4 ms·
In my limited trials it was not terribly performant, running at 15fps or so only.
by trumpeta 9y ago
In my limited trials it was not terribly performant, running at 15fps or so only.
- ctlaltdefeat 9y agoI would consider that pretty performant for a task such as this on a phone.
- cycrutchfield 9y agoCompared to non-DNN techniques? I don’t have concrete numbers but I’m pretty sure “classical” techniques can do this with much higher throughput.
- tedunangst 9y agoWith equal accuracy?
- tzs 9y agoIf the non-NN techniques are faster, but the NN techniques are more accurate, couldn't they be combined to provide both speed and accuracy? Use the NN to find the faces, and the non-NN to track faces once the NN has found them, and use the NN to periodically check to see that the non-NN is still locked on.
- tedunangst 9y agoDoes that work? A NN might detect half a face, but then how do you switch over to the "find two dots" technique when there's only one eye? This seems susceptible to a lot of flapping.
- tzs 9y agoI'd expect that the non-NN part would be more of a "track movement of this arbitrary blob" thing rather than a "track movement of this face" thing. Suppose the NN is only 25% of the speed you need to support the frame rate you want. Then every time you get a new face blob list from the NN, the non-NN tracker would to track the blobs for 3 frames. My guess is that in most common photography situations where you need face detection, faces won't move very far or won't change orientation or lighting very much in 3 frames.
- bpicolo 9y agoOn what device? The A11 chip is far more performant than previous gens.