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

Camera vs. Lidar

scale.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 142 posts

Re: Camera vs. Lidar

#111

Post by asdf21 »

Fricken wrote: post #28
tgog wrote: post #3

This completely neglects the fact that humans can build near perfect 3D representations of the world with 2D images stitched together with the parallax neural nets in our brain. This blogpost briefly mentions it in one line as a throwaway and says you'd need extremely high resolution cameras?? Doesn't make sense at all. Two cameras of any resolution spaced a regular distance apart should be able to build a better par…

The most rudimentary life forms are little factories that build themselves. I think we should concentrate on making cars that build themselves and maybe then our technology will be sophisticated enough to consider looking into giving our cars human-like optical processing faculties. Otherwise we'll just have to figure out how to build autonomous vehicles with the technology we have, which is pretty crappy in comparis…

This is getting into grey goo territory.

Re: Camera vs. Lidar

#112

Post by asdf21 »

eatporktoo wrote: post #12

I think all of this discussion about whether or not LIDAR or cameras are better misses the point that really matters- Will cameras actually be good enough to get the job done? If they are then it doesn't matter which is better. You can always add additional sensors and get more information, but engineering has always been a cost vs benefit problem. If adding LIDAR doesn't give a significant benefit in scenarios that…

I'm going to go with the guy who seems to be successfully launching StarLink

Re: Camera vs. Lidar

#113

Post by michaelt »

ajross wrote: post #100
heyflyguy wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon is an eternal optimist that truly believes that the tech will catch up with his goals.

To be fair, though: Elon is shipping actual vehicles. I mean, I think the GM and Waymo offerings look great too, but I can't buy one. Even granting the premise that LiDAR is going to be a firm requirement, it's not clear to me that Tesla is actually behind the curve on real products. Adding a LiDAR system (or buying one from Waymo) to a Tesla seems naively simpler than finishing and shipping a whole new system from s…

In that situation, what do you think would happen to customers who've paid $6000 for the 'Full Self-Driving Capability' ?

Re: Camera vs. Lidar

#115

Post by rpmisms »

unnouinceput wrote: post #54

I side with Elon on this. Except he's kinda of a cheap bastard and my idea of using Lytro cameras instead of cheap ones used by Tesla won't actually fly with him. So yeah, use Lytro and you can forget about Lidar altogether.

I really like this idea, and had come up with it independently a few days ago. Light-field is very processor intensive, but oh so powerful.

Re: Camera vs. Lidar

#116

Post by airnomad »

govg wrote: post #95
airnomad wrote: post #89

What if we have sensors/cameras/etc along the road and they feed data to whichever car is there? And if we also have cars share their sensor data? Would that speed things up in terms of achieving full autonomy?

Yes, drastically. But with it you bring new fears of how that data will be used by the government. You could also achieve something similar by forcing all vehicles to have embedded sensors that real time share data.

So we could have highways offering 100% automomy and small village roads offering 20% autonomy.

Investment wise it wouldn't be impossible since roads are already expensive to build.

Re: Camera vs. Lidar

#117

Post by nguoi »

ajross wrote: post #100
heyflyguy wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon is an eternal optimist that truly believes that the tech will catch up with his goals.

To be fair, though: Elon is shipping actual vehicles. I mean, I think the GM and Waymo offerings look great too, but I can't buy one. Even granting the premise that LiDAR is going to be a firm requirement, it's not clear to me that Tesla is actually behind the curve on real products. Adding a LiDAR system (or buying one from Waymo) to a Tesla seems naively simpler than finishing and shipping a whole new system from s…

Shipping vehicles has been a solved problem for a century, shipping autonomous vehicles has not. Although they are taking the money for it, Tesla are not shipping autonomous vehicles.

Re: Camera vs. Lidar

#118

Post by nguoi »

omilu wrote: post #91
KaiserPro wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With respect, thats not what they are claiming They are saying that lidar enhances the perception system to get more accurate dimensions and rotations of objects to a greater distance. this means that you can predict far better, allowing you, for example, to drive at night full speed. Weather affects visual systems as well. The "ooo rain kills lidar" is noise at best. Visual cameras are crap at night. There is a reas…

>>Visual cameras are crap at night. Mitigated somewhat with headlights

Not fully mitigated for humans, it's more dangerous to drive at night.

Re: Camera vs. Lidar

#119

Post by nguoi »

Fricken wrote: post #28
tgog wrote: post #3

This completely neglects the fact that humans can build near perfect 3D representations of the world with 2D images stitched together with the parallax neural nets in our brain. This blogpost briefly mentions it in one line as a throwaway and says you'd need extremely high resolution cameras?? Doesn't make sense at all. Two cameras of any resolution spaced a regular distance apart should be able to build a better par…

The most rudimentary life forms are little factories that build themselves. I think we should concentrate on making cars that build themselves and maybe then our technology will be sophisticated enough to consider looking into giving our cars human-like optical processing faculties. Otherwise we'll just have to figure out how to build autonomous vehicles with the technology we have, which is pretty crappy in comparis…

When a tree falls over a river, it creates a rudimentary bridge, as has happened for longer than humans have existed. Yet, while we can create huge suspension bridges from steel, we can't create wood.

Re: Camera vs. Lidar

#120

Post by nguoi »

davidgould wrote: post #48
threeseed wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> near perfect 3D representations of the world with 2D images This is ridiculous. I am sitting in front of a monitor right now. Please explain how I can perfectly determine the depth of it even though I can't see behind it ? I can move my ahead all around it to capture hundreds of different viewpoints but a car can't do that.

it’s too bad that cars can’t move to get additional points of view.

Not like a human can, actually. Fixed cameras are fixed relative to the bodywork, necks are not. OTOH, if I move my head it's usually to get around a blind spot, something cameras have less of an issue with.
Post reply on HN