YihangChen-ee / HAC

:house: [ECCV 2024] Pytorch implementation of 'HAC: Hash-grid Assisted Context for 3D Gaussian Splatting Compression'
Other
197 stars 11 forks source link

Use MipNeRF360 data factor in evaluation. #14

Closed jefequien closed 1 week ago

jefequien commented 1 week ago

The MipNeRF360 evaluation procedure usually requires handling indoor and outdoor scenes with different data factors. Is this handled in this codebase? https://github.com/YihangChen-ee/HAC/blob/c23a4dc85edf9e5b70a7b735df284143cd477994/run_shell_mip360.py#L5

See original 3DGS evaluation. https://github.com/graphdeco-inria/gaussian-splatting/blob/8a70a8cd6f0d9c0a14f564844ead2d1147d5a7ac/full_eval.py#L41

See gsplat evaluation. https://github.com/nerfstudio-project/gsplat/blob/c14d720c561abaf6ff9ce131d284a59104dda5f5/examples/benchmarks/basic.sh#L8

YihangChen-ee commented 1 week ago

Hi, thanks for your question. We basically follow training scripts of Scaffold-GS to always use folder "images" to train MipNeRF360. The dataloader would automatically adjust resolutions to no larger than 1.6K. In our paper, we also use folder "images" to train 3DGS, so it is still a fair comparison with HAC.

For your request, we change image folders according to indoor and outdoor scene types, and get the following results on HAC:

PSNR | SSIM | LPIPS | SIZE(MB)

for high rate, $\lambda$=0.5e-4: 27.5938649 | 0.8086581 | 0.23386593 | 22.5002889

for low rate, $\lambda$=4e-4: 27.301666 | 0.8029547 | 0.24558464 | 14.3753333

jefequien commented 1 week ago

Hey! Thanks for the quick response and thank you very much for rerunning the experiments! I'll let the 3dgs compression survey people know.

paulbzm commented 1 week ago

Thank you @jefequien for noticing, and thanks @YihangChen-ee for providing the new numbers, they are now updated on our website! If you would like to provide the results of the remaining λ with the data factors, we could include them in our plots.

paulbzm commented 10 hours ago

We reverted your results to the original results of your paper.

You already adhered to the testing conventions of 3DGS, as they also scale the MipNeRF360 results to the maximum width of 1600px in the evaluation.

The confusion appeared because 3DGS uses the data factors in the training, however they don't use it in the rendering of the results, as can be seen in their full_eval file. For our survey it is only necessary to follow the conventions in the evaluation.

Apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused.