Clarification on when to use full_lights_188 vs full_lights_189 for different subject IDs

[gityihang]

Hi, thank you very much for releasing this dataset and the accompanying code.

I have a question regarding the usage of the two light index sets defined in the codebase:

full_lights_188 = [0, 20, 41, 62, 83, 104, 125, 146, 167, 188, 209, 230, 251, 272, 293, 314, 335, 348]
full_lights_189 = [1, 21, 42, 63, 84, 105, 126, 147, 168, 189, 210, 231, 252, 273, 294, 315, 336, 349]

I would like to clarify under which conditions or for which subject IDs one should use full_lights_188 versus full_lights_189.

Specifically:

Is the choice determined by subject ID, capture order, camera setup, or some parity/offset in the acquisition process?

Is there an intended rule that maps each ID (or session) to one of these two light sets?

I am asking because this distinction appears to be important not only for relighting, but also for earlier stages such as alignment, as well as later stages including OLAT-based relighting and post-processing. Using an incorrect light index set seems to affect the spatial consistency of relighting directions.

If there is any documentation, comment, or reference that explains the rationale behind these two sets, it would be very helpful.

Thank you again for your work and for any clarification you can provide.

[yxuhan]

I am also working on processing the dataset. I think an automatic solution is to compare the average intensity of frame 0 with frame 1. If frame 1 has a stronger intensity, then go full_lights_189.

[gityihang]

I am also working on processing the dataset. I think an automatic solution is to compare the average intensity of frame 0 with frame 1. If frame 1 has a stronger intensity, then go full_lights_189.

Thank you for the clarification. I understand your point, and comparing adjacent frames (e.g., 20 and 21, or later pairs) indeed makes the distinction more intuitive.