Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Toys Technology

New Car Sensor System Simulates Birds-Eye View 150

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the and-people-still-wont-be-able-to-parallel-park dept.
narramissic writes "Remember when you had to turn around in your seat to parallel park? Ok, maybe you still do, but if you drive a Nissan, those days may soon be behind you. The company's 'Around View Monitor system' displays a virtual bird's-eye view of the car and what's around it. Video from four small video cameras with wide-angle lenses — two mounted on the underside of the wing mirrors, one at the front under the grill and one at the rear under the license plate — is displayed on the navigation system monitor so that it appears to be a view from above the car and sonar sensors at each corner of the vehicle provide an audible warning when it is coming close to an object or person. And as if that weren't enough... the system also projects the car's future course based on the current direction of the wheels."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Car Sensor System Simulates Birds-Eye View More

New Car Sensor System Simulates Birds-Eye View

Comments Filter:

  • AVM in action (Score:3, Informative)

    by heneon ( 570292 ) on Saturday October 13, 2007 @04:31AM (#20964253)
    See the link:
    https://www.nissan-global.com/EN/TECHNOLOGY/INTRODUCTION/DETAILS/AVM/index.html [nissan-global.com]

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Why are you giving people an https? Here it is without the 'wrong certificate warning' dialogs,

      http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/TECHNOLOGY/INTRODUCTION/DETAILS/AVM/index.html [nissan-global.com]

      While it's an interesting concept, especially in Tokyo where you regularly see microvans in spaces with an inch to spare (it's a tax thing, not land cost), do we have anything but PR here?

      This could be just another flavour of concept-car, in which case it's no more now than it was in 60s Mechanic's Illustrated. (Yes, I was promised flyin

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by solitas ( 916005 )
        It IS an interesting copncept, but I'd rather see images with cars and pedestrians arount the vehicle - you SURE aren't gonna see images as nice and clean and 'correct' as the flat-plane parking lot surface shown in the demo.

        I'd bet the imagery would look pretty wild and subject to a hell of a lot of interpretation by the driver.

      • Re:AVM in action (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Dun Malg ( 230075 ) on Saturday October 13, 2007 @11:41AM (#20966243) Homepage

        While it's an interesting concept, especially in Tokyo where you regularly see microvans in spaces with an inch to spare (it's a tax thing, not land cost), do we have anything but PR here?

        This could be just another flavour of concept-car, in which case it's no more now than it was in 60s Mechanic's Illustrated. (Yes, I was promised flying cars when I grew up, and I'm kinda bitter.)
        This isn't the same class as the "flying car". We already have cameras and monitors in cars. This is simply an evolutionary improvement. We will be seeing this, and probably quite soon.

        The crucial bug to be defeated is it must see everything yet not generate false positives, and that's a very difficult "last mile" to accomplish. Where we are right now is your ubercar backup sensor causes very expensive damage because it was confused the antique metal bar fence.
        This system is basically four video cameras. Video cameras are not confused by wrought iron fences. You're confusing this with purely non-visual ultrasonic proximity detection systems. This system is supplemented with sonar prox units for collision warning, but it is primarily a visible light based system.

        Is it really too much to read and understand the /. blurb in its entirety?
  • New Car Sensor System Simulates Birds-Eye View

    I see, so they've perfected a computerized bird-feces targeting system?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gooman ( 709147 )
      Yes, but it only works right after you wash the car.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by arivanov ( 12034 )
      1. It is a Nissan for the USA market (Infinity EX35). A target so big that it is hard to miss even for a very clueless bird. That is beside the fact that crap on top of crap is really hard to notice.

      2. Nissan has been trying to compensate for the abissmal visibility by cameras for a while now. The Primera in EU was released this way. It was a majestic flop. While the old Primera was one of the most popular family saloons, the new one did not achieve even 10% of the old model sales (more likely 5).

      3. In orde
  • a shame the cameras are placed so low. With more/other cameras, you might see a bike next to your car, a pedestrian behind your parked car... Especially useful for larger cars, vans, trucks,...

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by wlad ( 1171323 )
      With more cameras you could get an even better picture of the environment, perhaps even give a 3D view of the happenings around you car. Sure, that would be even better, but this is an start :)

  • Third person driving! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tremegorn ( 1111055 ) on Saturday October 13, 2007 @04:47AM (#20964295)
    The safety benefits of such a system are immense, but; Does this mean driving down the highway is going to be like playing some strange version of Grand Turismo?

  • And... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Cyno01 ( 573917 )
    How long does it take to flip through the views of all these cameras, look at your projected course, adjust, look at your new projected course...
    They're called bumpers for a reason. Well, they used to be anyway, some years ago manufacturers decided to take all utility out of them...
    • You did not read the article. Not even the _summary_.
      There is no flipping through views.
    • Well, RTFA, but one thing's so damn true: Bumpers ain't what they used to be.

      I once owned an old car. A Mercedes from 1960something. Back then they were quite cheap here (standard joke: My computer costs more than my car, and my car's a Mercedes. Gets you quite funny looks).

      This thing had bumpers. It was my first car, thus prone to accidents. Now, if there's one thing it had, it was good breaks. Usually better than the breaks of the guy behind me. I've heard more than one of those plastic fake bumpers shatt
      • This is one thing I like about my pickup truck - it has real bumpers. Last July I got rear-ended at a traffic light by an idiot that was paying more attention to his phone call than driving. The impact was hard enough to set off both of his airbags and crunch his bumper, hood, grille, headlights, etc., but did no damage to my truck except for bending the back bumper down a bit, and that was easily fixed with a puller at the body shop for about $60. Had I not had a solid, non girly-looking, real metal bump
  • I'm sorry to disturb the parallel parking conveniences day dreaming of some, but the real advantage is the elimination of blind spots. For starters, if every SUV (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/22/earlyshow/living/parenting/main526462.shtml [cbsnews.com]), truck (http://www.oregonlive.com/metro/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1192245943100770.xml&coll=7 [oregonlive.com]), tractor (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1440-1754.1998.00177.x?cookieSet=1 [blackwell-synergy.com]) or van had such a device, thousands of lives around the globe

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Osty ( 16825 )

      I'm sorry to disturb the parallel parking conveniences day dreaming of some, but the real advantage is the elimination of blind spots. For starters, if every SUV, truck, tractor or van had such a device, thousands of lives around the globe would be saved each year.

      Or you could teach people how to actually drive those behemoths, assuming they have a real reason for doing so (no, hauling the crotch-spawn around in an SUV doesn't count). Or you could teach people not to drive in another vehicle's blind spot

      • There are problems with increased perceived security, it is directly correlated to the attention and concentration of the driver. Likewise, only 1/5th of accidents happen while it's raining, because people drive more safely. In the Netherlands a death spot system (mirrors or cameras) is mandatory on trucks to protect the bikers and kids since 2003, the first results show the system is often ill aligned or maintained, while the drivers rely on it and lazily skip the part where they really watch, and this iro
        • I'm not sure where you live, but to me, it doesn't seem like it rains more than 1/5 of the time. So it could be completely unrelated. There actually could be a higher rate of accidents while it's raining, because it doesn't rain every day, at least not unless you live in the tropics. And even there, it only rains a couple hours, not all day long.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Skater ( 41976 )
        So, wait. You drive a convertible with a huge blind spot when the top is up, and I'm supposed to know where that is?

        Trucks, RVs, busses, no problem, I know where their blind spots are, because they're all essentially the same. But if you think I'm taking the time to learn the blind spot of every car on the road, think again. If your safety relies on everyone else knowing where your blind spots are, then you'd better drive something else or keep the top down.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Paco103 ( 758133 )
          What's there to learn? Ever car has pretty much the same blind spot, some are just larger than others. If the vehicle has no rear view mirror (trucks, cargo vans, etc) , than close behind is a blind spot (you should never be that close anyway). The dangerous blind spots are always about about 4 and 8 o'clock. Too far up for [regular] mirrors to see you, too far back for the drivers peripheral. Convertibles don't have steel beams in the roof, so there's a large canvas patch that would interfere with the
        • If you can't see my mirrors, I can't see you.

      • Re:Saving lives (Score:4, Funny)

        by tjstork ( 137384 ) <todd DOT bandrowsky AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday October 13, 2007 @08:32AM (#20965079) Homepage Journal
        Or you could teach people how to actually drive those behemoths, assuming they have a real reason for doing so (no, hauling the crotch-spawn around in an SUV doesn't count).

        You just wait until you have kids. Then I will laugh at you, as you try and contort a couple of car seats into some tiny japmobile. And, if you never have kids, then I'll still laugh at you, because you have eliminated your genetic destiny.
        • 2 kids. Both a rear-facing infant carseat and the older one's carseat fit with no problems in both a Jetta and a "japmobile". No contortions required. Same story now that we have one in a child's car seat and a full-size booster seat for the older one. If you have 3 or more kids that require child car seats, then you've got a point. Otherwise, this is a bogus argument.
          • In Canada, children require car seats until they are 8 (booster seat), so it's quite common that if you have 3 kids, that they will all be in some form of child seat at the same time.
            • Ages: 0, 2, 2, 4, 6, 7

              Putting even a pair of car seats next to each other is hard, because there is no room between them to fiddle with the seat belt fasteners. Three in a row is horrible.

              If I can't use the front seat, then I think the only choice smaller than a full-size van is the Chevy Suburban.

              I don't want to slide all over the road in a full-size van or Chevy Suburban. I don't like rollovers. I hear that Canada even gets ice on the road. WTF? Canada sucks.
          • Otherwise, this is a bogus argument

            There's no "argument" involved at all in this. I don't like it when a bunch of money grubbing idiots call me a sinner for what kind of movie I watch, and I don't like when a bunch of money grubbing idiots call me a sinner for the kind of car I drive. Jerry Falwell, Rex Humbard, Al Gore, Al Sharpton, Rachel Carson, the head of NOW, the boss of the Sierra Club, are all doing the exact same thing, and are cut from the same damn cloth - pointing at other people, dividing soc
    • I wouldn't overestimate the advantages of such a system. It only seems to cover one or two meters around your vehicle, so for it to be advantageous, you and whatever you're trying to avoid would need to be moving quite slowly. Firstly, because you'd need time to pay attention to the screen. And secondly, because you're not going to see that cyclist on your screen before he's right in your windshield, too. So I think that system might help you to not hit grandma walking behind you on Walmarts parking lot, or

  • It's got a lot of coolness factor to it but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt AT nerdflat DOT com> on Saturday October 13, 2007 @05:28AM (#20964423) Journal
    I'd be concerned about the possibility that people could become dependant on these features after driving with them for a while, causing otherwise normal almost used defensive driving skills to atrophy, and setting up for an accident if (when) the system malfunctions.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )
      my bad for hitting "submit" before hitting preview... I mean to say otherwise normal almost-_constantly_ used defensive driving skills.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Opportunist ( 166417 )
        That danger is there. You can already see it in people who're used to non-blocking breaks. Should they ever have to drive a car without ABS, you see a lot of interesting skid marks on the road.

        Then again, I think ABS avoided more accidents than it caused, and so will this system. Yes, should it fail the person used to it will be more accident prone, but still, we'll see fewer accidents where the driver failed to see someone in the dead corner.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Skater ( 41976 )

          Then again, I think ABS avoided more accidents than it caused...

          Actually, it hasn't [iihs.org] (question #4).

          • The main problem with ABS is that while it can reduce your braking distance in wet conditions by keeping each tyre right at the limit of adhesion, it's just no substitute for having enough distance from the car in front. It doesn't "make your brakes better", it just gets as much grip as possible - which is often not a lot.

            It's bloody useless on ice.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Skater ( 41976 )
              Yeah, but nothing is very useful on ice. :)

              In some situations, you actually WANT the tires to lock up - loose gravel is a good one. But those types of situations are rare - ABS really should be helping overall, but like almost everything else, its value is offset by the fact that few people bother to really understand what they're doing when they're behind the wheel.
            • From my experience when on ice the ABS effectively turns off the brakes. Which might actually be a good thing, because if you're going straight and hit the brakes on ice, there are two options -

              without ABS you will lock up the tires and lose control, likely entering a spin and/or sliding off the road, into a ditch, tree or light pole.

              With ABS, they will be pulsed so much the brakes will basically not engage at all or very little, and you will continue on straight. If you were going straight, that is.
          • Well, how many times do you hear of accidents that didn't happen?

            ABS is no safety belt or airbag where you have an accident but the belt or bag keeps you from getting hurt. Do you report it when you have to hit the pedal to the metal and barely make it before you hit the car in front of you?
            • ABS also makes you a more careful driver - it's frigging embarrassing when you punch the brake pedal and *everyone* in the car hears/feels that characteristic chattering, confirming that you're a screw-up who didn't leave enough following distance. :-D

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by WK2 ( 1072560 )
      As badly as computers screw up, they are more consistent and reliable than people.
      • Sure, computers may be more reliable than people, but people reliant on computers (or calculators) are incapacitated when they don't have their mental prosthetics.
    • I have a car with truck size mirrors, front and rear parking sensors. Then it had to have a problem fixed under warranty and for a week I was driving a hire car. No fun at all. Since I got it, I had become used to being able to park in spaces only a couple of feet longer than the car. Now I needed at least 4 feet and found myself driving round looking for easier places to park. I imagine with this system you would rapidly become almost helpless when parking without it.

      In fact, that's at the root of the reas

    • <tongue-in-cheek>I agree! It's the exact same set of problems caused by brakes. People become dependent on them, causing otherwise normal downshift-and-dodge skills to atrophy, and setting up for an accident if (when) the system malfunctions.</tongue-in-cheek>
  • IIRC, Microsoft already made this a while ago.
    • That means someone else has made this before them.
      Thus we had it around a long time ago. When?

  • I want to see around corners (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Saturday October 13, 2007 @05:37AM (#20964459)
    Forget "birds eye" view - I want a "car's nose view." A pair of cameras mounted at the very front of the car - one camera facing right and the other facing left. That way I can see "around" hedges, tress, fences and other visual obstructions when crossing or turning onto a road.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by _Spirit ( 23983 )
      I can't find it on the BMW website, but BMW actually have a system which does exactly that. I think they do it with one camera with a lens system that splits the image 90 degrees both ways (so the camera faces forward and sees both left and right at the same time). It displays onto the satnav screen.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by _Spirit ( 23983 )
        Update: I managed to find it, go into the accessories section and look for something called "Side View".

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by internewt ( 640704 )
          A mate's Toyota has got that, but its more for pulling the car out of really blind entrances onto a road. You can see sideways from the very from of the car so that you can see if anything is coming, even when it may be impossible to tell from the cabin. It is not a system to let you see round corners!
    • I want something like that on the van I drive at work..

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by josecanuc ( 91 ) *
      Which brings up a pet peeve of mine -- cities/municipalities that do not trim overgrown vegetation from around corners of road intersections. There are a few intersections where I live that have so much un-pruned hedges or overgrown trees that it causes the hurried folks who want to turn right-on-red so badly that they pull INTO the intersection so they can see if it's clear to turn. It's a danger to those other hurried people on the main road who are driving so fast and not paying attention to cars in thei

  • Does the system record the video? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ReallyEvilCanine ( 991886 ) on Saturday October 13, 2007 @05:54AM (#20964517) Homepage
    Mark me as a troll as much as you want but anyone who's been through a Terry stop (or, for that matter, any sort of police stop) in the US will want this recorded along with a few well-placed mics for audio. At least 45 minutes' recording. Just in case you missed it, here's a good example [thenewspaper.com] of the reason why. I've been through such stops in Tennessee, Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania and Maryland and I've never been guilty of Driving While Black.

    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by kklein ( 900361 )

      I've had stops like that. Really, there's no good reason why it should be illegal to gun cops like this down. They are parasites, and extremely dangerous. They erode the credibility of our legal system and violate the nigh-sacred trust we put in them. They are, in all seriousness, the worst people in the world. Worse than the more archetypical criminals, because they masquerade as the "good guys."

      Never trust a cop.

    • One of my co-workers is working on putting a couple of webcams in his car to record what happened in case he was involved in an accident (I won't get into his being a former demolition derby driver). What's ironic about this article is that we were talking about mounting small cameras in the wing mirrors for aiding in parking - he drives a Prius and it is darn hard to judge where the corners of the car are.

  • if you live in the USA... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...soon you won't need your own cameras on the car, Homeland Security can just let you know where you are and what's around you (where you're going... who you are with... what you ate for lunch... what you last read... etc)

    This would be funny if it wasn't true - federal police are now being given access to military satellites.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PhxBlue ( 562201 )

      This would be funny if it wasn't true - federal police are now being given access to military satellites.
      I just want to point out, you are also being given access to military satellites [af.mil]. So when you're talking about federal police having access to military satellites, you might want to be more specific.
  • can it see magnetic fields? Do not insult the birds.

  • I'm waiting for the first lawsuit ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IchBinEinPenguin ( 589252 ) on Saturday October 13, 2007 @07:45AM (#20964875)
    ... after the cameras fail to spot something (or someone).

    • ... after the cameras fail to spot something (or someone).
      What idiot mod modded this insightful? The cameras don't "spot" anything. They passively transmit an image to the center console screen where the driver does all the spotting.

      Is it really too much to ask that people read even the /. blurb?
      • Fair comment.... I could have been a bit clearer in my original post:

        I'm waiting for the first lawsuit when someone hits something (or someone) and then blames the system for not being perfect (blind spot, distortion, latency, colours wrong .....).

        In the land where you can sue for burning yourself on a "HOT apple pie" at the same time that you can sue if the contents aren't sufficiently hot, I'm guessing this is only a matter of time.
    • Thats what legal disclaimers stating something to the effect of "This device is in no way, shape, or form a replacement for actually looking out your window. If you still hit something, it's not our fault because of this paragraph." As long as they have that at least *somewhere* buried within the contract/manual/warranty/etc, any case against it with your hypothetical reason would get thrown out pretty quick...
      • You must be thinking of one of those weird lawsuits that actually goes to trial, where evidence is heard dispassionately and the plaintiff is laughed out of court (but not before doing squillions of dollars worth of PR damage to the defendant).

        I'm thinking of a _real_ lawsuit, the kind that's quietly settled with a big fat NDA before ever going anywhere near court.
  • Surely it would be easier to attach one of those new dragonfly-drones to the roof of the Nissan and launch it when parking, saving immensely in the computer processing power required.
  • As an owner I can suggest that the Nissan 350Z needs this feature first as it has arguably the worst rear visibility of any of the current cars in the Nissan line up.

  • I want small drone airplanes continuously flying above the major highways and streets and broadcasting the observed view over a TV-band. Anybody with a compatible set within range will then be able to observe traffic incidents, police traps, and road repairs in real time.

    Supposedly, our military's use of such things is rapidly growing [usatoday.com]. Police use is growing [news.com] too. Hopefully, the technology will allow peaceful civilian use soon.

    It can be advertising-sponsored — the images may display an advertising l

  • What do real obstacles look like? (Score:3, Informative)

    by CTho9305 ( 264265 ) on Saturday October 13, 2007 @10:42AM (#20965773) Homepage
    The demo video somebody else linked to looks interesting, but it's easy to synthesize a good "top-down" view from side views when you're on an empty parking lot (i.e. flat surface). It would have to look strange to see a side view of the car next to you munged to appear as top-down though...
  • George Foreman must be ecstatic.
  • sure it's neat, but I still think it's sad that we're building such darn fragile cars in the first place. Impacts at less than 5mph should be tolerable - the fender-bender, key scratch, dent repair industry must consume billions each year, not to mention insurance headaches, time lost from work etc. I'd rather see a car with some big honkin' soft, non-marking rubber pads surrounding it than a car with a really expensive imaging system that essentially serves the purpose of protecting itself.

    Also, this sys
  • I've been thinking for a while about something like this on my RV. There are serious blind spots there, and something like this would be a huge help.

    I hope they will sell (or license, if they've patented it) the system for other vehicles.

    Yeah, I know, if it dies, you're back to the old fashioned way. But if it dies, there's going to be no picture, so you'll know. It's not going to silently edit out that idiot in the Mini Cooper hanging close to your right rear tire.

  • It'll make drivers think that it's not happening to themselves. Sometimes, video-game interfaces are no good in real life.
  • I wonder how this handles low- and no-light situations. Big floodlights on each side of the vehicle?
  • Tssssch. One of the few useful things Dad has ever told me about driving is how to reverse-park. You can do the whole thing in your mirrors if you know (a) aim your rear nearside corner mid-way between the two vehicles, and (b) aim your rear offside corner at the middle of the car behind's numberplate.

    Other than that, if you don't know the length of your own car, what the hell are you doing sitting behind the wheel?

    Oh... vauxhall drivers don't have to know their own length nor look around nor use mirrors no

Slashdot Top Deals

Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.

Close