Would someone mind taking a look at my data set?

[tbailey]

HI there,
I'm a new user and have recently trained my first model for over a week on a standard CPU (100K iterations) and got a big blurry mess as a result. I've learned a lot, and know a few of the issues for another run, but I'm wondering if someone who knows about this stuff could take a quick look at my data set and tell me if I'm wasting my time?
It would be a massive help to know whether I'm likely to get any good results with these source files or not.

Source A: is Britney spears from the music video for toxic - I haven't used any other footage of her for the training, only this video. Meticulously sorted through faces in manual to make sure they were all correct.

Source B: https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aixt82g3hO24rn_6Cbw ... c?e=kz0EaK

Obviously the faces are very very different, and I'm not attempting to get a convincing swap - just looking to get his face on there and mimic the movements, in a disturbing way.

I guess my questions are:
Is this input data going to be good enough?
Why was my first result so blurry? Do I need a higher resolution B source?
Is training on a CPU a waste of time - I could ask around to borrow a GPU perhaps?

Any help you could give me would be really useful - I think I've got as far as I can go on my own, and a week at a time of training is not something I can experiment with!

Thanks in advance

[bryanlyon]

Using one video per side is usually a way to guarantee poor quality. There simply isn't enough variety in either side of this dataset. You need to focus on a large number of different lighting conditions, expressions, and poses. In your case you have some variety in expression and pose, but none in lighting. Even the Toxic video is pretty uniquely lit throughtout.

Variety is KEY to a quality swap.

Also, training a a CPU is a REAL pain, expect weeks if not months of training. You may want to examine cloud solutions to get access to a GPU.

[tbailey]

Thanks for the reply. I'll look into providing more source material