsession with LIDARs in the autonomous vehicle community, a millimetre wave radar is late seventies tech, does the job many times better, for less money, and can be made by an electronics engineering undergrad from radio shack parts.

Commies had them in such abundance that they put millimetre wave imagers (and that was in seventies) on thing as cheap as vision aids for tank drivers, field guns, single shot atgms, and even small arms.

Re: How the LIDAR tech GM just bought probably works

#29

Post by mseebach »

jacksmith21006 wrote: post #27
generj wrote: post #2

One of the advantages for solid-state LIDAR has to be an increase in reliability. Nobody wants to buy a car which requires a new LIDAR to be installed after 100,000 miles for the sum of $7,000. Hopefully once production starts and yield rates increase the unit costs can shrink small enough to being becoming feasible for integration into lower-end products like cell phones or laptops. I think there are a lot of cool a…

People will not be buying for a long time. Use will come through ride sharing services.

That's irrelevant. 7 cents per mile in LIDAR costs is expensive, regardless of how the vehicle is owned and it's use charged.

Re: How the LIDAR tech GM just bought probably works

#30

Post by deepnotderp »

baybal2 wrote: post #28

I genuinely don't understand obsession with LIDARs in the autonomous vehicle community, a millimetre wave radar is late seventies tech, does the job many times better, for less money, and can be made by an electronics engineering undergrad from radio shack parts. Commies had them in such abundance that they put millimetre wave imagers (and that was in seventies) on thing as cheap as vision aids for tank drivers, fiel…

Resolution?
Post reply on HN