-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 69
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Is there a fixed deviation between the LiDAR frame and camera frame? #28
Comments
There is no fixed delay; the time deviation mainly consists of the variable exposure time and ISP processing time. |
@yunliuh Maybe it's because the image timestamp is assigned after the camera triggering and after the exposure time. |
Wanted to clarify. In the livox_ros_driver2 I couldn't find code which would read the serial containing the fake GPRMC messages. This seems to be present only in livox_ros_driver (old). Is it correct to assume that when using MID360 with livox_ros_driver2 the GPRMC messages should be sent from the STM32 directly to the MID360 via serial ( data/function cable ), so that the packets from the MID360 already contain the precise timestamps in the header, hence can be stored in /timeshare? |
Hello, upon reviewing your code, I’ve noticed that the time synchronization between the LiDAR and the camera is achieved by sharing the timestamp from the LiDAR scan header. This aligns the camera frame timestamps with each LiDAR scan timestamp. However, theoretically, the trigger moments for the LiDAR and the camera are not the same. Therefore, should there be a fixed deviation between them (since the camera is triggered by a 10Hz PWM signal, whereas the LiDAR is not triggered by a PPS signal)?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: