alt Hacker NewsI can’t quite understand your comment.
> Assuming a 60hz camera, there would be a 16.67 ms gap between each frame. The car is traveling 1.5 feet between each frame interval.
Ok? So? You are just stating this as if we should understand the implications. I do in fact work with self-driving cars. What you say is true, but it is not a big deal. Why do you feel this maters? Or what is your point?
> A certain amount of exposure time is necessary for the camera to generate even 1 frame or it will be blurry
This is a confused statement. A certain amount of exposure is necessary for the camera to collect light. If you don’t have long enough exposure the picture will be dark, not blurry. Your statement makes it sound as if avoiding blur is why we need exposure time, which is a complete nonsense.
In reality none of this is a problem. There are automotive grade cameras which can collect enough light fast enough that the images are not blurry in practice. Yes, these cameras have a non-zero exposure time. Yes, this adds latency. No, this is not a problem.
> Your off the shelf library introduces a random 1 second delay for some reason and costs you 88 miles in processing time
You mean 88 feet. If my off the shelf library introduces a random 1 second delay i will chuck it in the bin post haste. Use stuff whose performance characteristics are well understood by you and is not terrible.
> Nearly every step of the way you discover you need specialized hardware, software, operating systems, sensors.
I do not recognise the world you describe.
> I do in fact work with self-driving cars. What you say is true, but it is not a big deal. Why do you feel this maters? Or what is your point?
Sorry not trying to dunk on you here, but this reads like something a junior engineer would complain to me about. These are not trivial problems, and I'm sure your co-workers who resolved them already so you didn't need to worry about them would agree with me.
> In reality none of this is a problem. There are automotive grade cameras which can collect enough light fast enough that the images are not blurry in practice. Yes, these cameras have a non-zero exposure time. Yes, this adds latency. No, this is not a problem.
You are contradicting yourself here, yes there are automotive grade cameras, but if this wasn't a problem, why would automotive grade cameras need to exist? My post wasn't saying these were impossible problems but hard ones.
> You mean 88 feet. If my off the shelf library introduces a random 1 second delay i will chuck it in the bin post haste. Use stuff whose performance characteristics are well understood by you and is not terrible.
Look I might have typed the wrong unit but it's a bit ironic you gave me this word salad right after complaining about this... Yeah you obviously don't use the library that adds a 1 second delay, but often you don't have the luxury of knowing that until after you learn about it through integration testing.
Libraries don't usually come with latency stats calibrated to your desired hardware right on the tin, would be pretty sweet if they did though.
> I do not recognise the world you describe.
I don't find this surprising :)