
Ouster's new digital Lidar – 128 beams, ultra-wide view - derek_frome
https://ouster.com/blog/128-channel-lidar-sensors-long-range-and-ultra-wide-view/
======
entangledqubit
Does anyone know whether eye safety is de facto maintained when your eye is
being continuously bombarded by the 100+ scanning lasers being emitted from
each of the 100 cars in the vicinity of an intersection? I'm on board with the
case with a handful of lasers scanning by quickly but the energy may really
start to add up in certain plausible future scenarios.

~~~
nullc
865nm too, presumably it only passes as class 1 eye-safe due to an time x
power x aperture exposure calculation...

I wonder how much we have to blame ITAR restrictions on >1555nm lasers for
things like this not being more eye-safe on a by-wavelength basis.

~~~
Reelin
> I wonder how much we have to blame ITAR restrictions on >1555nm lasers ...

I tried looking up information about this (restriction details, otherwise
feasible uses beyond that wavelength, etc) but it's hard for an outsider to
quickly make sense of. Any chance you could elaborate?

~~~
nullc
[https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/regulations-
docs...](https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/regulations-
docs/2338-ccl6-6/file)

The main section on lasers starts on page 47. The rules are very complicated.
See 6A995 d and f.

Lasers are also covered in other sections like 6A205. (I'm amused by Raman
shifters being covered-- they're literally just pressurized tubes with
hydrogen and mirrors at the end-- I can't imagine anyone qualified to use one
couldn't have one fabricated pretty much anywhere).

~~~
dmix
Reading law is always full of weird stuff like that, in between thousands of
lines of monotany.

------
utopian3
> The OS0 lidar sensor: an ultra-wide field of view sensor with 128 lines of
> resolution

> The OS2 lidar sensor: a long-range sensor with up to 128 lines of resolution

> Two new 32 channel sensors: both an OS0 and OS2 version

> Price: Starts at $16,000 with volume discounts available

I would LOVE to get my hands on this tech. Maybe in 5-10 years when the price
comes down to commodity level for hackers to play around with. :-)

Since LIDARs impact airflow over the top of a car, is there a way to make
LIDARs less spherical and more triangular or elliptical? How would that impact
the scans and can that impact be corrected/recalibrated mathematically?

~~~
derek_frome
While this is a ~80% discount on other 128 beam sensors, it's unfortunately
still out of reach for the hacker community. We absolutely plan to get prices
down to an affordable level for individuals in well under 5 years!

Also, Ouster runs a sponsorship program that gives deeply discounted or free
sensors to cool projects. If you have a cool idea, shoot me an email:
derek.frome at ouster dot io

~~~
blensor
Might be interesting to add the Ouster sensor to our sensor simulation [1] to
give people the ability to play around with the data even if it's outside the
price range?

[1] blensor.org

~~~
Darkphibre
Oh, this is interesting! I've been putting together a 6-Kinect rig to take a
3D scan of my body as I go on hormone treatment and an exercise routine,
monitoring subtle changes over time.

Does it support Kinect v1 and changing the orientation using the built-in
motors?

I also have a few projects using photogrammetry reconstruction of convention
booths using 2D images. I've been interested in adding in lidar/pointcloud
cameras...

------
kensai
Am surprised no one yet cited Elon saying "this is fool's errand" because of
price, complexity, etc. I think LIDAR will improve significantly the safety of
vehicles (autonomous or not) because it can definitely see better and deeper,
even in damning weather conditions (rain, fog, haze).

Alas, the price of these devices has to come down at least one order of
magnitude. Maybe even two. Still, I am really thankful that other companies
(since Tesla has no interest in it) are considering and further developing
LIDAR.

~~~
jiofih
As far as I’m aware LIDAR cannot see though fog, as the light is dispersed,
and even light rain might reduce range significantly.

Tesla cars have radar which can see through any weather condition and detect
transparent surfaces, invisible to LIDAR.

~~~
holoduke
Resolution of normal radar is much lower unless you have a gigant receiver.
Also there is a significant delay of 10 to 100ms That's why a combination of
lidar and radio radar is desired.

~~~
usefulcat
> Also there is a significant delay of 10 to 100ms

I'm curious why there is such an apparently long delay?

~~~
kyzyl
It really depends on the type of RADAR being used. If it's an FMCW radar,
typically you will get a beat signal whose frequency corresponds to the target
range. That frequency will vary with range, and in order to be well resolved
you have to observe it for something like 1/period. So that puts a fundamental
lower bound on how long you have to integrate. There are lots of tricks to
improve things, and there are lots of variants of the standard radar
hardware/methods, but I suspect that's what OP was referring to.

~~~
6nf
That doesn't explain 100ms delays though. Speed of light times 100ms round
trip is 15,000 km.

~~~
jiofih
Also curious, most of what I’ve read about FMCW radar mentions single-digit
millisecond latencies.

~~~
kyzyl
Yeah, it definitely can be shorter than 100ms. See my sibling comment. It just
depends on the type of radar being used and the target range/velocity.
Certainly for shortish range targets and mmwave radars on reasonably
reflective targets you can get a signal with decent SNR in shorter time
frames.

------
randyrand
Only temperature rated to -4F degrees. I hope they can get that lower. Up to
~25 days a year are <0F in Chicago for instance.

~~~
derek_frome
This is the spec for a cold start. If you give it a warm start, you can
operate it much lower than -20C! For instance, it's being used in underground
mines in Scandinavia without issue.

~~~
agoodthrowaway
The issue will not be at cold but at high temperature. VCSELs have very poor
efficiency at high temperature and it’s possible to operate them where
increasing current reduces light output. In a vehicle application the
temperatures are very high and humidity can also be very high and condensing.

~~~
apacala
Ouster CEO here.

This couldn't be further from the truth. You can design the VCSEL cavity and
top and bottom mirrors for peak efficiency at any temp, including very high
temps. I wonder what we did...

Compared to the side emitter diode lasers used in legacy spinning lidar,
VCSELS are cheaper, more efficient, more reliable, longer life, and better
quality light sources to boot.

~~~
agoodthrowaway
Unfortunately the gain falls as function of temperature so you also get a lot
less light and you have to pump harder (more current). So while it’s possible
to somewhat compensate somewhat with the mirrors the device still has this
behavior at high temperatures as the device self heats. This behavior is
widely documented in the literature.

VCSELs have a smaller current aperture and the current density is higher than
in an edge emitting laser. As the reliability is a function of the junction
temperature and the current density, VCSELs operating at high temperatures
have significantly reduced lifetime compared to an edge emitting device due to
the high current density.

See for example slide 5 which shows how lifetime scales as a function of
temperature and current density. For high reliability your devices need to
have low current density.

[http://www.ieee802.org/3/NGAUTO/public/adhoc/Kropp_NGAUTO_03...](http://www.ieee802.org/3/NGAUTO/public/adhoc/Kropp_NGAUTO_0317.pdf)

------
arcticfox
Very cool tech, and as a fan of Hyperion I think the company name is very cool
as well.

~~~
foxgrover
For those who don't know the reference :)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_Cantos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_Cantos)

------
Ousterer
The last rollout they did with the 32 channel version of the OS-1 had
laughable firmware that output a data set consisting of half zeros. Do they
still have the policy of "release now, make it work later?"

------
sanguy
Nice to see Velodyne get some market pressure.

------
DoofusOfDeath
Anyone have a LIDAR (or similar) product suggestion?

I'm getting ready to start a hobby project that involves scanning the interior
surfaces of a house. Ideally the accuracy would be at least 1/16" (1.5mm),
including any scan-stitching required because the sensor had to be moved
around.

I've seen a few promising products, but none stands out as a perfect match.

~~~
briffle
A project I wanted to play with 10 years ago, and didn't have time or money,
was a tool you could set in a room, and it would put laser 'dots' along the
ceiling where crews should hang the parts for a drop ceiling, to minimize cuts
of both hanger equipment, and the ceiling tiles.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
That's closely related to what I'm going for. Ultimately I'm looking to make
an A.R. system that guides various house remodeling tasks, including framing
and floor-leveling.

------
scotty79
I wonder how well this works if 20 such devices shine on the same object.

~~~
OnlineGladiator
That's sort of like asking how well cameras would work if 20 of them were
looking at the same object.

Lidar sensors can interfere with each other, and a certain industry-standard
company is famous for having terrible problems with this issue, but there are
engineering solutions to this problem. FMCW is a popular choice, and gives the
benefit of providing instantaneous velocity readings. Of course, due to the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle, this means you also get worse distance
estimation. There are other ways to engineer around the interference problem
as well.

[https://www.laserfocusworld.com/home/article/16556322/lasers...](https://www.laserfocusworld.com/home/article/16556322/lasers-
for-lidar-fmcw-lidar-an-alternative-for-selfdriving-cars)

~~~
mirashii
> Of course, due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, this means you also
> get worse distance estimation.

This isn't how the Heisenberg uncertainty principle works. For macroscopic
objects, the effects are completely dwarfed by other phenomenon. Keep in mind
that Planck's constant is 10^{-33} meters.

~~~
OnlineGladiator
I was actually wondering about this the other day. So what equation(s) would
you use to determine the variance in distance estimation relative to velocity
estimation? And it sounds like you're strongly implying the distance variation
is immeasurably small while accurately estimating velocity - is this correct?
I'm not sure the macro point makes sense, since you could have a large object
with only one point measuring it (or more realistically a dozen points, but
still far from what people mean when they say macro). But I'm curious to learn
more if you can provide the math.

~~~
PhaseLockk
I'm pretty sure the effect you are discussing has to do with the uncertainty
relationship inherent to the Fourier Transform [0]. This is very closely
related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and states you cannot
simultaneously constrain time and frequency, which are the values you need to
measure for position and velocity, respectively. In the context of signal
processing applications, I don't think the particle nature of light is
typically considered, which is why it may not be exactly correct to refer to
it as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in this context. This is a bit
outside my domain though, so take it with a grain of salt.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Signal_p...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Signal_processing)

~~~
kyzyl
So your're correct that there is a Fourier Transform analogy for the
uncertainty principle, but in the context of FMCW lidars (which brought up the
question of velocity vs position uncertainty), the measurement of frequency
actually determines both the position and the velocity. It's actually a
problem for most FMCW lidars because you just get 1-2 frequency measurements
and somehow need to disentangle what the range frequency is, as well as what
the doppler (velocity) frequency is. A massive amount of effort has been put
into developing lidar methods and architectures that solve this problem well.

But in summary, the uncertainty principle as encountered in quantum mechanics
has ~nothing to do with a trade off between range accuracy and range
uncertainty. It's possible that it could come into play in a very detailed
treatment of FMCW lidar SNR, in the context of counting return photons, but
also not generally necessary there. The time-frequency uncertainty plays a
role in that the range and velocity resolution both get better the longer you
stare at a signal. So for a given amount of reflected light, at a given
range/velocity, there is a fundamental lower bound to how long you must
integrate to a) get a signal at all and b) achieve a desired precision.

~~~
mattkrause
It's not just an analogy--the underlying math is the same. These course notes
have a nice little summary + a proof:
[http://www.its.caltech.edu/~matilde/GaborLocalization.pdf](http://www.its.caltech.edu/~matilde/GaborLocalization.pdf)

~~~
OnlineGladiator
Thank you for this! This is exactly what I was looking for.

~~~
mattkrause
It seems to be an extract from "Foundations of Field Computation" by Bruce
MacLennan, if you want to read the whole thing:
[http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~bmaclenn/FFC.pdf](http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~bmaclenn/FFC.pdf)

He and Dr. Marcolli have a bunch of interesting stuff on their websites if you
like this sort of stuff.

------
hadlock
How many moving parts does this have? What's the difference between solid
state lidar, and "digital lidar"? I understand that there are 0 moving parts
with solid state lidar.

~~~
derek_frome
This has a single moving part - a brushless motor that turns the turntable.
It's rated for over 100,000 continuous hours of operation, and passes
automotive shock and vibration standards.

There's a good explanation in the post about what we mean by digital lidar,
but the tl;dr version is we use silicon CMOS chips for lasers and detectors vs
analog components like side emitting lasers and APDs used by legacy lidar
providers.

Solid state is a bit of a buzzword, and most "solid state" lidar sensors
actually have small, delicate moving parts inside. Solid state sensors are
aimed primarily at consumer vehicles, which are still many years away.

The benefit is (at least in theory) easier integration into the vehicle fascia
and (again, in theory) higher reliability vs legacy spinning lidar, which are
quite unreliable in the real world.

Ouster's digital lidar sensors are much more reliable than the legacy analog
spinning lidar sensors, and much more compact - and therefore easier to
integrate.

------
withinboredom
> Ouster’s engineers have paid to ensure every sensor stands up to the wear
> and tear

IOW, no one is sure if it actually will

~~~
derek_frome
We do a tremendous amount of testing to ensure real-world reliability, and our
customers' results bear that out. Full functional safety certification is
slated for end of this year, which means it's already well underway.

We make a point of this because legacy spinning lidar is unreliable. But it's
unreliable because of the analog design, not because spinning is inherently
unreliable.

~~~
toxik
This seems dubious to be honest. Moving parts break, simply due to mechanical
wear at the very least. Gyroscopic forces for example from the spinning motion
is less than ideal for drones.

I realize a solid state lidar may be a very challenging prospect but it would
be a huge selling point!

------
las_balas_tres
Whatever happened to the solid state lidar sensor that osram was touting back
in 2016 ?

