We show how a simple convolutional neural network (CNN) can be trained to accurately and robustly regress 6 degrees of freedom (6DoF) 3D head pose, directly from image intensities. We further explain how this FacePoseNet (FPN) can be used to align faces in 2D and 3D as an alternative to explicit facial landmark detection for these tasks. We claim that in many cases the standard means of measuring landmark detector accuracy can be misleading when comparing different face alignments. Instead, we compare our FPN with existing methods by evaluating how they affect face recognition accuracy on the IJB-A and IJB-B benchmarks: using the same recognition pipeline, but varying the face alignment method. Our results show that (a) better landmark detection accuracy measured on the 300W benchmark does not necessarily imply better face recognition accuracy. (b) Our FPN provides superior 2D and 3D face alignment on both benchmarks. Finally, (c), FPN aligns faces at a small fraction of the computational cost of comparably accurate landmark detectors. For many purposes, FPN is thus a far faster and far more accurate face alignment method than using facial landmark detectors.
Of course, this simple survey is by no means accurate: the same term is counted twice if the paper using it in its title cites both @cite_45 and @cite_38 and many paper titles do not clearly state the application they describe (e.g., @cite_15 describes a method for face alignment in 3D but does not mention alignment'' in the title). Nevertheless, with around two thousand papers included in this survey, the result is quite clear: Alignment, face recognition and pose estimation -- also considered alignment -- are overwhelmingly more popular than any other application. This, of course, excluding other landmark detection papers.
@cite_38 @cite_15 @cite_45
2964014798 2265959009 2748489050 2964171387
Face alignment, which fits a face model to an image and extracts the semantic meanings of facial pixels, has been an important topic in CV community. However, most algorithms are designed for faces in small to medium poses (below 45), lacking the ability to align faces in large poses up to 90. The challenges are three-fold: Firstly, the commonly used landmark-based face model assumes that all the landmarks are visible and is therefore not suitable for profile views. Secondly, the face appearance varies more dramatically across large poses, ranging from frontal view to profile view. Thirdly, labelling landmarks in large poses is extremely challenging since the invisible landmarks have to be guessed. In this paper, we propose a solution to the three problems in an new alignment framework, called 3D Dense Face Alignment (3DDFA), in which a dense 3D face model is fitted to the image via convolutional neutral network (CNN). We also propose a method to synthesize large-scale training samples in profile views to solve the third problem of data labelling. Experiments on the challenging AFLW database show that our approach achieves significant improvements over state-of-the-art methods. Face alignment, which fits a face model to an image and extracts the semantic meanings of facial pixels, has been an important topic in the computer vision community. However, most algorithms are designed for faces in small to medium poses (yaw angle is smaller than 45 degree), which lack the ability to align faces in large poses up to 90 degree. The challenges are three-fold. First, the commonly used landmark face model assumes that all the landmarks are visible and is therefore not suitable for large poses. Second, the face appearance varies more drastically across large poses, from the frontal view to the profile view. Third, labelling landmarks in large poses is extremely challenging since the invisible landmarks have to be guessed. In this paper, we propose to tackle these three challenges in an new alignment framework termed 3D Dense Face Alignment (3DDFA), in which a dense 3D Morphable Model (3DMM) is fitted to the image via Cascaded Convolutional Neural Networks. We also utilize 3D information to synthesize face images in profile views to provide abundant samples for training. Experiments on the challenging AFLW database show that the proposed approach achieves significant improvements over the state-of-the-art methods. We show how a simple convolutional neural network (CNN) can be trained to accurately and robustly regress 6 degrees of freedom (6DoF) 3D head pose, directly from image intensities. We further explain how this FacePoseNet (FPN) can be used to align faces in 2D and 3D as an alternative to explicit facial landmark detection for these tasks. We claim that in many cases the standard means of measuring landmark detector accuracy can be misleading when comparing different face alignments. Instead, we compare our FPN with existing methods by evaluating how they affect face recognition accuracy on the IJB-A and IJB-B benchmarks: using the same recognition pipeline, but varying the face alignment method. Our results show that (a) better landmark detection accuracy measured on the 300W benchmark does not necessarily imply better face recognition accuracy. (b) Our FPN provides superior 2D and 3D face alignment on both benchmarks. Finally, (c), FPN aligns faces at a small fraction of the computational cost of comparably accurate landmark detectors. For many purposes, FPN is thus a far faster and far more accurate face alignment method than using facial landmark detectors. We show how a simple convolutional neural network (CNN) can be trained to accurately and robustly regress 6 degrees of freedom (6DoF) 3D head pose, directly from image intensities. We further explain how this FacePoseNet (FPN) can be used to align faces in 2D and 3D as an alternative to explicit facial landmark detection for these tasks. We claim that in many cases the standard means of measuring landmark detector accuracy can be misleading when comparing different face alignments. Instead, we compare our FPN with existing methods by evaluating how they affect face recognition accuracy on the IJB-A and IJB-B benchmarks: using the same recognition pipeline, but varying the face alignment method. Our results show that (a) better landmark detection accuracy measured on the 300W benchmark does not necessarily imply better face recognition accuracy. (b) Our FPN provides superior 2D and 3D face alignment on both benchmarks. Finally, (c), FPN aligns faces at a small fraction of the computational cost of comparably accurate landmark detectors. For many purposes, FPN is thus a far faster and far more accurate face alignment method than using facial landmark detectors.