-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 272
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
About the WFLW dataset #17
Comments
Dear wywu, |
Hi, thanks for your interest! Since we do not know the detail of the annotation process of the 68-landmarks of 300W, we do not have the explicit corresponding between 98pt and 68pt. Of course, we can find the possible defined landmark of every point of 300W in 98-landmark protocol. However, we have tried to train one model on the 68pt extracted from 98pt on WFLW and test on 300W, but got a very poor performance because of the gap of the definition of landmarks. |
In description we have |
@wywu Dear author, I think the 68-pt definition and 98-pt definition have many pts in common, so I don't think a model trained on the extracted 68-pt data would perform "very poor". I wonder what do you mean by "very poor"? And I'd like to know if I extract 68-pts from the predicted 98-pts, will the results be bad? Thanks in advance. |
@mrgloom Some images contain more than one faces. |
About dlib 68 pts model to wflw 98 pts model index mapping:
|
Dear author,
The WFLW offers 98 landmarks. Are the 68 landmark in 300W a subset of the 98 landmarks here?Can you offer the corresponding relations? Thanks a lot.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: