3 ms·

The number is of frames (or faces?) per second is meaningless without context... - Detect at least one face in a frame (count) - Detect all the faces in a fra

The number is of frames (or faces?) per second is meaningless without context... - Detect at least one face in a frame (count) - Detect all the faces in a frame (count) - Detect the location of the first face in a frame - Detect the location of all the faces in a frame - Is the resolution 64x64 or 1028x1028 - Is it only finding some of the faces (what’s the accuracy) - 1500FPS on what hardware Anyone have the paper, otherwise, why is this here? Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof, I don’t even see a README.

jsnider3 8y ago
It's even more meaningless once you realize that you can get arbitrary FPS just by running multiple programs side-by-side.
- lettergram 8y ago
  Indeed, kinda what I mean by “hardware”. If I have 120 CPUs and 8 GPUs, personally I’d expect it faster. Face detection is super paralleliazable
  - cdf2theworld 8y ago
    Annnnnnnnd the hardware was neatly laid out on a graph on the readme. Did you comment before doing ANY reading? That's a feaux pah oh HN.
chacham15 8y ago
> Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof, I don’t even see a README. Im confused. The link points to Github which literally shows the README on the front page. > Is the resolution 64x64 or 1028x1028 From the readme: cnn (CPU, 128x96) 2.35ms 425.95 0.64ms 1562.10 > 1500FPS on what hardware Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-7700 CPU @ 3.6GHz. I could go on, but literally the answers to your questions are in the README that you somehow didnt see.
- lettergram 8y ago
  For reference, just saying the CPU isn’t exactly what I meant. However, I do see some of it’s there. What I’m pointing out is that generally this is a very loose claim. 1500FPS is for a very specific problem, on a rig that is still not defined, using images that are similarly not defined. What’s the RAM, IO speed, what type of images, etc. Comparing to other methods on the same rig solves that. Again, I see your point, but I was generally pointing out that the analysis or claims of this nature are not clean or clear.
someguy1234567 8y ago
You guys are silly, it's in the readme. But you're right, total click bait title. At reasonable resolution it's like 60FPS.

jsnider3 8y ago

It's even more meaningless once you realize that you can get arbitrary FPS just by running multiple programs side-by-side.

lettergram 8y ago
Indeed, kinda what I mean by “hardware”. If I have 120 CPUs and 8 GPUs, personally I’d expect it faster. Face detection is super paralleliazable
- cdf2theworld 8y ago
  Annnnnnnnd the hardware was neatly laid out on a graph on the readme. Did you comment before doing ANY reading? That's a feaux pah oh HN.

chacham15 8y ago

> Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof, I don’t even see a README. Im confused. The link points to Github which literally shows the README on the front page. > Is the resolution 64x64 or 1028x1028 From the readme: cnn (CPU, 128x96) 2.35ms 425.95 0.64ms 1562.10 > 1500FPS on what hardware Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-7700 CPU @ 3.6GHz. I could go on, but literally the answers to your questions are in the README that you somehow didnt see.

lettergram 8y ago
For reference, just saying the CPU isn’t exactly what I meant. However, I do see some of it’s there. What I’m pointing out is that generally this is a very loose claim. 1500FPS is for a very specific problem, on a rig that is still not defined, using images that are similarly not defined. What’s the RAM, IO speed, what type of images, etc. Comparing to other methods on the same rig solves that. Again, I see your point, but I was generally pointing out that the analysis or claims of this nature are not clean or clear.

someguy1234567 8y ago

You guys are silly, it's in the readme. But you're right, total click bait title. At reasonable resolution it's like 60FPS.