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
I think when working on the paper, the paper was not explicitly mentioning what do to when we need to output in scales above 4 or 8. I figured that using the pixel shuffle upscaling a number of times for higher upscales won't hurt. I verified it by changing r = 8 , or using the same operation 3 times. The final results are based on this final variant of code. The code only applies the same operation 3 times if scale is set to 8 , 2 times if 4 and 1 time is 2. I am looking into the paper again , to look at how to do higher level upscaling (progressively or imediately upscale to the scale)
PS: I just checked my mail exchange with the author he they also did the same, you can either put r = scale or scale it up multi stage, they are saying it has same effect. However i remember i verified by repeated experiment which one works. Since I used the same configuration to add perceptual loss to it.
if scale >= 2:
output = Subpixel(64, (3,3), r = 2,padding='same',activation='relu')(output)
if scale >= 4:
output = Subpixel(64, (3,3), r = 2,padding='same',activation='relu')(output)
if scale >= 8:
output = Subpixel(64, (3,3), r = 2,padding='same',activation='relu')(output)
All the three lines are same.
Isn't it
output = Subpixel(64, (3, 3), r=scale, padding='same', activation='relu')(output) ?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: