Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 74 references

UltraFusion: Ultra High Dynamic Imaging using Exposure Fusion

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 UltraFusion claims exposure fusion can merge images nine stops apart by treating the under-exposed shot as guidance for inpainting burned-out highlights.

desk verdict A genuinely novel guided-inpainting approach to extreme exposure fusion, but the 9-stop claim is not yet verified by the evidence in the paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11515 v4 pith:KVJNQRJB submitted 2025-01-20 cs.CV

Zixuan Chen , Yujin Wang , Xin Cai , Zhiyuan You , Zheming Lu , Fan Zhang , Shi Guo , Tianfan Xue This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords exposurefusionHDRimagingguidedinpaintingdiffusionmodelopticalflowalignmentmulti-exposuretonemappingdynamicrange
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

UltraFusion claims that exposure fusion can be pushed from the usual 3-4 stop difference to 9 stops by reformulating fusion as guided inpainting. The idea: keep the over-exposed image (where highlights are clipped) as the base, and treat the under-exposed image as a soft guide that tells the model what the bright regions actually looked like. Because the guide is soft rather than a hard alignment, the method tolerates misregistration and lighting changes that break earlier fusion algorithms. The generative image prior also supplies natural tone mapping, so the output needs no separate tone-mapping step. If right, a two-shot capture on an ordinary camera covers roughly five additional stops of dynamic range.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the guided-inpainting formulation itself: the over-exposed image $I_{oe}$ is the base, the under-exposed image $I_{ue}$ becomes a soft guidance signal, and a pretrained diffusion U-Net generates the highlight content. The control path is a decompose-and-fuse branch that splits $I_{ue}$ into a luminance-normalized structure map $S_{ue}=(Y_{ue}-\mu(Y_{ue}))/\sigma(Y_{ue})$ and the chroma channels $C_{ue}$, so guidance survives extreme darkness, and merges them with $I_{oe}$ features through multi-scale cross-attention. A second fidelity control branch feeds the same structure and color into the VAE decoder to suppress texture drift. The whole pipeline is trained on synthetic pairs built from static SICE exposure brackets and Vimeo-90K video frames to simulate motion and occlusion.

What would settle it

Take a scene with a fast-moving bright object at a 9-stop gap and compare the inpainted highlight region against the under-exposed frame: if the forward-backward consistency mask mislabels the moving highlight as occluded, the generated highlight will drift in shape or color from the actual source. A controlled version would corrupt the under-exposed guide in a known highlight region and check whether the output changes accordingly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that severe multi-exposure fusion can be solved by guided inpainting in a pretrained latent diffusion model. The over-exposed frame is the image to be inpainted; the under-exposed frame, after brightness mapping, RAFT-based bidirectional flow warping, and occlusion masking, is the guidance. The under-exposed information is decomposed into luminance-normalized structure and chroma so the diffusion control branch can use it even when the input is very dark, then fused with the over-exposed features by multi-scale cross-attention; a fidelity control branch injects the same information into the VAE decoder to keep texture and color faithful. The authors report higher non-reference quality scores than previous fusion and HDR-reconstruction methods on MEFB and RealHDRV and on their own 100-pair UltraFusion benchmark with exposure gaps up to 9 stops, and they show that a plain ControlNet-style injection fails because the model does not know which frame is the reference.

Load-bearing premise

The pre-alignment stage assumes that RAFT, after intensity mapping, estimates correct flow and a correct occlusion mask between images up to 9 stops apart; if flow is wrong, the warped under-exposed guide is wrong and the inpainting cannot faithfully restore highlights.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Two-image capture becomes sufficient for scenes that previously needed three or more brackets, cutting capture time and motion risk.
  • Because tone mapping emerges from diffusion priors rather than a separate operator, fusion and tone mapping no longer suffer cascaded errors.
  • Soft guidance tolerates imperfect alignment, lighting inconsistency, and even unrelated images as guidance, opening the door to image harmonization.
  • The synthetic training pipeline removes the need for a large paired dynamic-HDR ground-truth dataset, so the approach can scale to new cameras and lenses without new capture campaigns.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit consequence is that the failure mode concentrates on pre-alignment: replacing RAFT with an exposure-robust flow estimator or moving alignment inside the control branch should directly improve the hard cases the authors flag in the conclusion.
  • The 3-exposure extension in the supplement suggests the same guided-inpainting recipe applies to longer brackets; a natural next test is using a fused second guide instead of a single under-exposed frame.
  • The UltraFusion benchmark, with its 100 pairs up to 9 stops apart, could become a standard stress test for exposure fusion, provided its user-study and non-reference scores are treated as indicative rather than definitive.
  • A subtle risk the paper acknowledges: when the under-exposed guide is masked or too dark, the diffusion prior may generate plausible but unverified highlight content, so applications needing photometric accuracy should check the inpainted regions against the guide.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes UltraFusion, a two-image exposure fusion method formulated as guided inpainting. The over-exposed image serves as the reference canvas, while the under-exposed image is coarsely pre-aligned via RAFT optical flow and forward-backward consistency masking, then injected as soft guidance into a diffusion-based inpainting model. A decompose-and-fuse control branch and a fidelity control branch are introduced to better modulate the diffusion prior. Training pairs are synthesized by combining static multi-exposure images (SICE) with pseudo occlusion masks derived from video frames (Vimeo-90K). The method is evaluated on MEFB, RealHDRV, and a newly captured UltraFusion benchmark containing 100 under/over-exposed pairs with exposure differences up to 9 stops; comparisons are made against HDR reconstruction and multi-exposure fusion baselines using non-reference metrics, MEF-SSIM, TMQI, and a user study.

Significance. If the central claim holds, UltraFusion would substantially extend the practical exposure range of two-image fusion—from the typical 3–4 stops to about 9 stops—and would offer a novel reformulation of exposure fusion as guided inpainting, leveraging generative priors for natural tone mapping. The paper is clearly written, the guided inpainting formulation is specific, and the ablations (Table 3, Figs. 11–13) isolate the contribution of pre-alignment, the decompose-and-fuse branch, and the fidelity branch. The release of code and a new real-world benchmark is a further strength, though the benchmark currently lacks ground truth, which limits its quantitative value. The main weakness is that the headline 9-stop capability is not supported by ground-truth fidelity evaluation at that exposure range; the RealHDRV experiment covers only 4–6 stops after augmentation, and the UltraFusion benchmark is scored solely with non-reference aesthetic metrics.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, §4.2, Supplement C] The central claim that UltraFusion “can merge inputs with 9 stops differences” is not supported by ground-truth evaluation at 9 stops. The RealHDRV evaluation uses only 4–6 stops after the authors’ augmentation (Supplement C), and the new UltraFusion benchmark contains no ground truth, relying entirely on non-reference metrics (MUSIQ, DeQA-Score, PAQ2PIQ, HyperIQA) and a user study. Non-reference aesthetic metrics reward visually plausible outputs and cannot detect hallucinated or incorrectly reconstructed highlights. The paper’s own Conclusion (Section 5) concedes that when occlusion-mask estimation fails, highlight restoration degrades to “single image HDR” and “remains unreliable.” A controlled 9-stop evaluation with ground truth (e.g., static HDR scenes with known exposures, or synthetic 9-stop pairs rendered from HDR ground truth, reporting PSNR/SSIM/TMQI and MEF-SSIM) is needed before the headline claim is supportable.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (1)] Pre-alignment accuracy at 9-stop exposure differences is unmeasured. Equation (1) defines I_ue→oe as RAFT flow on intensity-mapped inputs with a forward-backward consistency mask, but the intensity-mapping function is not specified in enough detail to reproduce, and there is no quantitative evaluation of flow error or occlusion-mask correctness on 9-stop inputs. The paper’s Conclusion explicitly states that “a more exposure-robust optical flow algorithm” is needed. Because a failed alignment can cause the under-exposed guidance to be masked away, reducing the method to unguided inpainting, the authors should report a failure-rate analysis of the pre-alignment stage (e.g., using synthetic warps or a static scene with known ground-truth motion) and characterize how fusion quality degrades when alignment is wrong.
  3. [Tables 1 and 2] Tables 1 and 2 report no error bars, no significance tests, and no multiple-run variance. Several reported improvements over strong baselines are on the order of 1–2 metric points for some metrics, and the HDR reconstruction baselines (HDR-Transformer, SCTNet, SAFNet) are re-implemented for two-exposure input with Photomatix tone mapping. Without variance estimates or audited baseline code, it is uncertain whether the observed gaps are robust. Please report mean ± std over multiple runs (or at least paired significance tests) and release the adapted baseline implementations or a detailed reproducibility description.
  4. [§3.3] The training-data synthesis pipeline combines static SICE under-exposed patches with pseudo occlusion masks from Vimeo-90K first/last frames, but the paper does not characterize the effective exposure differences and motion magnitudes in the synthesized pairs. If the SICE brackets used are limited to a narrow EV range, the model may never see 9-stop dynamic examples during training. In that case, the claimed 9-stop capability would rest on extrapolation by the diffusion prior rather than on learned exposure fusion behavior. Please report the EV distribution and motion-magnitude distribution of the synthesized training data, or explicitly modify the pipeline to synthesize 9-stop dynamic pairs and verify that the model is trained on them.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract, §1] The phrase “the first exposure fusion technique that can merge inputs with 9 stops differences” is a strong novelty claim; consider softening it or providing a more exhaustive comparison with prior extreme-exposure fusion methods (e.g., DeepFuse [38]) that may already operate at large exposure ranges with lower quality.
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) defines S_ue using Y_ue in “YUV space,” but it is not clear whether global or local mean/std are used and how the UV chroma channels are normalized; please clarify the exact computation.
  3. [§4.1] The statement “we re-implement them by following their default settings” should specify which official implementations were used and what changes were made to adapt them to two-exposure input and to apply Photomatix tone mapping.
  4. [Fig. 6(a)] The EV-difference histogram in Fig. 6(a) is hard to read in the printed version; please report the exact number of pairs in each EV bin (e.g., 4–5, 6–7, 8–9) in the caption or in a small table.
  5. [§3.2] The reference to “previous work [23]” (DiffBIR) for injecting z_t as a condition is not precise enough for reproduction; please state exactly where the diffusion latent is concatenated or added in the control branch.
  6. [Various] There are several typos and minor wording issues: “newtwork” (Section 3), “devided” (Section 2.1), “Evluation” (Supplement C), “Compre” (Supplement I), “Addtional” (Supplement J). These should be corrected in a final pass.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the method is empirical and benchmarked on external data; only a minor non-load-bearing metric self-citation exists.

full rationale

UltraFusion does not claim a first-principles derivation; its central claim is an empirical system result. The guided-inpainting formulation (Sec. 3.2) is an architectural choice, not an equation that reduces to its inputs. Pre-alignment (Eq. 1) is a preprocessing stage using a pretrained external RAFT network, and the training data pipeline (Sec. 3.3) synthesizes pairs from SICE and Vimeo-90K, then evaluates on held-out real captures. The main evidence is grounded in external benchmarks: MEFB includes the structural MEF-SSIM metric, and RealHDRV has ground-truth HDR with TMQI, on which UltraFusion improves over baselines under identical evaluation. The 9-stop claim is tested on the authors' own UltraFusion benchmark, which has no ground truth and uses non-reference metrics, but no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no equation forces the reported advantage. The conclusion explicitly concedes that occlusion-mask errors can degrade some highlight restoration to single-image HDR inpainting; this is an acknowledged limitation of an external component, not a circularity. One minor self-citation exists: DeQA-Score [65] is authored by co-authors of this paper and is used among four non-reference metrics, but it is not load-bearing for the main derivation and the results are also supported by independent metrics and user study. Overall, the paper is not circular in its derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method is a learned system, so there are no hand-fitted constants driving an analytic claim. The only named learned scalar is the cross-attention temperature tau. The main assumptions concern the reliability of optical flow at 9 stops, the transferability of synthetic training data, the exposure-invariance of the structure decomposition, and the validity of non-reference perceptual metrics. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • learnable cross-attention temperature τ = learned during training, exact value not reported
    Appears in Eq. A1 of the supplementary as a learnable scaling factor in the cross-attention module of the control branch. It is fit during training, but the central claim does not depend on a specific numeric value.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The pretrained Stable Diffusion V2.1 prior can generate natural highlight content when guided by structure and color cues from the under-exposed image.
    Section 3.2 assumes the diffusion prior is strong enough to resolve ambiguity in inpainted highlights; this is not proven independently, though ablations and user study support it.
  • domain assumption The RAFT optical flow network, applied after intensity mapping, estimates reliable flow between frames with up to 9 stops exposure difference.
    Section 3.1 and the Conclusion admit 'a more exposure-robust optical flow algorithm ... are highly desirable', acknowledging this assumption can fail.
  • domain assumption The forward-backward consistency check correctly identifies occluded regions in the warped under-exposed image.
    Used in Eq. 1 to mask occlusions; errors here directly corrupt the guidance signal for inpainting.
  • ad hoc to paper Training pairs synthesized from static SICE images and first and last frames of Vimeo-90K are sufficiently representative of real dynamic 9-stop scenes.
    Section 3.3 introduces this synthesis pipeline to overcome the lack of large-scale real training data. Generalization to the real UltraFusion benchmark is the evidence, but it remains an assumption about distribution transfer.
  • domain assumption The normalized luminance Sue defined in Eq. 2 is an exposure-invariant structure representation that preserves useful guidance.
    The decomposition into structure, normalized luminance, and color, UV channels, is claimed to be robust to brightness changes. Ablation in Fig. 13 supports this, but it is a modeling choice.
  • domain assumption Non-reference perceptual metrics, MUSIQ, DeQA-Score, PAQ2PIQ, HyperIQA, and TMQI or MEF-SSIM, correlate with image quality and fidelity for this task.
    Tables 1-2 rely on these metrics to rank methods. A user study on 20 scenes provides some independent support, but the metrics themselves are learned or parametric and may favor generative outputs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of UltraFusion: Ultra High Dynamic Imaging using Exposure Fusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KVJNQRJB

@misc{pith2026250111515,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: UltraFusion: Ultra High Dynamic Imaging using Exposure Fusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KVJNQRJB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11515}
}
read the original abstract

Capturing high dynamic range (HDR) scenes is one of the most important issues in camera design. Majority of cameras use exposure fusion, which fuses images captured by different exposure levels, to increase dynamic range. However, this approach can only handle images with limited exposure difference, normally 3-4 stops. When applying to very high dynamic range scenes where a large exposure difference is required, this approach often fails due to incorrect alignment or inconsistent lighting between inputs, or tone mapping artifacts. In this work, we propose \model, the first exposure fusion technique that can merge inputs with 9 stops differences. The key idea is that we model exposure fusion as a guided inpainting problem, where the under-exposed image is used as a guidance to fill the missing information of over-exposed highlights in the over-exposed region. Using an under-exposed image as a soft guidance, instead of a hard constraint, our model is robust to potential alignment issue or lighting variations. Moreover, by utilizing the image prior of the generative model, our model also generates natural tone mapping, even for very high-dynamic range scenes. Our approach outperforms HDR-Transformer on latest HDR benchmarks. Moreover, to test its performance in ultra high dynamic range scenes, we capture a new real-world exposure fusion benchmark, UltraFusion dataset, with exposure differences up to 9 stops, and experiments show that UltraFusion can generate beautiful and high-quality fusion results under various scenarios. Code and data will be available at https://openimaginglab.github.io/UltraFusion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11515 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparing our guided inpainting HDR imaging method with a state-of-the-art HDR reconstruction [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visual comparison on directly utilizing ControlNet [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The whole backbone of UltraFusion. Our method is a 2-stage framework, consisting of (a) pre-alignment stage and (b) guided [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The detailed architecture of our proposed decompose [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) The data distribution of our benchmark. Coordinate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Trade-off curve between MEF-SSIM and MUSIQ on MEFB dataset [69]. Our UltraFusion achieves the best trade-off between image quality and information preservation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visual comparisons of different exposure fusion methods on static MEFB dataset [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visual comparisons on our captured UltraFusion benchmark. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visual results on dynamic RealHDRV dataset [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Detailed ablation study on the design choices of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_13.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Effectiveness of our alignment strategy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Learning a deep single image contrast enhancer from multi-exposure images

    Jianrui Cai, Shuhang Gu, and Lei Zhang. Learning a deep single image contrast enhancer from multi-exposure images. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 27(4):2049–2062,

  2. [2]

    Unsu- pervised HDR image and video tone mapping via contrastive learning

    Cong Cao, Huanjing Yue, Xin Liu, and Jingyu Yang. Unsu- pervised HDR image and video tone mapping via contrastive learning. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2023. 3

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Attention-guided progressive neural tex- ture fusion for high dynamic range image restoration

    Jie Chen, Zaifeng Yang, Tsz Nam Chan, Hui Li, Junhui Hou, and Lap-Pui Chau. Attention-guided progressive neural tex- ture fusion for high dynamic range image restoration. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 31:2661–2672, 2022. 2, 3

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Anydoor: Zero-shot object-level im- age customization

    Xi Chen, Lianghua Huang, Yu Liu, Yujun Shen, Deli Zhao, and Hengshuang Zhao. Anydoor: Zero-shot object-level im- age customization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6593–6602, 2024. 3, 2

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Latentpaint: Image inpainting in latent space with diffusion models

    Ciprian Corneanu, Raghudeep Gadde, and Aleix M Mar- tinez. Latentpaint: Image inpainting in latent space with diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Win- ter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , pages 4334–4343, 2024. 3

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Seman- tic aware diffusion inverse tone mapping

    Abhishek Goswami, Aru Ranjan Singh, Francesco Banterle, Kurt Debattista, and Thomas Bashford-Rogers. Seman- tic aware diffusion inverse tone mapping. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15468, 2024. 3

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Determining the camera response from images: What is knowable? IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 25(11):1455–1467, 2003

    Michael D Grossberg and Shree K Nayar. Determining the camera response from images: What is knowable? IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 25(11):1455–1467, 2003. 3

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Diffusion-Promoted HDR Video Reconstruction

    Yuanshen Guan, Ruikang Xu, Mingde Yao, Ruisheng Gao, Lizhi Wang, and Zhiwei Xiong. Diffusion-promoted HDR video reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08204 ,

    work page Pith review arXiv

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Burst photography for high dynamic range and low-light imaging on mobile cameras

    Samuel W Hasinoff, Dillon Sharlet, Ryan Geiss, Andrew Adams, Jonathan T Barron, Florian Kainz, Jiawen Chen, and Marc Levoy. Burst photography for high dynamic range and low-light imaging on mobile cameras. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), 35(6):1–12, 2016. 1, 2

    2016

  2. [10]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 3

    2020

  3. [11]

    Joint multi- scale tone mapping and denoising for HDR image enhance- ment

    Litao Hu, Huaijin Chen, and Jan P Allebach. Joint multi- scale tone mapping and denoising for HDR image enhance- ment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , pages 729–738, 2022. 3

    2022

  4. [12]

    Gen- erating content for HDR deghosting from frequency view

    Tao Hu, Qingsen Yan, Yuankai Qi, and Yanning Zhang. Gen- erating content for HDR deghosting from frequency view. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 25732–25741, 2024. 3

    2024

  5. [13]

    Meflut: Unsupervised 1d lookup ta- bles for multi-exposure image fusion

    Ting Jiang, Chuan Wang, Xinpeng Li, Ru Li, Haoqiang Fan, and Shuaicheng Liu. Meflut: Unsupervised 1d lookup ta- bles for multi-exposure image fusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 10542–10551, 2023. 3, 6

    2023

  6. [14]

    Brushnet: A plug-and-play image inpaint- ing model with decomposed dual-branch diffusion

    Xuan Ju, Xian Liu, Xintao Wang, Yuxuan Bian, Ying Shan, and Qiang Xu. Brushnet: A plug-and-play image inpaint- ing model with decomposed dual-branch diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06976, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Deep high dynamic range imaging of dynamic scenes.ACM Trans

    Nima Khademi Kalantari, Ravi Ramamoorthi, et al. Deep high dynamic range imaging of dynamic scenes.ACM Trans. Graph., 36(4):144–1, 2017. 2, 3, 5

    2017

  8. [16]

    Musiq: Multi-scale image quality transformer

    Junjie Ke, Qifei Wang, Yilin Wang, Peyman Milanfar, and Feng Yang. Musiq: Multi-scale image quality transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 5148–5157, 2021. 5

    2021

  9. [17]

    Safnet: Selective alignment fusion network for efficient HDR imaging

    Lingtong Kong, Bo Li, Yike Xiong, Hao Zhang, Hong Gu, and Jinwei Chen. Safnet: Selective alignment fusion network for efficient HDR imaging. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2024. 2, 3, 6

    2024

  10. [18]

    Sa- giri: Low dynamic range image enhancement with genera- tive diffusion prior

    Baiang Li, Sizhuo Ma, Yanhong Zeng, Xiaogang Xu, Youqing Fang, Zhao Zhang, Jian Wang, and Kai Chen. Sa- giri: Low dynamic range image enhancement with genera- tive diffusion prior. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09389, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Fast multi- scale structural patch decomposition for multi-exposure im- age fusion

    Hui Li, Kede Ma, Hongwei Yong, and Lei Zhang. Fast multi- scale structural patch decomposition for multi-exposure im- age fusion. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 29: 5805–5816, 2020. 3

    2020

  12. [20]

    Selectively detail-enhanced fusion of differently exposed im- ages with moving objects

    Zhengguo Li, Jinghong Zheng, Zijian Zhu, and Shiqian Wu. Selectively detail-enhanced fusion of differently exposed im- ages with moving objects. IEEE Transactions on Image Pro- cessing, 23(10):4372–4382, 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    Detail-enhanced multi-scale exposure fusion

    Zhengguo Li, Zhe Wei, Changyun Wen, and Jinghong Zheng. Detail-enhanced multi-scale exposure fusion. IEEE Transactions on Image processing, 26(3):1243–1252, 2017. 3

    2017

  14. [22]

    Fusion from decomposition: A self-supervised decomposi- tion approach for image fusion

    Pengwei Liang, Junjun Jiang, Xianming Liu, and Jiayi Ma. Fusion from decomposition: A self-supervised decomposi- tion approach for image fusion. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 719–735. Springer, 2022. 6

    2022

  15. [23]

    Diff- bir: Towards blind image restoration with generative diffu- sion prior

    Xinqi Lin, Jingwen He, Ziyan Chen, Zhaoyang Lyu, Bo Dai, Fanghua Yu, Wanli Ouyang, Yu Qiao, and Chao Dong. Diff- bir: Towards blind image restoration with generative diffu- sion prior. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.15070, 2023. 3, 4

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Emef: ensemble multi- exposure image fusion

    Renshuai Liu, Chengyang Li, Haitao Cao, Yinglin Zheng, Ming Zeng, and Xuan Cheng. Emef: ensemble multi- exposure image fusion. In Proceedings of the AAAI Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1710–1718, 2023. 3, 5

    2023

  17. [25]

    Diff-plugin: Revitalizing details for diffusion-based low-level tasks

    Yuhao Liu, Zhanghan Ke, Fang Liu, Nanxuan Zhao, and Rynson WH Lau. Diff-plugin: Revitalizing details for diffusion-based low-level tasks. In Proceedings of the 9 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4197–4208, 2024. 3

    2024

  18. [26]

    Ghost-free high dynamic range imaging with context-aware transformer

    Zhen Liu, Yinglong Wang, Bing Zeng, and Shuaicheng Liu. Ghost-free high dynamic range imaging with context-aware transformer. In European Conference on computer vision , pages 344–360. Springer, 2022. 2, 3

    2022

  19. [27]

    Ghost-free high dynamic range imaging with context-aware transformer

    Zhen Liu, Yinglong Wang, Bing Zeng, and Shuaicheng Liu. Ghost-free high dynamic range imaging with context-aware transformer. In European Conference on computer vision , pages 344–360. Springer, 2022. 1, 6

    2022

  20. [28]

    Unsupervised optical flow estimation for dif- ferently exposed images in ldr domain

    Ziyang Liu, Zhengguo Li, Weihai Chen, Xingming Wu, and Zhong Liu. Unsupervised optical flow estimation for dif- ferently exposed images in ldr domain. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 33(10):5332– 5344, 2023. 3

    2023

  21. [29]

    Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Andreas Lugmayr, Martin Danelljan, Andres Romero, Fisher Yu, Radu Timofte, and Luc Van Gool. Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11461–11471, 2022. 3

    2022

  22. [30]

    Perceptual quality assessment for multi-exposure image fusion

    Kede Ma, Kai Zeng, and Zhou Wang. Perceptual quality assessment for multi-exposure image fusion. IEEE Transac- tions on Image Processing, 24(11):3345–3356, 2015. 5

    2015

  23. [31]

    Robust multi-exposure image fusion: a struc- tural patch decomposition approach

    Kede Ma, Hui Li, Hongwei Yong, Zhou Wang, Deyu Meng, and Lei Zhang. Robust multi-exposure image fusion: a struc- tural patch decomposition approach. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 26(5):2519–2532, 2017. 3

    2017

  24. [32]

    Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equa- tions

    Chenlin Meng, Yutong He, Yang Song, Jiaming Song, Jia- jun Wu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Stefano Ermon. Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equa- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.01073, 2021. 3

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Exposure fusion

    Tom Mertens, Jan Kautz, and Frank Van Reeth. Exposure fusion. In 15th Pacific Conference on Computer Graphics and Applications (PG’07), pages 382–390. IEEE, 2007. 2, 3

    2007

  26. [34]

    Restoring vision in adverse weather conditions with patch-based denoising dif- fusion models

    Ozan ¨Ozdenizci and Robert Legenstein. Restoring vision in adverse weather conditions with patch-based denoising dif- fusion models. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(8):10346–10357, 2023. 3

    2023

  27. [35]

    Commercially-available hdr processing soft- ware

    Photomatix. Commercially-available hdr processing soft- ware. https://www.hdrsoft.com/. 6

  28. [36]

    A fast, scalable, and reliable deghosting method for extreme exposure fusion

    K Ram Prabhakar, Rajat Arora, Adhitya Swaminathan, Ku- nal Pratap Singh, and R Venkatesh Babu. A fast, scalable, and reliable deghosting method for extreme exposure fusion. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Computational Photography (ICCP), pages 1–8. IEEE, 2019. 3

    2019

  29. [37]

    Towards practical and efficient high-resolution HDR deghosting with cnn

    K Ram Prabhakar, Susmit Agrawal, Durgesh Kumar Singh, Balraj Ashwath, and R Venkatesh Babu. Towards practical and efficient high-resolution HDR deghosting with cnn. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXI 1...

    2020

  30. [38]

    Deepfuse: A deep unsupervised approach for exposure fu- sion with extreme exposure image pairs

    K Ram Prabhakar, V Sai Srikar, and R Venkatesh Babu. Deepfuse: A deep unsupervised approach for exposure fu- sion with extreme exposure image pairs. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 4714–4722, 2017. 3, 6

    2017

  31. [39]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 10684–10695, 2022. 3

    2022

  32. [40]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 3, 5, 2

    2022

  33. [41]

    Dragdiffusion: Harnessing diffusion models for interactive point-based image editing

    Yujun Shi, Chuhui Xue, Jun Hao Liew, Jiachun Pan, Han- shu Yan, Wenqing Zhang, Vincent YF Tan, and Song Bai. Dragdiffusion: Harnessing diffusion models for interactive point-based image editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogniti...

    2024

  34. [42]

    Towards real-world HDR video reconstruc- tion: A large-scale benchmark dataset and a two-stage align- ment network

    Yong Shu, Liquan Shen, Xiangyu Hu, Mengyao Li, and Zihao Zhou. Towards real-world HDR video reconstruc- tion: A large-scale benchmark dataset and a two-stage align- ment network. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 2879–...

    2024

  35. [43]

    Selective transhdr: Transformer-based se- lective HDR imaging using ghost region mask

    Jou Won Song, Ye-In Park, Kyeongbo Kong, Jaeho Kwak, and Suk-Ju Kang. Selective transhdr: Transformer-based se- lective HDR imaging using ghost region mask. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 288–304. Springer,

  36. [44]

    Blindly assess image qual- ity in the wild guided by a self-adaptive hyper network

    Shaolin Su, Qingsen Yan, Yu Zhu, Cheng Zhang, Xin Ge, Jinqiu Sun, and Yanning Zhang. Blindly assess image qual- ity in the wild guided by a self-adaptive hyper network. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 3667–3676, 2020. 5

    2020

  37. [45]

    Raft: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow

    Zachary Teed and Jia Deng. Raft: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23– 28, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 16, pages 402–419. Springer,

    2020

  38. [46]

    Alignment-free HDR deghosting with semantics consistent transformer

    Steven Tel, Zongwei Wu, Yulun Zhang, Barth ´el´emy Heyr- man, C ´edric Demonceaux, Radu Timofte, and Dominique Ginhac. Alignment-free HDR deghosting with semantics consistent transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18135 ,

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Alignment-free HDR deghosting with semantics consistent transformer

    Steven Tel, Zongwei Wu, Yulun Zhang, Barth ´el´emy Heyr- man, C ´edric Demonceaux, Radu Timofte, and Dominique Ginhac. Alignment-free HDR deghosting with semantics consistent transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision , pages 1283...

    2023

  40. [48]

    Unpaired learning for high dynamic range image tone mapping

    Yael Vinker, Inbar Huberman-Spiegelglas, and Raanan Fat- tal. Unpaired learning for high dynamic range image tone mapping. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pages 14657–14666, 2021. 3

    2021

  41. [49]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity

    Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Si- moncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE transactions on image processing, 13(4):600–612, 2004. 4

    2004

  42. [50]

    L-cad: Language-based colorization with any-level descrip- 10 tions using diffusion priors

    Shuchen Weng, Peixuan Zhang, Yu Li, Si Li, Boxin Shi, et al. L-cad: Language-based colorization with any-level descrip- 10 tions using diffusion priors. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 3, 4

    2024

  43. [51]

    Hybrid-supervised dual-search: Leveraging automatic learning for loss-free multi-exposure image fusion

    Guanyao Wu, Hongming Fu, Jinyuan Liu, Long Ma, Xin Fan, and Risheng Liu. Hybrid-supervised dual-search: Leveraging automatic learning for loss-free multi-exposure image fusion. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 5985–5993, 2024. 1, 3, 6

    2024

  44. [52]

    Deep high dynamic range imaging with large foreground motions

    Shangzhe Wu, Jiarui Xu, Yu-Wing Tai, and Chi-Keung Tang. Deep high dynamic range imaging with large foreground motions. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 117–132, 2018. 2, 3

    2018

  45. [53]

    Smartbrush: Text and shape guided object inpainting with diffusion model

    Shaoan Xie, Zhifei Zhang, Zhe Lin, Tobias Hinz, and Kun Zhang. Smartbrush: Text and shape guided object inpainting with diffusion model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 22428–22437, 2023. 3

    2023

  46. [54]

    Hdrflow: Real-time HDR video reconstruction with large motions

    Gangwei Xu, Yujin Wang, Jinwei Gu, Tianfan Xue, and Xin Yang. Hdrflow: Real-time HDR video reconstruction with large motions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 24851– 24860, 2024. 3

    2024

  47. [55]

    U2fusion: A unified unsupervised image fusion net- work

    Han Xu, Jiayi Ma, Junjun Jiang, Xiaojie Guo, and Haibin Ling. U2fusion: A unified unsupervised image fusion net- work. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44(1):502–518, 2020. 3, 6

    2020

  48. [56]

    Mef-gan: Multi- exposure image fusion via generative adversarial networks

    Han Xu, Jiayi Ma, and Xiao-Ping Zhang. Mef-gan: Multi- exposure image fusion via generative adversarial networks. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 29:7203–7216,

  49. [57]

    Gmflow: Learning optical flow via global matching

    Haofei Xu, Jing Zhang, Jianfei Cai, Hamid Rezatofighi, and Dacheng Tao. Gmflow: Learning optical flow via global matching. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8121–8130,

  50. [58]

    Video enhancement with task-oriented flow

    Tianfan Xue, Baian Chen, Jiajun Wu, Donglai Wei, and William T Freeman. Video enhancement with task-oriented flow. International Journal of Computer Vision, 127:1106– 1125, 2019. 5

    2019

  51. [59]

    Attention- guided network for ghost-free high dynamic range imaging

    Qingsen Yan, Dong Gong, Qinfeng Shi, Anton van den Hen- gel, Chunhua Shen, Ian Reid, and Yanning Zhang. Attention- guided network for ghost-free high dynamic range imaging. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1751–1760, 2...

    2019

  52. [60]

    Deep HDR imaging via a non- local network

    Qingsen Yan, Lei Zhang, Yu Liu, Yu Zhu, Jinqiu Sun, Qin- feng Shi, and Yanning Zhang. Deep HDR imaging via a non- local network. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 29: 4308–4322, 2020. 2, 3

    2020

  53. [61]

    Towards high- quality HDR deghosting with conditional diffusion models

    Qingsen Yan, Tao Hu, Yuan Sun, Hao Tang, Yu Zhu, Wei Dong, Luc Van Gool, and Yanning Zhang. Towards high- quality HDR deghosting with conditional diffusion models. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Tech- nology, 2023. 3

    2023

  54. [62]

    Ip- adapter: Text compatible image prompt adapter for text-to- image diffusion models

    Hu Ye, Jun Zhang, Sibo Liu, Xiao Han, and Wei Yang. Ip- adapter: Text compatible image prompt adapter for text-to- image diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06721,

    arXiv

  55. [63]

    Objective quality as- sessment of tone-mapped images

    Hojatollah Yeganeh and Zhou Wang. Objective quality as- sessment of tone-mapped images. IEEE Transactions on Im- age processing, 22(2):657–667, 2012. 5

    2012

  56. [64]

    From patches to pictures (paq-2-piq): Mapping the perceptual space of pic- ture quality

    Zhenqiang Ying, Haoran Niu, Praful Gupta, Dhruv Maha- jan, Deepti Ghadiyaram, and Alan Bovik. From patches to pictures (paq-2-piq): Mapping the perceptual space of pic- ture quality. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3575–3585,

  57. [65]

    Teaching large language models to regress accurate image quality scores using score distribution

    Zhiyuan You, Xin Cai, Jinjin Gu, Tianfan Xue, and Chao Dong. Teaching large language models to regress accurate image quality scores using score distribution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.11561, 2025. 5

    2025

  58. [66]

    Scaling up to excellence: Practicing model scaling for photo- realistic image restoration in the wild

    Fanghua Yu, Jinjin Gu, Zheyuan Li, Jinfan Hu, Xiangtao Kong, Xintao Wang, Jingwen He, Yu Qiao, and Chao Dong. Scaling up to excellence: Practicing model scaling for photo- realistic image restoration in the wild. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and...

    2024

  59. [67]

    Inpaint anything: Segment anything meets image inpainting

    Tao Yu, Runseng Feng, Ruoyu Feng, Jinming Liu, Xin Jin, Wenjun Zeng, and Zhibo Chen. Inpaint anything: Segment anything meets image inpainting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.06790, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models

    Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3836–3847, 2023. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7

    2023

  61. [69]

    Benchmarking and comparing multi- exposure image fusion algorithms

    Xingchen Zhang. Benchmarking and comparing multi- exposure image fusion algorithms. Information Fusion, 74: 111–131, 2021. 5, 6, 3

    2021

  62. [70]

    Maskflownet: Asymmetric feature matching with learnable occlusion mask

    Shengyu Zhao, Yilun Sheng, Yue Dong, Eric I Chang, Yan Xu, et al. Maskflownet: Asymmetric feature matching with learnable occlusion mask. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 6278–6287, 2020. 3

    2020

  63. [71]

    Image fusion via vision-language model

    Zixiang Zhao, Lilun Deng, Haowen Bai, Yukun Cui, Zhipeng Zhang, Yulun Zhang, Haotong Qin, Dongdong Chen, Jiangshe Zhang, Peng Wang, et al. Image fusion via vision-language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02235 ,

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    Superpixel based patch match for differently exposed images with moving objects and camera movements

    Jinghong Zheng and Zhengguo Li. Superpixel based patch match for differently exposed images with moving objects and camera movements. In 2015 IEEE International Confer- ence on Image Processing (ICIP) , pages 4516–4520. IEEE,

    2015

  65. [73]

    Hybrid patching for a sequence of differ- ently exposed images with moving objects

    Jinghong Zheng, Zhengguo Li, Zijian Zhu, Shiqian Wu, and Susanto Rahardja. Hybrid patching for a sequence of differ- ently exposed images with moving objects. IEEE transac- tions on image processing, 22(12):5190–5201, 2013. 3

    2013

  66. [74]

    Reconstructed Result

    Pengfei Zhu, Yang Sun, Bing Cao, and Qinghua Hu. Task- customized mixture of adapters for general image fusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 7099–7108, 2024. 3, 6, 2 11 UltraFusion: Ultra High Dynamic Imaging usi...

    2024

Pith tools

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