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
Have you tried using different backbones with PCT?
I switched the backbone to HRNet, which produces features of size (batch_size, 72, 96, 48). This is different from the original SwinV2 backbone, which outputs (batch_size, 8, 8, 1024).
However, I noticed that the class head (link: pct_head.py#L175) only modifies the feature channels.
So, in my HRNet version of PCT (link: pct_base_classifier.py#L101), I adjusted the parameters to scale the input size from 2 to 72 * 96 * 2. This roughly matches the parameter count of the Swin backbone, which scales to 8 * 8 * 256.
Despite this, I still find my FPS is slower compared to heatmap-based methods.
Could you share your experience with this? I'd really appreciate your insights!
Thanks a lot!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi @Gengzigang,
Have you tried using different backbones with PCT?
I switched the backbone to HRNet, which produces features of size (batch_size, 72, 96, 48). This is different from the original SwinV2 backbone, which outputs (batch_size, 8, 8, 1024).
However, I noticed that the class head (link: pct_head.py#L175) only modifies the feature channels.
So, in my HRNet version of PCT (link: pct_base_classifier.py#L101), I adjusted the parameters to scale the input size from 2 to 72 * 96 * 2. This roughly matches the parameter count of the Swin backbone, which scales to 8 * 8 * 256.
Despite this, I still find my FPS is slower compared to heatmap-based methods.
Could you share your experience with this? I'd really appreciate your insights!
Thanks a lot!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: