opencv_traincascade detection phase: obtain confidence of each detection window

edit

hmm, opencv2.4 ? i 'm having some doubts , if this is useable at all (rejectLevels and levelWeights should be tagged CV_OUT, too here , else it won't return anything useful

in opencv3.0 it is:

 |  detectMultiScale3(...)
 |      detectMultiScale3(image[, scaleFactor[, minNeighbors[, flags[, minSize[,
 maxSize[, outputRejectLevels]]]]]]) -> objects, rejectLevels, levelWeights

objects are the returned rects, and imho it should not be nessecary to pass anything for rejectLevels and levelWeights

outputRejectLevels is a boolean flag, that must be set to true (bug, maybe...) it is only for "fill rejectLevels(or not)"

Help on CascadeClassifier object:

class CascadeClassifier(__builtin__.object) | Methods defined here: |
| __repr__(...) | x.__repr__() <==> repr(x) |
| detectMultiScale(...) | detectMultiScale(image[, scaleFactor[, minNeighbors[, flags[, minSize[, maxSize]]]]]) -> objects or detectMultiScale(image, rejectLevels, levelWeights[, scaleFactor[, minNeighbors[, flags[, minSize[, maxSize[, outputRejectLevels]]]]]]) -> objects |
| empty(...) | empty() -> retval |
| load(...) | load(filename) -> retval |
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | Data and other attributes defined here: |
| __new__ = <built-in method="" __new__="" of="" type="" object=""> | T.__new__(S, ...) -> a new object with type S, a subtype of

it was present in the 3.0-beta, as I've mentioned in the answer. There were some numbers, but I couldn't use them at the time I was working on face detection; I think it was linked to the level of the cascade tree that rejected the sample, but not sure.

Thanks for comments. What do you mean by 'there were some numbers' but you 'couldn't use them'? Do you mean that confidence levels were provided but it wasn't clear what they meant so you chose not to use them? Also, so this funcionality was added for 3.0 then, right?

Maybe, I have tried to pick the detections with highest values, but they were totally wrong, and then with the lowest ones, but nothing interesting, they are int values, as you can see here