You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hello,
Thank you for the model and codes. I am a bit confused. There are two deploy files provided. The model/deploy.prototxt consists of a model which gets divided at the fully connected layer fc7 to two parts: 68-point and poselayer. However, the train/deploy.prototxt consists of a model which gets divided after the relu4 layer to be passed onto conv5 and conv5_b, and so is the train/train_val.prototxt. What are the differences in results for these and which one do you recommend? Also, we just have one train_val.prototxt. Is the caffemodel trained on a file similar to model/deploy.prototxt?
Thank you in advance.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Yes, you are right. These are two different network structures. The difference is how many layers these two tasks are shared. The latter network structure will cost more feed forward time.
Hello,
Thank you for the model and codes. I am a bit confused. There are two deploy files provided. The model/deploy.prototxt consists of a model which gets divided at the fully connected layer fc7 to two parts: 68-point and poselayer. However, the train/deploy.prototxt consists of a model which gets divided after the relu4 layer to be passed onto conv5 and conv5_b, and so is the train/train_val.prototxt. What are the differences in results for these and which one do you recommend? Also, we just have one train_val.prototxt. Is the caffemodel trained on a file similar to model/deploy.prototxt?
Thank you in advance.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: