-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 143
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
SSIM result issue #51
Comments
SSIM functions from various packages have different implementations and options. These days, I don't use MATLAB and use skimage.metrics.structural_similarity. from skimage.metrics import structural_similarity
ssim = structural_similarity(ref_im, res_im, multichannel=True, gaussian_weights=True, use_sample_covariance=False) |
Thanks for the prompt reply and sorry for my late response, the answer is helpful! BTW, I was testing with “scale_levels 1” which is an option to change in opts.lua file, but the results seems the same. (the downloaded weight file name are related to scale level 3, I’m not sure if this is the main reason). Is there anything I didn’t notice? And what are the correct results if I change type Cudahalf to Cuda, (The inference time is longer, but results may not change a lot, It’s correct or not?) Thanks for your patience! |
When loading a saved model, the options related to the models are ignored. (including scale_levels) |
Thanks for your patience to this issue and clear explanation! |
Can you tell me which code to run to get the evaluation metrics after the test, looking forward to your reply? |
Hi, I open the issue about 3 years ago, some details might go wrong. If I remember correctly, according to author's response, I tried MATLAB CW-SSIM or SSIM to get similar SSIM results mentioned in papaer. you can try forward method first |
@hhrsn You can refer to the code here https://github.com/SeungjunNah/DeepDeblur-PyTorch/blob/master/src/loss/metric.py#L30 |
Hi, I would like to confirm what metric is used in paper, cause I use SSIM get about 0.87, but use CW_SSIM get 0.93 (by Pyssim package) in GoPro gamma subset (1111 images for testing, 720 x 1280 resolutions), and the value in paper is about 0.9135
Thanks for replying!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: