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

Results without Patch loss #2

Open
Dawars opened this issue Dec 13, 2022 · 1 comment
Open

Results without Patch loss #2

Dawars opened this issue Dec 13, 2022 · 1 comment

Comments

@Dawars
Copy link

Dawars commented Dec 13, 2022

Hi,
This paper looks very interesting.

I'm wondering whether the patch loss is a necessary component of this method or it would work without this loss as well.

In the figures 11/12 you do a qualitative comparision against VolSDF and NeuS but they don't have this extra patch loss.
Wouldn't it be better to compare against SparseNeuS?

Thank you!

@flamehaze1115
Copy link
Collaborator

Hello,
The patch loss is not necessary. We don't enforce the patch loss for the open surfaces, since the patch loss assumes the surfaces are continuous.
The patch loss is only included in the training of closed surfaces (DTU here), and you can see the figure.6, the patch loss can improve the reconstruction results. Without the patch loss, our method also works well.
SparseNeuS is a generalizable work targeting sparse views, which is different from our setting.

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