Skip to content
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

Issue in Reproducing the same result as mentioned in paper #35

Open
TE-ShreenidhiRamachandran opened this issue May 10, 2021 · 3 comments

Comments

@TE-ShreenidhiRamachandran

I ran the command "python3 iSeeBetterTest.py" for evaluation and used netG_epoch_4_1.pth model.
Used the foliage_test.txt,calendar_test.txt and city_test.txt as the input for images .
I got the PSNR values25.16 , 21.66 , 25.69 respectively
But the paper reports 26.57, 24.13, 28.34 respectively
I also tried to calculate the PSNR values on all the images in all scenes of Vid.
The PSNR I got for foliage ,calendar ,city ,walk is 24.65 , 22.01 , 26.09 , 29.04 respectively which still doesn't match the result reported by the paper
Please may I know if I m missing something because of which i m not able to produce the same result

@TE-ShreenidhiRamachandran TE-ShreenidhiRamachandran changed the title Does any model provided in repo produce the same result mentioned in the paper?.If it does.Please may i know which is the weight file? Issue in Reproducing the same result as mentioned in paper May 10, 2021
@BLCKEAGLE4
Copy link

Did you have any other problems with testing because I'm getting negative PSNR value?
I hope this helps you!
alterzero/RBPN-PyTorch#48

@TE-ShreenidhiRamachandran
Copy link
Author

Did you have any other problems with testing because I'm getting negative PSNR value?
Hi ,Thanks alot you for the help.
No,I dint face any other issue

@BLCKEAGLE4
Copy link

Also, try to use the foliage.txt file, not the foliage_test.txt and respectively for the calendar and city

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants