They could parallax though, so that doesn't seem like the best argument.
They could also use complex optics like "plain lens" with a "fish-eye border", or highlight obstacles by boosting colour contrast or adding in non-visual sensor data.
If cameras are that much better we should be getting vehicles that use both (which we do for rear-view but not side-mirrors AFAIK).
I wonder if a pair of cameras under the center of the vehicle would meet the requirement for a rear-view camera. That'd be superior, because seeing right next to the wheels is actually useful. For viewing higher, we have windows and mirrors.
I'd say no to that, aside from the reliability and KISS aspects of this, there is one thing cameras won't be able to do properly: parallax. In tight parking spaces or near curbs I will often move around in the car so that I can see obstacles without having to adjust the mirrors.
while true for the driver-side mirror, the ability to move your head to get more/different visibility isn't nearly as true for the passenger side. I can easily imagine a scenario where a camera that covers any blindspot, which is nearer your face, and is potentially augmented with CV object detection. You could also imagine using the large touchscreen display in the center console to show the appropriate camera when using your turn signal. I'd probably opt for a camera rather than a physical mirror if it was good enough.
They have around double the angular field of view in both vertical and horizontal directions, and their placement at the rear of the car has a clearer line of sight than you do looking back from the front of the car. A rear view mirror (or even turning your head) has huge blind spots in comparison, including below the rear window where children and animals could be walking, and both sides which can be blocked by adjacent cars when parked, or landscaping when backing out of a driveway.
At first, I didn't like the lack of spacial positioning you have when you turn around and look with your own two eyes, but in reality I only need that when navigating an odd route in reverse, whereas I always benefit from the increased view that a camera provides.
I'm waiting for someone to propose pointing cameras in all directions and replacing the windshield and windows with screens. It'd let them cut the amount of glass in the vehicle down dramatically, which could have both cost and safety benefits. And it would enable them to remove longstanding visibility issues like blind spots caused by structurally necessary pillars; if the view outside is synthetic, no reason why it couldn't be synthesized in such a way as to provide complete 360-degree visibility.
(Of course, the fight to prove that a car which is essentially a closed container is safe to operate would make the fight to just remove the side mirrors look like a schoolyard scrap.)
This is one of those safety features with redundancy on mind that we could actually double down on it. Instead of replacing side mirrors with cameras how about we have cameras embedded in each mirror, let's say infrared/normal and night-vision so you could chose which camera to look at on screen or outside at the mirror for best assessment of your surroundings.
Cameras could certainly augment mirrors in ways that improve safety, but I do not believe that they can replace them (again, barring some serious headtracking). However Tesla was interested in getting rid of the mirrors to improve the aerodynamics.
>If cameras are that much better we should be getting vehicles that use both (which we do for rear-view but not side-mirrors AFAIK).
The 2015 Honda CR-V has a camera under the right mirror. When you turn your right blinker on, the screen switches to that view with an overlay for car lengths. It's kinda handy, but I probably wouldn't pay much more marginally for that feature.
Assuming your argument is that all you need is cameras, at what point does it become entirely a software problem? Once you have cameras that cover a sufficient FoV around the car? Or can pivot so that they can, like human eyes? How do you know that the cameras you have meet that requirement?
Even then, I'm not sure how you can say its always just a software problem when no one has accomplished it yet.
Off subject, but I'm surprised better rear view cameras/sensors are not being manufactured right now. I'm not talking about just a camera though.
Could anyone imagine a a smart camera, with a display. The camera/computer would assist the driver in seeing better at night. Would calculate the odds of a police cruiser behind you. Would warn of potential danger, like an animal on the side of the road. Would warn you if you are being followed. Would be so well designed, you still used your rear view, but kicked in at the needed times? Would map out likely spots police hide? Could even be tied into physiological body sensors? "Today is not a good day to drive? Watch out for ice. Watch you temper?"
The camera/sensors would have to be easily installed, like a stereo?
I would buy one if programmed right, and the cost was justifiable.
Then again there's someting beautiful about a simple chrome rear view mirror. A driver knowing they need to drive with all senses fully engaged, with no assistance other than experience, and good coordination.
The point is, switching to cameras has aerodynamic efficiencies. Mirrors are currently a necessary cost that cameras could replace to improve drag coefficients, improve fuel economy/range, etc. OP's concern was that the cameras would not provide sufficient substitution for the mirror's features. I'm arguing that wide field of view solves that problem.
I prefer solving it through the low-tech expedient of turning my head.
I think rear cameras are wonderful. They make reversing maneuvers so much easier, and cover a blind spot that is impossible to cover in any other way short of getting out of the car.
But I don't get the worry over side blind spots. They're only blind spots if you keep your head pointed resolutely forward.
Cameras already do on some cars. I think it might be some Volvo SUV's that no longer have mirrors, but cameras in their place. (I'm not into SUVs so I didn't pay attention to the brand, but I've seen several at the airport when I put my car in the long term parking lot)
Side cameras are massively inferior to side mirrors. Side cameras give you no parallax or 3d, and don't let you adjust where you are looking by adjusting your head position.
Turn on the front-facing camera on your smartphone and place it face up on your desk. Note that no matter where you move your head, you always see the same patch of ceiling (or your face, if you are over it). Mirrors don't work that way.
Aesthetics, aerodynamics, and cabin noise are poor reasons to do away with mirrors.
It'd be interesting if they went with additional cameras for this. For example, the rear-view mirror is a video feed already. It could stream from a camera you attach to the back of the trailer instead.
I don't have a lot of personal experience with trailers, a few thousand miles maybe. But I've never liked clip on side mirrors. They bounce around/vibrate. A camera system that's optically stabilized and patches into existing displays would feel a lot more natural for someone like me with minimal experience.
The kids case is one where camera has a clear benefit I'd say. Even if you have clear visibility to the rear window, you just can't see anything below the window height. And anyone coming from the sides you'd not see through the rear window either - but a very open vehicle might be a tad better through the side windows? Although with cameras being added to side mirrors or vehicle corners (and large screens!), that can also be expanded.
They could also use complex optics like "plain lens" with a "fish-eye border", or highlight obstacles by boosting colour contrast or adding in non-visual sensor data.
If cameras are that much better we should be getting vehicles that use both (which we do for rear-view but not side-mirrors AFAIK).
reply