Fix padding logic to avoid negative padding #140
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR fixes the padding logic.
The original function breaks in one of my datasets where images are of shape (H_ori, W_ori) = (1190, 1596). This is because target_aspect_ratio is within the expected range, but int(H_ori * target_aspect_ratio) = 1595 so W_new = 1595 and (pad_left, pad_right, pad_top, pad_bottom) = (-1, 0, 0, 0). Negative padding will result in erroneous behavior in "tensor[..., pad1_t : shapes[0] - pad1_b, pad1_l : shapes[1] - pad1_r]" in _postprocess function.
The new code will ensure the padded sizes are not smaller than original, hence making padding sizes non-negative.