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

why is this sorted according to cv_kpts.size? #6

Open
mqchen1993 opened this issue Aug 12, 2019 · 2 comments
Open

why is this sorted according to cv_kpts.size? #6

mqchen1993 opened this issue Aug 12, 2019 · 2 comments

Comments

@mqchen1993
Copy link

mqchen1993 commented Aug 12, 2019

if down_octave:
sort_idx = (-npy_kpts[:, 2]).argsort()
Hello, why is this sorted according to npy_kpts[:, 2]? I said that the content of npy_kpts[:, 2] is the diameter information of the feature point.Thanks! @lzx551402

@lzx551402
Copy link
Owner

Hi,

Keypoint sampling regarding its feature size (for a DoG-like detector) is a common practice in SfM pipelines (visualSFM, COLMAP etc.), which is the target application for this work. Usually, features with larger size are easy to match, while features with smaller size are more geometrically accurate. Since the geometry accuracy can be amended in later bundle adjustment, the sampling here is performed in descent order to ease the matching.

On the other hand, you may consider keypoint sampling according to its detection score (e.g., the DoG score for SIFT). Such sampling strategy is useful when you want to strictly limit the keypoint number (e.g., to 2000).

@mqchen1993
Copy link
Author

Hi,
Thank you very much for your answer. Because I try not to add this sort, the result will be very poor. Is it generally octave is relatively large, then the corresponding feature point scale is also relatively large? But if I sort by octave, the effect is also very poor. Thanks!

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