Does use_gt_pelvis correspond to MPJPE relative to pelvis in the paper?
See original GitHub issueDoes use_gt_pelvis
correspond to MPJPE relative to pelvis in the paper?
If so, why are the results worse with GT pelvis?
Thanks!
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 4 years ago
- Comments:6 (1 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
learnable-triangulation-pytorch/README.md at master - GitHub
This repository is an official PyTorch implementation of the paper "Learnable Triangulation of ... Precalculated results, MPJPE (relative to pelvis), mm ...
Read more >Learnable Triangulation of Human Pose - VIOLET projects index
The first (baseline) solution is a basic differentiable algebraic triangulation with an addition of ... MPJPE relative to pelvis (single-view methods): ...
Read more >Learnable Triangulation of Human Pose - CVF Open Access
The table presents the MPJPE error for the joints (relative to pelvis) for published state-of-the-art monocular and multi-view methods. The methods that are ......
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
@yihui-he The multi-view method always estimates the positions in world coordinates for all of the joints, including the pelvis. MPJPE relative to pelvis is the most common metric, so for a fair comparison in Table 1 we subtract the position of the pelvis from all joints. We argue that for multi-view methods it makes more sense not to subtract the pelvis (as we did in Table 2).
Thanks for the explanation