Technology

59446 readers

3615 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

782

US to probe Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving' system after pedestrian killed in low visibility conditions (apnews.com)

submitted 1 month ago by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

197 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The U.S. government’s road safety agency is again investigating Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving” system, this time after getting reports of crashes in low-visibility conditions, including one that killed a pedestrian.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says in documents that it opened the probe on Thursday with the company reporting four crashes after Teslas entered areas of low visibility, including sun glare, fog and airborne dust.

In addition to the pedestrian’s death, another crash involved an injury, the agency said.

Investigators will look into the ability of “Full Self-Driving” to “detect and respond appropriately to reduced roadway visibility conditions, and if so, the contributing circumstances for these crashes.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] jerkface@lemmy.ca -21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Hard to credit without a source, modern cameras have way more dynamic range than the human eye.

[–] magiccupcake@lemmy.world 38 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not in one exposure. Human eyes are much better with dealing with extremely high contrasts.

Cameras can be much more sensitive, but at the cost of overexposing brighter regions in an image.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They're also pretty noisy in low light and generally take long exposures (a problem with a camera at high speeds) to get sufficient input to see anything in the dark. Especially if you aren't spending thousands of dollars with massive sensors per camera.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I dunno what cameras you are using but a standard full frame sensor and an F/4 lens sees way better in low light than the human eye. If I take a raw image off my camera, there is so much more dynamic range than I can see or a monitor can even represent, you can double the brightness at least four times (ie 16x brighter) and parts of the image that looked pure black to the eye become perfectly usable images. There is so so so much more dynamic range than the human eye.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago

Do you know what the depth of field at f/4 looks like? It's not anywhere in the neighborhood of suitable for a car, and it still takes a meaningful exposure length in low light conditions to get a picture at all, which is not suitable for driving at 30mph, let alone actually driving fast.

That full frame sensor is also on a camera that's several thousand dollars.