-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
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
The shape mismatch for lidar_ground segmentation array and points #6
Comments
Hi Mu,
This didn't happen in my previous experiments.
Can you report the token of this frame, so I can check the problem.
Best
Mu Cai ***@***.***> 于2022年10月10日周一 10:36写道:
… Hi Junbo,
Thanks for your great work!
When I run the pertaining for waymo, I found the shape mismatch for
lidar_ground segmentation array and points. The largest value in
lidar_ground is even larger than the length of the points... I wonder how
can this happen?
Thanks,
Mu
[image: image]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/65588556/194792073-904c6ba4-3070-40af-9154-72c8ad062754.png>
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#6>, or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHCPIYN75RDVEGVPUFJU3JDWCN6KNANCNFSM6AAAAAARA6QVFE>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
Hi, I've checked seq_305_frame_0, and it turns out that the points length
is reasonable.
You can load the original waymo points of seq_305_frame_0 and check if the
points length is also 169486.
>> a=pickle.load(open('../lidar/seq_305_frame_0.pkl', 'rb'))
>> a['lidars']['points_xyz'].shape
(169486, 3)
>> b=np.load('seq_305_frame_0.npy')
>> b.max()
169485
Besides, our ground_mask is initialized by the length of points. So if the
points length is right, the ground_mask should also be right.
Mu Cai ***@***.***> 于2022年10月10日周一 13:21写道:
… Thank you Junbo for your quick reply!
Actually, meany examples, occur this error. For example, under
seq_305_frame_0,
When we print len(ground_mask) and max(ground_point_idx)), we get
[image: image]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/65588556/194803016-e330096a-28c6-4d99-b550-45f960ea88db.png>
What do you get in this case?
Thanks!
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#6 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHCPIYNEYESMHEO4H4VSSJLWCORUBANCNFSM6AAAAAARA6QVFE>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Hi Junbo, I think the problem is here: for Best, |
Hi Mu,
It seems that you have a multi-machine setting. Since I only got a single
machine, I currently cannot address your problem due to the limited
bandwidth.
In my single-machine setting, the lidar_ground and lidar should follow a
strict name correspondence. (As stated in README, *'Please unzip the file
and place it at ~/data/Waymo/train/lidar_ground'.)*
Further, you can also generate your own lidar_ground by following the
examples at *https://pypi.org/project/pyransac3d/
<https://pypi.org/project/pyransac3d/>*. I think this would be pretty easy
for researchers in this field.
Best,
Junbo
Mu Cai ***@***.***> 于2022年10月10日周一 23:52写道:
… Hi Junbo,
I think the problem is here: for fnames =
list(glob.glob(args.tfrecord_path)), there is no strict ordering for the
file. Thus, the correspondence between fnames and idx is not correctly
matched for our two machine file systems. Therefore, can you give me your
output of fnames (a list with the length 798)? Thus I can match the
ground_point_idx with your indexing of scenes?
Best,
Mu
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#6 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHCPIYI643KMYO4YPBD7WODWCQ3S5ANCNFSM6AAAAAARA6QVFE>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Hi Junbo: Thanks for your reply!: Best, |
Hi Mu,
(1) We empirically set the hyper-parameter (i.e., distance above the plane)
as 0.1. You can also try other values.
(2) Our file names of lidar_ground strictly follow the corresponding lidar
file names, as I introduced before. You can follow this to change your own
lidar ground name.
Best,
Junbo
Mu Cai ***@***.***> 于2022年10月11日周二 22:35写道:
… Hi Junbo:
Thanks for your reply!:
(1) Can you tell me your hyper-parameters in ransac3d? Just the default
one?
(2) I am using single machine. The problem occurs because fnames =
list(glob.glob(args.tfrecord_path)) will give you different results given
different download order. For example, your fnames may be [a.tfrecord,
b.tfrecord,c.tfrecord,], while mine could be [a.tfrecord,
c.tfrecord,b.tfrecord,], which causes a mismatch for *my* lidar and your
lidar_ground. Therefore, I need your fnames .
Best,
Mu
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#6 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHCPIYL3S4HLIX6DUYVF27LWCV3MTANCNFSM6AAAAAARA6QVFE>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
I encounter this error as well. According to https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6773584/how-are-glob-globs-return-values-ordered, the order of fnames = list(glob.glob(args.tfrecord_path)) is actually arbitrary, so it would be better to set the order by sorted(fnames). |
Hi Junbo,
Thanks for your great work!
When I run the pertaining for waymo, I found the shape mismatch for lidar_ground segmentation array and points. The largest value in lidar_ground is even larger than the length of the points... I wonder how can this happen?
Thanks,
Mu
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: