hmm, hogs 1 to 29 have matching dimensions between FFLD and VOC5. hog 30 has mismatched dims between FFLD and VOC5. IIRC, hog 31 has the same dims in both implementations. Also, hogs 1 to 10 are 10-16% mismatched in terms of numerics. hogs 11 to 29 match within 5%.
aha, it's only hog[30] that doesn't match. ... hog[30]: size(voc5Result) = [1232 32] = 39424; size(ffldResult) = [1204 32] = 38528
trying non-FELZ features
same dims with or without -DFELZ... flag enabled
adding  'ceil' doesnt seem to have helped to get dims to match
actually, ceil() fixed some, but broke others...
removed the + 0.5, but kept ceil(). still getting an extra column in one place...    hog[27]: size(voc5Result) = [1536 32] = 49152;  size(ffldResult) = [1568 32] = 50176
the VOC5 impl uses round() instead of ceil() for calculating dims. Tried it in FFLD. Back to the same problem I saw in the orig code, where we have a +0.5. hog[30]and hog[33] are one col too small in FFLD now (as in the orig code). I should check if the height and width are off-by-1 in either VOC5 or FFLD.
more precisely matching the VOC5 scale calculation, in terms of now having roughly the same lines of code. not really helping...same problem with hog[30]
now, even more true to VOC5 scale calculation. same problem with dims of hog[30]
aha, found the reason for the dimension mismatch on a couple of hogs. VOC5 was resampling images that are already downsampled. the 're-downsampling' had to calcuate dims based on fixed-point values of already-downsampled imgs. (lol, coulda explained that better). For now, the fix is to just downsample from scratch on the original img in VOC5. Might change this later to re-downsample in both VOC5 and FFLD.