Fix deprecation warning of scipy.misc.imsave and greyscale seg masks #34
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In the current version of the code the following line causes a deprecation warning:
OSVOS-PyTorch/train_online.py
Line 189 in 36562ef
As suggested by the warning, this PR replaces
scipy.misc.imsavewithimageio.imsave. In addition, this PR applies a little bit of refactoring to the corresponding code block and resolves a bug that previously the output probabilities of the sigmoid were saved as a greyscale segmentation mask. Now the saved segmentation mask will be the true predicted values, i.e., either 0 or 1.Fixing this bug leads to a slight improvement in the final metric values. However, these are still lower than the reported values in the ablation study (Table 1) of the paper. Without contour snapping I am able to reproduce a mean J of
0.759compared to the reported77.4. Is there still something missing compared to the original TensorFlow version?