Replies: 1 comment 3 replies
-
@bmharper yes good question. I think it makes sense to unify the behaviour. Can you please submit a PR for this? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
3 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
It took me some debugging to figure out that
AutoShape
has different behaviour when the input is atensor
vs a filename or a PIL Image. Specifically, when you feedAutoShape
atensor
, then it skips the NMS and other post-processing, and just returns the rawtensor
output.I was wondering if it's worthwhile creating a PR which makes this behaviour optional, or perhaps if there is a place where we can document this?
Thanks
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions