A fine argument in principle, but even if we talk only about vision, the human visual system is much more powerful than a camera.

Between brightly sunlit snow and a starlit night, we can cover more than 45 stops with the same pair of eyeballs; the very best cinematographic cameras reach something like 16.

In a way it's not a fair comparison, since we're taking into account retinal adaptation, eyelids/eyelashes, pupil constriction. But that's the point - human vision does not use cameras.

▲

the8472 4 days ago | parent [-]

> In a way it's not a fair comparison,

Indeed. And the comparison is unnecessarily unfair.

You're comparing the dynamic range of a single exposure on a camera vs. the adaptive dynamic range in multiple environments for human eyes. Cameras do have comparable features: adjustable exposure times and apertures. Additionally cameras can also sense IR, which might be useful for driving in the dark.

▲

svara 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Exposure adjustment is constrained by frame rate, that doesn't buy you very much dynamic range.

A system that replicates the human eye's rapid aperture adjustment and integration of images taken at quickly changing aperture/ filter settings is very much not what Tesla is putting in their cars.

But again, the argument is fine in principle. It's just that you can't buy a camera that performs like the human visual system today.

▲

the8472 4 days ago | parent [-]

Human eyes are unlikely the only thing in parameter-space that's sufficient for driving. Cameras can do IR, 360° coverage, higher frame rates, wider stereo separation... but of course nothing says Teslas sit at a good point in that space.

▲

svara 4 days ago | parent [-]

Yes, agreed, but that's a different point - I was reacting to this specifically:

> Humans use only cameras.

Which in this or similar forms is sometimes used to argue that L4/5 Teslas are just a software update away.

	▲	the8472 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Ah yeah, that's making even more assumptions. Not only does it assume the cameras are powerful enough but that there already is enough compute. There's a sensing-power/compute/latency tradeoff. That is you can get away with poorer sensors if you have more compute that can filter/reconstruct useful information from crappy inputs.

▲

vrighter 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

"adjustable exposure times and apertures"

That means that to view some things better, you have to accept being completely blind to others. That is not a substitute for dynamic range.

	▲	the8472 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, and? Human eyes also have limited instantaneous dynamic range much smaller than their total dynamic range. Part of the mechanism is the same (pupil vs. camera iris). They can't see starlight during the day and tunnels need adaption lighting to ease them in/out.