If that's the best Uber can produce then they ought to hang their heads in shame. Unless it was doctored with... as I find it hard to believe they'd put such rubbish quality cameras in their trials.
Do you trust Uber to provide unedited raw video, or would they process it to increase contrast, make it appear that nothing was visible in the dark areas of the frame, reduce the resolution, drop frames, etc.?
Edit: Nevermind. Someone posted a picture of the car's interior, below and there's no computer screen.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-...
Please check the videos out.
Is that the same cam used by the AI to detect obstacles?
I would expect a safe self driving car to include IR cameras that can be more cautious about moving warm blooded creatures.
Surely some more detailed telemetry data would reveal whether the main issue is with the sensors or with the algorithm.
Both of those have eyes that act as reflectors and you can see their eyes well before you can actually see the whole animal.
This[0] suggests that the total time required for a human to avoid an incident like this is 3.6s (at 35 mph, casual googling suggests the car was doing 40). Even if we add 1 second of extra time to deal with it I'm not sure that makes the cut.
Your last paragraph is a valid calculation if this were a case of a person stepping directly off a curb into the lane of traffic. However, it appears that they were probably standing on the median looking to cross, then stepped off into the left-most lane of traffic, an empty lane, proceeded across that lane towards the lane in which the car was traveling. In this sort of situation human intuition will recognize that a person standing on the median of a high-speed highway is likely to do something unusual. Particularly when you observe the visual profile of, as media has reported, a homeless person who is using the bicycle with numerous plastic bags hanging off it to collect recycling.
Also, has anyone here talked about the effect on the eyes of watching a (typically) bright white screen vs letting them adjust to the light of the night yet? This point deserves to be brought up.
Perhaps the video was intentionally darkened to simulate this effect. :P
If so (a hand held phone), in Australia that driver would be going to jail for culpable driving causing loss of life.
https://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Front-_-...
A different picture from that article shows that under the GPS is the gear stick, an emergency button, and a cellphone charger.
EDIT: Upon re-watching the video a third time and really paying attention to this I don't think there is any real way for us to know without confirmation from the driver them self or an official report on the incident. My mind was definitely deciding things that just aren't discover-able from the video itself.
"Uber also developed an app, mounted on an iPad in the car’s middle console, for drivers to alert engineers to problems. Drivers could use the app anytime without shifting the car out of autonomous mode. Often, drivers would annotate data at a traffic light or a stop, but many did so while the car was moving"
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/technology/uber-self-d...
The whole project seemed designed for an outcome like this. Eg allowing app to be used whilst on the move, after reducing from 2 to 1 operators. Culpability ought to lie with Uber.
Using bright interior lighting at night is something that we've known not to do for more than a century. If the driver couldn't be expected to see the pedestrian because the interior lighting or UX was too bright that is not something that does not reflect favorably upon Uber.
Also remember she was not a stationary object. She was in the act of crossing the road. Human eyes/brains are good at detecting motion in low light even if we can't 100% make out what the object is.
I have lived in Tempe and know that part of town well. There are apartments, gas stations, hotels, strip malls, fast food restaurants and a strip club. It's not a pitch black country road.
Autonomous cars are never going to be viable. Just looking at the cost of high-end SLR sensors and lenses that you'd need to match human eye dynamic range, and you're already looking at an expensive setup, before we even get to things like 360-degree vision and IR/LIDAR/Hyperspectral imaging. And that's in addition to all the compute problems.
Sorry Silicon Valley tech-bros, but it's a fantasy you're chasing that's never going to happen. The quicker we can end this scam industry, the better.
People really need to be told "no".
Probably better to chase after flying cars..
They should pivit to augmenting drivers, not attempting to drive for them. I would happily utilize a properly designed HUD (meaning I have source access) connected to a fast MerCad or bolometer array.
It really is. The eye can detect a single photon. Fingertips can detect 13nm bumps, smaller than a transistor on Coffee-lake CPUs.
We're better off acknowledging machine limits to work on other problems instead.
But you are right, though. I think augmenting drivers sounds like a great idea in the sense you talk about. The kind of augmenting drivers I don't want are those stupid headbands you'd wear that beep like crazy if your head starts tilting in a way that resembles falling asleep. If you are in danger of falling asleep at the wheel and need a device like that I think it's pretty obvious one should take a nap on the side of the road or in a free parking lot, haha. Hopefully if we do wind up headed in that direction the people inventing will have a similar way of thinking and inventing.
No. A camera's dynamic range is pretty much fixed. If you can capture low-light objects it means high-light objects are completely blown out.
2. I'm not sure you can fix the exposure on "fairly cheap" dashcams.
3. "high-light" in night settings are likely much lower than standard daylight, let alone bright daylight.
Though I guess you could have an auto-exposure dashcam standard and add a low-light one which is only active in low light conditions.
The Canon ME20F-SH is a video camera reaches ISO 4,000,000. This camera has a dynamic range of 12 stops and is available at B&H for $20,000. [4]
Of course, this isn't exactly the challenge that cameras face when assessing a scene. The dynamic range happens within a single scene all at the same time. Wide dynamic range (WDR) is the term I've seen used in describing video cameras that can handle both bright and dim areas within the same scene.
[1] http://lightartacademy.com/blog/tutorials/camera-vs-the-huma...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRzXgSMbBu0
[3] https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.ht...
[4] https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1187825-REG/canon_100...
There are a number of video samples shot on the Canon ME20F-SH on YouTube. In these one can see that under low light situations the camera is shooting at ordinary video speed (the camera supports shutter speeds from 24 to 60 fps). I'm not trying to push the Canon ME20F-SH; I don't have any association with Canon. The manual for this camera is available on-line if you'd like to read up on it: [1].
The actual exposure of a video frame or image depends upon the f-stop of the camera's lens (aperture), the shutter speed, and the ISO of the image sensor. See [2].
Basically, each doubling or halving the shutter speeds corresponds to one "full-stop" in photography. Each full stop of exposure doubles or halves the amount of light reaching the sensor. Changing the aperture of the camera's lens by full stops also doubles or halves the amount of light reaching the sensor. Full stops for camera lenses are designated as f1, f1.4, f2, f2.8, f4, f5.6, etc. The light sensitivity of the film or sensor is also customarily measured in full stops. Very slow fine grained color film is ISO 50 and is usually used in full sunlight. ISO 100 is a bit more flexible and ISO 400 used to be considered a "fast" film for situations where more graininess would be acceptable in exchange for low light situations. Each doubling of ISO number corresponds to a full stop. So a photo take with ISO 400 at f2 with 1/1000 second shutter would have the same "brightness" as a picture taken at ISO 100 at f2.8 with 1/125 second shutter (less 2 stops ISO, less 1 stop aperture, and plus three stops shutter speed). Naturally, other factors come into play, the behavior of film or digital sensors at extremely slow or extremely fast shutter speeds isn't linear, there are color differences, and noise issues too. See [3] if you are interested in more about how photography works.
[1] https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/d...
[2] https://photographylife.com/what-is-iso-in-photography
[3] https://www.amazon.com/Negative-Ansel-Adams-Photography/dp/0...
Now that I think about it, self driving cars may be paralyzed by other self driving cars running IR boosted headlights.