Page 2 of 2
Re: Stereo vs structured light vs ToF - which depth tech ages best on a moving robot?
Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2026 7:02 pm
by ethan17
@thomas65 Minor factual note:
Sensor fusion mostly earns its keep by covering for each individual sensor's weaknesses - vision struggles with occlusion and lighting, IMUs drift, force/torque sensors are noisy at low loads - fusing them gives a more robust estimate than any one source alone, independent of raw compute. Event cameras (which report per-pixel brightness changes rather than full frames) are still more of a research curiosity than a production sensor for humanoids, mainly because the software ecosystem and processing pipelines around them are far less mature than for standard frame-based cameras.
Re: Stereo vs structured light vs ToF - which depth tech ages best on a moving robot?
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2026 3:53 pm
by robertmiller
@ethan17 I'll believe the stronger version of that claim when it's independently verified.
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. Event cameras (which report per-pixel brightness changes rather than full frames) are still more of a research curiosity than a production sensor for humanoids, mainly because the software ecosystem and processing pipelines around them are far less mature than for standard frame-based cameras.
Re: Stereo vs structured light vs ToF - which depth tech ages best on a moving robot?
Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2026 1:40 pm
by young58
From hands-on experience,
Proprioception (the robot's sense of its own joint angles, velocities, and forces) tends to get less attention than flashy vision systems, even though a lot of balance and manipulation failures trace back to proprioceptive noise or miscalibration rather than a vision problem. 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.
Re: Stereo vs structured light vs ToF - which depth tech ages best on a moving robot?
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2026 11:46 pm
by samuel.campbell8
@young58 Ran into exactly this myself.
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. Event cameras (which report per-pixel brightness changes rather than full frames) are still more of a research curiosity than a production sensor for humanoids, mainly because the software ecosystem and processing pipelines around them are far less mature than for standard frame-based cameras.
Re: Stereo vs structured light vs ToF - which depth tech ages best on a moving robot?
Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2026 6:17 pm
by edward.nelson
@samuel.campbell8 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.
Re: Stereo vs structured light vs ToF - which depth tech ages best on a moving robot?
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2026 1:20 pm
by zoeanderson
Just to be precise about one thing:
Multi-camera calibration drifts over time from thermal expansion, vibration, and mechanical wear, which is why production systems typically run periodic recalibration routines rather than assuming a one-time factory calibration holds forever.
This whole thread is a good reminder how young this field still is.
Re: Stereo vs structured light vs ToF - which depth tech ages best on a moving robot?
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2026 10:00 pm
by lperez
I'd take that specific number with a grain of salt, honestly.
Sensor fusion mostly earns its keep by covering for each individual sensor's weaknesses - vision struggles with occlusion and lighting, IMUs drift, force/torque sensors are noisy at low loads - fusing them gives a more robust estimate than any one source alone, independent of raw compute.
Re: Stereo vs structured light vs ToF - which depth tech ages best on a moving robot?
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2026 8:39 pm
by ronald.clark
@lperez This matches what I've seen too.
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.
Re: Stereo vs structured light vs ToF - which depth tech ages best on a moving robot?
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2026 2:29 am
by servobre20
@ronald.clark Appreciate the detailed answer.
Tactile skin arrays have improved a lot, but 'good enough to matter' really depends on the task - coarse contact detection across a large area is fairly mature, while fine, high-resolution force distribution sensing (like a human fingertip) is still the harder problem.
Re: Stereo vs structured light vs ToF - which depth tech ages best on a moving robot?
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2026 2:23 pm
by servoken70
Yeah, this tracks with what I've read as well.
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. IMU drift over time (bias instability) is usually the real culprit behind slowly diverging state estimates, not noise - it's typically handled with sensor fusion against other references (visual odometry, joint kinematics) rather than trying to eliminate drift at the source.