Lidar Can Permanently Damage Your Phone's Camera (jalopnik.com) 37
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
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:4, 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)
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: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.
This was brought up six years ago (Score:3)
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.
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:1)
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)
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.
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: (Score:3)
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
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?
Larger implication (Score:3)
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:1)
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
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.
can damage ... under certain circumstances (Score:1)
"under certain circumstances" = mounted on a hungry shark
The issue is wavelength (Score:1)