Live data from Hacker News

Ouster's new digital Lidar – 128 beams, ultra-wide view

ouster.com

61–70 of 122 posts

Re: Ouster's new digital Lidar – 128 beams, ultra-wide view

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For FMCW, there should be no interference at all for any number of sensors (there is more information in the link in my original comment). For pulsed lidar, it's an issue of how well you engineer it. I can confidently say a good sensor can regularly withstand dozens of sensors operating simultaneously in a small area because I've personally witnessed it. The devil is largely in the details of specifications and manuf…

Imagine every car has a FMCW LIDAR. The chance of interference is very high. Additionally if those receivers are using SE PDs, then these sensors will also be “blinded” (TIAs and or PDs will saturate) when a nearby Lidar system shines its laser into the detector.

I suppose it will be a good while before we can approach an empirical proof for this sort of thing, since FMCW lidars are still very scarce, even more so than pulsed lidars right now. However, even if every car does have an FMCW lidar, the conditions required to get them to interfere with each other is are:

a) Have identical laser wavelength. Not just '905nm' or '1550nm', but _precisely_ the same wavelength. This is very hard to do even if you try.

b) Have a coincident beam path. Again, this needs to be very precisely aligned.

c) Have an overlapping coherence area. This is a bit technical, but it is a higher bar than just having spots spatially overlapping.

d) Have coherent+matching phase fronts at the detector. Again this is a fairly technical subject these properties vary along the beam path, and transversely. This also vary in time, temperature and many other things. The source lidar is able to 'interfere' with itself (in other words, get a signal), because it compensates for all of these effects with a local copy of the outgoing laser light. Other lidars' outgoing beams will in general, even for 100 cars, not be 'synced up' in this way.

Moreover, those conditions are just the intrinsic interference rejection properties of coherent lidars. Layered on top of that is that two lidars need to be using the same type of modulation, bullseye each other as they scan around the FOV, and provide enough photons to actually contribute to the signal. Then, if you satisfy all of those prerequisites, the interfering lidar also needs to overcome any heuristic/algorithmic rejection of spurious signals. Finally, if all of those conditions match up and you get a signal to punch through, and it's strong enough to over come the true signal, and you can't tell that it's an erroneous signal, then it will result on one bad/missing point in a frame of thousands of points, present for one frame.

You're correct, however, that there is a saturation issue. If you just DOS the photo diodes with photons you can potentially prevent any signals from getting through. But again, this isn't super easy to do. The detectors will almost certainly be balanced, not single ended, and AC coupled. So you really have to blast the photo diode, effectively bringing it up to it's damage threshold so it is just flooded with current and can't do anything, and/or just breaks. The raw laser light doesn't do much, both because the DC signal is rejected and because the balanced detectors will reject common mode signals (clearly you know this already). You also have the same issue with needing to shine into a very narrow field of view, at the right time, for long enough to matter.

Re: Ouster's new digital Lidar – 128 beams, ultra-wide view

#62
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IR and UV radiation can very much ruin your sight.

It doesn't matter if it is IR, UV, or visible. Only the power and duration matter. Lidar uses very short pulses and very low power and is very safe even en masse.

Actually most pulsed lidar systems use pretty high peak powers, which result in an eye-safe average power only because they are on for a sequence of very short pulses (~1ns). It's pretty unlikely OP is actually experiencing vision problems due to lidars, but it's probably possible for some kind of weird interaction to happen in the eyeball due to the high power pulses. Even so, it's unlikely to be causing an damage, temporary or otherwise. I would hope it doesn't happen to him/her while driving or something, though.

Re: Ouster's new digital Lidar – 128 beams, ultra-wide view

#63
post #57
post #45

Am surprised no one yet cited Elon saying "this is fool's errand" because of price, complexity, etc. I think LIDAR will improve significantly the safety of vehicles (autonomous or not) because it can definitely see better and deeper, even in damning weather conditions (rain, fog, haze). Alas, the price of these devices has to come down at least one order of magnitude. Maybe even two. Still, I am really thankful that…

16k each, and Waymo has 4 on it's cars? I think Elon was right to not care about LIDAR until the price point is right.

Elon was right for Tesla, but that doesn't mean the economics don't work for Waymo, even as they continue to improve.

A $100k fully autonomous taxi would print money over its service life (right now they have remote safety drivers on standby).

The question is how quickly they can expand their currently tiny geofenced area.

Re: Ouster's new digital Lidar – 128 beams, ultra-wide view

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Resolution of normal radar is much lower unless you have a gigant receiver. Also there is a significant delay of 10 to 100ms That's why a combination of lidar and radio radar is desired.

> Also there is a significant delay of 10 to 100ms I'm curious why there is such an apparently long delay?

It really depends on the type of RADAR being used. If it's an FMCW radar, typically you will get a beat signal whose frequency corresponds to the target range. That frequency will vary with range, and in order to be well resolved you have to observe it for something like 1/period. So that puts a fundamental lower bound on how long you have to integrate. There are lots of tricks to improve things, and there are lots of variants of the standard radar hardware/methods, but I suspect that's what OP was referring to.

Re: Ouster's new digital Lidar – 128 beams, ultra-wide view

#65
post #45

Am surprised no one yet cited Elon saying "this is fool's errand" because of price, complexity, etc. I think LIDAR will improve significantly the safety of vehicles (autonomous or not) because it can definitely see better and deeper, even in damning weather conditions (rain, fog, haze). Alas, the price of these devices has to come down at least one order of magnitude. Maybe even two. Still, I am really thankful that…

And this seems to prove him right with $6k - 16k price range. Far too expensive to be practical. Still the potential is there for it to be a useful component for self driving vehicles, only if the price comes down an order of magnitude.

Re: Ouster's new digital Lidar – 128 beams, ultra-wide view

#66
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IR and UV radiation can very much ruin your sight.

It doesn't matter if it is IR, UV, or visible. Only the power and duration matter. Lidar uses very short pulses and very low power and is very safe even en masse.

I'm being a bit pedantic - I'm pretty sure the visibility of the wavelength does matter (slightly) for lower power lasers, as visible lasers will allow your eye to react to the laser (by looking away) before serious damage - again only in low power lasers (like laser pointers).

If it's not visible I'm not sure that your eye will react quickly enough to prevent damage.

Re: Ouster's new digital Lidar – 128 beams, ultra-wide view

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was actually wondering about this the other day. So what equation(s) would you use to determine the variance in distance estimation relative to velocity estimation? And it sounds like you're strongly implying the distance variation is immeasurably small while accurately estimating velocity - is this correct? I'm not sure the macro point makes sense, since you could have a large object with only one point measuring…

I'm pretty sure the effect you are discussing has to do with the uncertainty relationship inherent to the Fourier Transform [0]. This is very closely related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and states you cannot simultaneously constrain time and frequency, which are the values you need to measure for position and velocity, respectively. In the context of signal processing applications, I don't think the part…

So your're correct that there is a Fourier Transform analogy for the uncertainty principle, but in the context of FMCW lidars (which brought up the question of velocity vs position uncertainty), the measurement of frequency actually determines both the position and the velocity. It's actually a problem for most FMCW lidars because you just get 1-2 frequency measurements and somehow need to disentangle what the range frequency is, as well as what the doppler (velocity) frequency is. A massive amount of effort has been put into developing lidar methods and architectures that solve this problem well.

But in summary, the uncertainty principle as encountered in quantum mechanics has ~nothing to do with a trade off between range accuracy and range uncertainty. It's possible that it could come into play in a very detailed treatment of FMCW lidar SNR, in the context of counting return photons, but also not generally necessary there. The time-frequency uncertainty plays a role in that the range and velocity resolution both get better the longer you stare at a signal. So for a given amount of reflected light, at a given range/velocity, there is a fundamental lower bound to how long you must integrate to a) get a signal at all and b) achieve a desired precision.

Re: Ouster's new digital Lidar – 128 beams, ultra-wide view

#68

Anyone have a LIDAR (or similar) product suggestion? I'm getting ready to start a hobby project that involves scanning the interior surfaces of a house. Ideally the accuracy would be at least 1/16" (1.5mm), including any scan-stitching required because the sensor had to be moved around. I've seen a few promising products, but none stands out as a perfect match.

https://store.intelrealsense.com/buy-intel-realsense-lidar-c...

Re: Ouster's new digital Lidar – 128 beams, ultra-wide view

#69
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this is a ~80% discount on other 128 beam sensors, it's unfortunately still out of reach for the hacker community. We absolutely plan to get prices down to an affordable level for individuals in well under 5 years! Also, Ouster runs a sponsorship program that gives deeply discounted or free sensors to cool projects. If you have a cool idea, shoot me an email: derek.frome at ouster dot io

Might be interesting to add the Ouster sensor to our sensor simulation [1] to give people the ability to play around with the data even if it's outside the price range? [1] blensor.org

http://data.ouster.io/sample-data-1.13/index.html

Re: Ouster's new digital Lidar – 128 beams, ultra-wide view

#70
post #12
post #4

I wonder how well this works if 20 such devices shine on the same object.

Lidars can interfere but somewhat less than other types of active sensors. First of all, the detector only needs to be on for a microsecond or two, and it's unlikely for two sensors to be scanning at the same microsecond. Second, laser spots are fairly small and unlikely to overlap. Finally, there are techniques to further get rid of crosstalk, such as coded random pulses with a matched filter.

> First of all, the detector only needs to be on for a microsecond or two, and it's unlikely for two sensors to be scanning at the same microsecond.

This is subject to the Birthday Paradox, right?

Post reply on HN