And even then, the best cameras today are still a long ways off from matching human eyesight. Tesla's cameras are not state of the art, either.

I wouldn't be shocked if the best cameras are better. :)

Point stands that the ones being put in the cars aren't.

The best cameras have much lower dynamic range than eyes (particularly in low light), and much longer times to refocus. Not to mention higher feedback latency when focusing on a particular object: eyes and brain are very tightly connected.

The eye is an incredible piece of machinery, specifically for dynamic processing like this.

I meant that mostly tongue in cheek. That the best camera ever produced may be better than our eyes. I wouldn't be shocked if such a thing exists. Probably target large and would be way more than a single sensor camera, though.

And agreed that eyes are impressive.

Right so to approximate the capability of human eyes you would need multiple coaxial cameras with varying apertures. Then stitch the images together in software.

So far nobody really cared how road markings, signs etc look outside of the human visual spectrum, so there's likely a lot more variation there. Both in terms of how things look like when new, and in terms of acceptable wear.

Right. But that is in designing the existing roads. I'm talking about the cars. And I'm specifically asking why not adding more options? I don't mind a camera being part of the solution at all. Gives an obvious path to human labeling of training data. But, why not have more?

We have a good idea how all this stuff looks in the infrared spectrum, and that could help a lot in the sensor fusion.