Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

JOG3R: Towards 3D-Consistent Video Generators

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Joint training with a 3D point-map head makes video generators 3D-consistent, the paper claims.

desk verdict Genuine first: joint video generation + dense 3D point map/camera prediction in one trained model, with the headline 3D-consistency gain real but partly self-referential because MEt3R is computed with the model's own point maps. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01409 v2 pith:JOAWIDPQ submitted 2025-01-02 cs.CV cs.AI

Chun-Hao Paul Huang , Niloy Mitra , Hyeonho Jeong , Jae Shin Yoon , Duygu Ceylan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords videogeneration3DconsistencycameraposeestimationpointmapdiffusiontransformermodelstitchingDUSt3Rstructurefrommotion
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

JOG3R asks whether video generators can be made genuinely 3D-consistent rather than merely temporally smooth. The authors find that pre-trained OpenSora features predict camera poses only weakly, and that generated frames fail a 3D-consistency check (MEt3R). Their solution is a single network that routes OpenSora's intermediate diffusion-transformer features into DUSt3R-style point-map decoders and trains the whole thing with generation and reconstruction losses together. The result is a video generator with better measured 3D consistency than the pre-trained model, without hurting visual quality, plus camera-pose estimates competitive with a dedicated pose estimator on the same data. The paper presents this as the first unified model that can generate video and regress 3D point maps and camera poses at once.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is model stitching of a DiT video backbone to a DUSt3R point-map head: the output of STDiT block 26 is fed into DUSt3R's cross-view decoders and linear heads, which regress per-pixel 3D point maps; relative camera poses come from Procrustes alignment plus PnP-RANSAC and a global registration refined by temporal smoothness terms. The joint objective is $L_{\text{total}} = L_{\text{gen}} + \lambda L_{\text{rec}}$ with $\lambda = 1$, where $L_{\text{gen}}$ is the standard noise-prediction loss and $L_{\text{rec}}$ is a confidence-weighted Euclidean error between normalized predicted and pseudo-ground-truth point maps. Only the temporal-attention weights of blocks 5 through 28 are updated; the first four blocks stay frozen, and the reconstruction decoder and heads are trained from scratch.

What would settle it

Retrain JOG3R with point-map targets produced by a different geometry source, such as multi-view stereo (COLMAP-style) or DUSt3R predictions refined by bundle adjustment, and measure MEt3R and pose accuracy on RealEstate10K-test; if the MEt3R advantage over pre-trained OpenSora and the mAA@30 gain over pre-trained DUSt3R vanish, the result depends on the ZoeDepth pseudo-labels. Also recompute the MEt3R comparisons using point maps from an independent estimator rather than JOG3R's own point maps for every method.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a video generator and a 3D reconstructor can share one network: the DiT blocks of OpenSora are stitched to DUSt3R's decoder and point-map heads, and the combined model is trained with both the diffusion noise-prediction loss and a confidence-weighted point-map regression loss. The central discovery is that pre-trained video-generator features are only weakly 3D-aware, but joint fine-tuning makes the two tasks mutually supportive. On RealEstate10K-test, JOG3R reaches the lowest MEt3R error among the compared generators (0.0736 vs 0.0819 for pre-trained OpenSora) while keeping FID and FVD competitive, and it estimates camera poses better than pre-trained DUSt3R (mAA@30 47.25% vs 40.20%), though below DUSt3R fine-tuned on identical data (75.50%).

Load-bearing premise

The point-map supervision is built from metric depth estimated by ZoeDepth and unprojected with RealEstate10K camera parameters; if those pseudo-ground-truth 3D maps carry systematic depth errors for real-estate interiors, the reconstruction head learns those biases and the reported 3D-consistency gain may partly reflect fitting to them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • JOG3R achieves the lowest MEt3R error (0.0736) among the compared video generators, indicating the generated videos are more 3D-consistent than pre-trained OpenSora (0.0819).
  • Adding the 3D point-map loss while keeping the generation loss does not degrade video quality on this benchmark: FID improves from 115.36 to 79.94 and FVD from 1872.41 to 1742.73 relative to pre-trained OpenSora.
  • On real RealEstate10K videos, JOG3R's camera poses beat a pre-trained DUSt3R (mAA@30 47.25% vs 40.20%), though a DUSt3R fine-tuned on the same training set remains ahead (75.50%).
  • The joint text-to-video-plus-camera pipeline gives camera trajectories consistent with the cascaded generate-then-estimate pipeline (average rotation difference 0.45 degrees), so the same network can output both modalities in one pass.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the joint-training effect generalizes, diffusion video backbones could become reusable feature extractors for other geometric tasks such as depth, optical flow, and point tracking, since the stitching already yields pixels and geometry in one forward pass.
  • A stronger test the authors leave open is training the video DiT from scratch with both losses; their own results suggest features may become even more 3D-consistent than fine-tuning an already-trained generator.
  • Dynamic scenes are the natural next probe: the current evaluation is limited to static scenes, so the claim that generation and reconstruction are compatible has not yet been tested under object motion, where camera pose and scene flow are entangled.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether video diffusion transformers can be jointly trained for video generation and 3D reconstruction. The authors stitch the OpenSora DiT backbone to a DUSt3R-style point-map decoder and head, and fine-tune the combined model with a generation loss and a reconstruction loss whose pseudo-ground-truth point maps come from ZoeDepth metric depth unprojected with RealEstate10K camera parameters. They report three usage modes: text-to-video (T2V), video-to-camera (V2C), and joint text-to-video-plus-camera (T2V+C). The central empirical claims are that the unified model improves the 3D consistency of generated videos relative to pre-trained OpenSora, as measured by MEt3R, and that it produces competitive camera pose estimates on real videos, as measured against ground-truth poses on RealEstate10K and DL3DV10K.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper makes a useful contribution: it shows that a video generator's features can be repurposed for a 3D task and that joint training with a geometric loss improves the geometric consistency of generated videos without sacrificing generation quality. The architecture is clean and the experimental setup is mostly standard, with external ground-truth camera poses used for the V2C evaluation. The main fragility is that the headline 3D-consistency result in Table 1 is evaluated with JOG3R's own point-map estimator for all methods, which makes the comparison potentially self-referential. The paper also does not validate the ZoeDepth pseudo-ground-truth point maps used to train the reconstruction head, and the reported improvements lack error bars. These issues are fixable and do not invalidate the overall approach, but they must be addressed before the headline claim is fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 1] The MEt3R metric is computed with JOG3R's own point map estimator for every method. Because JOG3R's point-map head was trained on RealEstate10K ZoeDepth pseudo-GT, it may systematically favor JOG3R-generated videos over videos from pre-trained or fine-tuned OpenSora, so the reported improvement (0.0736 vs 0.0819) could reflect estimator specialization rather than a true difference in geometric consistency. Please recompute MEt3R with a fixed, independent point-map estimator (for example, pre-trained DUSt3R or MASt3R) applied to all methods, and also report per-method point-map quality or use each method's own estimator as a cross-check.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eq. (2)] The reconstruction loss Lrec is supervised by point maps obtained by unprojecting ZoeDepth metric depth with RealEstate10K camera parameters, but the paper provides no validation of ZoeDepth accuracy on real-estate interior imagery. If ZoeDepth has systematic depth biases, those biases are baked into JOG3R's point-map head and could explain both the MEt3R improvement in Table 1 and the moderate V2C results in Table 2. Please quantify the pseudo-GT quality (e.g., compare ZoeDepth against COLMAP/SfM or DUSt3R point clouds on a held-out split) and, if feasible, ablate the training signal with an alternative pseudo-depth source.
  3. [Tables 1 and 2] No error bars, confidence intervals, or multiple-seed results are reported. The MEt3R gap in Table 1 is only about 10% relative, and with 180 generated videos and a fixed evaluation set the difference may not be statistically significant. Without variance estimates, the central claim that JOG3R is more 3D-consistent than pre-trained OpenSora is not yet demonstrated. Please report standard errors or bootstrap confidence intervals and, ideally, results over multiple fine-tuning seeds.
  4. [Appendix B, Table 3] The selected feature block b26 is outperformed by b20 in the paper's own ablation on both datasets (e.g., RealEstate10K mAA@30 47.25% vs 53.35%; DL3DV10K 34.22% vs 36.62%). This contradicts the text's claim that 'all later blocks should lead to similar results' and makes the choice of b26 appear unsupported. Since the feature block is a free parameter of the method, please either adopt the best-performing block, provide evidence that b26 is preferable on other criteria such as generation quality or MEt3R, or explicitly rescope the design claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The confidence term is written as C^{f->1}_i in the surrounding text but C^{f,1}_i in the equation; please use a single notation throughout and define the set of valid pixels i.
  2. [Related Work] References [28] and [51] are duplicated entries, and references [34] and [35] are the same paper (the Platonic representation hypothesis); these should be consolidated.
  3. [Section 4.3] The 'Self consistency of T2V->V2C and T2V+C' paragraph reports a 0.45-degree average rotation difference and a 19.20-degree translation difference between two pipelines. This is an internal consistency check, not a validation of absolute pose accuracy; please state this explicitly in the main text.
  4. [Table 2] The caption says 'bold is best in each sub-table; underlined is the second place,' but the rows do not make clear whether the bolding is across all methods or only within the JOG3R/OpenSora variants; please clarify the grouping.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

MEt3R consistency advantage rests on JOG3R's own point-map estimator; V2C pose results are independent but the headline 3D-consistency claim is only partially self-referential.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2 (Generation Evaluation), Table 1 caption]
    "We report the FID/FVD against the real images/videos in RealEstate10K-test as well as the MEt3R metric where we use JOG3R to estimate point maps."

    The headline 3D-consistency score is computed by warping DINO features with point maps estimated by JOG3R itself, the model being evaluated. JOG3R's point-map head is trained jointly with the generator via the reconstruction loss Lrec on RealEstate10K pseudo-GT (ZoeDepth unprojections), so it is specialized to JOG3R's feature distribution and the same dataset domain. A lower MEt3R for JOG3R compared to pre-trained OpenSora can therefore reflect estimator adaptation to JOG3R frames rather than an independent measurement of geometric consistency. Since no fixed external estimator (e.g., DUSt3R) is used for all methods, the table's support for the central '3D-consistent' claim is partially self-referential.

full rationale

The paper's V2C experiments provide independent evidence: camera poses are compared against ground-truth RealEstate10K extrinsics, and JOG3R outperforms pre-trained DUSt3R (mAA@30 47.25% vs 40.20%) while being inferior to DUSt3R fine-tuned on the same data. This external validation shows the reconstruction head is not vacuous. The architecture stitching and joint training losses are not derived from the measured metric. However, the specific claim of '3D-consistent video generation' rests on Table 1's MEt3R, and the paper explicitly uses JOG3R's own point maps for that metric, with no cross-check against an independent estimator; additionally, the pseudo-ground-truth point maps come from ZoeDepth without domain validation, so the consistency signal could encode ZoeDepth biases. These are evaluation-support concerns rather than derivation-level circularity, so the score is moderate.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on pseudo-GT depth supervision, an empirically chosen feature block, and a partially self-referential evaluation metric. No new physical entities are introduced; the unified model is an architectural contribution, not a new particle or force.

free parameters (7)
  • Loss weight lambda (Ltotal = Lgen + lambda * Lrec) = 1
    Empirically set for balancing generation and reconstruction losses; no sensitivity analysis reported.
  • Feature block index b26 = 26 of 28 STDiT blocks
    Empirically chosen; Table 3 shows b20 yields lower pose errors on both datasets, so this choice is not the best in the paper's own ablation.
  • Diffusion time step range for Lrec = t in [0,10] (V2C uses [0,5])
    Empirically selected small noise steps, following prior work on geometric features.
  • DUSt3R confidence regularization alpha = Not reported
    Inherited from DUSt3R; no value or tuning details are given.
  • Number of DUSt3R decoder blocks = 6 transformer blocks
    Reduced from 12 in the original DUSt3R; authors state this performs similarly.
  • Fine-tuning scheme = First 4 STDiT blocks frozen; temporal attention only for the remaining 24
    Empirical training scheme; no ablation is shown for these choices.
  • Frame stride sampling set = Random from {1,2,4,8}
    Data augmentation choice for RealEstate10K clips.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Procrustes alignment and PnP-RANSAC yield correct camera poses from point maps
    Inherited from DUSt3R; used for V2C evaluation without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption RealEstate10K camera intrinsics and extrinsics are accurate ground truth
    Used to build point map pseudo-GT in Section 4.1 Setup.
  • ad hoc to paper ZoeDepth provides accurate metric depth for pseudo-GT point maps
    Section 4.1 Setup; no validation of ZoeDepth quality on the training videos is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper MEt3R computed with JOG3R's point maps is a valid measure of 3D consistency
    Section 4.1 Metrics; the estimator and the evaluated model share parameters.
  • ad hoc to paper Small diffusion time steps t in [0,10] expose low-level geometric features in the DiT
    Section 3.2 and Implementation details; follows Tang et al. [70], not re-validated for video features.
  • domain assumption Videos are static scenes with only camera motion
    RealEstate10K is static; the conclusions section explicitly limits the analysis to static scenes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of JOG3R: Towards 3D-Consistent Video Generators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JOAWIDPQ

@misc{pith2026250101409,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: JOG3R: Towards 3D-Consistent Video Generators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JOAWIDPQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01409}
}
read the original abstract

Emergent capabilities of image generators have led to many impactful zero- or few-shot applications. Inspired by this success, we investigate whether video generators similarly exhibit 3D-awareness. Using structure-from-motion as a 3D-aware task, we test if intermediate features of a video generator - OpenSora in our case - can support camera pose estimation. Surprisingly, at first, we only find a weak correlation between the two tasks. Deeper investigation reveals that although the video generator produces plausible video frames, the frames themselves are not truly 3D-consistent. Instead, we propose to jointly train for the two tasks, using photometric generation and 3D aware errors. Specifically, we find that SoTA video generation and camera pose estimation (i.e.,DUSt3R [79]) networks share common structures, and propose an architecture that unifies the two. The proposed unified model, named \nameMethod, produces camera pose estimates with competitive quality while producing 3D-consistent videos. In summary, we propose the first unified video generator that is 3D-consistent, generates realistic video frames, and can potentially be repurposed for other 3D-aware tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01409 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We present JOG3R, a unified framework that fine-tunes a video generation model jointly with a 3D point map estimation task. JOG3R improves the 3D-consistency of the generated videos compared to the pre-trained video diffusion transformer (DiT) as shown by the warped feature maps (left) and scores (right) using MEt3R [2], lower scores indicating higher 3D-consistency across frames. Abstract Emergent capabilities of i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. We propose a unified framework to investigate if the intermediate features from a video generation model can be repurposed for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. We base our analysis on three main tasks: text-to-video (T2V), video to camera estimation (V2C), and joint video generation and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative camera pose estimation (V2C) results. Red to purple indicates the progression from the first to the last frame. Note that on these test videos, JOG3R yields improved point maps leading to improved camera tracks compared to pretrained DUSt3R. RealEstate10K-t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative generation T2V+C results. It is coherent with the camera paths from T2V→V2C. Please see suppmat. for videos. training the video model from scratch using both genera￾tion and reconstruction losses, which we believe will re￾sult in a more 3D-consistent featur…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Improving Video Diffusion Transformer Training by Multi-Feature Fusion and Alignment from Self-Supervised Vision Encoders

    cs.CV 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Matching video diffusion transformer tokens to concatenated DINOv2 and SAM2 features improves FVD/FID and speeds convergence, e.g., 400K-step fusion beats 1M-step baseline on UCF-101.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Seitz, and Richard Szeliski

    Sameer Agarwal, Yasutaka Furukawa, Noah Snavely, Ian Si- mon, Brian Curless, Steven M. Seitz, and Richard Szeliski. Building rome in a day. 2009 IEEE 12th International Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 72–79, 2009. 2

    2009

  2. [2]

    Met3r: Measuring multi-view consistency in generated images

    Mohammad Asim, Christopher Wewer, Thomas Wimmer, Bernt Schiele, and Jan Eric Lenssen. Met3r: Measuring multi-view consistency in generated images. InCVPR, 2025. 1, 2, 3, 6

    2025

  3. [3]

    Lindell, and Sergey Tulyakov

    Sherwin Bahmani, Ivan Skorokhodov, Guocheng Qian, Ali- aksandr Siarohin, Willi Menapace, Andrea Tagliasacchi, David B. Lindell, and Sergey Tulyakov. Ac3d: Analyzing and improving 3d camera control in video diffusion trans- formers. Proc. CVPR, 2025. 2, 3

    2025

  4. [4]

    Frozen in time: A joint video and image encoder for end-to-end retrieval

    Max Bain, Arsha Nagrani, G ¨ul Varol, and Andrew Zisser- man. Frozen in time: A joint video and image encoder for end-to-end retrieval. In ICCV, 2021. 1

    2021

  5. [5]

    Lumiere: A space- time diffusion model for video generation

    Omer Bar-Tal, Hila Chefer, Omer Tov, Charles Her- rmann, Roni Paiss, Shiran Zada, Ariel Ephrat, Junhwa Hur, Yuanzhen Li, Tomer Michaeli, et al. Lumiere: A space- time diffusion model for video generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12945, 2024. 2

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    ZoeDepth: Zero-shot transfer by com- bining relative and metric depth

    Shariq Farooq Bhat, Reiner Birkl, Diana Wofk, Peter Wonka, and Matthias M¨uller. ZoeDepth: Zero-shot transfer by com- bining relative and metric depth. arXiv, 2023. 5, 6

    2023

  7. [7]

    Stable video diffusion: Scaling latent video diffusion models to large datasets

    Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Sumith Kulal, Daniel Mendelevitch, Maciej Kilian, Dominik Lorenz, Yam Levi, Zion English, Vikram V oleti, Adam Letts, et al. Stable video diffusion: Scaling latent video diffusion models to large datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15127, 2023. 1, 2

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Align your latents: High-resolution video synthesis with la- tent diffusion models

    Andreas Blattmann, Robin Rombach, Huan Ling, Tim Dock- horn, Seung Wook Kim, Sanja Fidler, and Karsten Kreis. Align your latents: High-resolution video synthesis with la- tent diffusion models. In CVPR, pages 22563–22575, 2023. 2

    2023

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    Video generation models as world simulators

    Tim Brooks, Bill Peebles, Connor Holmes, Will DePue, Yufei Guo, Li Jing, David Schnurr, Joe Taylor, Troy Luh- man, Eric Luhman, Clarence Ng, Ricky Wang, and Aditya Ramesh. Video generation models as world simulators

  2. [10]

    Brown, Gang Hua, and Simon A

    Matthew A. Brown, Gang Hua, and Simon A. J. Winder. Dis- criminative learning of local image descriptors. IEEE Trans- actions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 33: 43–57, 2011. 2

    2011

  3. [11]

    Open-vocabulary category-level object pose and size estimation

    Junhao Cai, Yisheng He, Weihao Yuan, Siyu Zhu, Zilong Dong, Liefeng Bo, and Qifeng Chen. Open-vocabulary category-level object pose and size estimation. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024. 3

    2024

  4. [12]

    A pose-only solution to visual reconstruction and navi- gation

    Qi Cai, Lilian Zhang, Yuanxin Wu, Wenxian Yu, and Dewen Hu. A pose-only solution to visual reconstruction and navi- gation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(1):73–86, 2021. 2

    2021

  5. [13]

    Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers

    Mathilde Caron, Hugo Touvron, Ishan Misra, Herv ´e Jegou, Julien Mairal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin. Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers. In 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vi- sion (ICCV), pages 9630–9640, 2021. 6

    2021

  6. [14]

    Gentron: Delving deep into dif- fusion transformers for image and video generation

    Shoufa Chen, Mengmeng Xu, Jiawei Ren, Yuren Cong, Sen He, Yanping Xie, Animesh Sinha, Ping Luo, Tao Xiang, and Juan-Manuel Perez-Rua. Gentron: Delving deep into dif- fusion transformers for image and video generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04557, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Panda-70M: Captioning 70m videos with multiple cross-modality teachers

    Tsai-Shien Chen, Aliaksandr Siarohin, Willi Menapace, Ekaterina Deyneka, Hsiang-wei Chao, Byung Eun Jeon, Yuwei Fang, Hsin-Ying Lee, Jian Ren, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Sergey Tulyakov. Panda-70M: Captioning 70m videos with multiple cross-modality teachers. In CVPR, pages 13320–133...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Sfm with mrfs: Discrete-continuous optimization for large-scale structure from motion

    David J Crandall, Andrew Owens, Noah Snavely, and Daniel P Huttenlocher. Sfm with mrfs: Discrete-continuous optimization for large-scale structure from motion. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 35(12):2841–2853, 2012. 2

    2012

  9. [17]

    Hsfm: Hybrid structure-from-motion

    Hainan Cui, Xiang Gao, Shuhan Shen, and Zhanyi Hu. Hsfm: Hybrid structure-from-motion. In CVPR, pages 1212–1221, 2017. 2

    2017

  10. [18]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis

    Prafulla Dhariwal and Alexander Nichol. Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis. Advances in neural informa- tion processing systems, 34:8780–8794, 2021. 2

    2021

  11. [19]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Syl- vain Gelly, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale. In ICLR, 2021. 4

    2021

  12. [20]

    Diffusion 3d features (diff3f): Decorating untextured shapes with distilled semantic features

    Niladri Shekhar Dutt, Sanjeev Muralikrishnan, and Niloy J Mitra. Diffusion 3d features (diff3f): Decorating untextured shapes with distilled semantic features. In CVPR, pages 4494–4504, 2024. 1, 3

    2024

  13. [21]

    Prob- ing the 3d awareness of visual foundation models

    Mohamed El Banani, Amit Raj, Kevis-Kokitsi Maninis, Ab- hishek Kar, Yuanzhen Li, Michael Rubinstein, Deqing Sun, Leonidas Guibas, Justin Johnson, and Varun Jampani. Prob- ing the 3d awareness of visual foundation models. In CVPR, pages 21795–21806, 2024. 3

    2024

  14. [22]

    Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography.Communications of the ACM, 24(6):381–395, 1981

    Martin A Fischler and Robert C Bolles. Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography.Communications of the ACM, 24(6):381–395, 1981. 4

    1981

  15. [23]

    Neural 3d scene reconstruction with the manhattan-world assumption

    Haoyu Guo, Sida Peng, Haotong Lin, Qianqian Wang, Guofeng Zhang, Hujun Bao, and Xiaowei Zhou. Neural 3d scene reconstruction with the manhattan-world assumption. In CVPR, pages 5501–5510, 2022. 2

    2022

  16. [24]

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

    Yuwei Guo, Ceyuan Yang, Anyi Rao, Zhengyang Liang, Yaohui Wang, Yu Qiao, Maneesh Agrawala, Dahua Lin, and Bo Dai. AnimateDiff: Animate your personalized text-to- image diffusion models without specific tuning. In ICLR,

  17. [25]

    V ocmatch: Effi- cient multiview correspondence for structure from motion

    Michal Havlena and Konrad Schindler. V ocmatch: Effi- cient multiview correspondence for structure from motion. In ECCV, 2014. 2

    2014

  18. [26]

    CameraCtrl: En- abling camera control for text-to-video generation

    Hao He, Yinghao Xu, Yuwei Guo, Gordon Wetzstein, Bo Dai, Hongsheng Li, and Ceyuan Yang. CameraCtrl: En- abling camera control for text-to-video generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02101, 2024. 5

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Latent video diffusion models for high-fidelity long video generation

    Yingqing He, Tianyu Yang, Yong Zhang, Ying Shan, and Qifeng Chen. Latent video diffusion models for high-fidelity long video generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.13221 ,

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Unsupervised semantic correspondence using stable diffu- sion

    Eric Hedlin, Gopal Sharma, Shweta Mahajan, Hossam Isack, Abhishek Kar, Andrea Tagliasacchi, and Kwang Moo Yi. Unsupervised semantic correspondence using stable diffu- sion. In NeurIPS, 2024. 3

    2024

  21. [29]

    GANs trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equi- librium

    Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Bernhard Nessler, and Sepp Hochreiter. GANs trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equi- librium. NeurIPS, 2017. 6

    2017

  22. [30]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models. In NeurIPS, pages 6840–6851,

  23. [31]

    Imagen video: High definition video generation with diffusion mod- els

    Jonathan Ho, William Chan, Chitwan Saharia, Jay Whang, Ruiqi Gao, Alexey Gritsenko, Diederik P Kingma, Ben Poole, Mohammad Norouzi, David J Fleet, et al. Imagen video: High definition video generation with diffusion mod- els. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02303, 2022. 2

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Video dif- fusion models

    Jonathan Ho, Tim Salimans, Alexey Gritsenko, William Chan, Mohammad Norouzi, and David J Fleet. Video dif- fusion models. In NeurIPS, pages 8633–8646, 2022. 2

    2022

  25. [33]

    Reducing drift in structure from motion using extended features

    Aleksander Holynski, David Geraghty, Jan-Michael Frahm, Chris Sweeney, and Richard Szeliski. Reducing drift in structure from motion using extended features. In 2020 In- ternational Conference on 3D Vision (3DV) , pages 51–60. IEEE, 2020. 2

    2020

  26. [34]

    Position: the platonic representation hypothesis

    Minyoung Huh, Brian Cheung, Tongzhou Wang, and Phillip Isola. Position: the platonic representation hypothesis. In ICML. JMLR.org, 2024. 1

    2024

  27. [35]

    Position: the platonic representation hypothesis

    Minyoung Huh, Brian Cheung, Tongzhou Wang, and Phillip Isola. Position: the platonic representation hypothesis. In ICML. JMLR.org, 2024. 1, 3, 4

    2024

  28. [36]

    Track4gen: Teaching video diffu- sion models to track points improves video generation, 2024

    Hyeonho Jeong, Chun-Hao Paul Huang, Jong Chul Ye, Niloy Mitra, and Duygu Ceylan. Track4gen: Teaching video diffu- sion models to track points improves video generation, 2024. 2

    2024

  29. [37]

    OmniGlue: Generalizable feature match- ing with foundation model guidance

    Hanwen Jiang, Arjun Karpur, Bingyi Cao, Qixing Huang, and Andr´e Araujo. OmniGlue: Generalizable feature match- ing with foundation model guidance. In CVPR, pages 19865–19875, 2024. 3

    2024

  30. [38]

    A global linear method for camera pose registration

    Nianjuan Jiang, Zhaopeng Cui, and Ping Tan. A global linear method for camera pose registration. In ICCV, pages 481– 488, 2013. 2

    2013

  31. [39]

    Understanding image repre- sentations by measuring their equivariance and equivalence

    Karel Lenc and Andrea Vedaldi. Understanding image repre- sentations by measuring their equivariance and equivalence. In CVPR, pages 991–999, 2015. 4

    2015

  32. [40]

    Understanding image repre- sentations by measuring their equivariance and equivalence

    Karel Lenc and Andrea Vedaldi. Understanding image repre- sentations by measuring their equivariance and equivalence. In CVPR, pages 991–999, 2015. 2

    2015

  33. [41]

    Ep n p: An accurate o (n) solution to the p n p problem.IJCV, 81:155–166, 2009

    Vincent Lepetit, Francesc Moreno-Noguer, and Pascal Fua. Ep n p: An accurate o (n) solution to the p n p problem.IJCV, 81:155–166, 2009. 4

    2009

  34. [42]

    Ground- ing image matching in 3d with mast3r, 2024

    Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, and Jerome Revaud. Ground- ing image matching in 3d with mast3r, 2024. 3

    2024

  35. [43]

    Dongxu Li, Junnan Li, Hung Le, Guangsen Wang, Silvio Savarese, and Steven C.H. Hoi. LA VIS: A one-stop library for language-vision intelligence. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics (Volume 3: System Demonstrations) , pag...

    2023

  36. [44]

    Neuralangelo: High-fidelity neural surface reconstruction

    Zhaoshuo Li, Thomas M ¨uller, Alex Evans, Russell H Tay- lor, Mathias Unberath, Ming-Yu Liu, and Chen-Hsuan Lin. Neuralangelo: High-fidelity neural surface reconstruction. In CVPR, pages 8456–8465, 2023. 2

    2023

  37. [45]

    Pixel-perfect structure-from-motion with featuremetric refinement

    Philipp Lindenberger, Paul-Edouard Sarlin, Viktor Larsson, and Marc Pollefeys. Pixel-perfect structure-from-motion with featuremetric refinement. In ICCV, pages 5987–5997,

  38. [46]

    DL3DV-10K: A large-scale scene dataset for deep learning-based 3d vision

    Lu Ling, Yichen Sheng, Zhi Tu, Wentian Zhao, Cheng Xin, Kun Wan, Lantao Yu, Qianyu Guo, Zixun Yu, Yawen Lu, et al. DL3DV-10K: A large-scale scene dataset for deep learning-based 3d vision. In CVPR, pages 22160–22169,

  39. [47]

    MatchMiner: Efficient spanning structure mining in large image collec- tions

    Yin Lou, Noah Snavely, and Johannes Gehrke. MatchMiner: Efficient spanning structure mining in large image collec- tions. In ECCV, 2012. 2

    2012

  40. [48]

    David G. Lowe. Distinctive image features from scale- invariant keypoints. IJCV, 60:91–110, 2004. 2

    2004

  41. [49]

    Bin Luo and Edwin R. Hancock. Procrustes alignment with the em algorithm. In Computer Analysis of Images and Pat- terns, pages 623–631, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1999. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 4

    1999

  42. [50]

    Latte: Latent diffusion transformer for video generation

    Xin Ma, Yaohui Wang, Gengyun Jia, Xinyuan Chen, Zi- wei Liu, Yuan-Fang Li, Cunjian Chen, and Yu Qiao. Latte: Latent diffusion transformer for video generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.03048, 2024. 2, 3, 5

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Multiview stereo with cascaded epipolar raft

    Zeyu Ma, Zachary Teed, and Jia Deng. Multiview stereo with cascaded epipolar raft. In ECCV, pages 734–750. Springer,

  44. [52]

    Snap video: Scaled spatiotemporal transformers for text-to-video synthesis

    Willi Menapace, Aliaksandr Siarohin, Ivan Skorokhodov, Ekaterina Deyneka, Tsai-Shien Chen, Anil Kag, Yuwei Fang, Aleksei Stoliar, Elisa Ricci, Jian Ren, et al. Snap video: Scaled spatiotemporal transformers for text-to-video synthesis. In CVPR, pages 7038–7048, 2024. 1, 2

    2024

  45. [53]

    Atlas: End- to-end 3d scene reconstruction from posed images

    Zak Murez, Tarrence van As, James Bartolozzi, Ayan Sinha, Vijay Badrinarayanan, and Andrew Rabinovich. Atlas: End- to-end 3d scene reconstruction from posed images. InECCV,

  46. [54]

    Ref-diff: Zero-shot referring im- age segmentation with generative models, 2023

    Minheng Ni, Yabo Zhang, Kailai Feng, Xiaoming Li, Yiwen Guo, and Wangmeng Zuo. Ref-diff: Zero-shot referring im- age segmentation with generative models, 2023. 1

    2023

  47. [55]

    UNISURF: Unifying neural implicit surfaces and radiance fields for multi-view reconstruction

    Michael Oechsle, Songyou Peng, and Andreas Geiger. UNISURF: Unifying neural implicit surfaces and radiance fields for multi-view reconstruction. In ICCV, pages 5569– 5579, 2021. 2

    2021

  48. [56]

    Found- pose: Unseen object pose estimation with foundation fea- tures

    Evin Pınar ¨Ornek, Yann Labb ´e, Bugra Tekin, Lingni Ma, Cem Keskin, Christian Forster, and Tomas Hodan. Found- pose: Unseen object pose estimation with foundation fea- tures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.18809, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Global structure-from-motion re- visited

    Linfei Pan, D ´aniel Bar ´ath, Marc Pollefeys, and Jo- hannes Lutz Sch ¨onberger. Global structure-from-motion re- visited. In ECCV, 2024. 2

    2024

  50. [58]

    Karran Pandey, Paul Guerrero, Metheus Gadelha, Yannick Hold-Geoffroy, Karan Singh, and Niloy J. Mitra. Diffusion handles: Enabling 3d edits for diffusion models by lifting activations to 3d. CVPR, 2024. 1

    2024

  51. [59]

    Scalable diffusion models with transformers

    William Peebles and Saining Xie. Scalable diffusion models with transformers. In ICCV, pages 4195–4205, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  52. [60]

    GenS: Generalizable neural sur- face reconstruction from multi-view images

    Rui Peng, Xiaodong Gu, Luyang Tang, Shihe Shen, Fanqi Yu, and Ronggang Wang. GenS: Generalizable neural sur- face reconstruction from multi-view images. In NeurIPS,

  53. [61]

    Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer

    Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of machine learning research, 21(140):1–67, 2020. 5

    2020

  54. [62]

    Vi- sion transformers for dense prediction

    Ren ´e Ranftl, Alexey Bochkovskiy, and Vladlen Koltun. Vi- sion transformers for dense prediction. In ICCV, pages 12159–12168, 2021. 3

    2021

  55. [63]

    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, 2021. 1, 2, 5

    2021

  56. [64]

    Simplere- con: 3d reconstruction without 3d convolutions

    Mohamed Sayed, John Gibson, Jamie Watson, Victor Adrian Prisacariu, Michael Firman, and Cl´ement Godard. Simplere- con: 3d reconstruction without 3d convolutions. In ECCV,

  57. [65]

    Structure- from-motion revisited

    Johannes L Schonberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. Structure- from-motion revisited. In CVPR, pages 4104–4113, 2016. 2

    2016

  58. [66]

    Pixelwise view selection for unstructured multi-view stereo

    Johannes L Sch ¨onberger, Enliang Zheng, Jan-Michael Frahm, and Marc Pollefeys. Pixelwise view selection for unstructured multi-view stereo. In ECCV, pages 501–518. Springer, 2016. 2

    2016

  59. [67]

    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, et al. Make-a-video: Text-to-video generation without text-video data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14792 ,

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equa- tions

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Ab- hishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equa- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456, 2020. 2

    2011 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Neural 3d reconstruction in the wild

    Jiaming Sun, Xi Chen, Qianqian Wang, Zhengqi Li, Hadar Averbuch-Elor, Xiaowei Zhou, and Noah Snavely. Neural 3d reconstruction in the wild. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2022 conference proceedings, pages 1–9, 2022. 2

    2022

  62. [70]

    Emergent correspondence from image diffusion

    Luming Tang, Menglin Jia, Qianqian Wang, Cheng Perng Phoo, and Bharath Hariharan. Emergent correspondence from image diffusion. In NeurIPS, 2023. 1, 3, 4

    2023

  63. [71]

    Deepv2d: Video to depth with differentiable structure from motion.ArXiv, abs/1812.04605,

    Zachary Teed and Jia Deng. Deepv2d: Video to depth with differentiable structure from motion.ArXiv, abs/1812.04605,

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    Adaptive sur- face reconstruction with multiscale convolutional kernels

    Benjamin Ummenhofer and Vladlen Koltun. Adaptive sur- face reconstruction with multiscale convolutional kernels. In ICCV, pages 5651–5660, 2021. 2

    2021

  65. [73]

    DeMoN: Depth and motion network for learning monocular stereo

    Benjamin Ummenhofer, Huizhong Zhou, Jonas Uhrig, Niko- laus Mayer, Eddy Ilg, Alexey Dosovitskiy, and Thomas Brox. DeMoN: Depth and motion network for learning monocular stereo. In CVPR, pages 5622–5631, 2016. 3

    2016

  66. [74]

    FVD: A new metric for video generation

    Thomas Unterthiner, Sjoerd van Steenkiste, Karol Kurach, Rapha¨el Marinier, Marcin Michalski, and Sylvain Gelly. FVD: A new metric for video generation. In ICLR work- shop, 2019. 6

    2019

  67. [75]

    Wong, and Chen-Yi Lee

    Sheng Wan, Tung-Yu Wu, Wing H. Wong, and Chen-Yi Lee. Confnet: Predict with confidence. In 2018 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Process- ing (ICASSP), pages 2921–2925, 2018. 4

    2018

  68. [76]

    Posediffusion: Solving pose estimation via diffusion-aided bundle adjustment

    Jianyuan Wang, Christian Rupprecht, and David Novotny. Posediffusion: Solving pose estimation via diffusion-aided bundle adjustment. In ICCV, pages 9773–9783, 2023. 6

    2023

  69. [77]

    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

  70. [78]

    Neus: Learning neural implicit surfaces by volume rendering for multi-view reconstruction

    Peng Wang, Lingjie Liu, Yuan Liu, Christian Theobalt, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. Neus: Learning neural implicit surfaces by volume rendering for multi-view reconstruction. ArXiv, abs/2106.10689, 2021. 2

    2021 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Dust3r: Geometric 3d vi- sion made easy

    Shuzhe Wang, Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, Boris Chidlovskii, and Jerome Revaud. Dust3r: Geometric 3d vi- sion made easy. In CVPR, 2024. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7

    2024

  72. [80]

    Improved surface reconstruction using high-frequency details

    Yiqun Wang, Ivan Skorokhodov, and Peter Wonka. Improved surface reconstruction using high-frequency details. ArXiv, abs/2206.07850, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Lavie: High-quality video gener- ation with cascaded latent diffusion models

    Yaohui Wang, Xinyuan Chen, Xin Ma, Shangchen Zhou, Ziqi Huang, Yi Wang, Ceyuan Yang, Yinan He, Jiashuo Yu, Peiqing Yang, et al. Lavie: High-quality video gener- ation with cascaded latent diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15103, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Croco: Self-supervised pre-training for 3d vision tasks by cross-view completion

    Philippe Weinzaepfel, Vincent Leroy, Thomas Lucas, Ro- main Br ´egier, Yohann Cabon, Vaibhav ARORA, Leonid Antsfeld, Boris Chidlovskii, Gabriela Csurka, and Jerome Revaud. Croco: Self-supervised pre-training for 3d vision tasks by cross-view completion. In NeurIPS, 2022. 4

    2022

  75. [83]

    Bernhard P. Wrobel. Multiple view geometry in computer vision. K¨unstliche Intell., 15:41, 2001. 2

    2001

  76. [84]

    Towards linear-time incremental structure from motion

    Changchang Wu. Towards linear-time incremental structure from motion. 2013 International Conference on 3D Vision, pages 127–134, 2013. 2

    2013

  77. [85]

    Tune-a-video: One-shot tuning of image diffusion models for text-to-video generation

    Jay Zhangjie Wu, Yixiao Ge, Xintao Wang, Stan Weixian Lei, Yuchao Gu, Yufei Shi, Wynne Hsu, Ying Shan, Xiaohu Qie, and Mike Zheng Shou. Tune-a-video: One-shot tuning of image diffusion models for text-to-video generation. In ICCV, pages 7623–7633, 2023. 2

    2023

  78. [86]

    Frozenrecon: Pose-free 3d scene reconstruction with frozen depth models

    Guangkai Xu, Wei Yin, Hao Chen, Chunhua Shen, Kai Cheng, and Feng Zhao. Frozenrecon: Pose-free 3d scene reconstruction with frozen depth models. In ICCV, pages 9276–9286. IEEE, 2023. 3

    2023

  79. [87]

    Constraining depth map geometry for multi-view stereo: A dual-depth approach with saddle- shaped depth cells

    Xinyi Ye, Weiyue Zhao, Tianqi Liu, Zihao Huang, Zhiguo Cao, and Xin Li. Constraining depth map geometry for multi-view stereo: A dual-depth approach with saddle- shaped depth cells. In ICCV, pages 17661–17670, 2023. 2

    2023

  80. [88]

    Geonet: Unsupervised learn- ing of dense depth, optical flow and camera pose

    Zhichao Yin and Jianping Shi. Geonet: Unsupervised learn- ing of dense depth, optical flow and camera pose. In CVPR, pages 1983–1992, 2018. 3

    1983

  81. [89]

    Monosdf: Exploring monocu- lar geometric cues for neural implicit surface reconstruction

    Zehao Yu, Songyou Peng, Michael Niemeyer, Torsten Sat- tler, and Andreas Geiger. Monosdf: Exploring monocu- lar geometric cues for neural implicit surface reconstruction. ArXiv, abs/2206.00665, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Improving 2d feature representations by 3d-aware fine-tuning

    Yuanwen Yue, Anurag Das, Francis Engelmann, Siyu Tang, and Jan Eric Lenssen. Improving 2d feature representations by 3d-aware fine-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20229,

    arXiv

  83. [91]

    What does stable diffusion know about the 3d scene? arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06836, 2023

    Guanqi Zhan, Chuanxia Zheng, Weidi Xie, and Andrew Zis- serman. What does stable diffusion know about the 3d scene? arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06836, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Show-1: Marrying pixel and latent dif- fusion models for text-to-video generation

    David Junhao Zhang, Jay Zhangjie Wu, Jia-Wei Liu, Rui Zhao, Lingmin Ran, Yuchao Gu, Difei Gao, and Mike Zheng Shou. Show-1: Marrying pixel and latent dif- fusion models for text-to-video generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15818, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  85. [93]

    A tale of two features: Stable diffusion complements DINO for zero-shot semantic correspondence

    Junyi Zhang, Charles Herrmann, Junhwa Hur, Luisa Pola- nia Cabrera, Varun Jampani, Deqing Sun, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. A tale of two features: Stable diffusion complements DINO for zero-shot semantic correspondence. In NeurIPS,

  86. [94]

    Telling left from right: Identifying geometry-aware semantic corre- spondence

    Junyi Zhang, Charles Herrmann, Junhwa Hur, Eric Chen, Varun Jampani, Deqing Sun, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Telling left from right: Identifying geometry-aware semantic corre- spondence. In CVPR, pages 3076–3085, 2024. 3

    2024

  87. [95]

    Ge- omvsnet: Learning multi-view stereo with geometry percep- tion

    Zhe Zhang, Rui Peng, Yuxi Hu, and Ronggang Wang. Ge- omvsnet: Learning multi-view stereo with geometry percep- tion. In CVPR, pages 21508–21518, 2023. 2

    2023

  88. [96]

    Unleashing text-to-image diffusion models for visual perception

    Wenliang Zhao, Yongming Rao, Zuyan Liu, Benlin Liu, Jie Zhou, and Jiwen Lu. Unleashing text-to-image diffusion models for visual perception. In ICCV, 2023. 3

    2023

  89. [97]

    Open-sora: Democratizing efficient video production for all, 2024

    Zangwei Zheng, Xiangyu Peng, Tianji Yang, Chenhui Shen, Shenggui Li, Hongxin Liu, Yukun Zhou, Tianyi Li, and Yang You. Open-sora: Democratizing efficient video production for all, 2024. 1, 2, 3

    2024

  90. [98]

    DeepTAM: Deep tracking and mapping with convolutional neural networks

    Huizhong Zhou, Benjamin Ummenhofer, and Thomas Brox. DeepTAM: Deep tracking and mapping with convolutional neural networks. IJCV, 128:756 – 769, 2019. 3

    2019

  91. [99]

    Stereo magnification: Learning view synthesis using multiplane images

    Tinghui Zhou, Richard Tucker, John Flynn, Graham Fyffe, and Noah Snavely. Stereo magnification: Learning view synthesis using multiplane images. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.09817, 2018. 5 Appendices The supplementary material consists of this document and the webpage. We provide...

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.