Skip to content
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

Example notebook for optimizing number of frames as described in issue #376 #408

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

aitaten
Copy link
Contributor

@aitaten aitaten commented Jul 20, 2024

This is a notebook optimizing the number of frames for different lead-times for the Optical Flow (Lucas-Kanade) motion vector computation. The exampls is related to issue #376 but I think the second example commented in that issue should be also added.

@aitaten aitaten requested a review from dnerini July 20, 2024 17:54
@aitaten aitaten self-assigned this Jul 20, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 20, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.74%. Comparing base (fc446bc) to head (3f0c4ed).
Report is 10 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #408      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   83.47%   83.74%   +0.27%     
==========================================
  Files         161      159       -2     
  Lines       12536    12724     +188     
==========================================
+ Hits        10464    10656     +192     
+ Misses       2072     2068       -4     
Flag Coverage Δ
unit_tests 83.74% <ø> (+0.27%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@dnerini
Copy link
Member

dnerini commented Jul 21, 2024

Thanks @aitaten , this is looking very good! I will have a closer look, but I was wondering if it wouldn't be better to split this PR into two? Here I would rather keep the tuning tutorial, while the second should be about the INCA motion field -- by the way, I'm not sure why this is implemented in the example only, shouldn't we have it as an additional method in the motion module?

@aitaten
Copy link
Contributor Author

aitaten commented Jul 22, 2024

Thanks @dnerini for the review. Including the other example was a mistake so I have removed the unwanted file from the PR (addressed in commit 3f0c4ed). Sorry about that.

I will do, as we talk, a separated PR and branch about the INCA motion field/TREC-like.

@dnerini
Copy link
Member

dnerini commented Jul 26, 2024

(I'm working on this, sorry, just going very slow...)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: No status
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants