| ▲ | Lidar waveforms are worth 40x128x33 words(openaccess.thecvf.com) |
| 35 points by teleforce 4 days ago | 13 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | stavros 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| 168,960 |
| |
|
| ▲ | brcmthrowaway 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Can lidar be purchased for hobbyist use yet? |
| |
|
| ▲ | ck2 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| BTW with self-driving cars, what happens when there are hundreds of Lidar signals at one intersection? There's no way a sensor can tell if a signal was from its own origin? Guessing any signal should be treated as untrusted until verified somehow but I suspect coders won't be doing that unless it's easy |
| |
| ▲ | r2_pilot 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Typically you use a pulse train and filter your train from the noise | |
| ▲ | jowday an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Worked adjacent to the AV space 5~ years ago. This wasn’t my area but I remember learning that this was a robustly solved problem long ago. | |
| ▲ | Rarebox 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If one lidar hits another, it will result in at most one bad reading (perhaps a bad column?). This can likely be filtered, or a bad scan (360deg) can be altogether rejected and the data predicted using models based on past sensor readings. | |
| ▲ | MengerSponge 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I guess phase and timing sensitivity help a lot, because it's unlikely that another emitter will perfectly match your emission/detection duty cycle. It's also hard to get hundreds of cars at one intersection, because cars are very big. The key terms in your literature/patent search should probably be "Crosstalk" and "multi-LIDaR". |
|