Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Video Deblurring with Deconvolution and Aggregation Networks

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A three-stage network improves video deblurring beyond prior baselines on two benchmarks

desk verdict A competent three-stage video deblurring pipeline whose module ablations are convincing, but the state-of-the-art claim rests on a pre-2020 baseline set and needs recalibration. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04054 v1 pith:DLNW32MU submitted 2025-06-04 cs.CV

Giyong Choi , HyunWook Park This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords videodeblurringmotionblurnon-localoperationsopticalflowalignmentframeaggregationreliabilitymapocclusiondetectiondeepneuralnetwork
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

The paper argues that video deblurring fails when neighbor frames are used without first making them sharp enough to align reliably. It proposes a deconvolution and aggregation network (DAN) with three sub-networks: a preprocessing network applies non-local operations to reduce blur before alignment; an alignment-based deconvolution network warps neighbors to the central frame using optical flow and occlusion maps; and a frame aggregation network fuses the deblurred frames according to pixel-wise reliability maps. Trained with the Adobe240 protocol, DAN reports average PSNR of 31.618 dB on Adobe240 and 33.003 dB on GOPRO, above the strongest compared baseline STFAN at 31.251 dB and 32.560 dB. The claim is that a proper combination of deconvolution before alignment and aggregation after it lets neighbor information be used correctly.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the three-stage pipeline whose linking step is the forward-backward optical flow consistency inequality, Eq. (5): $|w_f(x)+w_b(x+w_f(x))| < \alpha_1(|w_f(x)|^2 + |w_b(x+w_f(x))|^2) + \alpha_2$, with $\alpha_1=0.01$ and $\alpha_2=0.5$. Non-local blocks in the PPN operate on concatenated feature maps rather than raw frames to keep memory use low, and the FAN's final frame is $A_t = \hat{A}_t^f \odot RM_{t-1} + D_t \odot RM_t + \hat{D}_t^r \odot RM_{t+1}$, a sharpness-weighted sum of a warped previous output, the current deblurred frame, and a warped future deblurred frame. The occlusion maps are also fed into the FAN so that the reliability maps learn to distrust occluded regions.

What would settle it

Run the full DAN on a video containing large textureless regions and heavy motion blur, then replace the estimated optical flow with ground-truth flow obtained from an ultra-high-speed capture; if the PSNR jumps by far more than the 0.37 to 0.44 dB margin over STFAN, the claimed result is dominated by flow accuracy rather than by the network design.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that deblurring and alignment should be treated as a combined problem, with deblurring done twice: first a rough restoration by non-local feature matching across frames, then a restoration on flow-aligned preprocessed frames, and finally a fusion of multiple restored frames guided by reliability maps. Each stage contributes: the PPN removes enough blur that optical flow between frames becomes trustworthy; the ABDN uses forward-backward flow consistency to mark occlusions and replaces occluded warped pixels with the central frame's pixels; and the FAN weights each pixel by estimated sharpness rather than by a fixed temporal scheme. The result shown is that each module adds measurable PSNR and the full pipeline outperforms the compared methods on both benchmark test sets.

Load-bearing premise

The entire chain depends on the assumption that after the preprocessing network, optical flow between frames is accurate enough to warp neighbors to the central frame, and that the forward-backward consistency test correctly identifies every occluded region; when flow is wrong on textureless or heavily blurred areas, misaligned pixels can be amplified by the reliability-map fusion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On both Adobe240 and GOPRO, DAN's average PSNR exceeds OVD, DBN, EDVR, and STFAN: 31.618 dB versus 31.251 dB on Adobe240 and 33.003 dB versus 32.560 dB on GOPRO.
  • Using the PPN before the ABDN outperforms applying the ABDN twice (31.228 dB versus 30.472 dB), indicating that aligning preprocessed frames matters more than an extra deconvolution pass.
  • Occlusion maps improve both the ABDN (31.10 dB to 31.23 dB) and the FAN (31.57 dB to 31.62 dB), showing that explicit occlusion handling helps both deblurring and aggregation.
  • The light version with a 1.05M-parameter ABDN still reaches 31.34 to 31.41 dB on Adobe240, surpassing OVD, DBN, and EDVR and roughly matching STFAN with fewer parameters.
  • Each module contributes additively in the ablation, so the architecture gives a reusable recipe: rough deblur, align, deblur, then fuse by reliability.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same two-pass recipe, rough restoration before alignment, could transfer to other flow-dependent video restoration tasks such as super-resolution or denoising, where blur or noise currently corrupts motion estimation.
  • Editorial inference: the reliability-map fusion in Eq. (8) is a learned per-pixel weighting over a three-frame window; extending it to longer recurrent memory could help when blur persists across many frames.
  • Editorial inference: the reported margin over STFAN is less than 0.5 dB on both datasets, so on harder real videos with large textureless regions or severe occlusions the margin may shrink if the optical-flow consistency check fails.
  • Editorial inference: a direct test of the paper's central premise is to replace the estimated optical flow with ground-truth flow obtained from a high-speed capture; if the gain over STFAN mostly disappears, then accurate flow is the real driver of the improvement.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a video deblurring network, DAN, composed of three sub-networks: a preprocessing network (PPN) with non-local operations, an alignment-based deconvolution network (ABDN) using optical flow and occlusion maps, and a frame aggregation network (FAN) that merges deblurred frames according to learned reliability maps. The method is trained on the Adobe240 dataset and evaluated on Adobe240 and GOPRO. Table 1 reports average PSNRs of 31.618 dB and 33.003 dB, which the authors claim outperform existing state-of-the-art methods, with the strongest compared baseline (STFAN) at 31.251 dB and 32.560 dB. The paper also includes ablations showing that each module contributes positively to performance.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, the architecture would be a reasonable contribution: the idea of preprocessing blurry frames before optical-flow-based alignment, and then aggregating deblurred frames with reliability maps, is coherent and the ablations in Tables 3 and 4 provide internally consistent evidence that each module helps. However, the paper's headline claim of state-of-the-art performance rests on a comparison set whose newest learned baseline is from 2019, with one baseline (EDVR) trained on a different dataset, and with no error bars or statistical significance testing. The reported margins over STFAN are 0.367 dB and 0.443 dB, which are too small to establish superiority without uncertainty quantification. The paper does not provide code or pretrained models, so the empirical results are not independently reproducible from the manuscript. The strengths are the clear module-level analysis and the explicit statement of the training data and the EDVR training-data mismatch.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1, Table 1] The central claim of state-of-the-art performance is not supported by the comparison set. All learned baselines are from 2017-2019, and video deblurring has advanced substantially since then with recurrent and transformer-based methods. To substantiate the abstract's claim, the authors should compare against recent strong methods, ideally retrained or fine-tuned on the same training data, and report per-sequence results and run-to-run variance.
  2. [§5.1, Table 1] The EDVR row is an apples-to-oranges comparison because the authors state that EDVR was trained on REDS, not on the Adobe240 training set used for the other methods. A model trained on a different data distribution cannot be directly compared in a benchmark table. Either retrain EDVR on the same data or remove this row; in its current form it should not be used as evidence for superiority.
  3. [§5.1, Table 1] The reported margins over STFAN are only 0.367 dB on Adobe240 and 0.443 dB on GOPRO, yet no error bars, multiple-run statistics, or significance tests are provided. Given that training stochasticity alone can produce differences of this magnitude, the claim that DAN is 'superior' needs at least standard deviation across multiple seeds or per-sequence breakdowns to be convincing.
  4. [§5.3, Table 2] The statement that the light version of the proposed method 'also outperforms the other video deblurring methods' inherits the same comparison limitations as Table 1: the baselines are all pre-2020, and the margins are small. In addition, the processing time comparison is incomplete without information about the hardware and software versions used for all methods; the 1.10-1.21 s/frame figures for the proposed method are considerably slower than OVD and STFAN, which should be discussed in relation to the 'advantage' claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (5)] The occlusion-detection thresholds α1 and α2 are fixed to 0.01 and 0.5 without a sensitivity analysis; a short experiment varying these values would strengthen the claim that the chosen values are robust.
  2. [§3.2, Eqs. (1)-(4)] The notation for time-step superscripts and subscripts is confusing, e.g., 'Pt+1_t' and 'Pt+1_t+1'. Please clarify the indexing so that the reader can map the equations to Figure 2 without ambiguity.
  3. [§5.2, Figures 5 and 6] The qualitative comparisons would be more informative with zoomed crops or a quantitative sharpness/error map in addition to the small red/yellow boxes; as presented, it is hard to judge the claimed visual differences.
  4. [§2.3] The related-work section does not cite any video deblurring method from 2020 or later; this makes the comparison in Section 5.1 appear dated and also gives the reader no context for how the method relates to recent recurrent or transformer-based approaches.
  5. [§6] The paper has no explicit limitations section. Given the reliance on optical flow and the relatively high inference time, a brief discussion of failure cases (e.g., large occlusions or textureless regions) and of the real-time feasibility would improve the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the paper makes no parameter-free derivation whose output reduces to its inputs, and its empirical PSNR claims are measured on held-out data.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is purely empirical: the proposed DAN achieves higher average PSNR than four published baselines on the Adobe240 and GOPRO test sets. These PSNR values are measurements on held-out test frames, not fitted parameters, and no equation in the paper defines the reported performance in terms of the training objective or any fitted quantity. The description of ABDN as a 'deconvolution' network is a naming choice, not a derivation that equates the output to the input by construction. The training losses LP P N, LABDN, and LF AN are MSE losses against ground-truth sharp frames, and the final evaluation is an independent PSNR computation on the same ground-truth data, so the evaluation is not statistically forced by the training objective. There are no self-citations by the authors that carry a load-bearing premise, and the cited external components (non-local operations, optical flow estimators, and the forward-backward consistency test) are standard, externally published, and not used to define the reported result. The main weakness is that the comparison set ends in 2019, which undermines the 'state-of-the-art' claim, but an outdated comparison is a correctness or competitiveness concern, not circularity. No circular step can be quoted from the paper, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or conceptual entities beyond the learned reliability maps, which are internal network outputs. Its free parameters are standard training hyperparameters and two occlusion-threshold constants. The load-bearing assumptions are domain assumptions common in video deblurring, most critically that optical flow on preprocessed frames is reliable and that synthetic blur generalizes to real videos.

free parameters (6)
  • Alpha 1 (occlusion threshold) = 0.01
    Constant in the forward-backward flow consistency check (Eq. 5), set by hand and used in all experiments.
  • Alpha 2 (occlusion threshold) = 0.5
    Constant in the forward-backward flow consistency check (Eq. 5), set by hand.
  • Number of non-local blocks in PPN = 3
    N LB(3) denotes three consecutive non-local blocks, chosen by hand for performance and complexity trade-off.
  • Initial learning rate and decay schedule = 0.0001, decay by 0.1 every 400k iterations
    Standard training hyperparameters, chosen without reported tuning, affecting the final trained model.
  • Training patch size = 256x256
    Random crops of 256x256 are used for training, a standard choice for video deblurring.
  • Batch size = 5
    Batch size is set to 5, a training hyperparameter chosen by hand.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Blur in video can be modeled as accumulation over time, so sharp pixels from neighboring frames can substitute for blurred pixels.
    Motivates the aggregation approach in Sections 1 and 3.4.
  • domain assumption Optical flow estimated on preprocessed frames is accurate enough to align neighbor frames with the central frame.
    ABDN and FAN rely on flow-based warping in Section 3.3.
  • domain assumption The synthetic blur in the Adobe240 dataset is representative of real hand-held motion blur.
    The network is trained only on Adobe240 and evaluated on Adobe240 and GOPRO, as described in Section 4.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Video Deblurring with Deconvolution and Aggregation Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DLNW32MU

@misc{pith2026250604054,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Video Deblurring with Deconvolution and Aggregation Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DLNW32MU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04054}
}
read the original abstract

In contrast to single-image deblurring, video deblurring has the advantage that neighbor frames can be utilized to deblur a target frame. However, existing video deblurring algorithms often fail to properly employ the neighbor frames, resulting in sub-optimal performance. In this paper, we propose a deconvolution and aggregation network (DAN) for video deblurring that utilizes the information of neighbor frames well. In DAN, both deconvolution and aggregation strategies are achieved through three sub-networks: the preprocessing network (PPN) and the alignment-based deconvolution network (ABDN) for the deconvolution scheme; the frame aggregation network (FAN) for the aggregation scheme. In the deconvolution part, blurry inputs are first preprocessed by the PPN with non-local operations. Then, the output frames from the PPN are deblurred by the ABDN based on the frame alignment. In the FAN, these deblurred frames from the deconvolution part are combined into a latent frame according to reliability maps which infer pixel-wise sharpness. The proper combination of three sub-networks can achieve favorable performance on video deblurring by using the neighbor frames suitably. In experiments, the proposed DAN was demonstrated to be superior to existing state-of-the-art methods through both quantitative and qualitative evaluations on the public datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04054 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall architecture of the deconvolution and aggregation network (DAN). Each black square indicates the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Network architecture of the preprocessing network (PPN). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Network architecture of the alignment-based deconvolution network (ABDN). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Network architecture of the frame aggregation network (FAN). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of various video deblurring methods on the test dataset from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative comparison of various video deblurring methods on the real blurry dataset from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Consecutive input frames of FAN and its corresponding occlusion maps and reliability maps. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Visual tracking in the presence of motion blur

    Hailin Jin, Paolo Favaro, and Roberto Cipolla. Visual tracking in the presence of motion blur. In 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’05), volume 2, pages 18–25. IEEE, 2005

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Modeling and generating complex motion blur for real-time tracking

    Christopher Mei and Ian Reid. Modeling and generating complex motion blur for real-time tracking. In 2008 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1–8. IEEE, 2008

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Motion blur kernel estimation via deep learning

    Xiangyu Xu, Jinshan Pan, Yu-Jin Zhang, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Motion blur kernel estimation via deep learning. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 27(1):194–205, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Deblurgan: Blind motion deblurring using conditional adversarial networks

    Orest Kupyn, V olodymyr Budzan, Mykola Mykhailych, Dmytro Mishkin, and Jiˇrí Matas. Deblurgan: Blind motion deblurring using conditional adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8183–8192, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Scale-recurrent network for deep image deblurring

    Xin Tao, Hongyun Gao, Xiaoyong Shen, Jue Wang, and Jiaya Jia. Scale-recurrent network for deep image deblurring. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8174– 8182, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Video deblurring for hand-held cameras using patch-based synthesis

    Sunghyun Cho, Jue Wang, and Seungyong Lee. Video deblurring for hand-held cameras using patch-based synthesis. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 31(4):1–9, 2012

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Hand-held video deblurring via efficient fourier aggregation

    Mauricio Delbracio and Guillermo Sapiro. Hand-held video deblurring via efficient fourier aggregation. IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging, 1(4):270–283, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Deep video deblurring for hand-held cameras

    Shuochen Su, Mauricio Delbracio, Jue Wang, Guillermo Sapiro, Wolfgang Heidrich, and Oliver Wang. Deep video deblurring for hand-held cameras. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1279–1288, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Edvr: Video restoration with enhanced deformable convolutional networks

    Xintao Wang, Kelvin CK Chan, Ke Yu, Chao Dong, and Chen Change Loy. Edvr: Video restoration with enhanced deformable convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, pages 0–0, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Deformable convolutional networks

    Jifeng Dai, Haozhi Qi, Yuwen Xiong, Yi Li, Guodong Zhang, Han Hu, and Yichen Wei. Deformable convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 764–773, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Multi-shot imaging: joint alignment, deblurring and resolution-enhancement

    Haichao Zhang and Lawrence Carin. Multi-shot imaging: joint alignment, deblurring and resolution-enhancement. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2925–2932, 2014

    2014

  4. [12]

    Simultaneous stereo video deblurring and scene flow estimation

    Liyuan Pan, Yuchao Dai, Miaomiao Liu, and Fatih Porikli. Simultaneous stereo video deblurring and scene flow estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4382–4391, 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Online video deblurring via dynamic temporal blending network

    Tae Hyun Kim, Kyoung Mu Lee, Bernhard Scholkopf, and Michael Hirsch. Online video deblurring via dynamic temporal blending network. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 4038–4047, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Recurrent neural networks with intra-frame iterations for video deblurring

    Seungjun Nah, Sanghyun Son, and Kyoung Mu Lee. Recurrent neural networks with intra-frame iterations for video deblurring. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8102–8111, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Learning blind motion deblurring

    Patrick Wieschollek, Michael Hirsch, Bernhard Scholkopf, and Hendrik Lensch. Learning blind motion deblurring. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 231–240, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Spatio-temporal filter adaptive network for video deblurring

    Shangchen Zhou, Jiawei Zhang, Jinshan Pan, Haozhe Xie, Wangmeng Zuo, and Jimmy Ren. Spatio-temporal filter adaptive network for video deblurring. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 2482–2491, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Non-local neural networks

    Xiaolong Wang, Ross Girshick, Abhinav Gupta, and Kaiming He. Non-local neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7794–7803, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Deep multi-scale convolutional neural network for dynamic scene deblurring

    Seungjun Nah, Tae Hyun Kim, and Kyoung Mu Lee. Deep multi-scale convolutional neural network for dynamic scene deblurring. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), July 2017. 11 Video Deblurring with Deconvolution and Aggregation Networks

    2017

  11. [19]

    Blind image deconvolution

    Deepa Kundur and Dimitrios Hatzinakos. Blind image deconvolution. IEEE signal processing magazine , 13(3):43–64, 1996

    1996

  12. [20]

    High-quality motion deblurring from a single image

    Qi Shan, Jiaya Jia, and Aseem Agarwala. High-quality motion deblurring from a single image. Acm transactions on graphics (tog), 27(3):1–10, 2008

    2008

  13. [21]

    Fast motion deblurring

    Sunghyun Cho and Seungyong Lee. Fast motion deblurring. In ACM SIGGRAPH Asia 2009 papers, pages 1–8. 2009

    2009

  14. [22]

    Two-phase kernel estimation for robust motion deblurring

    Li Xu and Jiaya Jia. Two-phase kernel estimation for robust motion deblurring. In European conference on computer vision, pages 157–170. Springer, 2010

    2010

  15. [23]

    Generalized video deblurring for dynamic scenes

    Tae Hyun Kim and Kyoung Mu Lee. Generalized video deblurring for dynamic scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5426–5434, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    Video deblurring via semantic segmentation and pixel-wise non-linear kernel

    Wenqi Ren, Jinshan Pan, Xiaochun Cao, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Video deblurring via semantic segmentation and pixel-wise non-linear kernel. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1077–1085, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Robust multichannel blind deconvolution via fast alternating minimization

    Filip Sroubek and Peyman Milanfar. Robust multichannel blind deconvolution via fast alternating minimization. IEEE Transactions on Image processing, 21(4):1687–1700, 2011

    2011

  18. [26]

    Robust flash deblurring

    Shaojie Zhuo, Dong Guo, and Terence Sim. Robust flash deblurring. In 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2440–2447. IEEE, 2010

    2010

  19. [27]

    Registration based non-uniform motion deblurring

    Sunghyun Cho, Hojin Cho, Yu-Wing Tai, and Seungyong Lee. Registration based non-uniform motion deblurring. In Computer Graphics Forum, volume 31, pages 2183–2192. Wiley Online Library, 2012

    2012

  20. [28]

    Multi-image blind deblurring using a coupled adaptive sparse prior

    Haichao Zhang, David Wipf, and Yanning Zhang. Multi-image blind deblurring using a coupled adaptive sparse prior. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1051–1058, 2013

    2013

  21. [29]

    Modeling blurred video with layers

    Jonas Wulff and Michael Julian Black. Modeling blurred video with layers. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 236–252. Springer, 2014

    2014

  22. [30]

    Lucky imaging: high angular resolution imaging in the visible from the ground

    Nicholas M Law, Craig D Mackay, and John E Baldwin. Lucky imaging: high angular resolution imaging in the visible from the ground. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 446(2):739–745, 2006

    2006

  23. [31]

    Lucky imaging for multi-image denoising, sharpening, and haze removal, computational photography (iccp)

    N Joshi, M Cohen, and SM Rainier. Lucky imaging for multi-image denoising, sharpening, and haze removal, computational photography (iccp). In 2010 IEEE International Conference on, Cambridge, MA, USA, pages 1–8, 2010

    2010

  24. [32]

    Burst deblurring: Removing camera shake through fourier burst accumulation

    Mauricio Delbracio and Guillermo Sapiro. Burst deblurring: Removing camera shake through fourier burst accumulation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 2385–2393, 2015

    2015

  25. [33]

    Adversarial spatio-temporal learning for video deblurring

    Kaihao Zhang, Wenhan Luo, Yiran Zhong, Lin Ma, Wei Liu, and Hongdong Li. Adversarial spatio-temporal learning for video deblurring. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 28(1):291–301, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Generative adversarial nets

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 2672–2680, 2014

    2014

  27. [35]

    3d convolutional neural networks for human action recognition

    Shuiwang Ji, Wei Xu, Ming Yang, and Kai Yu. 3d convolutional neural networks for human action recognition. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 35(1):221–231, 2012

    2012

  28. [36]

    Reblur2deblur: Deblurring videos via self-supervised learning

    Huaijin Chen, Jinwei Gu, Orazio Gallo, Ming-Yu Liu, Ashok Veeraraghavan, and Jan Kautz. Reblur2deblur: Deblurring videos via self-supervised learning. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Computational Photography (ICCP), pages 1–9. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    Progressive fusion video super-resolution net- work via exploiting non-local spatio-temporal correlations

    Peng Yi, Zhongyuan Wang, Kui Jiang, Junjun Jiang, and Jiayi Ma. Progressive fusion video super-resolution net- work via exploiting non-local spatio-temporal correlations. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3106–3115, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    Optical flow estimation using a spatial pyramid network

    Anurag Ranjan and Michael J Black. Optical flow estimation using a spatial pyramid network. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4161–4170, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    Liteflownet: A lightweight convolutional neural network for optical flow estimation

    Tak-Wai Hui, Xiaoou Tang, and Chen Change Loy. Liteflownet: A lightweight convolutional neural network for optical flow estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8981–8989, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Unflow: Unsupervised learning of optical flow with a bidirectional census loss

    Simon Meister, Junhwa Hur, and Stefan Roth. Unflow: Unsupervised learning of optical flow with a bidirectional census loss. In Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2018. 12 Video Deblurring with Deconvolution and Aggregation Networks

    2018

  33. [41]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks

    Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 1097–1105, 2012

    2012

  35. [43]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In International Conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention , pages 234–241. Springer, 2015

    2015

  36. [44]

    Automatic differentiation in pytorch

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Soumith Chintala, Gregory Chanan, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Zeming Lin, Alban Desmaison, Luca Antiga, and Adam Lerer. Automatic differentiation in pytorch. 2017

    2017

  37. [45]

    Ntire 2019 challenge on video deblurring and super-resolution: Dataset and study

    Seungjun Nah, Sungyong Baik, Seokil Hong, Gyeongsik Moon, Sanghyun Son, Radu Timofte, and Kyoung Mu Lee. Ntire 2019 challenge on video deblurring and super-resolution: Dataset and study. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Works...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.