About non-rescaled version
Closed this issue · 5 comments
Hello, I would like to use the non-scaled version suggested in your paper.
I'm reading the code and using it, but I wanna ask if it's right to do it the way below.
- in
temos/model/metrics/compute.py
,
TEMOS/temos/model/metrics/compute.py
Line 26 in d9d2206
I changed the parameterforce_in_meter
toFalse
- in
/temos/transforms/rots2joints/smplh.py
,
TEMOS/temos/transforms/rots2joints/smplh.py
Lines 138 to 140 in d9d2206
I removed these codes when I use smpl data
Is this the correct way to proceed non-scaled version with smpl data?
Thanks!
Hello,
The "non-scaled version" suggested in the paper corresponds to:
- Joints regressed by a smpl layer, with the "mmm indexing" (which correspond roughly to MMM skeletons)
- Without the rescaling (multiplying by
smplh_to_mmm_scaling_factor
). (with this option, it rescale the average SMPL body to MMM: it actually also convert from meters to millimeters). - With the change of axis (X Y Z => Y Z X), and with the right/left swap I did for MMM. I keep doing this, in order to use the same code for computing metrics (as the metric computation code depends on the axis order, and right/left swap does not matter [as it is the same transformation for GT]).
-
Yes you are right about this, as by default I am doing rescaling to meter in the metrics for MMM. Without the rescaling, it is already in meters, so we need to disable this.
-
In theory you could remove this bloc of lines and it will work fine. But actually, you only need to choose
jointstype=mmmns
which means (mmm-non-scaled). If you look at the code, it will not do the scaling:
TEMOS/temos/transforms/rots2joints/smplh.py
Line 138 in d9d2206
and it will still do the rest:
TEMOS/temos/transforms/rots2joints/smplh.py
Line 144 in d9d2206
Thank you for the reply.
I saw your comment before you edited it, and in fact you are right. I updated the code accordingly to allow the usage of "mmmns" in rifke.py
(so indirectly in the metric calculation).
There might be some mistakes like that in the code, as I did not carefully re-tested this setting during the preparation of the code release.
I may put more explanation in the README.md
at some point.
Thanks for pointing this.
We also need to edit the below codes.
Yes true, I just did it thanks 👍