Closed samsgates closed 8 years ago
Hi Sam,
Looks like nice work! Can you have a look at the value of the coefficients returned by the shape fitting? That should help.
PS: In the email I got from GitHub, you posted two images of the head model with it, but they don't appear here - is it a kind of GitHub bug or did you remove that post?
Top : Generated model Bottom: Reference model
Multiply with coefficients values as below
vector
Result : Almost closed but not accurate, but better output than mean model
@samsgates : I am interested in how do you build a full head model? by extending the surrey face model? Thanks.
@samsgates Can you instead of this just output the coeffs? However it looks like they're just very low.
What's the value of fitted_coeffs.size()
?
One thing you can try is:
fit_shape_to_landmarks_linear
has a parameter lambda
, the regularisation. Have a look at the current value (the default) and then set lower - for example 0.1 or so.
fitted_coeffs.size() is "20"
i have changed lamda value from "3.0" to "0.1", and there is no difference in output. but any way i achieved almost better quality using Multiply with coefficients
Thanks for your support
@samsgates : I am also interested in how do you build a full head model? by extending the surrey face model? can you show a demo to me about what you are process with your own full head model? Thanks very much! By the way ,your email?
Hi Patrik, I have created full head model (PCA model) and generated binary file as well (.bin file). i have used 20 different shape models for creating PCA binary file.
when i testing with fit-model command using my custom binary file (d123.bin), output model generated (obj) as same shape (same output) for all different shape picture (its look like mean model - average shape). i didn't see any difference between all output model
All landmark mappings are properly assign in "ibug2did.txt" file.
"./fit-model -m share/d123.bin -i face2.jpg -l face2.pts -p share/ibug2did.txt -o out"
you have any idea how to resolve this issue?