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

41–50 of 142 posts

Re: Camera vs. Lidar

#41

Post by natch »

melling wrote: post #14
rmason wrote: post #10

I suspect this is yet another story sponsored by the Tesla shorts. Just saw an excellent two hour interview by Lex Fridman of George Hotz and he goes into details why he thinks camera will win over lidar. But he also admits that presently Google is ahead of everyone in the race for level 5, but raises the question of whether they can ever do it economically enough to make money on it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=…

I believe Tesla’s also have radar. I also listened to the podcast. George made it sound like the Lidar wasn’t being used for much. It augments the maps to help determine more precise location?

Yes you’re right, they do.

Re: Camera vs. Lidar

#42

Post by xiphias2 »

qes wrote: post #15
xiphias2 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About 10 years ago I went to an eye doctor with a small object in my eye, and she had to cover it after removing the small object. Driving back home with 1 eye was scary even though I was going much slower. It is possible to drive with 1 eye, but much much harder than with 2 eyes.

Did you drive any further than just the way home? I would bet most people would adapt quite quickly.

No, I wasn’t experimenting, but I haven’t had any car accidents in my life, and I find that more valuable

Re: Camera vs. Lidar

#43

Post by rdtsc »

Complexicate wrote: post #18
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 human brain is horrible at building truly accurate 3D representations of the world. Our mental maps are constantly missing a magnitude of details while tricking us and creating approximations to fill in the blanks. Easy examples of this are optical illusions, ghosts, and ufos. There is also "selective attention tests" where a majority of people miss glaringly obvious events right in front of them, when they're fo…

But at the same time people don't think much about getting in their cars and driving to work or the grocery store.

So it seems that a truly accurate 3D representations of the world are not necessary, at least for driving. Perhaps it's the resolution? Looking at the samples in the article, they are just terribly fuzzy, with a narrow field of view. If I had to drive and only see the world through that kind of view, I don't think I would be doing very well.

Re: Camera vs. Lidar

#44

Post by yesenadam »

m463 wrote: post #35

I'm suspicious - this article has been posted several times in the last few days. Does hacker news accept dupes? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20677720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20680495 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20683288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20686791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20705890

Suspicious of what? None of those got any comments. Sometimes stories slip off the radar before being noticed, the first time, or first several times. And HN even posts 'dupes' themselves sometimes, to give undercommented stories another go. see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380

I submitted a blog post the other day that got 150 comments - I only noticed afterwards it had already been submitted 6 or 7 times before in the months preceding, each without attracting any comments.

Re: Camera vs. Lidar

#45

Post by aidenn0 »

threeseed wrote: post #31
aidenn0 wrote: post #27

This completely fails to address Musk's argument: that for a L5 car you need to be able to drive in inclement weather where LIDAR does not work reliably. Musk may be right or wrong, but this article is a non-sequitur.

Cameras don't work reliably in inclement weather either. So what was Musk's point ?

I wasn't claiming Musk was right, just that the article is a non-sequitur

Re: Camera vs. Lidar

#46

Post by ricardobeat »

sairahul82 wrote: post #17
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 first thing we need to remember is the self driving doesn't work like our brain. If they do then we don't need to train them with billions of images. So the main problem is not just building the 3d models. For example we don't crash into the car because we never seen that car model or that kind of vehicle before. Check https://cdn.technologyreview.com/i/images/bikeedgecasepredic... we never think that there is a…

Where is the bike example from? All these instances of recognition error are meaningless when they don’t come from actual production systems by auto makers. They don’t just slap OpenCV into a car.

Re: Camera vs. Lidar

#47

Post by yo-scot-99 »

threeseed wrote: post #31
aidenn0 wrote: post #27

This completely fails to address Musk's argument: that for a L5 car you need to be able to drive in inclement weather where LIDAR does not work reliably. Musk may be right or wrong, but this article is a non-sequitur.

Cameras don't work reliably in inclement weather either. So what was Musk's point ?

there's 200-300k cars out there with just cameras + radar and their bet is the software catches up to the rhetoric. Adding lidar is next to impossible on the current fleet and adds to the cost if they start now. It is an early design bet which the coders now have to meet.

Re: Camera vs. Lidar

#48

Post by davidgould »

threeseed wrote: post #11
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…

> 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.

Re: Camera vs. Lidar

#49

Post by aeternus »

threeseed wrote: post #11
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…

> 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.

When moving, cars can compare hundreds of different viewpoints. Multiple cameras provide for depth perception when stationary.

Re: Camera vs. Lidar

#50

Post by taneq »

Complexicate wrote: post #18
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 human brain is horrible at building truly accurate 3D representations of the world. Our mental maps are constantly missing a magnitude of details while tricking us and creating approximations to fill in the blanks. Easy examples of this are optical illusions, ghosts, and ufos. There is also "selective attention tests" where a majority of people miss glaringly obvious events right in front of them, when they're fo…

Exactly. We don't build detailed accurate 3D maps. We build fuzzy semantic 2.5-ish-D maps that are 99% metadata. And they work incredibly well.
Post reply on HN