Volvo EX90’s Lidar Sensor Will Fry Your Phone’s Camera

Comments

• irotsoma@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  So will it burn out all the cameras in Teslas’ self driving systems, too?

  source

  • oyzmo@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    😂 perhaps speed cameras too?

    source
• fubarx@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  L.I.D.A.R.: Laser iPhone Death & Android Ruin

  source
• mvirts@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  I always wanted a car with a built in laser blaster. It’s one firmware update away from accepting targeting commands

  source
• besselj@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  So how close can you get your eyeballs to the sensor? Even if IR isn’t in the visible spectrum, that doesn’t mean it can’t damage your eyes at high power levels. If anything, its more dangerous because you won’t notice it.

  source

  • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Cameras have an IR blocking filter and it still damaged the sensor. I don’t know how they can consider it eye safe. I wouldn’t want to be close to one.

    source

    • macaw_dean_settle@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Most cameras do not have IR blocking. This is how you are able to see IR LEDS with your phone, including remote control LEDS and security cameras with night vision.

      Also, infrared is very safe and you are spreading disinformation.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• Whats_a_lemmy@ponder.cat ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  “Do not point a camera directly at the lidar,” one support page admonishes in no uncertain terms.

  Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball

  source
• SW42@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Good. I need one of those and make it wearable for the people wearing smart glasses.

  source
• Drigo@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  The company specifically called out “close-ups” as the problem, meaning that our phones should be safe with distant shots

  Also I think they’re using lidar with a frequency of 1550 nanometer which can’t penetrate the eye or cause damage.

  source

  • scintilla@lemm.ee ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    If you could find a source for that it would be comforting lmao.

    source

    • Tabula_stercore@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      An additional factor with these systems is that light around the 1550 nm wavelength band (common for optical amplifiers) is regarded as relatively low risk, since the eye fluids absorb the light before it is focused on the retina. This tends to reduce the overall risk factor of such systems.

      And remember

      To heat 1 cm³ of water by 1°C, you need approximately 4.184 joules of energy, as 1 calorie is defined as the energy required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1°C, and 1 cm³ of water has a mass of about 1 gram.

      So to heat your eye of 1cm3 in 1 second you need 4.2 watts of infrared to enter your eye. That sounds too much power for lidar, but couldn’t find quickly how much power is emitted by lidar though…

      source
    • Drigo@sopuli.xyz ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      If you go to luminartech own website, on the home page, if you scroll abit down, they have a LiDAR 1550nm vs 905nm section and a downloadable 7 page pdf where you can read about it. It’s of course biased because they themselves are making it, so bear that in mind.

      source