search

twnman / asmlib-opencv

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/asmlib-opencv
0 stars 0 forks source link

ASM results differ for different face detection results.and different image sizes #6

Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. run face detector
2. change size of face bounding box
3. rerun asm

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
I expect to get the same result. But the ASM results are very different and can 
be way out of place. (I found that sometimes for original face detector results 
the ASM is very accurate or unacurate but changing the box will change the asm 
result - sometimes good, sometimes bad)
The ASM is very sensitive to the size of the face binding box.
Why is that and how can we solve that?
Is there an optimal size for images or for the faces in the images?

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
the latest one

Please provide any additional information below.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by av...@pixtr.me on 22 Oct 2012 at 2:27

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Thanks for the experiments. The ASM fitting algorithm is an iterative 
procedure. So you're absolutely right the initial guess is important. 

I guess a possible solution might be:
 1. Locate the position of mouth and eyes first (which is probably doable with the Android library), then we can start with a better guess.
 2. Or, start in several random positions, run the fitting and choose the best fitting result.

Do you like to try that?

Original comment by cxcxcxcx@gmail.com on 23 Oct 2012 at 5:19

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I can locate the corners of the mouth and eyes and tip of the nose using the 
Flandmark facial landmark detector library, which seems very robust. How would 
I go about using this information to initialise the iterative procedure in ASM 
to get improved results?

Original comment by willx...@gmail.com on 13 Mar 2013 at 7:13

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
There is no easy way, I will think about it.

Original comment by cxcxcxcx@gmail.com on 3 Apr 2013 at 6:38

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Have you found any solution for this matter ?

Original comment by yasser.a...@rizze.com on 26 May 2014 at 4:00