Human:
Video 1 ✔ | Video 2 ✘
VB-SC:
Video 1 ✘ | Video 2 ✔
Score 1 : 0.6052 | Score 2 : 0.8535
Tracker-FG (Ours):
Video 1 ✘ | Video 2 ✔
Score 1 : 0.9712 | Score 2 : 0.9905
The unnaturally shaped human hand remains stable and fails the Tracker-FG metric in detecting inconstencies in realism.
Human:
Video 1 ✔ | Video 2 ✘
VB-SC:
Video 1 ✘ | Video 2 ✔
Score 1 : 0.8708 | Score 2 : 0.8981
Tracker-FG (Ours):
Video 1 ✘ | Video 2 ✔
Score 1 : 0.9914 | Score 2 : 0.9924
Very gradual variations in subject shape remains undetected in Tracker-FG as it looks for smoothness of tracks.
Human:
Video 1 ✔ | Video 2 ✘
VB-SC:
Video 1 ✘ | Video 2 ✔
Score 1 : 0.7460 | Score 2 : 0.9394
Tracker-FG (Ours):
Video 1 ✘ | Video 2 ✔
Score 1 : 0.9932 | Score 2 : 0.9938
Similar case as Example 2.
Human:
Video 1 ✔ | Video 2 ✘
VB-SC:
Video 1 ✔ | Video 2 ✘
Score 1 : 0.9818 | Score 2 : 0.9174
Tracker-FG (Ours):
Video 1 ✘ | Video 2 ✔
Score 1 : 0.9928 | Score 2 : 0.9947
VB-SC benefits from very limited camera motion in Video 1. For Tracker-FG, the primary subject has very little details making it harder to track points. Smooth regions in objects are less preferred.
Human:
Video 1 ✔ | Video 2 ✘
VB-SC:
Video 1 ✔ | Video 2 ✘
Score 1 : 0.9452 | Score 2 : 0.9315
Tracker-FG (Ours):
Video 1 ✘ | Video 2 ✔
Score 1 : 0.9925 | Score 2 : 0.9938
The subject motion in Video 2 looks smooth, but its unnatural.