1. **Limited Novelty in Video Storyboarding**: The innovation of the proposed video storyboarding approach is limited. The primary method relies on frame-wise SDSA, which largely mirrors the approach used in ConsiStory. The only notable difference lies in the mask source, utilizing CLIPseg and OTSU segmentation rather than cross-attention.
2. **Poor Writing and Project Organization**: The paper's writing and the project page's layout hinder comprehension, making it difficult for readers to follow the key contributions the authors intend to convey.
3. **Minimal Improvement over Baseline Models**: The generated video storyboarding results appear similar to those produced by existing video generation baselines like Videocrafter2 or TokenFlow encoder, with little noticeable difference in output quality.
4. **Lack of Motion Dynamics**: The method demonstrates limited motion dynamics. In most video segments, the objects remain static, and in every case, the object consistently occupies the center of the frame, resulting in rigid, uninspired visuals.
5. **Overclaiming the Benchmark**: The authors’ claim of establishing a benchmark based on a dataset of only 30 videos, each containing 5 video shots, is unsubstantiated. This dataset is insufficiently sized and lacks diversity, with evaluations limited to character consistency and dynamic degree, providing a narrow view that does not comprehensively assess the model's capabilities.
1. **Limited Novelty in Video Storyboarding**: The innovation of the proposed video storyboarding approach is limited. The primary method relies on frame-wise SDSA, which largely mirrors the approach used in ConsiStory. The only notable difference lies in the mask source, utilizing CLIPseg and OTSU segmentation rather than cross-attention.