Lidar Can Permanently Damage Your Phone's Camera (jalopnik.com) 70
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Jalopnik: With the gradual rise of semi-autonomous vehicles, there will likely be multiple cameras pointing back when you pull out a phone to take a photo or record video of a car. One reddit user found out earlier this month that car-mounted lidar sensors can damage a phone camera under certain circumstances. It was the technological equivalent of staring directly into the Sun. Their phone's camera was toast, but only because it was close-up and pointed directly at the lidar sensor.
Reddit user u/Jeguetelli posted worrying footage of a brand new Volvo EX90 from his iPhone 16 Pro Max. Nothing was wrong with the crossover SUV. That was the problem. The lidar sensor mounted in a pod above the windshield shot out a laser barrage of near-infrared light into the camera. The damage was immediate and obvious, leaving behind a red, pink and purple constellation of fried pixels. You can tell the permanent damage was to that specific lens because the image returned to normal after zooming out to a different lens. Jeguetelli didn't seem too concerned about the incident because he had Apple Care. In a statement to The Drive, Volvo confirmed that bad things can happen. "It's generally advised to avoid pointing a camera directly at a lidar sensor," the Swedish manufacturer said. "The laser light emitted by the lidar can potentially damage the camera's sensor or affect its performance."
"Using filters or protective covers on the camera lens can help reduce the impact of lidar exposure. Some cameras are designed with built-in protections against high-intensity light sources."
Reddit user u/Jeguetelli posted worrying footage of a brand new Volvo EX90 from his iPhone 16 Pro Max. Nothing was wrong with the crossover SUV. That was the problem. The lidar sensor mounted in a pod above the windshield shot out a laser barrage of near-infrared light into the camera. The damage was immediate and obvious, leaving behind a red, pink and purple constellation of fried pixels. You can tell the permanent damage was to that specific lens because the image returned to normal after zooming out to a different lens. Jeguetelli didn't seem too concerned about the incident because he had Apple Care. In a statement to The Drive, Volvo confirmed that bad things can happen. "It's generally advised to avoid pointing a camera directly at a lidar sensor," the Swedish manufacturer said. "The laser light emitted by the lidar can potentially damage the camera's sensor or affect its performance."
"Using filters or protective covers on the camera lens can help reduce the impact of lidar exposure. Some cameras are designed with built-in protections against high-intensity light sources."
Hmm, humans? (Score:5, Insightful)
So if a human happened to look right into an active LIDAR unit, would it cause any damage to the eye? Even though it's not in a spectrum we can see, something powerful enough could mess with some parts of the eye.
I honestly don't know, anyone have an idea?
Re: (Score:2)
I hope not, many phones also use lidar.
Orders of magnitude difference though (Score:1)
I hope not, many phones also use lidar.
That is true and in fact we are asked to stare into them for facial recognition... :-)
However, it seems like the LIDAR on a car would be quite a lot more powerful - the phone LIDAR has to reach just a few feet, I think car LIDAR is out to around 200 meters or more!!! That much more power makes me think looking right into it when really close, would be a bad idea - but I don't think it's powerful enough it would fry your eyes if you were just walking down the street a
Overheard at the car dealership (Score:2)
"Sir, not too close."
"Why don't you just kick the tires, like every body else does?"
Re: (Score:2)
There's a slight question of battery power. Projecting power - be it as radio signals to cell towers, or (non-existent) laser beams to peel the skin off the customer's face to recognise the internal bone structure, it all costs power. Which is why your phone might last several days receiving messages from the rest of the world (via the nearest cell tower), but only several hours with you sending speech (6kHz audio) to someone else.
Re: (Score:1)
What about a face is it that needs range information - the "R" in "lidaR"? Do people carry around models of someone else's face
Yes that is exactly how Face ID works, a 3D model of the face scanned with "infrared dots" - not exactly LIDAR, but similar.
However just as important is a big use of the rear LIDAR on phones - range finding for the camera! And 3D modeling a face in particular is precise focus on eyes, really useful in portrait mode.
There is also some use of 3D scanning of objects but I would say th
Re: (Score:2)
I hope not, many phones also use lidar.
That is true and in fact we are asked to stare into them for facial recognition... :-)
Lidar on iPhones [apple.com]: "Run this sample code on a device that provides a LiDAR camera, such as: iPhone 12 Pro or later ...." Used by the Measure app [apple.com], but not required: "These devices use the LiDAR Scanner to help you measure objects more quickly and accurately with the Measure app: iPhone 12 Pro and later; iPhone 12 Pro Max and later ...."
But not used for facial recognition.
Some cameras also use lidar for focusing, like this one [tomsguide.com]: "This camera, that I spent an hour with at the show, is equipped with LiDAR tech
Re: (Score:2)
if a human happened to look right into an active LIDAR unit, would it cause any damage to the eye
Infrared lasers can be extremely damaging to the human eye. Invisible light lasers are even more a danger than cheap laser pointers, and can cause rapid burning and permanent blindness quickly, since automatic reflex to look away from the light source doesn't occur.
I certainly would not suggest looking at a LIDAR, since the agency that regulates these; the FDA.. is apparently very optimistic and not terribl
Re:Hmm, humans? (Score:5, Insightful)
Retina damage isn't the only eye damage that can be caused by IR lasers. The iris, lenses, muscles and nerves that control them can also be damaged resulting in blindness or serious loss of vision.
If this system can damage a camera, it should not be on the road.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Just remember not to point your phone's camera at the cars headlights then.
You are just fine pointing your phone at headlights. Car headlights will not damage a camera. Drivers are not even allowed to have their high beams turned on when vehicles or pedestrians are within 500 feet ahead, and the law says you have to turn them off. If someone's eyes or cameras would be damaged (Which standard headlights won't cause), then you could be sued.
And I would strongly suggest that Volvo and the car's o
Re:Hmm, humans? (Score:5, Informative)
If this system can damage a camera, it should not be on the road.
Nope, complete ignorance. The damage mechanisms for cameras and eyes are not the same. It is absolutely possible to damage cameras using lasers perfectly safe for humans. A large part of the problem is sensor design, and sensitivity to certain wavelengths. Not all cameras will be damaged by a lidar.
This isn't the first time a sensor has been damaged. Anyone who has worked at professional concert venues knows someone who has had a camera damaged by the lightshow. Lights which are usually beamed directly into the crowd. You can find youtube videos of this happening all over the place: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] https://www.youtube.com/shorts... [youtube.com] https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
LIDARs are not only incredibly low power, but they are also swept giving you less exposure than even relying on a visible light blink reflex. The ones used in vehicles are universally Class1 or Class1M products, and while they may damage some cameras in some circumstances, they are far less dangerous than your manager's laser pointer.
Re: (Score:2)
Because of this, I do not go to concerts.
Because of what? A laser that is safe for shining at humans?
For me it ruins the show. Insanity.
It *IS* the show. And no, in most cases it's no the producer, but the band who dictate what the show is they put on. Bonus points, the band normally owns that equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
No. You can not like something for whatever reason, but since we're talking about laser safety don't say "because of this", and then call someone an arsehole for questioning that reason when you actually mean something else.
God bless Anonymous Coward posts. If I communicated as poorly as you did I also wouldn't want to attach a pseudonym to my comments.
Re: (Score:2)
If this system can damage a camera, it should not be on the road.
I'd agree if the system can damage standard cameras, then vehicles should be removed from the road bc of the fact it damages cameras.
In addition: the manufacturer of the vehicle should have to pay for the cameras that they damaged. I would think of Volvo as potentially liable for having caused damage by encouraging operation of dangerous equipment in an unsafe manner where it poses a risk of damaging cameras.
Assuming the camera's operator did
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't assume that car LIDAR is safe.
Just the fact that it is used doesn't mean it is safe. Industry creates lots of dangerous things and slips them by regulators.
I also think Volvo's attitude here is a problem:
Volvo confirmed that bad things can happen. "It's generally advised to avoid pointing a camera directly at a lidar sensor," the Swedish manufacturer said. "The laser light emitted by the lidar can potentially damage the camera's sensor or affect its performance."
Really? "Bad things can ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Automotive LIDAR systems meet eye safety standards. Part of that is that they scan rapidly though, and the one in the video doesn't seem to be doing that.
Re: Hmm, humans? (Score:2)
As long as the scanning mechanism doesnâ(TM)t stop. It might be interlocked to the laser which would reduce that risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Automotive LIDAR systems supposedly meet eye safety standards. Part of that is that they scan rapidly though, and the one in the video doesn't seem to be doing that.
FTFY.
Just because it was once approved doesn't mean that it's the same spec as when it was approved. It may look the same but may have been retuned for reliability reasons. Component suppliers also changes components, often for cost reasons.
A burnt out retina is no joke. A burnt out phone camera is merely annoying and if it can burn out the camera sensor then it will definitely burn out your retina.
Re: (Score:1)
Public Service Announcement. Don't stick your face or your camera 12 inches from the LIDAR emitter. The time of exposure and power at 12 inches is many magnitudes higher than the fraction of a second and lower power from exposure when you are 20 feet from the emitter. TFA said he was trying to take a close-up video when the sensor was damaged.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, if you're going down that road then you can say it about anything. Your brakes were approved based on some test samples, that might not apply to your specific brakes. Better not drive at all.
A more rational objection is that the eye safety standards were not necessarily formulated for, e.g. someone driving in traffic staring into a bunch of LIDARs for hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Certification of laser components do not work like that. All LIDARs are universally Class 1 / Class 1M products. Not being that would result in an instant end to the business as you get sued by the people you blind (a Class 2 laser doesn't exist in the IR world since you can't blink).
Re: (Score:2)
Automotive LIDAR systems meet eye safety standards. Part of that is that they scan rapidly though, and the one in the video doesn't seem to be doing that.
What makes you think the one in the video isn't scanning rapidly? Damage to the camera and the eye are different mechanisms. You can damage a camera with countless lasers which are safe for the eye, just look up "camera broken laser light show" on youtube to find countless examples.
Re: (Score:2)
The spot seems to drift with movement of the camera. It's a bit strange that there's only one spot, but it's possible the camera lens is small enough that it's on the order of the angular resolution of the LIDAR scan. If so, that's going to be pretty shitty resolution not that far from the car. Either way, if I were doing it I'd jitter the sampling to avoid narrow objects from slipping between samples, and give a bit more margin on the eye protection.
Possibly they're just not doing that. But it's also possi
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So if a human happened to look right into an active LIDAR unit, would it cause any damage to the eye? Even though it's not in a spectrum we can see, something powerful enough could mess with some parts of the eye.
I honestly don't know, anyone have an idea?
Yes!!
You should NEVER EVER put any laser of any class near your eye and turn it on.
Class 2 lasers, at one 7 meters away, will cause damage after a quarter of a second (250ms)
This is well within the reflexive time for your eye to close, but that only applies to *visible* light.
This class isn't used in vehicles for this reason. The only places they are to be used are controlled environments, a lab is fine of course, but in the field the area immediately around the laser is kept "off limits"
Vehicle lidar uses
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me that you have been watching some of the videos that Brainiac75 [youtube.com] creates that involves lasers and mega magnets.
Re: (Score:2)
Try searching up:
ICNIRP GUIDELINES ON LIMITS OF EXPOSURE TO INCOHERENT VISIBLE AND INFRARED RADIATION
I believe that LIDAR wavelengths mean that the eyeball damage concerns are about thermal damage of the cornea and near-infrared thermal damage of the crystalline lens. Risk assessments are made and certifications are given.
Anyone know that process or considerations as applied to automobiles?
Eyeballs aren't camera sensors, but I also would not knowingly stare into a LIDAR unit in the dark, for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Laser light is a coherent light source. That's pretty much what defines a laser. You're looking at the wrong documents.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much taken into account in the doc.
Obviously, you haven't looked at the document.
Re: (Score:2)
This was brought up six years ago (Score:5, Informative)
And Arstechnica: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2... [arstechnica.com]
Short version: Damage to cameras or eyes depends on both IR wavelength (850, 905 or 1550nm are mentioned), and power level. Title is pure clickbait.
Re: (Score:2)
Chronic IR exposure is known to cause cataracts. For example, people who work with red hot stuff, like glass blowers or steel mill workers, but not jalapeno growers.
Re: (Score:2)
Volvo EX90 (Score:2)
Nice. I looked at a picture of it on line. Where's the legally required warning sticker [bigcommerce.com]?
Re: Volvo EX90 (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A picture of an goatsEX90 will not damage your eyes, unless you find the design grotesque enough.
There, fixed that for you.
You will never have to worry about being blinded by lasers again.
Do BYD cars come with Lidar? (Score:2)
If you mention the Tiananmen square incident can the car fry you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing was wrong with the crossover SUV. (Score:2)
Except it was an SUV.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye (Score:1)
I was under the impression phone cameras had a short-pass filter in them.
But apparently not since I just tried it with my dvd remote and it saw it as pink...hmmm
Re: (Score:2)
Cameras used to contain filters that attenuate infrared. A powerful enough IR source is going to shine straight through the filters,
and the filters you find on modern phone cameras may be lighter and cheaper than filters that used to be used on cameras - especially with increased reliance on AI-based image processing built into cameras.
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from giving a wider range of "colour", what about an IR-unfiltered image is it that would be specifically useful to an AI?
Can phone camera sub-assemblies report, say, "this image in blue", "this image in green", "this image in red", and "this image in IR"? That would certainly give more information - which is why astronomers have been doing the same thing with wet chemical cameras since the days of glass plates and multiple-hour exposures.
Conceivably, without the IR filter over the sensor, you could a
I work with laser rangefinders (Score:4, Informative)
The most powerful devices range up to 32 km and can actually damage their own sensor when ranging something close and reflective. They use 1550nm pumped IR lasers and each pulse pumps out 8 kW. They're eye-safe but they certainly aren't camera safe.
up to 32km ... and beyond (Score:1)
to the moon and back [spie.org].
Re: I work with laser rangefinders (Score:1)
An 8 kW pump in an eye safe laser? Yeah I know efficiency and all...but still...you sure about your numbers?
Re: I work with laser rangefinders (Score:5, Informative)
They're nanosecond pulses. The instantaneous power is 8 kW but the power on average is around 5W, and that's only when it actively ranges, which happens for only a short time at each cycle.
And then if it's been asked to range too many times within a few seconds and the number of joules per second delivered exceeds the eye safety limit - some ISO standard I don't recall - the device refuses to range until the eye safety counter "cools off" so-to-speak.
With infrared, it's all about limiting the average power to avoid cooking the eyeball like egg white. The thermal inertia of an eyeball full of water is such that you can deliver quite a lot of power in one sitting for a short time, then stop, and it's perfectly safe.
Re: (Score:2)
So... will Theaters be able to install these for shows to prevent the audience from using their cameras?
will hackers use these to disable security cameras? can it be temporary or does anything effective has to do permanent harm?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mounting banks of these around the stage, with illuminated "these will fry your camera" signs will not stop people from using their cameras. They might not use any particular camera twice, but they certainly will once.
No, hackers will log into the camera control system and point the cameras to various random positions for random periods at random times, on a random walk. Which by coincidence (not a coincidence) leaves all the cameras looking at other camera
Larger implication (Score:5, Insightful)
All of Tesla's self-driving systems depend 100% on optical cameras, as a cost-saving measure. But the more other brands start deploying LIDAR based cars, the higher the likelihood that one of those LIDAR emitters would be literally two feet in front of or behind a Tesla at a stoplight, slowly frying its cameras the entire time you're waiting for the light to turn green. The more damage to the sensor, the more difficult it will be for those affected Tesla's to make the right decisions in self-driving mode.
Traffic cams could be impacted as well, albeit to a lesser extend since they would generally be positioned much higher and further away.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
the higher the likelihood that one of those LIDAR emitters would be literally two feet in front of or behind a Tesla at a stoplight,
The camera needs to be 2cm or less away from the laser emitter to still have enough power to cause damage.
Two feet (60cm) is more than an order of magnitude outside of the danger area.
This is why typically cars have the lidar inside and against the windshield. It's very difficult to place a human head against the windshield in a way to be less than 2cm.
This particular vehicle, from my one minute google searching, seems to be external and on the roof.
It still would be safe for other vehicles around it, but
Re: (Score:3)
There's not a car system out there that runs exclusively using LIDAR. If you have a lane keeping system (which all cars with LIDAR do) it is using cameras for that. LIDAR can't see surface colour. This is not just a tesla problem.
But lasers are not perfectly collimated sources. They do have a power spread over distance, and in this case the reviewer literally stuck the camera right in front of the lidar. If your Tesla's camera is that close to a LIDAR then there's a whole different problem at play.
Re: (Score:2)
And traffic cams. And random other cams when someone is shooting in the area as the car drives by.
Laser beams, in my dreams (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Some people would learn to read braille later on in life.
Even if not OHSA approved AvE [etsystatic.com] has some insightful stickers. The important thing is to make sure that people pay attention to risks. Too formal and dry and you forget about it when going around the corner.
Re: (Score:2)
At least one regular commentator here has been using that (intermittently?) as a signature for nearly as long as I've taunted Creationist idiots with mine.
can damage ... under certain circumstances (Score:1)
"under certain circumstances" = mounted on a hungry shark
The issue is wavelength (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have to check, but the longer limit of normal human vision is between 700 and 800nm, isn't it? ...) It's variable across circumstances [wikipedia.org]. "There is no hard wavelength limit to what is visible, as the eye's sensitivity decreases rapidly but smoothly, for wavelengths exceeding about 700 nm." But 780nm is mentioned in the cited article. And 700nm. And 750nm.
(Is "Wiki" a verb yet? Regardles, Self Wikis
Today LIDARs damage cameras... (Score:2)
I remember seeing a video of a concert (Score:2)
I'm actually a little surprised this hasn't happened/been reported on before.
Confusion in TFS (Score:2)
TFS, when quoting TFA, says "You can tell the permanent damage was to that specific lens because the image returned to normal after zooming out to a different lens."
Which tells me that either the article writer, or the summary-writer, or both, are being confused about the distinction between a camera's LENS and it's sensor. Or ... is it normal practice these days to have multiple sensors behind every lens on the back of your phone's camera? So you've really got 2, 3, or 4 entire camera systems in your phone