Enhancing Scene Transition Awareness in Video Generation via Post-Training

Hanwen Shen; Jiajie Lu; Xiaonan Yang; Yupeng Cao

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 132 references

Enhancing Scene Transition Awareness in Video Generation via Post-Training

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Post-training OpenSora-Plan on 480 transition-centered clips raises the average number of scenes in its generated videos from about 1.1 to as high as 2.9 for two-scene prompts, with VBench quality roughly unchanged.

desk verdict A useful dataset and a plausible post-training recipe, but the main metric is too entangled with the training signal to support the 'scene awareness' claim as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18046 v2 pith:O3BTLCIK submitted 2025-07-24 cs.CV cs.AI

Hanwen Shen , Jiajie Lu , Yupeng Cao , Xiaonan Yang This is my paper

classification cs.CVcs.AI

keywords text-to-videogenerationscenetransitionsmulti-scenevideopost-trainingcaptioningdatasetOpenSora-PlanPanda-70Mpromptadherence

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

This paper argues that text-to-video models fail at multi-scene prompts not because of an architectural limit, but because their training data almost never shows a scene transition. To fix this, the authors build the Transition-Aware Video (TAV) dataset: 10-second clips centered on a real scene cut, each captioned per scene and packaged as an explicit 'previous scene / next scene' prompt. Post-training OpenSora-Plan v1.3.1 on just 480 such clips raises the average number of detected scenes in generated videos from about 1.1 to 2.4–2.9 for prompts that ask for two scenes, while VBench image-quality scores stay roughly level. The result suggests scene-transition awareness can be taught cheaply at the data level, rather than requiring a new generation architecture.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing ingredient is the TAV dataset itself: 500 video–prompt pairs sampled from Panda-70M's validation set, each a 10-second clip centered on a detected scene cut, with separate BLIP captions for the two scenes fused into a transition prompt. The cut detector—a weighted HSV-channel pixel-difference score with a user-set threshold (a modification of PySceneDetect)—both selects the training clips and serves as the evaluation metric ('average segments'). Post-training uses standard video diffusion fine-tuning of OpenSora-Plan v1.3.1 (33 frames at 256×256, 100 steps, learning rate 1e-5), so the only novel mechanism is the pairing of explicit transition language with video that actually contains a transition.

What would settle it

Show the generated videos from the post-trained model to human annotators and ask them to mark scene boundaries; if the detector count is systematically higher than the number of human-recognized scene changes—or if the extra cuts don't match the two described scenes—the post-training effect is an artifact of the metric rather than genuine scene-transition awareness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a pretrained video generator can acquire scene-transition awareness from a small, deliberately structured dataset. The paper constructs TAV from Panda-70M by detecting cuts with a weighted HSV-channel frame difference, extracting 10-second clips centered on the first cut, captioning the two halves with BLIP, and composing captions into prompts of the form 'Previous scene: ...; Next scene: ...'. After post-training OpenSora-Plan v1.3.1 on 480 training clips for 24 epochs, the average number of detected segments under two-scene prompts rises from roughly 1.1 to 2.9 for explicitly formatted transitions and 2.7 for implicitly indicated ones, and to 2.4 even for single-sentence prompts; the paper reports VBench imaging quality comparable to baseline and improved dynamic degrees.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the heuristic scene detector used to count 'segments' identifies exactly the scene transitions that a prompt asks for, since the paper's headline numbers come from that detector rather than from human judgment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Multi-scene generation can be improved by data curation alone: 480 clips and 100 training steps moved the number of generated scenes from roughly one to near the two scenes requested.
Prompt structure matters: explicit 'Previous scene / Next scene' phrasing yields the highest segment count (2.9), but implicit two-sentence prompts also improve (2.7), suggesting the model generalizes beyond surface format.
The approach preserves visual quality: VBench imaging-quality scores for the post-trained model remain comparable to baseline, while dynamic-degree scores rise.
Because the TAV dataset is drawn from an open-source corpus and the post-trained model is open-sourced, the recipe can be replicated and extended by other groups.
The paper's framing implies that the single-scene bias of web-scale video-text datasets is a key bottleneck for story-level generation.

Reading between the lines

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

The metric is the risk: because 'average segments' comes from a heuristic detector with hand-set thresholds, part of the measured gain could be the model learning to produce hard cuts that trigger the detector rather than semantically meaningful transitions; human annotation of the generated videos would settle this.
The same post-training recipe could be applied to other open models (for example CogVideo and EasyAnimate, which the paper measures at 1.5 and 1.2 scenes), and would provide a stronger test of whether the effect is model-agnostic.
Scaling TAV from one cut per clip to clips with several transitions, and from 10 seconds to longer durations, is a natural next step that would test whether the awareness extends to multi-scene narratives rather than a single binary switch.
The paper's Table 2 shows single-sentence prompts also produce more detected segments after post-training (2.4 at epoch 24 vs 1.2 baseline); whether this counts as over-segmentation depends on the scene detector, and mixing single-scene clips into the training set may be needed to control it.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the paper's core finding—post-training OpenSora-Plan on 500 transition-centered clips raises detected scene counts from ~1.1 to 2.4–2.9—is probably not an artifact, but the current evidence doesn't pin down what the model actually learned. The TAV dataset is a real, small contribution, and the recipe is simple enough to reproduce. That's worth a serious referee.

What's genuinely new: the dataset itself (10-second clips centered on detected cuts, captioned per scene with BLIP and assembled into 'Previous scene/Next scene' prompts) and the demonstration that a short fine-tune on those clips shifts the model's output toward more detected segments on multi-scene prompts. The effect size is large and goes in the right direction. The paper also deserves credit for reporting per-group results and for being upfront in the Limitation section that the threshold was heuristically chosen.

The soft spots are mostly about the metric. The same scene detector that selects training clips also counts segments in the outputs. The paper doesn't validate that detector against human judgments, and the Appendix shows a simpler mean-abs-diff threshold than the HSV-weighted Vt in Section 3, so the exact metric is hard to audit. That confound is real, but it is not automatically fatal—the post-trained model produces more segments specifically in the multi-scene prompt groups, and fewer in the single-scene group, so something prompt-conditional is happening. Still, note that Group A (single-scene prompt) also goes from 1.18 to 2.38 at epoch 24; that is evidence of over-segmentation, and the paper's 'performs well on Group A' is hard to square with the average segment count nearly doubling for prompts that ask for one scene. Also, only 50 prompts, no error bars, no human evaluation, and no comparison to VideoDirectorGPT or Loong. The quality claim is shaky: VBench aesthetic quality drops meaningfully at every epoch (e.g., 0.510->0.436 for group A at epoch 24) and only partially recovers; 'maintains image quality' is an overstatement. There's also an arithmetic inconsistency: 480+50+50=580 videos, not 500. And the code/data are promised but not yet released.

The central idea is plausible and the experiment is cheap; the weaknesses are addressable rather than fatal. I'd send it out for review, but with the expectation that the authors add error bars, validate the segment metric against human annotation, compare against at least one planning-based multi-scene baseline, and fix the split/quality claims.

Flat out: worth reviewing, not worth citing yet.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a post-training approach to improve multi-scene video generation. The authors construct the Transition-Aware Video (TAV) dataset by sampling 500 videos from Panda-70M, detecting scene cuts with a modified PySceneDetect-based HSV-weighted detector, extracting 10-second clips centered on the first detected cut, and captioning the two resulting scenes with BLIP and an LLM into prompts of the form 'Previous scene: ...; Next scene: ...'. They fine-tune OpenSora-Plan v1.3.1 on 480 video-prompt pairs and evaluate on 50 prompts in three groups (single-scene, implicitly multi-scene, explicitly multi-scene). The main result in Table 2 is that the average number of detected segments increases from about 1.1 in the baseline to 2.4-2.9 after post-training, while VBench scores remain comparable. The paper concludes that post-training on TAV improves prompt-based scene transition understanding, narrows the gap between required and generated scenes, and maintains image quality.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper makes a useful incremental contribution: it shows that a small, carefully constructed dataset of transition-centered clips can be used to post-train an open-source text-to-video model to produce multiple detected scene segments from prompts that request two scenes. The dataset construction pipeline is simple and replicable, and the reported effect is large and visible in Table 2. However, the evidence is currently conditional: the evaluation metric is a heuristic scene-segment count produced by the same detection method used to construct the training set, there is no human evaluation or semantic alignment check, and several VBench quality numbers in Table 2 contradict the abstract's 'maintains image quality' claim. The paper's contribution would be substantially strengthened by validating the metric against human judgments, reporting variance, and clarifying the quality trade-off.

major comments (4)

[Section 3, Limitation, Table 2] The main outcome measure in Table 2 is the average number of detected segments, but the detector used for this count appears to be the same modified HSV-weighted PySceneDetect procedure that Section 3 uses to select the TAV training clips, and the Limitation section states the threshold was 'heuristically determined based on our prior experience.' When the same heuristic defines both the training target and the evaluation metric, the reported increase from ~1.1 to 2.4-2.9 segments could reflect the model learning to produce detector-friendly discontinuities (hard cuts, flashes, large motion jumps) rather than the semantically meaningful scene changes described in the prompts. The paper reports no human evaluation and no check that detected boundaries align with the 'Previous scene/Next scene' content, so the central claim of improved scene transition awareness is not yet established. Please validate the metric against human judgments or semantic scene annotations, and report agreement for each prompt group.
[Section 3 vs Appendix C] The detection metric is under-specified and internally inconsistent. Section 3 defines V_t as a weighted sum of per-channel HSV absolute differences, while the code in Appendix C detects scenes with PySceneDetect's ContentDetector and then validates clips with a plain mean absolute frame difference threshold of 50 on what appears to be RGB/BGR frames. It is therefore unclear which detector produces the 'average segments' column in Table 2, and the exact metric cannot be reproduced from the paper. Please unify the description, report the channel weights and threshold values, and release the exact evaluation code.
[Table 2, Section 5] The paper's claim that post-training 'maintains image quality' is not supported by the reported VBench numbers. For Group A, aesthetic quality drops from 0.510 at baseline to 0.436 at epoch 24 and 0.430 at epoch 36, and imaging quality at epoch 36 is 0.608 versus 0.652 at baseline; similar decreases are visible in Groups B and C at most epochs. Section 5 more cautiously says metrics 'approach or match' the baseline, but the abstract and introduction state that quality remains unaffected. Please either correct the claim or report confidence intervals and a statistical test showing the differences are not meaningful.
[Table 2, Section 5] The paper describes the result as 'narrowing the gap between required and generated scenes,' but the prompts in Groups B and C request two scenes, and the post-trained model produces an average of 2.4-2.9 segments at epoch 24, i.e., it tends to over-segment rather than match the target. The paper does not define a distance measure between the required and generated number of scenes, so the 'gap' claim is not quantitatively supported. Please report a per-prompt error measure (e.g., mean absolute deviation from the requested count) and discuss whether over-segmentation is desirable.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and throughout] The dataset name appears as 'TA V' with a spacing artifact in several places, including the abstract; please fix the typography.
[References] Panda-70M is cited twice (Chen et al., 2024a and 2024b) and MiraData is cited twice (Ju et al., 2024a and 2024b) with overlapping content; please consolidate to single references.
[Appendix B] Appendix B states that 42 of 50 prompts can be rendered in the paper while 8 fail due to formatting issues; please clarify whether these 8 prompts were included in the evaluation or only omitted from the appendix display.
[Section 3] The symbol V_t is used both for the overall frame change value and for the Value channel in the HSV color space, which is confusing; please rename one of the two.
[Appendix C] The code availability statement says 'Code will come soon at anonymous space'; for a dataset and post-training recipe, releasing the exact detection parameters and the TAV dataset is important for reproducibility, so please finalize the release.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Scene-count claim is partially circular: the same hand-thresholded HSV discontinuity detector defines both the TAV training clips and the 'average segments' evaluation metric.

self definitional [Section 3 (Scene transition detection and Scene transition extraction) and Section 4 (Experiment design); Table 2 'average segments'.]
"Then we compute the average pixel difference in each HSV channel between consecutive frames, and define the overall frame change value as Vt = wH · D(Ht, Ht−1) + wS · D(St, St−1) + wV · D(Vt, Vt−1). ... A scene cut is detected if Vt > threshold. ... We apply the aforementioned scene transition detection method to the previously selected 500 video samples. For each video, we retain only the first detected scene cut and extract a 10-second clip centered around it ... to obtain a segment that contains a clear scene transition. ..."

The paper's only operational definition of a scene cut is the Vt > threshold HSV difference. That same detector selects the TAV training clips ('retain only the first detected scene cut'), and the central evaluation metric, 'average segments' in Table 2, counts detected scene transitions in generated videos under the same detection approach. Post-training on clips chosen for detector-measurable discontinuities is therefore evaluated by counting detector-measurable discontinuities: the reported jump from about 1.1 to 2.4–2.9 segments can be driven by hard cuts, flashes, or large motion that trigger Vt without depicting the prompt's 'previous scene/next scene' semantics.

full rationale

The paper's headline improvement is not fully forced because the post-trained model could in principle have learned genuine prompt-conditioned transitions and the VBench quality metrics are external. However, the primary evidence for the central claim—the 'average segments' column—uses a heuristic detector that also defines the training data's positive examples, making the measure self-referential. The threshold is user-chosen and unvalidated, and Appendix C's validate_clips uses a different plain mean-abs-diff > 50 criterion, further obscuring the metric. No self-citation chain is load-bearing, and the quality metrics provide some independent content, so the circularity is moderate rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a handful of heuristically chosen detection parameters (weights, thresholds, clip lengths), a model selection epoch, and several domain assumptions about the quality of the source dataset, the captioner, the scene detector, and the evaluation metrics. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

Scene detection weights and threshold = Unspecified
The HSV channel weights (wH, wS, wV) and the detection threshold are heuristically determined (Section 3, Limitation). They determine which clips enter TAV and likely how segments are counted in evaluation.
Training epoch = 24 (best reported)
The paper reports epochs 16, 24, and 36 and highlights epoch 24 as the best trade-off, which is a model selection choice made after seeing test results.
Clip extraction constants and validation threshold = CLIP_LENGTH=10, PADDING=5, MIN_SCENE_LENGTH=3, MAX_SCENE_LENGTH=10; validation diff > 50
These constants shape the TAV dataset composition and are chosen by hand without ablations.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The Panda-70M validation set used for sampling is representative of the full dataset and of typical video content.
Section 3 states the 500-video sample 'carefully constructed to ensure that its category distribution closely approximates that of the full dataset', but no evidence or procedure is given.
domain assumption The modified PySceneDetect metric (weighted average pixel difference in HSV channels) reliably identifies scene transitions.
Section 3 defines the detection rule; Section 5 uses the resulting segment count as the main outcome. The heuristic nature of the threshold is admitted in the Limitation section.
domain assumption BLIP-generated captions accurately describe each scene and support the transition semantics in the constructed prompts.
Section 3 describes using BLIP to generate separate descriptions for each scene, then combining them into prompts. The correctness of these captions is not evaluated.
domain assumption The selected VBench metrics (aesthetic quality, overall consistency, dynamic degrees, imaging quality) are sufficient to support the claim that video quality is maintained.
Section 4 uses these metrics to compare baseline and post-trained models; the paper does not include human evaluation or a broader VBench suite.
domain assumption OpenSora-Plan is a representative open-source T2V model for drawing general conclusions about open-source models.
Section 1 motivates the problem by citing EasyAnimate and CogVideo, but the experiments only fine-tune and evaluate OpenSora-Plan. Generalization is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Scene Transition Awareness in Video Generation via Post-Training." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O3BTLCIK

@misc{pith2026250718046,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Scene Transition Awareness in Video Generation via Post-Training},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O3BTLCIK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18046}
}

read the original abstract

Recent advances in AI-generated video have shown strong performance on \emph{text-to-video} tasks, particularly for short clips depicting a single scene. However, current models struggle to generate longer videos with coherent scene transitions, primarily because they cannot infer when a transition is needed from the prompt. Most open-source models are trained on datasets consisting of single-scene video clips, which limits their capacity to learn and respond to prompts requiring multiple scenes. Developing scene transition awareness is essential for multi-scene generation, as it allows models to identify and segment videos into distinct clips by accurately detecting transitions. To address this, we propose the \textbf{Transition-Aware Video} (TAV) dataset, which consists of preprocessed video clips with multiple scene transitions. Our experiment shows that post-training on the \textbf{TAV} dataset improves prompt-based scene transition understanding, narrows the gap between required and generated scenes, and maintains image quality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18046 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Frame–timeline comparison of three video generations. From [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Python code for detecting scene transitions and extracting fixed-length video clips centered on transitions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Python code for detecting scene transitions and extracting fixed-length video clips centered on transi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

132 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

[1]

A man and woman sitting at a table on the beach
[2]

A group of tents are set up in the woods
[3]

A man and woman sitting at a table with drinks
[4]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15169

Freenoise: Tuning -free longer video dif- fusion via noise rescheduling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15169. Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. 2022. High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion mod- els. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages...

arXiv 2022
[5]

In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH ’22: Spe- cial Interest Group on Computer Graphics and In- teractive Techniques Conference, pages 49:1–49:10, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Stylegan-xl: Scaling stylegan to large diverse datasets. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH ’22: Spe- cial Interest Group on Computer Graphics and In- teractive Techniques Conference, pages 49:1–49:10, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Eli Shechtman, Alex Rav -Acha, Michal Irani, and Steven M. Seitz. 2010. Regenerative morphing. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pat...

arXiv 2010
[6]

A yellow and black bird flying through a blue sky
[7]

Previous scene: a girl with long hair and green eyes stands in front of a tree. Next scene: a painting of a forest with trees and grass

Easyanimate: A high -performance long video generation method based on transformer architecture. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18991. Jun Xu, Tao Mei, Ting Yao, and Yong Rui. 2016. Msr- vtt: A large video description dataset for bridging video and language. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition. Hongwei Xue, Ti...

arXiv 2016
[8]

A group of women holding signs in front of a crowd

Show all 132 references

[9]

A tall tower with a clock on top
[10]

A man in a suit and tie is talking to a woman
[11]

A girl with long hair and green eyes stands in front of a tree
[12]

A boat is in the water near a rocky mountain
[13]

A woman in a bikini is talking to a man
[14]

A little girl in a wheelchair with a toy
[15]

A close up of a camera with a pen on it
[16]

A person holding a white card with a black and white pattern
[17]

A doll is standing on a bed
[18]

Get that superheroie by the - girl
[19]

A woman in a black dress and glasses is on the news
[20]

A woman is sitting down on the news
[21]

A bunch of bottles of liquor on a shelf
[22]

A man in a blue shirt is standing next to a motorcycle
[23]

A person is putting a bag of food into a box
[24]

A person walking in the snow near a fence
[25]

Blur of a person walking
[26]

A group of people are gathered around a tree
[27]

A white microwave oven
[28]

A group of people walking around a street
[29]

A bunch of books on a table
[30]

The adobe file in adobe
[31]

A table with bowls of food and a bowl of food
[32]

A white plate with the words news brief on it
[33]

A man in a hat and a baseball cap
[34]

Two dolls are sitting in a hospital bed
[35]

A white pot and a silver spoon on a table
[36]

A small white mouse is sitting on the floor
[38]

A baseball player is being hit by a umpire
[39]

A bowl filled with food sitting on top of a table
[40]

A bunch of plastic bags sitting on top of a table
[41]

A snow covered parking lot with a sign
[42]

A flooded street in the suburbs of detroit, michigan
[46]

A cartoon character holding a white cat
[47]

A cat is sitting on the floor next to a bottle of liquid
[49]

A.2 Multi Scene Prompts with format Example format: previous scene: ...; then next scene:

A flooded street in phoenix, arizona. A.2 Multi Scene Prompts with format Example format: previous scene: ...; then next scene:
[50]

previous scene: a man and woman sitting at a table on the beach; then next scene: a woman sitting at a table with a drink
[51]

previous scene: a group of tents are set up in the woods; then next scene: a bird flying over the water at sunset
[52]

previous scene: a man and woman sitting at a table with drinks; then next scene: a woman in a bikini is standing on the beach
[53]

previous scene: a girl with long hair and green eyes stands in front of a tree; then next scene: a painting of a forest with trees and grass
[54]

previous scene: a boat is in the water near a rocky mountain; then next scene: a woman sitting at a table with a drink
[55]

previous scene: a yellow and black bird flying through a blue sky; then next scene: the girls of the twilight
[56]

previous scene: a little girl in a wheelchair with a toy; then next scene: a doll sitting in a chair next to a box
[57]

previous scene: a group of women holding signs in front of a crowd; then next scene: a man and woman are standing in front of a microphone
[58]

previous scene: a tall tower with a clock on top; then next scene: a man is putting his ballot in the ballot box
[59]

previous scene: a man in a suit and tie is talking to a woman; then next scene: a man in a suit and tie is talking to another man in a suit
[60]

previous scene: get that superheroie by the - girl; then next scene: file file for you png file for you my little pony
[61]

previous scene: a woman in a black dress and glasses is on the news; then next scene: a woman sitting on a couch in front of a tv screen
[62]

previous scene: a woman in a bikini is talking to a man; then next scene: a man and woman sitting at a table with drinks
[63]

previous scene: a bunch of bottles of liquor on a shelf; then next scene: a man is standing at the bar
[64]

previous scene: a close up of a camera with a pen on it; then next scene: a man standing in front of a motorcycle
[65]

previous scene: a person holding a white card with a black and white pattern; then next scene: a man is holding a cell phone
[66]

previous scene: a doll is standing on a bed; then next scene: a little girl is putting a gift box
[67]

previous scene: blur of a person walking; then next scene: a purple vase with a white flower on it
[68]

previous scene: a group of people are gathered around a tree; then next scene: a cat is standing in the dark
[69]

previous scene: a woman is sitting down on the news; then next scene: two women sitting on a couch talking to each other women
[70]

previous scene: a group of people walking around a street; then next scene: a woman walking down a street with a blue jacket
[71]

previous scene: a man in a blue shirt is standing next to a motorcycle; then next scene: a close up of a cell phone
[72]

previous scene: a person is putting a bag of food into a box; then next scene: a person is putting food into a container
[73]

previous scene: a person walking in the snow near a fence; then next scene: a black background with a white and red flower
[74]

previous scene: a white plate with the words news brief on it; then next scene: a woman standing in front of a brick wall
[75]

previous scene: a man in a hat and a baseball cap; then next scene: police investigates a man who was shot in the back of a car in the river
[76]

previous scene: a white microwave oven; then next scene: a white bowl with a spoon and a cup
[77]

previous scene: a white pot and a silver spoon on a table; then next scene: a white crocked pot
[78]

previous scene: a bunch of books on a table; then next scene: a table with a bunch of boxes of food
[79]

previous scene: the adobe file in adobe; then next scene: a computer screen with a green background
[80]

previous scene: a table with bowls of food and a bowl of food; then next scene: ingredients for making a cake
[81]

previous scene: a bowl filled with food sitting on top of a table; then next scene: a white cup with a spoon in it
[82]

previous scene: a bunch of plastic bags sitting on top of a table; then next scene: a pile of plastic bags
[83]

previous scene: two dolls are sitting in a hospital bed; then next scene: two dolls sitting on a chair
[84]

previous scene: a flooded street in the suburbs of detroit, michigan; then next scene: a dog is standing in the middle of a flooded street
[85]

previous scene: a small white mouse is sitting on the floor; then next scene: a small dog is sitting on the floor
[86]

previous scene: a cat is sitting on the floor next to a bottle of liquid; then next scene: a small white mouse
[87]

previous scene: a baseball player is being hit by a umpire; then next scene: a baseball player is about to catch the ball
[88]

previous scene: a cartoon character holding a white cat; then next scene: a cartoon character with a blue background
[89]

previous scene: a cat is sitting on the floor next to a bottle of liquid; then next scene: a cat is sitting on the floor next to a bottle of sauce
[90]

previous scene: a snow covered parking lot with a sign; then next scene: a black background with a white and red flower
[91]

previous scene: a flooded street in phoenix, arizona; then next scene: a police tape is taped around a wall that was covered with graffiti B.3 Multi Scene Prompts without format
[92]

A man and woman sitting at a table on the beach; a woman sitting at a table with a drink
[93]

A group of tents are set up in the woods; a bird flying over the water at sunset
[94]

A man and woman sitting at a table with drinks; a woman in a bikini is standing on the beach
[95]

A girl with long hair and green eyes stands in front of a tree; a painting of a forest with trees and grass
[96]

A boat is in the water near a rocky mountain; a woman sitting at a table with a drink
[97]

A yellow and black bird flying through a blue sky; the girls of the twilight
[98]

A little girl in a wheelchair with a toy; a doll sitting in a chair next to a box
[99]

A group of women holding signs in front of a crowd; a man and woman are standing in front of a microphone
[100]

A tall tower with a clock on top; a man is putting his ballot in the ballot box
[101]

A man in a suit and tie is talking to a woman; a man in a suit and tie is talking to another man in a suit
[102]

Get that superheroie by the - girl; file file for you png file for you my little pony
[103]

A woman in a black dress and glasses is on the news; a woman sitting on a couch in front of a tv screen
[104]

A woman in a bikini is talking to a man; a man and woman sitting at a table with drinks
[105]

A bunch of bottles of liquor on a shelf; a man is standing at the bar
[106]

A close up of a camera with a pen on it; a man standing in front of a motorcycle
[107]

A person holding a white card with a black and white pattern; a man is holding a cell phone
[108]

A doll is standing on a bed; a little girl is putting a gift box
[109]

Blur of a person walking; a purple vase with a white flower on it
[110]

A group of people are gathered around a tree; a cat is standing in the dark
[111]

A woman is sitting down on the news; two women sitting on a couch talking to each other women
[112]

A group of people walking around a street; a woman walking down a street with a blue jacket
[113]

A man in a blue shirt is standing next to a motorcycle; a close up of a cell phone
[114]

A person is putting a bag of food into a box; a person is putting food into a container
[115]

A person walking in the snow near a fence; a black background with a white and red flower
[116]

A white plate with the words news brief on it; a woman standing in front of a brick wall
[117]

A man in a hat and a baseball cap; police investigates a man who was shot in the back of a car in the river
[118]

A white microwave oven; a white bowl with a spoon and a cup
[119]

A white pot and a silver spoon on a table; a white crocked pot
[120]

A bunch of books on a table; a table with a bunch of boxes of food
[121]

The adobe file in adobe; a computer screen with a green background
[122]

A table with bowls of food and a bowl of food; ingredients for making a cake
[123]

A bowl filled with food sitting on top of a table; a white cup with a spoon in it
[124]

A bunch of plastic bags sitting on top of a table; a pile of plastic bags
[125]

Two dolls are sitting in a hospital bed; two dolls sitting on a chair
[126]

A flooded street in the suburbs of detroit, michigan; a dog is standing in the middle of a flooded street
[127]

A small white mouse is sitting on the floor; a small dog is sitting on the floor
[128]

A cat is sitting on the floor next to a bottle of liquid; a small white mouse
[129]

A baseball player is being hit by a umpire; a baseball player is about to catch the ball
[130]

A cartoon character holding a white cat; a cartoon character with a blue background
[131]

A cat is sitting on the floor next to a bottle of liquid; a cat is sitting on the floor next to a bottle of sauce
[132]

A snow covered parking lot with a sign; a black background with a white and red flower
[133]

Detect scene transitions using PySceneDetect

A flooded street in phoenix, arizona; a police tape is taped around a wall that was covered with graffiti. Appendix C: Video Transition Clip Extraction Code Python Code for Scene Transition Detection and Clip Extraction: import json import cv2 import numpy as np import pandas ...
[2019]

In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

Howto100m: Learning a text-video embed- ding by watching hundred million narrated video clips. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. Mathew Monfort, Alex Andonian, Bolei Zhou, and 1 others. 2019. Moments in time dataset: One million videos...

2019 arXiv
[2022]

In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

Long video generation with time -agnostic vqgan and time-sensitive transformer. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV). Kristen Grauman, Andrew Westbury, Rohit Girdhar, and 1 others. 2022. Ego4d: Around the world in 3,000 hours of egocentric video. arXiv preprint arX...

2022 arXiv
[2023]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15091

Videodirectorgpt: Consistent multi-scene video generation via llm-guided planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15091. Updated July 2024. Antoine Miech, Dimitri Zhukov, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Makarand Tapaswi, Ivan Laptev, and Josef Sivic

2024 arXiv
[2024]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02757

Loong: Generating minute-level long videos with autoregressive language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02757. George Wolberg. 1998. Image morphing: A survey. The Visual Computer, 14(8-9):360–372. Jiaqi Xu, Xinyi Zou, Kunzhe Huang, Yunkuo Chen, Bo Liu, MengLi Cheng, Xing Shi...

1998 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A man and woman sitting at a table on the beach

[2] [2]

A group of tents are set up in the woods

[3] [3]

A man and woman sitting at a table with drinks

[4] [4]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15169

Freenoise: Tuning -free longer video dif- fusion via noise rescheduling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15169. Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. 2022. High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion mod- els. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages...

arXiv 2022

[5] [5]

In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH ’22: Spe- cial Interest Group on Computer Graphics and In- teractive Techniques Conference, pages 49:1–49:10, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Stylegan-xl: Scaling stylegan to large diverse datasets. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH ’22: Spe- cial Interest Group on Computer Graphics and In- teractive Techniques Conference, pages 49:1–49:10, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Eli Shechtman, Alex Rav -Acha, Michal Irani, and Steven M. Seitz. 2010. Regenerative morphing. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pat...

arXiv 2010

[6] [6]

A yellow and black bird flying through a blue sky

[7] [7]

Previous scene: a girl with long hair and green eyes stands in front of a tree. Next scene: a painting of a forest with trees and grass

Easyanimate: A high -performance long video generation method based on transformer architecture. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18991. Jun Xu, Tao Mei, Ting Yao, and Yong Rui. 2016. Msr- vtt: A large video description dataset for bridging video and language. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition. Hongwei Xue, Ti...

arXiv 2016

[8] [8]

A group of women holding signs in front of a crowd