An honest look at the tracking
Following a ball that’s often a few pixels wide, across a whole
field, is genuinely hard. Here’s what the app does well, what it
doesn’t, and why the Review step exists.
The detector finds the ball directly in about 1 in 5 frames
On a measured 30-minute half, the neural network placed the ball
directly in roughly 20% of frames.
That sounds low until you see the output: the remaining frames are
filled by interpolating between real detections and by the look-ahead
smoothing, so the camera stays on the play far more often
than the raw detection rate suggests. A ball sitting still, or one
that’s tiny and far away, is simply hard for any detector — this
is a recall ceiling, not a tuning bug.
The Review step is part of the workflow, not a fallback
Because some misses are unavoidable, the app is built around fixing
them fast. Review jumps you straight to each stretch where the ball
was lost; one click drops a correction, and re-rendering with your
corrections skips detection entirely — it reruns only the camera path
and the final encode, which took about 23 minutes
on the reference machine instead of the full run. Plan on a review
pass; that’s how you get broadcast-quality framing.
Every number here was measured on one machine
The figures on this page come from real production runs on a single
reference PC — an RTX 3090. They are honest, but
they describe that card. A slower or smaller GPU will be slower, and
we say so plainly rather than quoting a spec we haven’t run.