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.