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
Hello, I have calculated the FLOPs of NeuFlowV2 and SEA-RAFT and found that the FLOPs of NeuFlowV2 seem to be higher, but why is it so much faster than SEA-RAFT?
#3
Open
yuefanhao opened this issue
Sep 2, 2024
· 2 comments
Very good question. Our assumption is that, depth-wise conv has way much lower FLOPs but the low-level library (cudnn) does not optimize the computation time. We use many 3x3 convolution layers which is highly optimized by low-level library.
@Study-is-happy Thank you very much. Another question is, have you done any optimization for cost volume? Because you have done one iteration at 1/16 resolution and eight iterations at 1/8 resolution, which is an operation that consumes a lot of computing and memory. I need to estimate optical flow at a larger resolution, so the cost volume will be very large, and it's very time-consuming to look up.
No description provided.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: