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

Easy to fit to a strange shape with 2d landmark. #37

Closed
Guocode opened this issue Oct 15, 2020 · 4 comments
Closed

Easy to fit to a strange shape with 2d landmark. #37

Guocode opened this issue Oct 15, 2020 · 4 comments

Comments

@Guocode
Copy link

Guocode commented Oct 15, 2020

When I try to fit my 2d landmark, I find it's easy to get a extremely distorted shape. How can I keep the a normal shape as well as
minimize the fitted 2d projection feature loss?

@TimoBolkart
Copy link
Owner

For correct landmarks this should not happen. Maybe check your landmark labels that they correspond with the FLAME landmarks. Once you are sure that everything is correct with the landmarks and you still get extremely distorted shapes, you can choose a higher weight in the code for the different priors (i.e. shape, pose, expression). Increasing these prior weights will regularize the parameters more and therefore constrain the shapes that you will get. Does this help you?

@Guocode
Copy link
Author

Guocode commented Oct 20, 2020

@TimoBolkart In fact, in large pose or some cases that is difficult to annotate, there is a gap between the annotated landmarks and the flame-defined landmark, so I think maybe the loss function should be modified to overcome the gap,for example using exponent function instead of l1 when loss is small, so that it will be tolerant for the annotation deviation. I have tried higher weight for priors you mention, which will lead to a more stable result but larger fitted landmark projection distance. The better solution is always adding more constraint like Ringnet.

@TimoBolkart
Copy link
Owner

You are absolutely right in cases of wrong or noisy landmarks, one could use some robustifier function before applying the loss, if some keypoints are not well fitted, one could either use a different loss (e.g. some exponential function) or weight some landmarks higher before summing the losses up. Other constraints like multi-person or multi-view information of course can also help to get better results.

@TimoBolkart
Copy link
Owner

Did you manage to solve your problem?

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