Undetectable Speed Detector Invented - Page 4

shotgunefx · 04-13-2005, 05:27 PM

I thought common CCD suffered the same problems. There was an article on slashdot awhile back (can't find it at the moment) on basically rendering cameras useless with bright point sources.

rushnrockt · 04-13-2005, 07:11 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by shotgunefx

I thought common CCD suffered the same problems. There was an article on slashdot awhile back (can't find it at the moment) on basically rendering cameras useless with bright point sources.

Well, you have to consider that a bright point source can render a 35mm camera just as useless. CCDs have higher dynamic range than CMOS which allows them to handle brighter light sources. I am also not sure about the "bleeding" you are talking about, if anything, it would be some sort of noise and CMOS handles that worse than CCD and it can be dealt with correct post-processing algorithms.

rushnrockt · 04-13-2005, 07:16 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by shotgunefx

Not saying it needs to be fool proof. I' m saying that I'm guessing that it's not going to work very well at all and be easily thrown off in my opinion. Yeah cameras range but not like that. IR or ultrasonic pulse doesn't tell you the tree on the left is 500 feet away while the house on the right is 200 ft. It just gives an approximate of what's directly in front of the camera. Try using auofocus through a screen. Not saying they couldn't work these problemsl eventually. There's a ton of money to be made. I also don't see why this is better than a two camera system. Cameras are dirt cheap.

Speaking of autofocus

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/autofocus3.htm

seems like this could help out quite a bit with no need for IR, sound waves or hot air from jtp's *** bouncing off the objects.

rushnrockt · 04-13-2005, 08:22 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Dr. House

Way to point out what was already mentioned in post #46 of this thread.

MOD EDIT: this is not needed here

XxAndyxX · 04-14-2005, 12:27 AM

Not pulling over for an unmarked police car pretty much blows your chances of receiving a warning, or instead of getting 10 over (while doing 20 over), you'll get fined for 20 over. The only time I wouldn't pull over is if I'm in the middle of nowhere, or it's really late.

rubicon · 04-14-2005, 01:54 AM

Yah, its called two marks on the road a set distance apart, and a stopwatch.

/old tech - not the most accurate, but it works

shotgunefx · 04-14-2005, 05:06 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by rubicon

Yah, its called two marks on the road a set distance apart, and a stopwatch.

/old tech - not the most accurate, but it works

That's basically what I was getting at. I think it trying to automatically determine the dimensions and locations of various landmarks in the picture would be iffy.

rushnrockt · 04-14-2005, 05:47 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by shotgunefx

That's basically what I was getting at. I think it trying to automatically determine the dimensions and locations of various landmarks in the picture would be iffy.

If commonly used cameras (digital and not digital) can do it, so can this system. And I am not talking about IR or sonic aiming. I left a link above for a passive autofocus system, so in this case something similar would be at work.

shotgunefx · 04-14-2005, 06:20 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by rushnrockt

If commonly used cameras (digital and not digital) can do it, so can this system. And I am not talking about IR or sonic aiming. I left a link above for a passive autofocus system, so in this case something similar would be at work.

That was an informative link, but still don't see how it would be applicable.
1. Camera technology is only one or two rows of low res sensors.
2. It only picks up contrasts (In well lit, high contrast scences).
3. It can't compute the distance, only the best focus by physically moving the lens around. Not saying you couldn't use the focal length to compute distance, but for an object moving at you doing 70 or 80MPH, it's going to be long gone before it can compute the distance.

Plus it's only the best focus for the whole scene, not an object that's far away an uncentered (and moving).

I dont' see this happening with cheap parts. Who knows though. I've played a bit with visions sytems and read a bit on it in my time. I'm guessing there is a reason why you don't hear of anyone using a single camera without anything else to "see" abitrary scences. It's almost always stereo vision with edge detection and/or combined with ultrasonics or infrared/laser ranging.

I very well could be wrong, but I think it's using edge detection, trying to guesstimate the size/position of static objects spacially to project the position in the car over several frames and using that to determien speed. I'm just saying that I doubt they could do that with anywhere near 100% accuracy.

Cameras are cheap, why are they using one? I'm guessing the goal is to come up with a new and patentable technology not because it's the best solution, but because it's novel.

I guess we'll see in a few years wether it pans out or not.