Camera dynamic range issues under warehouse lighting - anyone solved this?

IMUs, force/torque sensors, depth cameras, LiDAR, tactile skin, SLAM, and state estimation.
james15
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2025 3:39 am

Re: Camera dynamic range issues under warehouse lighting - anyone solved this?

Post by james15 »

I can speak to this a bit. Latency between a perceived event (like a slip) and a corrective control response matters enormously for balance - even 50-100ms of extra perception latency can be the difference between a smooth recovery and a fall, which is part of why a lot of balance-critical sensing is proprioceptive rather than vision-based.
william.moreau6
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2026 12:47 pm

Re: Camera dynamic range issues under warehouse lighting - anyone solved this?

Post by william.moreau6 »

From what I've seen: Force/torque sensors near the ankle give a direct read on ground reaction forces, which is valuable for balance control, but they add cost, a failure point, and routing complexity right at a joint that already takes the most mechanical abuse. Estimating joint torque from motor current draw is cheap and requires no extra sensor, but it's less accurate than a dedicated torque sensor because it doesn't capture friction losses through the gearbox - good enough for coarse control, not always for precise force-controlled tasks. Kind of makes me think about how different this all looked even three years ago.
greta.carter
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2026 9:12 pm

Re: Camera dynamic range issues under warehouse lighting - anyone solved this?

Post by greta.carter »

@william.moreau6 Slightly off-topic, but related: Latency between a perceived event (like a slip) and a corrective control response matters enormously for balance - even 50-100ms of extra perception latency can be the difference between a smooth recovery and a fall, which is part of why a lot of balance-critical sensing is proprioceptive rather than vision-based. Estimating joint torque from motor current draw is cheap and requires no extra sensor, but it's less accurate than a dedicated torque sensor because it doesn't capture friction losses through the gearbox - good enough for coarse control, not always for precise force-controlled tasks.
they/them
dorothy_kuma
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2026 6:49 am

Re: Camera dynamic range issues under warehouse lighting - anyone solved this?

Post by dorothy_kuma »

Minor factual note: Latency between a perceived event (like a slip) and a corrective control response matters enormously for balance - even 50-100ms of extra perception latency can be the difference between a smooth recovery and a fall, which is part of why a lot of balance-critical sensing is proprioceptive rather than vision-based.
"Torque is a lifestyle."
omar.farouk
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2026 2:11 am

Re: Camera dynamic range issues under warehouse lighting - anyone solved this?

Post by omar.farouk »

@dorothy_kuma Just to be precise about one thing: Estimating joint torque from motor current draw is cheap and requires no extra sensor, but it's less accurate than a dedicated torque sensor because it doesn't capture friction losses through the gearbox - good enough for coarse control, not always for precise force-controlled tasks.
she/her
niklassantos
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon May 04, 2026 3:24 am

Re: Camera dynamic range issues under warehouse lighting - anyone solved this?

Post by niklassantos »

Pretty much this. One thing to add: LiDAR gives reliable, lighting-independent range data but is heavier, pricier, and gives sparser point clouds up close than stereo or depth cameras, which is why a lot of humanoids lean on stereo/depth cameras for near-field manipulation and reserve LiDAR (if present at all) for longer-range navigation. Depth sensing range and reliability both degrade outdoors in direct sunlight for most structured-light and active stereo cameras, since the ambient IR washes out the projected pattern - it's a real limitation for humanoids intended for anything beyond indoor, controlled environments.
karen.chen3
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2025 1:30 pm

Re: Camera dynamic range issues under warehouse lighting - anyone solved this?

Post by karen.chen3 »

Small correction on one detail: Unitree's Dex3-1 dexterous hand packs around 33 pressure/tactile sensors per hand across the fingers and palm, capable of sensing pressure roughly in the 10g-2500g range - a useful reference point for what 'production tactile sensing' looks like right now.
they/them
nschmidt
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2026 9:26 am

Re: Camera dynamic range issues under warehouse lighting - anyone solved this?

Post by nschmidt »

Agreed, and I'd add: Vibration is one of the most underrated sources of noisy IMU and tactile readings - mounting matters as much as sensor quality, and a poorly isolated mount can add more noise than the sensor's own datasheet specs would suggest. SLAM in a working warehouse is harder than in a controlled lab mainly because the map keeps changing - pallets move, people walk through, lighting shifts near dock doors - so a lot of production systems lean on semi-static maps refreshed periodically rather than pure continuous SLAM.
Watching this space closely since 2019.
jessica_faro
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2025 5:26 am

Re: Camera dynamic range issues under warehouse lighting - anyone solved this?

Post by jessica_faro »

Not sure I fully agree here. Unitree's Dex3-1 dexterous hand packs around 33 pressure/tactile sensors per hand across the fingers and palm, capable of sensing pressure roughly in the 10g-2500g range - a useful reference point for what 'production tactile sensing' looks like right now. This whole thread is a good reminder how young this field still is.
they/them
servobre20
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2026 6:16 am

Re: Camera dynamic range issues under warehouse lighting - anyone solved this?

Post by servobre20 »

@jessica_faro Side note that might be relevant: A minimum viable sensing suite for safe bipedal walking generally includes joint encoders, an IMU for orientation/angular velocity, and either force/torque sensing or accurate current-based torque estimation at the ankles - everything else (vision, tactile, LiDAR) adds capability rather than being strictly required just to stay upright. SLAM in a working warehouse is harder than in a controlled lab mainly because the map keeps changing - pallets move, people walk through, lighting shifts near dock doors - so a lot of production systems lean on semi-static maps refreshed periodically rather than pure continuous SLAM.
Ex-automotive, now full-time robots.
Post Reply