Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 66 references

PaintScene4D: Consistent 4D Scene Generation from Text Prompts

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A training-free pipeline turns text prompts into explorable 4D scenes.

desk verdict A legitimate warping-and-inpainting pipeline for text-to-4D scenes whose 'training-free' headline claim is contradicted by the paper's own per-scene 4D-GS optimization. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04471 v2 pith:PXY46BIY submitted 2024-12-05 cs.CV cs.AI

Vinayak Gupta , Yunze Man , Yu-Xiong Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords text-to-4Dgeneration4Dscenevideodiffusionmodelsdepth-basedwarpinginpaintingGaussiansplattingcameratrajectorycontroltraining-free
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

PaintScene4D sets out to establish that photorealistic, scene-level 4D content can be generated from a text prompt without training a 4D generative model. The method generates one reference video with a static camera, warps it into a network of 25 virtual viewpoints across 50 timestamps using progressive warping and inpainting, then fits a 4D Gaussian splatting field to render the scene from arbitrary user-chosen camera trajectories. If the central claim holds, text-to-4D generation becomes dramatically cheaper, dropping from over 20 hours for some object-level baselines to roughly 2.2 to 3 hours on a single A100 GPU, while also producing more realistic, scene-level results than prior object-centric methods.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a view-time matrix built by two coupled modules: the progressive warping module (PWM) warps frames to the farthest available viewpoint with minimal overlap using depth-image-based rendering, and the consistent inpainting module (CIM) fills occluded regions while preserving temporal coherence by reusing background content from prior timestamps. Depth alignment via scale-shift optimization and bilateral filtering sharpens geometry before warping. The final dynamic 4D Gaussian splatting field renders arbitrary viewpoints and timestamps.

What would settle it

Generate a reference video with explicit camera panning (for example, by appending 'camera slowly panning right' to the prompt), run the full pipeline, and measure reprojection or depth consistency across the 25 synthesized views; the paper's own supplementary failure case predicts visible distortions and artifacts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that an off-the-shelf text-to-video diffusion model, combined with depth-based multi-view warping and temporally consistent inpainting, can replace dedicated multi-view 4D generative models. The reference video supplies both scene content and motion priors; a depth estimator provides geometry; a farthest-view sampling strategy warps frames to minimally overlapping viewpoints; and a consistent inpainting module fills unobserved regions using content from earlier timestamps and foreground-background separation. The resulting view-time matrix is optimized by a 4D Gaussian splatting renderer, enabling explicit camera control at test time. The authors report that this training-free architecture outperforms 4D-fy, Dream-in-4D, 4Real, and VividDream on CLIP score and human preference, and they present it as the first training-free approach to 4D scene generation.

Load-bearing premise

The reference video must be captured by a nearly static, non-moving camera; if the text-to-video model introduces camera motion, the depth-based warping basis is invalid and artifacts appear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Text-to-4D generation can be assembled from existing off-the-shelf components, reducing the compute barrier from tens of hours to roughly two to three hours per scene.
  • Users gain explicit, repeatable control over camera trajectories within a single generated scene, which text-to-video models do not offer.
  • The pipeline generalizes beyond synthetic text-to-video output to real-world monocular videos, extending coverage beyond the original frames.
  • Scene-level, photorealistic 4D output becomes feasible without large-scale 4D training datasets.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the static-camera assumption holds, any improvement in text-to-video models should directly translate into better 4D scenes, making 4D generation a downstream beneficiary of progress in video generation.
  • The method's explicit dependence on a static reference video suggests a natural testable boundary: feeding a video with deliberate camera motion should produce measurable distortions, as the paper's own failure case indicates.
  • A benchmark that varies prompt-induced camera motion could quantify the claimed >90% success rate and guide when explicit 3D foreground modeling becomes necessary.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. PaintScene4D proposes a text-to-4D scene generation pipeline that starts from a text-to-video (T2V) model, estimates per-frame depth, constructs a network of 25 virtual cameras by progressive warping and inpainting, and finally optimizes a 4D Gaussian splatting renderer for novel-view synthesis along user-defined trajectories. The paper claims this is the 'first training-free approach for 4D scene generation,' reports state-of-the-art CLIP scores and user preferences against object-level baselines (4D-fy, Dream-in-4D) and scene-level models (4Real, VividDream), and reports a total runtime of 2.2–3 hours on a single A100 GPU.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, the paper would offer a practical and efficient way to obtain photorealistic, camera-controllable 4D scenes by reusing video diffusion priors, extending prior warping-and-inpainting ideas from static scenes to dynamic ones. The method is modular, includes useful ablations, and demonstrates application to real-world videos. However, the headline 'training-free' claim is internally contradicted by the per-scene optimization of the 4D renderer, and the quantitative evaluation has a circularity risk because the same CLIP score used for selection in the inpainting loop is also the main reported metric. These issues affect the central novelty and the strength of the empirical evidence, though they are potentially fixable through reframing and additional evaluation.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, §3.4, §4.2, Supplementary C] The central claim that PaintScene4D is 'training-free' is contradicted by the paper's own experimental protocol. Section 3.4 is titled 'Training and Optimization,' Supplementary Table B lists 3,000 coarse and 15,000 fine training iterations, and Supplementary Section C states that the 4D renderer is 'trained in about one hour.' The footnote in the introduction hedges that the renderer is 'learnable' and 'in principle, can be achieved in a training-free manner,' but no evidence is provided that a frozen or non-optimized renderer preserves the reported quality. Since 'training-free' is a headline contribution and is used to explain the efficiency advantage over 4D-fy and Dream-in-4D, this is a load-bearing inconsistency. Please either remove the unqualified 'training-free' claim, replace it with a precise statement about which components are training-free, or provide results with the renderer optimization disabled.
  2. [Supplementary C.1, Table 1] The main quantitative metric is partly optimized by construction. Supplementary Section C.1 states that the inpainting module 'inpaint[s] the missing regions multiple times and pick[s] the best one using a CLIP based selector,' and Table 1 reports the CLIP score as the main quantitative comparison. Since the same CLIP score is used to select among candidate inpaintings, the reported CLIP improvement over baselines is not a fair, unbiased measure. Please report CLIP scores computed on independently selected outputs, or use a different metric that is not part of the selection loop, such as a multi-view consistency metric or a user study with proper statistical reporting.
  3. [§4.1, Table 1] The quantitative comparison against scene-level models is not adequately documented. The text says that for closed-source models 4Real and VividDream the comparison is performed 'with examples shown in their paper using the same text prompts,' but Table 1 reports CLIP scores and human preference percentages for 4Real without stating how these numbers were obtained, which prompts were used, whether the videos were downloaded from project pages or re-rendered, and whether the evaluators saw matched content. This makes the headline 'state-of-the-art' result for scene-level generation difficult to verify. Please specify the evaluation protocol for these baselines, including the prompt set, the source of the baseline videos, and the number of ratings per cell.
  4. [§4.1, Table 1] The user study is reported without any measure of uncertainty. Section 4.1 says 30 evaluators per video pair, but Table 1 gives only percentage values with no confidence intervals, no per-prompt breakdown, and no significance test. The text in §4.2 claims 'a statistically significant preference for PaintScene4D,' but no evidence for statistical significance is provided. Please add confidence intervals and a significance test (e.g., bootstrap or paired test over prompts), or soften the claim to a descriptive preference.
  5. [§3.1, Supplementary E and F] The method's key assumption—that the initial text-to-video output is captured by a nearly static, non-moving camera—is acknowledged as a limitation but not quantified in the main paper. All 25 virtual views are generated by warping this single reference video, so moderate camera motion in the T2V output invalidates the warping basis and produces the artifacts shown in Supplementary Figure B. Supplementary Section E claims a 'success rate exceeding 90%,' but the criterion for success is not defined and no supporting data are provided. Please define the success criterion, report the rate over a set of prompts, and discuss how sensitive the pipeline is to small camera motions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The abstract states 'training-free architecture' without qualification, while the introduction footnote acknowledges that the 4D renderer is learnable and only 'in principle' training-free; these statements should be reconciled.
  2. [§4.2, Table 2, Supplementary C] The runtime numbers are inconsistent: Table 2 reports a total of 2.2 hours, the main text says 'approximately 2.2 hours' and also '2 to 3 hours,' while Supplementary Section C says the complete process is 'approximately 3 hours' (about two hours for warping/inpainting plus about one hour for renderer training). Please clarify the exact protocol and report a single consistent number.
  3. [Figure 7 caption] The caption says 'Our approach, once trained, allows for flexible camera trajectories,' which again contradicts the 'training-free' claim; please rephrase to reflect that the 4D renderer is optimized per scene.
  4. [§3.1 and §3.2] The notation in Eq. (1) mixes image indices and timestamp superscripts; please define all symbols explicitly (e.g., what I_t^i, P_i, and K denote) and clarify that the projection is applied per timestamp.
  5. [Table 3] The ablation table reports CLIP scores without error bars or significance testing; since the sample size is small (20 prompts), please add variability measures or per-prompt results.
  6. [Supplementary C.1] The use of a CLIP-based selector to choose among multiple inpaintings is an important design choice and should be mentioned in the main paper, not only in the supplementary material.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Reported CLIP scores are inflated by construction because the same CLIP metric is used as the inpainting selection criterion; the rest of the pipeline is otherwise self-contained.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Supplementary C.1 (Warping and Inpainting Module) versus Section 4.1 (CLIP Score); reported in Table 1 and Table 3]
    "Supplementary C.1: "We inpaint the missing regions multiple times and pick the best one using a CLIP [35] based selector." Section 4.1: "We compute CLIP scores by evaluating each frame with CLIP ViT-B/32 and averaging the scores across all frames and prompts for consistency.""

    The main quantitative evidence in Table 1 is the CLIP Score, computed with CLIP ViT-B/32. The same CLIP metric is used inside the pipeline as a selection criterion: each missing region is inpainted multiple times and "the best one" is chosen by a CLIP-based selector. Reporting the CLIP score of those CLIP-selected outputs as an unbiased comparison measures a selection-maximized statistic rather than an independent sample of pipeline quality. The reported CLIP value is therefore forced upward by construction relative to any method that does not select on the same metric. This affects the CLIP column in Table 1 and the CLIP-based ablations in Table 3, although the user-study results provide partially independent grounding.

full rationale

PaintScene4D's core pipeline is not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs: warping, depth alignment, and inpainting are described with explicit equations (Eq. 1 and Eq. 2) built on independent off-the-shelf components (CogVideoX, DepthCrafter, Metric3D, Perspective Fields, GroundingSAM-2), and there are no load-bearing self-citations, imported uniqueness theorems, or renamed known results. The one concrete circularity is in the evaluation loop: the same CLIP model is used both to select the best of multiple inpainted versions (Supplementary C.1) and to compute the headline CLIP score in Table 1. This makes the reported CLIP figure partly an optimized quantity rather than an independent measurement. The user study, the runtime comparisons, and the qualitative comparisons are not affected by this loop, so the circularity is partial rather than total. The paper's "training-free" claim is contradicted by its own Section 3.4 and Supplementary Table B describing training of the 4D Gaussian renderer, but that is an internal consistency and correctness risk, not a circular-reasoning step, so it is not scored as circularity here.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on established tools (T2V model, depth estimators, inpainting models, 4D-GS), so the main free choices are hand-set hyperparameters. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced. The central assumptions are the static-camera prior and the reliability of the depth-warping-inpainting chain.

free parameters (3)
  • Number of Cameras = 25
    Chosen by hand (Supplementary Table A); determines multi-view coverage and warping workload; no automated selection or sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Inpainting Iterations = 10
    Chosen by hand (Supplementary Table A); one of the 10 results is selected via CLIP, affecting quality and the reported CLIP score.
  • Bilateral Filter Size = [3,5]
    Selected to sharpen depth boundaries (Supplementary Table A); impacts warping artifact removal.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Input video from the T2V model is captured from a stationary camera
    Stated in Sec 3.1 and listed as Limitation 1 in Supplementary Section F. The entire camera array is built via DIBR warping from a single reference video, so large camera motion causes distortion (Supplementary Figure B).
  • domain assumption Estimated depth maps are accurate and alignable across frames
    DepthCrafter and Metric3D outputs are used for DIBR; Sec 3.2 relies on scale-shift alignment (Eq 2) to reconcile inconsistent predictions, but local depth errors can accumulate during warping.
  • ad hoc to paper Diffusion-based inpainting produces geometrically plausible content in occluded regions
    The authors adopt the heuristic that inpainting larger occluded regions yields higher quality (Sec 3.2), without a geometric guarantee; failures appear as double geometry (Supplementary Section F).
  • domain assumption Perspective Fields estimates correct camera intrinsics for the generated video
    Sec 3.1 uses Perspective Fields to obtain intrinsics; if these are biased, all warped coordinates from Eq 1 are systematically wrong.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PaintScene4D: Consistent 4D Scene Generation from Text Prompts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PXY46BIY

@misc{pith2026241204471,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PaintScene4D: Consistent 4D Scene Generation from Text Prompts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PXY46BIY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04471}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in diffusion models have revolutionized 2D and 3D content creation, yet generating photorealistic dynamic 4D scenes remains a significant challenge. Existing dynamic 4D generation methods typically rely on distilling knowledge from pre-trained 3D generative models, often fine-tuned on synthetic object datasets. Consequently, the resulting scenes tend to be object-centric and lack photorealism. While text-to-video models can generate more realistic scenes with motion, they often struggle with spatial understanding and provide limited control over camera viewpoints during rendering. To address these limitations, we present PaintScene4D, a novel text-to-4D scene generation framework that departs from conventional multi-view generative models in favor of a streamlined architecture that harnesses video generative models trained on diverse real-world datasets. Our method first generates a reference video using a video generation model, and then employs a strategic camera array selection for rendering. We apply a progressive warping and inpainting technique to ensure both spatial and temporal consistency across multiple viewpoints. Finally, we optimize multi-view images using a dynamic renderer, enabling flexible camera control based on user preferences. Adopting a training-free architecture, our PaintScene4D efficiently produces realistic 4D scenes that can be viewed from arbitrary trajectories. The code will be made publicly available. Our project page is at https://paintscene4d.github.io/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04471 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 4D Text-to-Scene Generation. Unlike prior methods that restrict text-to-4D generation to object-level reconstruction or text￾to-video models lacking explicit camera control, our approach reconstructs full realistic 4D scenes that can be viewed from different trajectories, achieving via an efficient training-free architecture. Abstract Recent advances in generative models have revolutionized 2D and 3D content creatio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Method Overview. Our approach consists of three stages. First, we initialize the 4D scene using a diffusion prior to estab￾lish scene content and motion, estimate depth maps for each video frame, and initialize camera trajectory (extrinsics) and intrinsics for subsequent warping. In the second stage, we perform sequential warping and inpainting from the first timestamp. To ensure spatial and temporal coherence, our … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gallery of Results. PaintScene4D successfully generates 4D scenes that maintain view- and temporal-coherence. The horizontal axis represents the time; the vertical axis represents different viewpoints. More visualizations are provided in the supplementary materials. artifacts such as trailing patterns within occluded regions. To address this, we apply bilateral filtering to sharpen the depth boundaries, enhancing in… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparisons with state-of-the-art text-to-4D generation methods. While both baseline methods produce scenes that broadly align with the text prompts, they lack essential fine details. Specifically, 4D-fy shows minimal motion and limited detail, whereas Dream￾in-4D capt…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison against 4Real. [58] We demonstrate that our method produces more dynamics, larger scene coverage and better video-text alignment, and overall realism scenes. 4.1. Baselines and Evaluation Metrics In the absence of open-source implementations for text￾to-4D s…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Camera Control. PaintScene4D shows strong explicit camera control capabilities. To guide T2V models (e.g., CogVideoX [55]), we append camera motion directives to the text prompt such as “The camera tilts to the right / upwards.” However, due to the implicit handling of…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative Results on real-world videos. Our work can produce realistic and coherent results with real-world video inputs, rather than limited to generated videos from T2V models. Each evaluator receives three anonymized videos, each cap￾turing a dynamic scene from a …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Ablation Study. We demonstrate that each of our pro￾posed components is essential for mitigating artifacts and incon￾sistencies, resulting in smooth consistent renderings. trast, our method achieves high photorealistic quality across both spatial and temporal dimension…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Natural language input for scene generation

    Giovanni Adorni and Mauro Di Manzo. Natural language input for scene generation. In EACL, 1983. 2

    work page 1983

  2. [2]

    4D-fy: Text-to-4d generation using hybrid score distillation sampling

    Sherwin Bahmani, Ivan Skorokhodov, Victor Rong, Gordon Wetzstein, Leonidas Guibas, Peter Wonka, Sergey Tulyakov, Jeong Joon Park, Andrea Tagliasacchi, and David B Lindell. 4D-fy: Text-to-4d generation using hybrid score distillation sampling. In CVPR, 2024. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 1

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    TC4D: Trajectory- conditioned text-to-4d generation

    Sherwin Bahmani, Xian Liu, Wang Yifan, Ivan Sko- rokhodov, Victor Rong, Ziwei Liu, Xihui Liu, Jeong Joon Park, Sergey Tulyakov, Gordon Wetzstein, Andrea Tagliasacchi, and David B Lindell. TC4D: Trajectory- conditioned text-to-4d generation. In ECCV, 2025. 3, 6

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    HexPlane: A fast representa- tion for dynamic scenes

    Ang Cao and Justin Johnson. HexPlane: A fast representa- tion for dynamic scenes. In CVPR, 2023. 3

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Generative novel view synthesis with 3D-aware diffusion models

    Eric R Chan, Koki Nagano, Matthew A Chan, Alexander W Bergman, Jeong Joon Park, Axel Levy, Miika Aittala, Shalini De Mello, Tero Karras, and Gordon Wetzstein. Generative novel view synthesis with 3D-aware diffusion models. In ICCV, 2023. 3

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Learning spatial knowledge for text to 3D scene generation

    Angel Chang, Manolis Savva, and Christopher D Manning. Learning spatial knowledge for text to 3D scene generation. In EMNLP, 2014. 2

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Text2shape: Generating shapes from natural language by learning joint embeddings

    Kevin Chen, Christopher B Choy, Manolis Savva, An- gel X Chang, Thomas Funkhouser, and Silvio Savarese. Text2shape: Generating shapes from natural language by learning joint embeddings. In ACCV, 2018. 2

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    WordsEye: An automatic text-to-scene conversion system

    Bob Coyne and Richard Sproat. WordsEye: An automatic text-to-scene conversion system. In SIGGRAPH, 2001. 2

    work page 2001

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Objaverse: A universe of annotated 3D objects

    Matt Deitke, Dustin Schwenk, Jordi Salvador, Luca Weihs, Oscar Michel, Eli VanderBilt, Ludwig Schmidt, Kiana Ehsani, Aniruddha Kembhavi, and Ali Farhadi. Objaverse: A universe of annotated 3D objects. In CVPR, 2023. 2

    2023

  2. [10]

    Depth-image-based rendering, compres- sion, and transmission for a new approach on 3D-TV

    Christoph Fehn. Depth-image-based rendering, compres- sion, and transmission for a new approach on 3D-TV. SPIE Stereoscopic Displays and Virtual Reality Systems XI, 2004. 4

    2004

  3. [11]

    Textdeformer: Geometry manipu- lation using text guidance

    William Gao, Noam Aigerman, Thibault Groueix, V ova Kim, and Rana Hanocka. Textdeformer: Geometry manipu- lation using text guidance. In SIGGRAPH, 2023. 2

    2023

  4. [12]

    NeRFDiff: Single-image view synthesis with NeRF-guided distillation from 3D-aware diffusion

    Jiatao Gu, Alex Trevithick, Kai-En Lin, Joshua M Susskind, Christian Theobalt, Lingjie Liu, and Ravi Ramamoorthi. NeRFDiff: Single-image view synthesis with NeRF-guided distillation from 3D-aware diffusion. In ICML, 2023. 3

    2023

  5. [13]

    AnimateDiff: Animate your personalized text-to-image diffusion models without specific tuning

    Yuwei Guo, Ceyuan Yang, Anyi Rao, Yaohui Wang, Yu Qiao, Dahua Lin, and Bo Dai. AnimateDiff: Animate your personalized text-to-image diffusion models without specific tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04725, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Text2Room: Extracting textured 3D meshes from 2D text-to-image models

    Lukas H ¨ollein, Ang Cao, Andrew Owens, Justin Johnson, and Matthias Nießner. Text2Room: Extracting textured 3D meshes from 2D text-to-image models. In ICCV, 2023. 3

    2023

  7. [15]

    Metric3D v2: A versatile monocular geomet- ric foundation model for zero-shot metric depth and surface normal estimation

    Mu Hu, Wei Yin, Chi Zhang, Zhipeng Cai, Xiaoxiao Long, Hao Chen, Kaixuan Wang, Gang Yu, Chunhua Shen, and Shaojie Shen. Metric3D v2: A versatile monocular geomet- ric foundation model for zero-shot metric depth and surface normal estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15506, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    DepthCrafter: Generating consistent long depth sequences for open-world videos

    Wenbo Hu, Xiangjun Gao, Xiaoyu Li, Sijie Zhao, Xi- aodong Cun, Yong Zhang, Long Quan, and Ying Shan. DepthCrafter: Generating consistent long depth sequences for open-world videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.02095 ,

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Zero-shot text-guided object gen- eration with dream fields

    Ajay Jain, Ben Mildenhall, Jonathan T Barron, Pieter Abbeel, and Ben Poole. Zero-shot text-guided object gen- eration with dream fields. In CVPR, 2022. 2

    2022

  10. [18]

    Clipmatrix: Text-controlled creation of 3D textured meshes

    Nikolay Jetchev. Clipmatrix: Text-controlled creation of 3D textured meshes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.12922, 2021. 2

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Consistent4D: Consistent 360 degree dynamic ob- ject generation from monocular video

    Yanqin Jiang, Li Zhang, Jin Gao, Weimin Hu, and Yao Yao. Consistent4D: Consistent 360 degree dynamic ob- ject generation from monocular video. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.02848, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Linyi Jin, Jianming Zhang, Yannick Hold-Geoffroy, Oliver Wang, Kevin Matzen, Matthew Sticha, and David F. Fouhey. Perspective fields for single image camera calibration. In CVPR, 2023. 4, 1

    2023

  13. [21]

    Vividdream: Generating 3D scene with ambient dynamics

    Yao-Chih Lee, Yi-Ting Chen, Andrew Wang, Ting-Hsuan Liao, Brandon Y Feng, and Jia-Bin Huang. Vividdream: Generating 3D scene with ambient dynamics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20334, 2024. 3, 6, 8

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Magic3D: High-resolution text-to-3D content creation

    Chen-Hsuan Lin, Jun Gao, Luming Tang, Towaki Takikawa, Xiaohui Zeng, Xun Huang, Karsten Kreis, Sanja Fidler, Ming-Yu Liu, and Tsung-Yi Lin. Magic3D: High-resolution text-to-3D content creation. In CVPR, 2023. 3

    2023

  15. [23]

    Magic3D: High-resolution text-to-3D content creation

    Chen-Hsuan Lin, Jun Gao, Luming Tang, Towaki Takikawa, Xiaohui Zeng, Xun Huang, Karsten Kreis, Sanja Fidler, Ming-Yu Liu, and Tsung-Yi Lin. Magic3D: High-resolution text-to-3D content creation. In CVPR, 2023. 2

    2023

  16. [24]

    Consistent123: One image to highly consistent 3D asset using case-aware diffusion priors

    Yukang Lin, Haonan Han, Chaoqun Gong, Zunnan Xu, Yachao Zhang, and Xiu Li. Consistent123: One image to highly consistent 3D asset using case-aware diffusion priors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17261, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Align your gaussians: Text-to-4D with dynamic 4D gaussians and composed diffusion models

    Huan Ling, Seung Wook Kim, Antonio Torralba, Sanja Fi- dler, and Karsten Kreis. Align your gaussians: Text-to-4D with dynamic 4D gaussians and composed diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.13763, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Align your gaussians: Text-to-4D with dynamic 3D gaussians and composed diffusion models

    Huan Ling, Seung Wook Kim, Antonio Torralba, Sanja Fi- dler, and Karsten Kreis. Align your gaussians: Text-to-4D with dynamic 3D gaussians and composed diffusion models. In CVPR, 2024. 3

    2024

  19. [27]

    Infinite Na- ture: Perpetual view generation of natural scenes from a sin- gle image

    Andrew Liu, Richard Tucker, Varun Jampani, Ameesh Makadia, Noah Snavely, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Infinite Na- ture: Perpetual view generation of natural scenes from a sin- gle image. In ICCV, 2021. 4

    2021

  20. [28]

    Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3D object

    Ruoshi Liu, Rundi Wu, Basile Van Hoorick, Pavel Tok- makov, Sergey Zakharov, and Carl V ondrick. Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3D object. In ICCV, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  21. [29]

    SyncDreamer: Learning to generate multiview- 9 consistent images from a single-view image

    Y Liu, C Lin, Z Zeng, X Long, L Liu, T Komura, and W Wang. SyncDreamer: Learning to generate multiview- 9 consistent images from a single-view image. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.03453, 2023. 2, 3

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    VideoFusion: Decomposed diffusion mod- els for high-quality video generation

    Zhengxiong Luo, Dayou Chen, Yingya Zhang, Yan Huang, Liang Wang, Yujun Shen, Deli Zhao, Jingren Zhou, and Tieniu Tan. VideoFusion: Decomposed diffusion mod- els for high-quality video generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08320, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Latent-NeRF for shape-guided generation of 3D shapes and textures

    Gal Metzer, Elad Richardson, Or Patashnik, Raja Giryes, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Latent-NeRF for shape-guided generation of 3D shapes and textures. In CVPR, 2023. 2

    2023

  24. [32]

    Benchmark for compositional text-to- image synthesis

    Dong Huk Park, Samaneh Azadi, Xihui Liu, Trevor Darrell, and Anna Rohrbach. Benchmark for compositional text-to- image synthesis. In NeurIPS, 2021. 6

    2021

  25. [33]

    Barron, and Ben Milden- hall

    Ben Poole, Ajay Jain, Jonathan T. Barron, and Ben Milden- hall. DreamFusion: Text-to-3D using 2D diffusion. In ICLR,

  26. [34]

    Magic123: One image to high-quality 3D object generation using both 2D and 3D diffusion priors

    Guocheng Qian, Jinjie Mai, Abdullah Hamdi, Jian Ren, Aliaksandr Siarohin, Bing Li, Hsin-Ying Lee, Ivan Sko- rokhodov, Peter Wonka, Sergey Tulyakov, and Bernard Ghanem. Magic123: One image to high-quality 3D object generation using both 2D and 3D diffusion priors. arXiv preprin...

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In ICML, 2021. 2, 6, 1

    2021

  28. [36]

    DreamGaussian4D: Generative 4D Gaussian splatting

    Jiawei Ren, Liang Pan, Jiaxiang Tang, Chi Zhang, Ang Cao, Gang Zeng, and Ziwei Liu. DreamGaussian4D: Generative 4D Gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.17142 ,

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Grounded SAM: Assembling open-world models for diverse visual tasks

    Tianhe Ren, Shilong Liu, Ailing Zeng, Jing Lin, Kun- chang Li, He Cao, Jiayu Chen, Xinyu Huang, Yukang Chen, Feng Yan, Zhaoyang Zeng, Hao Zhang, Feng Li, Jie Yang, Hongyang Li, Qing Jiang, and Lei Zhang. Grounded SAM: Assembling open-world models for diverse visual tasks. arXi...

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models. In CVPR, 2022. 2

    2022

  31. [39]

    Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep lan- guage understanding

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily L Denton, Kamyar Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Sali- mans, Jonathan Ho, David J Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep lan- guag...

    2022

  32. [40]

    CLIP-Forge: Towards zero-shot text-to-shape genera- tion

    Aditya Sanghi, Hang Chu, Joseph G Lambourne, Ye Wang, Chin-Yi Cheng, Marco Fumero, and Kamal Rahimi Malek- shan. CLIP-Forge: Towards zero-shot text-to-shape genera- tion. In CVPR, 2022. 2

    2022

  33. [41]

    Zero123++: A single image to consistent multi-view dif- fusion base model

    Ruoxi Shi, Hansheng Chen, Zhuoyang Zhang, Minghua Liu, Chao Xu, Xinyue Wei, Linghao Chen, Chong Zeng, and Hao Su. Zero123++: A single image to consistent multi-view dif- fusion base model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15110, 2023. 2

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Mvdream: Multi-view diffusion for 3D gen- eration

    Yichun Shi, Peng Wang, Jianglong Ye, Mai Long, Kejie Li, and Xiao Yang. Mvdream: Multi-view diffusion for 3D gen- eration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16512, 2023. 2, 3

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Make-a-video: Text-to-video generation without text-video data

    Uriel Singer, Adam Polyak, Thomas Hayes, Xi Yin, Jie An, Songyang Zhang, Qiyuan Hu, Harry Yang, Oron Ashual, Oran Gafni, Devi Parikh, Sonal Gupta, and Yaniv Taigman. Make-a-video: Text-to-video generation without text-video data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14792, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Text-to-4D dynamic scene generation

    Uriel Singer, Shelly Sheynin, Adam Polyak, Oron Ashual, Iurii Makarov, Filippos Kokkinos, Naman Goyal, Andrea Vedaldi, Devi Parikh, Justin Johnson, and Yaniv Taigman. Text-to-4D dynamic scene generation. In ICML, 2023. 2, 3, 6

    2023

  37. [45]

    Make-it-3D: High-fidelity 3D creation from a single image with diffusion prior

    Junshu Tang, Tengfei Wang, Bo Zhang, Ting Zhang, Ran Yi, Lizhuang Ma, and Dong Chen. Make-it-3D: High-fidelity 3D creation from a single image with diffusion prior. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.14184, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    An image inpainting technique based on the fast marching method

    Alexandru Telea. An image inpainting technique based on the fast marching method. Journal of Graphics Tools, 2004. 4

    2004

  39. [47]

    Diffusion with forward models: Solving stochastic inverse problems without direct supervision

    Ayush Tewari, Tianwei Yin, George Cazenavette, Semon Rezchikov, Joshua B Tenenbaum, Fr´edo Durand, William T Freeman, and Vincent Sitzmann. Diffusion with forward models: Solving stochastic inverse problems without direct supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11719, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    CLIP-NeRF: Text-and-image driven manipu- lation of neural radiance fields

    Can Wang, Menglei Chai, Mingming He, Dongdong Chen, and Jing Liao. CLIP-NeRF: Text-and-image driven manipu- lation of neural radiance fields. In CVPR, 2022. 2

    2022

  41. [49]

    Modelscope text-to-video technical report

    Jiuniu Wang, Hangjie Yuan, Dayou Chen, Yingya Zhang, Xiang Wang, and Shiwei Zhang. Modelscope text-to-video technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06571, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Prolificdreamer: High-fidelity and diverse text-to-3D generation with variational score distilla- tion

    Zhengyi Wang, Cheng Lu, Yikai Wang, Fan Bao, Chongxuan Li, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. Prolificdreamer: High-fidelity and diverse text-to-3D generation with variational score distilla- tion. Proc. NeurIPS, 2023. 3

    2023

  43. [51]

    4D Gaussian splatting for real-time dynamic scene render- ing

    Guanjun Wu, Taoran Yi, Jiemin Fang, Lingxi Xie, Xiaopeng Zhang, Wei Wei, Wenyu Liu, Qi Tian, and Xinggang Wang. 4D Gaussian splatting for real-time dynamic scene render- ing. In CVPR, 2024. 5, 2

    2024

  44. [52]

    Cat4d: Create anything in 4D with multi-view video diffusion mod- els

    Rundi Wu, Ruiqi Gao, Ben Poole, Alex Trevithick, Changxi Zheng, Jonathan T Barron, and Aleksander Holynski. Cat4d: Create anything in 4D with multi-view video diffusion mod- els. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18613, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    SV4D: Dynamic 3D content generation with multi-frame and multi-view consistency

    Yiming Xie, Chun-Han Yao, Vikram V oleti, Huaizu Jiang, and Varun Jampani. SV4D: Dynamic 3D content generation with multi-frame and multi-view consistency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.17470, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Comp4D: LLM-guided compositional 4D scene generation

    Dejia Xu, Hanwen Liang, Neel P Bhatt, Hezhen Hu, Hanxue Liang, Konstantinos N Plataniotis, and Zhangyang Wang. Comp4D: LLM-guided compositional 4D scene generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16993, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    CogVideoX: Text-to-video dif- fusion models with an expert transformer

    Zhuoyi Yang, Jiayan Teng, Wendi Zheng, Ming Ding, Shiyu Huang, Jiazheng Xu, Yuanming Yang, Wenyi Hong, Xi- aohan Zhang, Guanyu Feng, Da Yin, Xiaotao Gu, Yuxuan Zhang, Weihan Wang, Yean Cheng, Ting Liu, Bin Xu, Yux- iao Dong, and Jie Tang. CogVideoX: Text-to-video dif- fusion m...

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    4DGen: Grounded 4D content gener- ation with spatial-temporal consistency

    Yuyang Yin, Dejia Xu, Zhangyang Wang, Yao Zhao, and Yunchao Wei. 4DGen: Grounded 4D content gener- ation with spatial-temporal consistency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.17225, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    DreamSparse: Escaping from plato’s cave with 2D diffusion model given sparse views

    Paul Yoo, Jiaxian Guo, Yutaka Matsuo, and Shixiang Shane Gu. DreamSparse: Escaping from plato’s cave with 2D diffusion model given sparse views. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03414, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    4Real: Towards photorealis- tic 4D scene generation via video diffusion models

    Heng Yu, Chaoyang Wang, Peiye Zhuang, Willi Mena- pace, Aliaksandr Siarohin, Junli Cao, Laszlo A Jeni, Sergey Tulyakov, and Hsin-Ying Lee. 4Real: Towards photorealis- tic 4D scene generation via video diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07472, 2024. 3, 6, 7, 8

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Text2NeRF: Text-driven 3D scene generation with neural radiance fields

    Jingbo Zhang, Xiaoyu Li, Ziyu Wan, Can Wang, and Jing Liao. Text2NeRF: Text-driven 3D scene generation with neural radiance fields. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2024. 3

    2024

  52. [60]

    3D- SceneDreamer: Text-driven 3D-consistent scene generation

    Songchun Zhang, Yibo Zhang, Quan Zheng, Rui Ma, Wei Hua, Hujun Bao, Weiwei Xu, and Changqing Zou. 3D- SceneDreamer: Text-driven 3D-consistent scene generation. In CVPR, 2024. 3

    2024

  53. [61]

    Animate124: Animating one im- age to 4D dynamic scene

    Yuyang Zhao, Zhiwen Yan, Enze Xie, Lanqing Hong, Zhen- guo Li, and Gim Hee Lee. Animate124: Animating one im- age to 4D dynamic scene. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.14603,

    arXiv

  54. [62]

    A unified approach for text- and image-guided 4D scene generation

    Yufeng Zheng, Xueting Li, Koki Nagano, Sifei Liu, Otmar Hilliges, and Shalini De Mello. A unified approach for text- and image-guided 4D scene generation. In CVPR, 2024. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 1 11 PaintScene4D: Consistent 4D Scene Generation from Text Prompts Supplementary Material A...

    2024

  55. [63]

    Comparison with additional text-to-4D methods

    Assumption of a Static Camera: Our approach as- sumes that the input video is captured from a nearly Figure A. Comparison with additional text-to-4D methods. Figure B. Failure Case: Our method is dependent on the as- sumption that the initial video generation exhibits no large...

  56. [64]

    Lack of Explicit 3D Foreground Modeling: Our cur- rent method does not explicitly model the 3D structure of the foreground. Instead, we rely on an inpainting model to fill in gaps at the boundaries of the foreground, which means that the model does not possess a comprehensive ...

  57. [65]

    Ad- vancements in this area would likely enhance the ren- dering quality of our method and enable better handling of fast motion

    Challenges with Rapid Motion: Our approach strug- gles to handle rapid movements in the video due to the limitations of current 4D rendering techniques. Ad- vancements in this area would likely enhance the ren- dering quality of our method and enable better handling of fast motion

  58. [66]

    A fox building a sandcastle on a beach in the evening

    Segmentation Errors and Artifacts: If the segmenta- tion model fails to accurately distinguish the character or foreground from the background, it can introduce signif- icant errors during the warping and inpainting processes. These inaccuracies accumulate over successive stag...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.