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

Question about result of DyNeRF dataset : a difference between the results in the paper and my results #30

Open
minsu1206 opened this issue Jul 11, 2023 · 6 comments

Comments

@minsu1206
Copy link

minsu1206 commented Jul 11, 2023

Hi,

Thank you for sharing your work and the interesting model you've developed.
I hope that your model becomes the new standard for Dynamic NeRF models.

I trained the K-planes hybrid version using the DyNeRF dataset, following your instructions without making any other changes to the configuration. Here's what I did:

  1. Precomputed IST & ISG weights by setting downsample=4, global_step=1.
  2. Trained the model by setting downsample=2, global_step=90001 back again.

For training, I used one A100 32GB and torch=1.10.1.

Then, I evaluated models with --validate-only and --log-dir /path/to/dir_of_model

I compared my results with the results from the supplementary paper, and I marked my results in red.

image

There seems to be a mismatch in the metrics, and the performance appears to be worse than MixVoxel-L.
My question is, how can I achieve the same results as described in the paper?

Best regards.

@sarafridov
Copy link
Owner

Hmm I'm not sure what could be going on here since I am able to reproduce the numbers in the paper (at least I checked for the salmon scene), but some things you can try are: (1) in case there's any issue with the preprocessing for the ray sampling weights, you can try using some that I uploaded for a few of the scenes (the .pt files here for salmon and in flamesteak_explicit and searsteak_explicit). If you download these and put them in your data directory, then you can go straight to the full training with the default config and it should work. (2) I doubt this would be the issue, but you can double check that your python environment matches mine in case this is due to some package mismatch; I uploaded my environment package list with the version info here. Note that this includes some unnecessary packages along with the ones that are actually used (sorry about that, we might upload a cleaner version later).

@xuyaojian123
Copy link

Hmm I'm not sure what could be going on here since I am able to reproduce the numbers in the paper (at least I checked for the salmon scene), but some things you can try are: (1) in case there's any issue with the preprocessing for the ray sampling weights, you can try using some that I uploaded for a few of the scenes (the .pt files here for salmon and in flamesteak_explicit and searsteak_explicit). If you download these and put them in your data directory, then you can go straight to the full training with the default config and it should work. (2) I doubt this would be the issue, but you can double check that your python environment matches mine in case this is due to some package mismatch; I uploaded my environment package list with the version info here. Note that this includes some unnecessary packages along with the ones that are actually used (sorry about that, we might upload a cleaner version later).

Could you upload DyNeRF full scenes hybrid pretrained models? Thanks a lot!

@xuyaojian123
Copy link

Hi,

Thank you for sharing your work and the interesting model you've developed. I hope that your model becomes the new standard for Dynamic NeRF models.

I trained the K-planes hybrid version using the DyNeRF dataset, following your instructions without making any other changes to the configuration. Here's what I did:

  1. Precomputed IST & ISG weights by setting downsample=4, global_step=1.
  2. Trained the model by setting downsample=2, global_step=90001 back again.

For training, I used one A100 32GB and torch=1.10.1.

Then, I evaluated models with --validate-only and --log-dir /path/to/dir_of_model

I compared my results with the results from the supplementary paper, and I marked my results in red.

image

There seems to be a mismatch in the metrics, and the performance appears to be worse than MixVoxel-L. My question is, how can I achieve the same results as described in the paper?

Best regards.

May I ask if you got the correct result later? My results are even a little worse than yours, especially the SSIM metric.

@minsu1206
Copy link
Author

Sorry, I tried 2~3 times again, but couldn't get it.

@xuyaojian123
Copy link

I used your pre-trained model to get metrics, but also differently from the paper metrics (testdata downsamle×2), especially the ssim metrics. Is there any difference in how ssim metrics are calculated?

@kapil-4944
Copy link

@ minsu1206 The results compared in the SSIM metric are similar to the values given in the MS-SSIM metric in pre-trained results shared by the authors, so they must have compared with the same metric in all the other models as well.
@sarafridov, is this the case?
By the way, the MS-SSIM metric should be a more reliable metric for videos.

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

4 participants