Page 2 of 2

Re: LiDAR vs stereo depth cameras for humanoid navigation - what's actually winning?

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2025 5:32 pm
by sharonschmidt
From what I've seen: 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: LiDAR vs stereo depth cameras for humanoid navigation - what's actually winning?

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2025 7:26 pm
by scott21
@sharonschmidt Worth being a little skeptical of the marketing angle here. 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. 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.

Re: LiDAR vs stereo depth cameras for humanoid navigation - what's actually winning?

Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2025 11:14 am
by jwang
One nitpick - 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.

Re: LiDAR vs stereo depth cameras for humanoid navigation - what's actually winning?

Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:26 am
by dchen
@jwang I'd take that specific number with a grain of salt, honestly. 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.

Re: LiDAR vs stereo depth cameras for humanoid navigation - what's actually winning?

Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2025 2:11 pm
by pierregreen
Slight correction, though the overall point stands: 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.

Re: LiDAR vs stereo depth cameras for humanoid navigation - what's actually winning?

Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2025 11:13 am
by dubois35
I don't think that's quite right, for what it's worth. 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.

Re: LiDAR vs stereo depth cameras for humanoid navigation - what's actually winning?

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2025 3:14 am
by emilyperez
@dubois35 Slight correction, though the overall point stands: 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. 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. Makes me wonder how this looks in another five years.

Re: LiDAR vs stereo depth cameras for humanoid navigation - what's actually winning?

Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2025 5:27 pm
by williams84
@emilyperez Here's the relevant bit as far as I understand it: 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.