You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Thank you for your excellent work!
I am confused by what gt 3d joints should be used in evalutions or in training ? GT 3d joints annotations is just from interhand dataset's 3d joints or mano_layer forward given mano parameters from interhand dataset ? Is it relevant to what representations I use to represent hand ? Because I find the difference between above two gt 3d joints annotations is big and may not be ignored.
Looking forward your reply!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We follow the prior works (e.g. IntagHand) to regress the 3D joints from mano_layer. However, I've also tried using the annotations provided by InterHand dataset and it did not show significant differences in training actually. The possible reason for the difference in evaluation is more likely the GT 3d annotations will have 'valid' properties to eliminate some joints while this does not exist if we regress from mano_layer.
Thank you for your reply !
Regarding the “valid” annotation you mentioned, I found that different papers have different practices. The first kind of practice is that they don't use the GT 3d "valid" annotations to eliminate some joints in evaluation.(e.g. Intaghand). But The other kind of practice is that they just use corresponding GT 3d "valid" annotations for 3d joints from mano_layer.(e.g. kypt_transformer and interhand). I want to know your practice for fair comparison.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: