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
In the attached screenshots, I am running FastSSIM with the same image as input and output, of size 627x482. So, we expect that at every level, upon downsampling, the images still have the same entries in corresponding locations. Wherever different, I have printed the column number, row number and the corresponding entries in the two images. The junk values (sometimes negative) at the borders of the image demonstrate the memory leak. The first line of the output shows an attempt to access row index 120 of the image, while the dimensions show that upon downsampling twice, the heights of the image at the first two levels are 482/2 = 241 and 241/2 = 120. So, there should not be an attempt to access row index 120.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The main implementations of ssim in the daala repo are the dump_ssim and dump_msssim implementation (I wrote the latter after discovering similar issues in fastssim). Arguably we should delete the fastssim implementation as I don't think there is any reason to use it instead of the other two.
I see. Considering how much faster it is than dump_ssim and dump_msssim, I think it is worth holding on to. I have created a PR with a simple fix that should help.
In the attached screenshots, I am running FastSSIM with the same image as input and output, of size 627x482. So, we expect that at every level, upon downsampling, the images still have the same entries in corresponding locations. Wherever different, I have printed the column number, row number and the corresponding entries in the two images. The junk values (sometimes negative) at the borders of the image demonstrate the memory leak. The first line of the output shows an attempt to access row index 120 of the image, while the dimensions show that upon downsampling twice, the heights of the image at the first two levels are 482/2 = 241 and 241/2 = 120. So, there should not be an attempt to access row index 120.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: