-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 95
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
questions on double_size and some blurred results #17
Comments
Could you tell me how to change the size of output image? |
Yeah, I too noticed the blurry part while running the code with Bear video. |
Hi all, thanks for your interest. To answer your questions, The double_size case was trained with the mask where the hole region is filled with the value 0.5, and non-hole regions with 1.0. There is no special reason behind this choice. About the fixed-size hole, your results look reasonable and I can reproduce that on the bear video.
|
Dear authors,
I'm studying your paper and codes, thanks for sharing!
I have a question that,
as I know from your codes and paper, 0 indicates non-hole pixels and 1 indicates hole pixels.
but why do you need to multiply masks by 0.5 when the input size is 512?
demo_vi.py
Also, I have observed similar results of some cases shown in your paper, however, some cases are very blurred (especially in slow-moving cases)
![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/7473216/64189158-522bb580-cea6-11e9-87c6-5c8fd0a4fe32.png)
This is an example from DAVIS (DAVIS/bear)
Is it reasonable? Or did I miss anything to get the results better?
Looking forward to your reply.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: