[bufferoverflow]

Self-driving. Ideally you want something around 1000fps and low latency, so it has time to react.

I'm sure military and sports applications are obvious too.

[gugagore]

I don't think you'll find a 1000 fps camera on a "standard" AV platform. And if you did, I imagine it would be too noisy to be useful without a ton of illumination.

[Aeolos]

Smartphones offer 960fps video capture since a while now.

[raverbashing]

Doubt

Humans reaction times are much slower than that. In fact for some things it can take a whole second https://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/reactiontime.html

Maybe racing sports have shorter reaction times, but I'd be frankly surprised if it was something < 100ms

10fps for your average drive should be more than enough

[gcanyon]

But machines aren't (yet) as capable as humans at driving-situation-recognition and driving-decision-making. One way they can compensate for those shortcomings is to be superior in other ways: 100% vigilance and super-fast reaction times/decision-making.

[cm2187]

Answering my own question. Possibly industrial applications like detecting objects on a fast conveyor belt. A recycling facility for instance.

[mhh__]

100ms is generally considered to be the lower bound for a valid start, i.e. 99 would be considered a jump start in F1 iirc

[ineedasername]

No, that's only if you want the human to be able to make the reaction. If the application was self-driving, you'd prefer the car to react faster than a human. For a military application like projectile detection to avoid or destroy the object, you'd want something even faster.

[bufferoverflow]

I'm not sure what your argument is. Any self-driving system should strive to be much better than human drivers. It makes complete sense to have reaction time much better than human.

[TaylorAlexander]

For reference I am making a farming robot that goes at 1 meter per second and I run the main control loop at 10hz. I would absolutely run a car that goes freeway speeds at at least 100hz.