jdlaing Posted July 14 Share #21 Posted July 14 Advertisement (gone after registration) 21 hours ago, ronaldc said: What do you mean ? It’s been tested LiDAR damages phones and camera sensors full stop. The light beam bouncing back is probably not as focused. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 14 Posted July 14 Hi jdlaing, Take a look here LiDAR damage. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted July 14 Share #22 Posted July 14 On 7/13/2025 at 4:15 PM, jdlaing said: I wouldn’t worry about cars. An iPhone or iPad uses LiDAR. But only at a fraction of the power. LIDAR for self-driving cars is quite another thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 14 Share #23 Posted July 14 12 hours ago, Derbyshire Man said: It’s going to be a power issue? The power output from a phone/camera is potentially lower than the car’s. I read that the wavelength isn’t focussed by the human lens but is by glass. I’m not sure I understand that as laser light is collimated anyway. I do wonder about the long term impact of high power LIDAR from cars on eyes, not seen anything written. There’s certainly a strong LIDAR lobby group though. That is not quite correct The fluid in the human eye is opaque to the frequency. There is no harmful effect, unlike for instance 750 nm lasers, that are limited in power by law to prevent eye damage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Blanko Posted July 14 Share #24 Posted July 14 IMHO the part of the eye that could be seriously affected by LIDAR if there would not be the limit of the maximum power and pulse duration or energy dose, respectively, that is currently implemented in safety regulations is the retina. But it makes me nervous that the LIDAR can seriously damage a sensor of a camera, but is on the other hand allegedly safe to prevent damage of human eyes... 🤔 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derbyshire Man Posted July 14 Share #25 Posted July 14 3 hours ago, jaapv said: That is not quite correct The fluid in the human eye is opaque to the frequency. There is no harmful effect, unlike for instance 750 nm lasers, that are limited in power by law to prevent eye damage. Thanks Jaap, so it's not going to reach the retina? how about when there's a whole road full these things or one of them fails and the rapid scanning which is part of the safety fails and a laser stays pointed at the same spot. While I appreciate that different wavelength have very different transmission, eg HoYAG which has tiny transmission in water it still causes heating during that absorption in the 'opaque material' surely? I take it then its the camera issue is combination of the power of the LIDAR, the fact that unlike the human eye a camera is just glass and air interfaces rather fluid tissue lens in the eye and also possibly that the damage has occurred with telephoto lenses. It remains however very problematic when the roads fill up with LIDAR, the Volvo manual simply says it is the users responsibility not to use a camera to photograph the car as it may get damaged. That's obviously entirely unsustainable! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 15 Share #26 Posted July 15 Taking this to its ultimate consequence, it might well mean that the car owner is liable for damage sustained by an unsuspecting photographer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica_kh Posted July 15 Share #27 Posted July 15 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) This topic perked my interest as I've seen a a few posts about sensor damage from LiDAR equipped cars like Volvos. This made do a little research and there is a company, Kase, that supposedly makes a filter to protect sensors from LiDAR damage. I'm not promoting them nor suggesting they work, I haven't tried it out yet. But I may get one or two to protect my equipment when I'm out on photo shoots. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B4Y77621 Edit: Besides Kase, there's also two other companies I've found online that sell anti-laser filters: STC Optics and SZ Filters. Only issue I see is that I haven't seen a filter size smaller than 67mm which makes it a challenge to put on smaller diameter-sized lenses like on my Q3. Edited July 15 by leica_kh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted July 15 Share #28 Posted July 15 17 hours ago, jaapv said: But only at a fraction of the power. LIDAR for self-driving cars is quite another thing. Simple then. Don’t photograph self driving cars. 😃 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 15 Share #29 Posted July 15 Only 82mm, they don't give a transmission spectrum and talk about Laser pointers and theatre shows. There is no mention of powerful 1550 nm lasers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 15 Share #30 Posted July 15 14 minutes ago, jdlaing said: Simple then. Don’t photograph self driving cars. 😃 They all look the same nowadays. How to spot a Volvo in the distance when concentrating on your photo? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdk Posted July 15 Share #31 Posted July 15 (edited) Could the UV-IR cutoff filters made for the Leica M8 series help with this or do they not filter the LiDAR wavelengths of IR enough? Of course they might give unwanted corner color cast, though you can fix that in post with Adobe Lightroom Flat Field correction and a flat field image of a neutral white subject. You would probably want to profile the camera and lens with the filter too using Calibrite Color Checker Passport or SG system too. Edited July 15 by sdk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 15 Share #32 Posted July 15 They won't help.Different part of the spectrum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted July 15 Share #33 Posted July 15 On 7/14/2025 at 11:53 AM, jaapv said: That is not quite correct The fluid in the human eye is opaque to the frequency. There is no harmful effect, unlike for instance 750 nm lasers, that are limited in power by law to prevent eye damage. Cannot see it doesn't mean it is safe. I canot see X-ray! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 16 Share #34 Posted July 16 That has totally nothing to do with each other. Lead is opaque to X-rays which means they cannot harm you behind a lead screen. Eye fluid is opaque to 1550 nm light which means it cannot harm the retina. An umbrella is opaque to sunlight which means it cannot harm your exposed skin. All, obviously, dependent on the intensity of the radiation and the thickness and density of the opaque agent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted July 16 Share #35 Posted July 16 Besides retina, what about eye lenses? Are all Lidar 1550nm? Does 905nm lidar still exist? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Blanko Posted July 16 Share #36 Posted July 16 vor 12 Stunden schrieb Einst_Stein: Besides retina, what about eye lenses? Are all Lidar 1550nm? Does 905nm lidar still exist? According to a quick Google search, iPhone seems to use 940 nm LIDAR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 16 Share #37 Posted July 16 Which is aparrently safe and if it should it reach dangerous levels due to malfunction it will be automatically disabled. https://www.the-sun.com/tech/7795741/apple-warning-iphone-dangerous-laser-eyes-skin/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted July 16 Share #38 Posted July 16 (edited) 2 hours ago, jaapv said: Which is aparrently safe and if it should it reach dangerous levels due to malfunction it will be automatically disabled. https://www.the-sun.com/tech/7795741/apple-warning-iphone-dangerous-laser-eyes-skin/ You want to trust that statement? Malfunction ! Oh Murphy! If it malfunctions, I bet the first thing is the auto-disable! Serioursly, when a light energy hits human eyes, it is either abosorbed by something or reflected out. If it is blocked by the eye lens from reaching retina, then it is likely mostly absorbed by the lens. I doubt the eye lens could reflect out the majority energy. Would it cause damage is up to the amount of intensity. Edited July 16 by Einst_Stein Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 16 Share #39 Posted July 16 It is not blocked by the lens… I suppose you only venture out of the house wearing a blindfold? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Blanko Posted July 16 Share #40 Posted July 16 (edited) Just found this for illustrating the interaction of UV to IR radiation with the human eye, it's in German though: https://vorschriften.bgn-branchenwissen.de/daten/tr/ios_a/anl.htm It applies to incoherent radiation. Thus, for coherent radiation the effect of the possible damage should be even more significant. Edited July 16 by Robert Blanko Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now