Questions regarding to the "Shape Completion" experiments #16
Comments
It looks like there is a scale factor mismatch between your point samples and your reconstruction. For good results, make sure you're always using SDF samples in the canonical space. |
@tschmidt23 @jjparkcv It would be nice if you can respond at your earliest convenience, thanks! |
Hey @JiamingSuen , Did you use the same inference code, with the input being the partial model? also did you generate ground truth SDF for the partial shape and then use it during the inference for optimization? |
Yes I did. I only tried to use point cloud sampled from the surface(either complete or partial) as input data, so all ground truth SDF would be zero. In the partial point cloud input experiment, the result is worse than complete input but still reasonable considering the network has never seen these partial inputs during training. |
Hi @JiamingSuen, could you kindly advice how should we "calibrated the scale factor" for point clouds? |
Hi, JIaming "After using input data generated from the cpp preprocessing code, the shape completion result is better. It seems that the network is more sensitive to input data than I expected." So for the partial point cloud completion , you try to generate some points whose sdf value is not zero? And Could you advice how you generate ? Best, |
Hello @jjparkcv and @tschmidt23, thanks for sharing this great work. I've finished the model training on "chairs" class and have a few questions about the shape completion experiments in the paper:
sdf_gt
during inference for shape completion(even for noisy depth input)? Is it possible to use zeros assdf_gt
for point cloud input sampled only from the object surface?For the second question I experimented a little bit, the result is not quite as expected.
This is the input point cloud:
and this is the reconstructed mesh:
If this is possible, any ideas on what I did wrong?
Thanks a lot!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: