Backup Camera Quality to Improve?

[Jhenson29]

I love my Taycan. I’m a big cheerleader. Even keep my pom poms in the trunk.

But the camera is for sure a weak point.

Sure, it’s functional to see whether or not something is directly behind you.

But the distortion really makes it disorienting.

Here’s one view. Look at how squished the houses are.

And here’s the other view. Houses looks better, but…um…my garage sure isn’t curved like that…

These are just still images, but looking at it in motion or trying to judge distances is really difficult.

And toggling views will make you dizzy. ?‍?

Contrast this with my Macan. The far view is somewhat distorted, but not nearly as much as the Taycan. And I find the Macan less disorienting in general.

In fact, I’ve never had any issues or complaints about any cameras on any cars prior to the Taycan.

We have transit connects at work with no rear windows and tiny screens for the camera that I would argue are easier to back up than our Taycan.

I’m not returning the car or buying a Tesla, so save your text.

The camera is just a weak point. I can’t defend it. It is what it is.

 

[kreshi]

Now look at the new Kia EV6 - I linked the video with the time stamp where he shows the camera.

 

[W1NGE]

I love my Taycan. I’m a big cheerleader. Even keep my pom poms in the trunk.

But the camera is for sure a weak point.

Sure, it’s functional to see whether or not something is directly behind you.

But the distortion really makes it disorienting.

Here’s one view. Look at how squished the houses are.

And here’s the other view. Houses looks better, but…um…my garage sure isn’t curved like that…

These are just still images, but looking at it in motion or trying to judge distances is really difficult.

And toggling views will make you dizzy. ?‍?

Contrast this with my Macan. The far view is somewhat distorted, but not nearly as much as the Taycan. And I find the Macan less disorienting in general.

In fact, I’ve never had any issues or complaints about any cameras on any cars prior to the Taycan.

We have transit connects at work with no rear windows and tiny screens for the camera that I would argue are easier to back up than our Taycan.

I’m not returning the car or buying a Tesla, so save your text.

The camera is just a weak point. I can’t defend it. It is what it is.

There are two views per front and rear camera - unless this is a feature of the 360 panoramic only (I have the 360 option). To be clear, you get both the fisheye and the non fisheye as per your Macan shot. Perfect...if you have the 360 optioned.

 

[Jhenson29]

There are two views per front and rear camera - unless this is a feature of the 360 panoramic only (I have the 360 option). To be clear, you get both the fisheye and the non fisheye as per your Macan shot. Perfect...if you have the 360 optioned.

I’m not sure I’m following you.

I posted both views from the Taycan and noted how they’re both more distorted than the Macan, which I also posted. I’m not sure which part wasn’t clear? But I can fix the post if needed.

I do have 360 view in both cars (turned off in Macan picture so it would show more of rear view camera on smaller display).

 

[fullmetalbaal]

In what direction?
You just aren't able to adapt to a situation and file a complaint at the NHTSA...
Indeed, that's not funny, it's hilarious.

As I said before, I agree it could be better.
We're already on page 5 and we have an official complaint at the NHTSA so to me it looks like all has been said and done.
I'm out and thank you for this great thread! ???

PS I don't think your complaint will stand a chance cuz especially for people like you there's a safety warning included by Porsche:

I have no idea what criteria NHTSA uses to determine the validity of a complaint and the culpability of the manufacturer.

But a disclaimer in a manual clearly doesn't relieve the manufacturer of responsibility.

This can be easily seen by NHTSA investigations in the past years: We would be seeing 0 investigations surrounding driver assistance and autonomous driving systems, since they are all covered by these types of disclaimers, and that's clearly not the case.

 

[W1NGE]

I’m not sure I’m following you.

I posted both views from the Taycan and noted how they’re both more distorted than the Macan, which I also posted. I’m not sure which part wasn’t clear? But I can fix the post if needed.

I do have 360 view in both cars (turned off in Macan picture so it would show more of rear view camera on smaller display).

Sorry I'd didn't read your post that closely.

I'll check my own again but I get a clear view ie 180 Deg with no distortion in addition to the fish eye.

 

[Beardo]

Looks like they need to use the bottom half from the Fisheye view and the top half of the normal view and splice them together - then it'll be average!

Coming from a Model S with a crystal clear rear view this caught me by surprise on the test drive, its the distortion rather than the quality thats the issue with the rendering. It's was a £500 option (but now included with a bump in list price...) and it makes you look out of the mirrors instead. Terrible.

 

[Jhenson29]

I have no idea what criteria NHTSA uses to determine the validity of a complaint and the culpability of the manufacturer.

But a disclaimer in a manual clearly doesn't relieve the manufacturer of responsibility.

This can be easily seen by NHTSA investigations in the past years: We would be seeing 0 investigations surrounding driver assistance and autonomous driving systems, since they are all covered by these types of disclaimers, and that's clearly not the case.

I have no idea how it works in the automotive world, but with industrial machinery, warnings in manuals are considered administrative controls and are extremely low on the risk reduction measure totem pole. Their implementation only has a small affect on reducing risk and only if it can be shown that other measures are not reasonable or possible. I.e. they aren’t generally a substitute for other measures.

But the key there is reducing the risk. What’s the risk the camera is mandated for? It’s not scraping your bumper.

So, I think the question that will be asked is whether or not it’s sufficient for reducing the intended risk. If it’s an issue of misjudging a few inches and the primary goal is to not run over people, well, I don’t know about you, but I generally don’t try to get within a few inches of people (especially children).

 

[Jhenson29]

Sorry I'd didn't read your post that closely.

I'll check my own again but I get a clear view ie 180 Deg with no distortion in addition to the fish eye.

Post pictures! It would be great if you could do another car with the same view to compare as well.

 

[fullmetalbaal]

I have no idea how it works in the automotive world, but with industrial machinery, warnings in manuals are considered administrative controls and are extremely low on the risk reduction measure totem pole. Their implementation only has a small affect on reducing risk and only if it can be shown that other measures are not reasonable or possible. I.e. they aren’t generally a substitute for other measures.

But the key there is reducing the risk. What’s the risk the camera is mandated for? It’s not scraping your bumper.

So, I think the question that will be asked is whether or not it’s sufficient for reducing the intended risk. If it’s an issue of misjudging a few inches and the primary goal is to not run over people, we’ll, I don’t know about you, but I generally don’t try to get within a few inches of people (especially children).

I believe in the US, backup cameras became mandatory to reduce (hopefully eliminate) the risk of hitting kids when backing up. There were a number of high profile cases of parents hitting and in some cases even running over their own kids, and so there was a big push to make these cameras mandatory. So it wasn't about scratches on the bumper...

EDIT: Found it : It's indeed about improving rear visibility to avoid pedestrians/kids, it was the "Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act in 2008" that made it happen.

This is also the main reason why the "just use the mirrors" comment is a bit unfair. The visibility out of the back of this car is probably the worst I've seen in a passenger car. Straight out the back is basically useless. The side rear mirrors lose a lot of visibility out back due to the "hip". I haven't tried it, but I wouldn't be surprised if you just can't see anything that's within 4 feet right behind the car and lower than the trunk - no matter how you adjust your mirrors.

I'm not worried about static objects. I'm worried about kids and pets. So whatever checking of "what's behind me" I do when walking to the car can be out of date by the time I'm in the drivers seat and the car finished it's little boot up song and dance.

Our driveway has some darker corners and at night it can be seriously hard to tell whether that's our neighbors cat our just a contrast smudge on this camera. I've gotten out to verify - that's something I've not had to do in any other car. And on any given day, I'm studying the camera vs. just quickly glancing at it...

 

[Jhenson29]

I believe in the US, backup cameras became mandatory to reduce (hopefully eliminate) the risk of hitting kids when backing up. There were a number of high profile cases of parents hitting and in some cases even running over their own kids, and so there was a big push to make these cameras mandatory. So it wasn't about scratches on the bumper...

EDIT: Found it : It's indeed about improving rear visibility to avoid pedestrians/kids, it was the "Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act in 2008" that made it happen.

Yes, that’s what I said too. To avoid hitting people and had nothing to do with scraping bumpers.

I’m not sure if you think I’m disagreeing, but it sounds like it.

Maybe my “it’s not scraping the bumper” sentence was just poorly worded. I meant “it (the risk to be mitigated) is not (as is - is something other than) scraping the bumper.” I.e. scraping the bumper was not a consideration for mandating backup cameras.

Actually, my question for why they added it was rhetorical. I assumed It was common knowledge.

I'm not worried about static objects. I'm worried about kids and pets. So whatever checking of "what's behind me" I do when walking to the car can be out of date by the time I'm in the drivers seat and the car finished it's little boot up song and dance.

I agreed the camera is bad, but I think it does serve this purpose fine.

Our driveway has some darker corners and at night it can be seriously hard to tell whether that's our neighbors cat our just a contrast smudge on this camera.

Take a picture to post next time it happens.

And separately…why is your neighbor’s cat roaming around??‍

 

[fullmetalbaal]

Yes, that’s what I said too. To avoid hitting people and had nothing to do with scraping bumpers.

I’m not sure if you think I’m disagreeing, but it sounds like it.

Maybe my “it’s not scraping the bumper” sentence was just poorly worded. I meant “it (the risk to be mitigated) is not (as is - is something other than) scraping the bumper.” I.e. scraping the bumper was not a consideration for mandating backup cameras.


Actually, my question for why they added it was rhetorical. I assumed It was common knowledge.

Looks like we are saying the same thing
Sorry, I might have just been dense on my end too - that's what I get for answering before having enough coffee

I agreed the camera is bad, but I think it does serve this purpose fine.
Take a picture to post next time it happens.

Sure can do - it's 100% reproducible.
I would say it 'works', but it's definitely unpleasant to use and noticeably more work to back up than with any other car (in the dark - day time it's shitty but fine).

And separately…why is your neighbor’s cat roaming around??‍

Lots of indoor/outdoor cats around here. Nice ones, too: Bengals etc. They roam quite a bit. Doesn't bother me at all (unlike dogs, they don't crap on my lawn ).

 

[TaycanFromTesla!]

Guys, for those of you who feel that this backup camera is adequate, please go ahead and sit in a Mercedes...... any model, and backup, and you will realize what one of the guys posted. This is 2010 stuff and really is a pity for Porsche to be producing this kind of quality. As I'm the one who started this discussion I thought I'd weigh in, and I'm sorry to say that functionally my daughter's Mazda 3 series has a better camera even though it doesn't have a 360° camera the camera is designed for backing up into tight spots...

I agree completely. I am coming from a 7 year old Tesla 4S to the Taycan Turbo. comparison is no contest so much better w Tesla. In fact, all the electronic features in my Taycan are way, way behind Tesla. If only the Taycan was not so better looking!

 

[RickDC]

Yes the camera quality is horrible, is just confusing. About improvement for sure we need to buy a new Porsche 2022-2023 model

 

[Claude Balls]

Same for me. Booked in to Porsche to have it sorted. The smear on lens appears to be an over spill of ceramic polish applied by dealer and that has since been cleaned. However, Image is distorted and resolution very poor and shows bottom of numberplate.

Sponsored