Re:Tesla’s Push to Build a Self-Driving Car Sparks Dissent A...
by abalone on Thursday August 24, 2017 @05:19PM
(#15094149)
I don't see how you'd draw that conclusion. It seems possible to have a workable, purely optical solution. Our workable solution today relies purely on optical (human drivers).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Tesla’s Push to Build a Self-Driving Car Sparks Dissent A...
by anindha on Thursday August 24, 2017 @07:09PM
(#15094859)
Cameras don't have the same dynamic range of the human eye. A more fair test would be giving someone remote control of a Tesla with only access to the video footage.
I think cameras will hit parity with the human eye, but the question is will it happen before or after Lidar becomes more affordable and compact.
Re:Tesla’s Push to Build a Self-Driving Car Sparks Dissent A...
by byw on Thursday August 24, 2017 @08:48PM
(#15095302)
Couldn't you just have multiple cameras of different sensitivity? Cameras are pretty cheap.
Re:Tesla’s Push to Build a Self-Driving Car Sparks Dissent A...
by Dylan16807 on Friday August 25, 2017 @03:07AM
(#15096736)
The eye's dynamic range at any point in time is actually pretty bad. It's easy to beat the range of the retina with a camera sensor. The human eye can also adjust iris size and light sensitivity, and a camera can match it by adjusting iris size and exposure time. You're probably want a secondary camera for full night vision, but that's not very relevant for driving with headlights anyway.
Re:Tesla’s Push to Build a Self-Driving Car Sparks Dissent A...
by dingo_bat on Thursday August 24, 2017 @09:22PM
(#15095443)
The best cameras nowadays have more dynamic range than human eyes. Although I'm sure Tesla is not using this in its cars.
Re:Tesla’s Push to Build a Self-Driving Car Sparks Dissent A...
by robotresearcher on Thursday August 24, 2017 @07:21PM
(#15094922)
Optical plus audio, haptic and inertial sensing. And smell, but maybe we can ignore that one.