Regarding Implementation for Ignored Faces

[Kartik Ramesh]

Thanks for the advice. I've been able to add the Ignored Property, so that
it is not associated with a Tag Region. This way if I mark a face as
ignored, the associated image (of which the face is a part) will not show
the ignored tag region.
About the metadata, and Exiv tags, I'll have to read up more as I'm not
very familiar with the topic. I'll confirm about the XMP tags soon.
I needed some help with another issue. Since I'm modifying the database
properties for the faces, any face set as ignored is not showing up in the
DigikamItemView. I'm assuming this is because I haven't made changes to the
underlying model, to account for this new Face type. Can I get some advice
on where to start understanding how the Models get constructed from the
database, and how I can solve my issue? I took a look at
libs/database/models but got a little overwhelmed by all the lines of code.

Thanks
Kartik

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:10 PM Gilles Caulier <caulier.gilles at gmail.com>
wrote:

> hi,
>
> yes, exactly. As introduced by Maik, all the faces are detected in the
> workflow and the user decide which one must be registered or not in
> the workflow.
>
> So the face IGNORED must be set as an hidden property in database. But
> i'm not agree with Maik, about file metadata. We need to store these
> properties at least in digiKam XMP namespace for database properties
> backup.
> Only digiKam handle this namespace which host already some important
> database information as backup.
>
> Like this, if the database is corrupted, and if user set digiKam to
> store face information in file metadata, the database can be restored
> as well at next start up using a fresh database, including this
> important properties, to prevent to replay the face selection in a new
> workflow.
>
> Note : i'm not sure if standard XMP namespace store image regions to
> ignore. Kartik, please take a look in XMP standard tags, using Exiv2
> or Exiftool doc, just to double check...
>
> best
>
> Gilles
>
> Le lun. 11 mai 2020 à 22:57, Maik Qualmann <metzpinguin at gmail.com> a
> écrit :
> >
> > Hmm, assigning a region to be deleted to a tag is probably not so good. I
> > don't think users want this region anymore. Use a database browser to
> look at
> > the "ImageTagProperties" how regions are saved. we need a "dummy" here.
> This
> > "dummy" is not written in metadata and is not displayed as a region on
> images,
> > but is used as an existing face in face detection. When deleting all
> regions
> > on the images, the "dummy" is also deleted so that a new assignment is
> > possible. Just an idea...
> >
> > Maik
> >
> > Am Montag, 11. Mai 2020, 13:51:46 CEST schrieb Kartik Ramesh:
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > I wanted to discuss how I may implement feature for Ignored faces. The
> main
> > > idea is to allow the user to "ignore" certain faces detected by the
> algo.
> > > which the user doesn't wish to recognize.
> > > I think that the option to ignore faces should be provided only on
> Unknown
> > > faces. Since it doesn't make sense to ignore a face that has been
> confirmed
> > > by the user, already.
> > > One approach is to treat Ignored faces as just another People tag, and
> when
> > > the user decides to ignore a particular unknown face, we can just call
> a
> > > confirm operation with the ignored person tagId, on that face.
> > > Another approach could be to treat Ignored similar to
> Unknown/Unconfirmed,
> > > that is, to create an Ignored Tag Property, Ignored
> FaceTagsIface::Type and
> > > other changes at the low level.
> > >
> > > Please let me know which of these seems more sensible.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Kartik.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-devel/attachments/20200512/6a7db55b/attachment.htm>