Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 68 references

Dynamic View Synthesis from Small Camera Motion Videos

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that constraining the shape of the rendering weight distribution, not just its mean, lets a dynamic NeRF reconstruct correct scene geometry from monocular videos with small camera motion, and that joint camera-parameter…

desk verdict A novel and plausible depth-regularization idea, but the MiDaS-to-NDC alignment gap makes the central geometry claim unproven; worth refereeing as a major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23153 v1 pith:7BEEMMSC submitted 2025-06-29 cs.CV

Huiqiang Sun , Xingyi Li , Juewen Peng , Liao Shen , Zhiguo Cao , Ke Xian , Guosheng Lin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV MSC 68T4568T07
keywords dynamicneuralradiancefieldsnovelviewsynthesissmallcameramotiondepthregularizationGumbel-Softmaxrenderingweightdistributionparameterjointlearningmonocularvideo
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 takes on a regime where most dynamic NeRF methods collapse: monocular videos in which the camera barely moves. Its central claim is that standard depth regularization fails because it matches the mean of the rendering weight distribution along a ray, leaving the distribution's shape free to drift into wrong geometry. The proposed Distribution-based Depth Regularization (DDR) instead samples points from the rendering weight distribution with Gumbel-Softmax, converts the discrete weights into a continuous mixture of triangular distributions, and minimizes the expected depth error against monocular depth maps from MiDaS. A companion density loss forces the volume density of points before the object boundary to zero, and camera parameters are initialized with RCVD and refined jointly during training. If correct, the method yields accurate geometry and high-quality novel views under small camera motion, and the paper reports it as the first dynamic NeRF to handle such inputs effectively.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is Distribution-based Depth Regularization (DDR), built on the per-ray rendering weights $w_i = T_i(1-\exp(-\sigma_i\delta_i))$. DDR defines the target as a continuous mixture distribution $P(t)=\sum_i w_i p_i(t)$ over triangular bases $p_i(t)$, samples from it with Gumbel-Softmax—a differentiable approximation of categorical sampling—and minimizes the expected absolute depth error $\mathbb{E}_{t\sim P(t)}[|D(r)-t|]$ against the MiDaS depth $D(r)$. The density loss $\sum_{\tau}\sum_{x\in X_f(\tau)}\|\sigma_\tau(x)\|_1$ zeros out the volume density of points before the object boundary, and camera parameters are refined by residual updates initialized from RCVD. A rendering-weight visualization tool displays the scene geometry as a weight map and is used to argue that the learned distribution is closer to the ideal single-peak shape.

What would settle it

Run the method on the Nvidia Dynamic Scenes small-motion protocol and compare the rendered depth against the dataset's ground-truth depth maps. If the per-ray depth error is no better than a model trained with the ordinary mean-depth loss, while the PSNR improvement remains, then DDR's claimed geometry alignment is not what carries the gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the object a depth regularizer should match is not the expected depth but the distribution of rendering weights along the ray. Its DDR loss makes that distribution continuous with triangular sub-distributions centered at each sample, draws points from it via Gumbel-Softmax, and penalizes the L1 distance from each drawn depth to the MiDaS depth; the paper argues this 'expectation of the error' shapes the weights into the desired single-peaked form, whereas the usual 'error of the expectation' leaves the shape unconstrained. DDR is paired with a volume-density loss that sets $\sigma \approx 0$ before the object boundary, and with camera extrinsics and focal length initialized by RCVD and refined jointly with the MLPs. On the Nvidia Dynamic Scenes small-motion protocol the method reports the best full-image PSNR 21.47 and SSIM 0.718, and the paper claims this makes it the first dynamic NeRF to effectively handle small-motion monocular videos.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the MiDaS monocular depth maps are reliable enough to serve both as the target depth and as the definition of the object boundary; if MiDaS is wrong, the density loss carves away real geometry or leaves floaters, and the paper's own failure cases are exactly the cases where MiDaS is unreliable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dynamic scene reconstruction no longer needs wide-baseline parallax or SfM point clouds; monocular depth plus joint pose refinement is enough to stabilize geometry under small camera motion.
  • Any depth-supervised NeRF variant that currently matches mean depth can be re-expressed in this distribution-matching form, making DDR a drop-in replacement for its depth term.
  • Applications that consume NeRF geometry, such as editing, relighting, or extracting depth from dynamic scenes, gain reliability precisely in the low-motion regime where such geometry was previously unreliable.
  • The method remains competitive under large camera motion, so the small-motion fix does not sacrifice the conventional setting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the same loss should transfer to few-shot static NeRF, where sparse SfM point clouds are the bottleneck; a direct comparison against DS-NeRF's KL-divergence loss on static sparse-view benchmarks would test this.
  • Editorial extension: the paper evaluates geometry only through renderings and MiDaS targets, so a direct depth-error comparison against ground-truth depth maps would isolate whether DDR genuinely improves geometry or only appearance.
  • Editorial extension: the failure cases the paper lists—non-opaque objects, thin structures, and motion blur—coincide with unreliable MiDaS depth, suggesting a confidence-weighted version of the DDR loss as a testable remedy.
  • Editorial extension: the disocclusion failures with slowly moving foregrounds imply that a learned or generative prior for never-observed background is the next necessary component for near-static cameras.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper addresses novel view synthesis for dynamic scenes from monocular videos with small camera motion. It proposes Distribution-based Depth Regularization (DDR), which uses Gumbel-Softmax to convert the discrete rendering-weight distribution into a continuous mixture and penalizes sampled depth error against MiDaS depth, plus a density carving loss that zeroes density before the object boundary. Camera parameters are initialized by RCVD and refined jointly. The method is evaluated on the Nvidia Dynamic Scenes dataset under a three-camera small-motion protocol and on self-captured iPhone videos, with ablations for each component.

Significance. If the claims held, the method would be a practically useful contribution because small camera motion is common in casual capture. The paper includes a thorough comparison against seven baselines, ablations of each loss term, additional large-motion experiments, a novel weight-visualization tool, and self-captured real videos. The gains on the small-motion protocol are substantial (full-image PSNR 21.47 vs. 20.33 for DVS*). However, the main regularizer's theoretical justification and its supervision signal both need additional support before these results can be interpreted as evidence for accurate scene geometry.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV-B, Eqs. (16)-(17)] MiDaS outputs affine-invariant disparity rather than metric depth, and the paper does not describe any scale/shift alignment. The method treats D(r) as absolute depth in the L1 rendering-weight loss and as a hard boundary in the density loss. Since the NDC coordinates used for rendering are metric, a per-image affine transform between MiDaS disparity and true depth means that the target distribution is not the true distribution. The central claim that DDR 'ensures the rendering weight distribution to align with the true distribution' is therefore not established, and the density loss could carve away valid geometry or retain floaters if the boundary is misplaced. The authors should either align MiDaS output to metric depth (e.g., by fitting scale/shift on the training rays or dataset-wide) or re-cast the method as a relative-depth regularizer, and they should provide quantitative geometry evaluation against independent ground truth.
  2. [Sec. IV-B, Eq. (15)] The described procedure is not a sample from the mixture distribution. Equation (15) computes a weighted sum of one sample from each triangular sub-distribution using Gumbel-Softmax weights, which is a soft-selection average rather than a categorical draw followed by a continuous sample from the chosen sub-distribution. With the reported temperature epsilon = 2, the Gumbel-Softmax weights are far from one-hot, so \hat{T} is not a draw from P(t). The 'expectation of the error' formulation in Eq. (16) is therefore not an unbiased estimator of E_{t~P(t)}[d(D,t)] as written; it is a weighted average over all sub-distributions. The authors should either implement true Gumbel-Softmax sampling (one category sample plus a continuous sample from that component) or provide a corrected derivation of what the objective actually estimates.
  3. [Sec. IV-F and Sec. IV-B] The total objective is never specified. The paper defines Lrgb, Lweight, Ldensity, and Lgrad but never writes the combined loss L = Lrgb + lambda_w * Lweight + lambda_d * Ldensity + lambda_g * Lgrad, and no weighting coefficients are reported. This is a key reproducibility gap: the contribution of each regularizer cannot be assessed without these weights. The paper should report the full loss and all hyperparameters, including the parameterization of the camera residual variables Delta P and Delta f used in Eqs. (18)-(19).
  4. [Sec. V and Sec. VI-A] The evidence for the geometry claim is largely self-referential. The depth maps shown in Figs. 7, 9, and 11 are produced by a model supervised with MiDaS depth, so they are not independent evidence of 'accurate scene geometry.' No quantitative depth error against ground truth is provided, even though the Nvidia Dynamic Scenes dataset supports evaluating depth accuracy. Furthermore, the limitations admitted in Sec. VI-A (non-opaque objects, densely thin geometry, motion blur) are exactly the regimes where MiDaS relative depth is unreliable, so the failure modes are consistent with a supervision-signal problem. A quantitative depth metric is needed to support the paper's central geometry claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. I and Table I] The claim of being the 'first dynamic NeRF method that effectively handles monocular videos of dynamic scenes with small camera motion' should be qualified because RoDynRF also performs camera parameter joint learning and is evaluated under small motion; the paper's novelty is the geometry regularization, not the handling of camera motion per se.
  2. [Eq. (12)] Equation (12) is typographically ambiguous: the division by epsilon after both the numerator and denominator should be parenthesized so that the Gumbel-Softmax formula is unambiguous.
  3. [Fig. 6 and Sec. V-A] The protocol for simulating small camera motion is unclear: the text says three adjacent cameras are selected, while the figure suggests different views are used for the first, middle, and final thirds of the video. Please clarify whether the three views are fixed across time or change over time.
  4. [Table III and Sec. V-D] The sentence in Sec. V-D that 'weight loss has a slightly lower impact compared to gradient loss' is confusing because the full-image SSIM is lower for w/o Lgrad (0.582) than for w/o Lweight (0.633), while dynamic-region PSNR is lower for w/o Lweight. The comparison should be stated per metric.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the depth supervision is external (MiDaS) and the headline rendering metrics are evaluated on held-out views.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is not circular in the definitional sense. The regularizers in Eqs. 16 and 17 are supervised by MiDaS [12], a fixed external pretrained network, so the model's rendered depth is not used to define its own target; the two quantities are distinct (rendered sample depth \hat T vs. MiDaS output D). Likewise, the camera-parameter joint learning of Sec. IV-C starts from RCVD initial values and is evaluated on held-out Nvidia views, so pose optimization is not scored against its own inputs. The central empirical claim—higher PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS on held-out views (Table II) and ablations in Table III—is independent of the depth prior. The caveats in Sec. VI-A (artifacts on non-opaque objects, thin geometry, motion blur) and the absence of a ground-truth depth evaluation are real evidence limitations: the qualitative depth maps in Fig. 7 are regressed toward MiDaS, so they cannot independently prove 'accurate scene geometry,' and MiDaS's affine-invariant disparity may not be metric depth in NDC without an alignment step. But these points concern correctness and support of the geometry claim, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs. No self-citation chain is load-bearing; the cited external methods (MiDaS, RCVD, Gumbel-Softmax) are independent sources.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on standard NeRF machinery, a MiDaS depth prior, a hand-designed mixture approximation for the rendering weight distribution, and a dataset simulation that may not capture real continuous small camera motion. The only truly new piece is the Gumbel-Softmax expectation-of-error depth loss, which introduces its own approximation assumptions.

free parameters (5)
  • Gumbel-Softmax temperature epsilon = 2
    Set in Sec. IV-F; controls softness of the categorical sampling, directly controlling the shape of the computed expectation-of-error loss. No sensitivity analysis provided.
  • Number of samples per ray N_s = 30
    Set in Sec. IV-F; number of stochastic samples used to approximate the expectation in Eq. 16.
  • Number of spatial samples per ray = 128
    Set in Sec. IV-F; sampling resolution for volume rendering.
  • Total loss weighting coefficients (lambda_rgb, lambda_weight, lambda_density, lambda_grad) = not reported
    The loss terms are defined but the combined objective and weights are never stated; these weights materially affect the ablation results.
  • Learning rates = 5e-4 (NeRF), 1e-3 (camera)
    Set in Sec. IV-F; standard but still chosen hyperparameters.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The volume rendering integral and transmittance equations (Eqs. 2, 3, 6-8) correctly model image formation.
    Standard NeRF formulation from [1], accepted in the field.
  • domain assumption The scene can be decomposed into static and dynamic parts with scene flow and disocclusion weights (Eqs. 22-23).
    Adopted from NSFF/DVS; assumed to hold for the tested scenes. Standard in dynamic NeRF literature.
  • domain assumption MiDaS monocular depth provides a reliable proxy for the true depth distribution and object boundary along each ray.
    Used as the target in Eq. 16 and to define X_f(tau) in Eq. 17. The paper's limitations (Sec. VI-A) admit this fails for thin geometry, non-opaque objects, and motion blur.
  • domain assumption The continuous mixture of triangular sub-distributions P(t) = sum w_i p_i(t) approximates the true continuous rendering weight distribution.
    Assumed in Sec. IV-B; the triangle is a modeling choice, no formal approximation guarantee.
  • ad hoc to paper The weighted sum of samples from all sub-distributions in Eq. 15, with Gumbel-Softmax weights, behaves like a sample from the mixture P(t) for the purpose of the expectation-of-error loss.
    This is the paper's specific approximation; it is not equivalent to drawing a single sample from the mixture, and its statistical behavior under training is not analyzed.
  • domain assumption The 3-adjacent-camera sampling protocol on the Nvidia Dynamic Scenes Dataset faithfully represents the small-camera-motion setting.
    The protocol in Sec. V-A uses three fixed views with abrupt temporal switches; it may not reproduce continuous small camera motion, which is only tested qualitatively on unpublished iPhone videos.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic View Synthesis from Small Camera Motion Videos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7BEEMMSC

@misc{pith2026250623153,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic View Synthesis from Small Camera Motion Videos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7BEEMMSC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23153}
}
abstract

Novel view synthesis for dynamic $3$D scenes poses a significant challenge. Many notable efforts use NeRF-based approaches to address this task and yield impressive results. However, these methods rely heavily on sufficient motion parallax in the input images or videos. When the camera motion range becomes limited or even stationary (i.e., small camera motion), existing methods encounter two primary challenges: incorrect representation of scene geometry and inaccurate estimation of camera parameters. These challenges make prior methods struggle to produce satisfactory results or even become invalid. To address the first challenge, we propose a novel Distribution-based Depth Regularization (DDR) that ensures the rendering weight distribution to align with the true distribution. Specifically, unlike previous methods that use depth loss to calculate the error of the expectation, we calculate the expectation of the error by using Gumbel-softmax to differentiably sample points from discrete rendering weight distribution. Additionally, we introduce constraints that enforce the volume density of spatial points before the object boundary along the ray to be near zero, ensuring that our model learns the correct geometry of the scene. To demystify the DDR, we further propose a visualization tool that enables observing the scene geometry representation at the rendering weight level. For the second challenge, we incorporate camera parameter learning during training to enhance the robustness of our model to camera parameters. We conduct extensive experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in representing scenes with small camera motion input, and our results compare favorably to state-of-the-art methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23153 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Small camera motion refers to the subtle and minimal movements of the camera during recording, in contrast to employing camera arrays or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) We visualize the ideal distribution of accumulated transmittance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Sampling in rendering weight loss. We describe a three-step process for obtaining sampling points from a discrete rendering weight distribution. In the first step, the discrete rendering weights are normalized using the Gumbel￾softmax operation to obtain new weights wˆi. In the second step, we sample sub-points from each standard sub-distribution at discrete positions tˆi, where the probability of sampling a “higher… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Gradient loss ablation. After applying gradient loss, the noise in the depth map is significantly reduced, resulting in smoother depth maps and fewer artifacts in the rendered novel view images. The gradient loss ensures that the predicted depth gradient along two rays…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Training data acquisition method. In the Nvidia Dynamic Scenes Dataset, each scene is captured by a camera matrix composed of 12 cameras (i.e., from camera a to camera l). In previous works such as NSFF, all 12 camera views were used sequentially in each frame to simul…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative comparisons against all baselines on the Nvidia Dynamic Scenes Dataset. Compared to alternative methods, our method generates novel view images that are more faithful to the ground truth images, with fewer artifacts in both static and dynamic regions. Addit…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative comparisons against all baselines on the small camera motion videos. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visual examples of the ablation study. We present the results of our method with different configurations to analyze the contribution of each component. One can observe that the full method achieves the best performance, while the exclusion of any of its components ine…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of rendering weight results. We compare our method with NSFF using small camera motion videos that we collect. One can find that our method can obtain a more accurate scene structure representation. TABLE V QUANTITATIVE COMPARISONS AGAINST OTHER DEPTH CONST…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Qualitative comparison with depth regularization in DS-NeRF. We compare our method with DS-NeRF depth regularization on real small camera motion videos. Colmap usually can not generate accurate point clouds from small camera motion inputs. Under this situation, the de…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,

    B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, M. Tancik, J. T. Barron, R. Ramamoorthi, and R. Ng, “Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,” in Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2020, pp. 405–421

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Non-rigid neural radiance fields: Reconstruction and novel view synthesis of a dynamic scene from monocular video,

    E. Tretschk, A. Tewari, V . Golyanik, M. Zollh ¨ofer, C. Lassner, and C. Theobalt, “Non-rigid neural radiance fields: Reconstruction and novel view synthesis of a dynamic scene from monocular video,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2021, pp. 12 959–12 970

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Hypernerf: A higher-dimensional representation for topologically varying neural radiance fields,

    K. Park, U. Sinha, P. Hedman, J. T. Barron, S. Bouaziz, D. B. Goldman, R. Martin-Brualla, and S. M. Seitz, “Hypernerf: A higher-dimensional representation for topologically varying neural radiance fields,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1–12, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Dynamic view synthesis from dynamic monocular video,

    C. Gao, A. Saraf, J. Kopf, and J.-B. Huang, “Dynamic view synthesis from dynamic monocular video,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , 2021, pp. 5712– 5721

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Neural scene flow fields for space-time view synthesis of dynamic scenes,

    Z. Li, S. Niklaus, N. Snavely, and O. Wang, “Neural scene flow fields for space-time view synthesis of dynamic scenes,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2021, pp. 6498–6508

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Dynibar: Neural dynamic image-based rendering,

    Z. Li, Q. Wang, F. Cole, R. Tucker, and N. Snavely, “Dynibar: Neural dynamic image-based rendering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2023, pp. 4273–4284

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Nerfplayer: A streamable dynamic scene representation with decomposed neural radiance fields,

    L. Song, A. Chen, Z. Li, Z. Chen, L. Chen, J. Yuan, Y . Xu, and A. Geiger, “Nerfplayer: A streamable dynamic scene representation with decomposed neural radiance fields,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (TVCG) , vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 2732–2742, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    V4d: V oxel for 4d novel view synthesis,

    W. Gan, H. Xu, Y . Huang, S. Chen, and N. Yokoya, “V4d: V oxel for 4d novel view synthesis,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (TVCG) , pp. 1–14, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Hexplane: A fast representation for dynamic scenes,

    A. Cao and J. Johnson, “Hexplane: A fast representation for dynamic scenes,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2023, pp. 130–141

    2023

  2. [10]

    HyperReel: High-fidelity 6-DoF video with ray- conditioned sampling,

    B. Attal, J.-B. Huang, C. Richardt, M. Zollhoefer, J. Kopf, M. O’Toole, and C. Kim, “HyperReel: High-fidelity 6-DoF video with ray- conditioned sampling,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2023, pp. 16 610– 16 620

    2023

  3. [11]

    Structure-from-motion revisited,

    J. L. Sch ¨onberger and J.-M. Frahm, “Structure-from-motion revisited,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2016, pp. 4104–4113

    2016

  4. [12]

    Towards robust monocular depth estimation: Mixing datasets for zero-shot cross- dataset transfer,

    R. Ranftl, K. Lasinger, D. Hafner, K. Schindler, and V . Koltun, “Towards robust monocular depth estimation: Mixing datasets for zero-shot cross- dataset transfer,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (TPAMI), vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 1623–1637, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Robust consistent video depth estimation,

    J. Kopf, X. Rong, and J.-B. Huang, “Robust consistent video depth estimation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2021, pp. 1611–1621

    2021

  6. [14]

    Deepstereo: Learning to predict new views from the world’s imagery,

    J. Flynn, I. Neulander, J. Philbin, and N. Snavely, “Deepstereo: Learning to predict new views from the world’s imagery,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Learning-based view synthesis for light field cameras,

    N. K. Kalantari, T.-C. Wang, and R. Ramamoorthi, “Learning-based view synthesis for light field cameras,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), pp. 1–10, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    Learning representations and generative models for 3D point clouds,

    P. Achlioptas, O. Diamanti, I. Mitliagkas, and L. Guibas, “Learning representations and generative models for 3D point clouds,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. , 2018, pp. 40–49

    2018

  9. [17]

    3d-r2n2: A unified approach for single and multi-view 3d object reconstruction,

    C. B. Choy, D. Xu, J. Gwak, K. Chen, and S. Savarese, “3d-r2n2: A unified approach for single and multi-view 3d object reconstruction,” in Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Pixel2mesh: Generating 3d mesh models from single rgb images,

    N. Wang, Y . Zhang, Z. Li, Y . Fu, W. Liu, and Y .-G. Jiang, “Pixel2mesh: Generating 3d mesh models from single rgb images,” in Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    The lumigraph,

    S. J. Gortler, R. Grzeszczuk, R. Szeliski, and M. F. Cohen, “The lumigraph,” in Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques , 1996, pp. 43–54

    1996

  12. [20]

    Light field reconstruction using sparsity in the continuous fourier domain,

    L. Shi, H. Hassanieh, A. Davis, D. Katabi, and F. Durand, “Light field reconstruction using sparsity in the continuous fourier domain,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , pp. 1–13, 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    Local light field fusion: Practical view synthesis with prescriptive sampling guidelines,

    B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, R. Ortiz-Cayon, N. K. Kalantari, R. Ra- mamoorthi, R. Ng, and A. Kar, “Local light field fusion: Practical view synthesis with prescriptive sampling guidelines,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Pushing the boundaries of view extrapolation with multiplane images,

    P. P. Srinivasan, R. Tucker, J. T. Barron, R. Ramamoorthi, R. Ng, and N. Snavely, “Pushing the boundaries of view extrapolation with multiplane images,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Neural volumes: Learning dynamic renderable volumes from images,

    S. Lombardi, T. Simon, J. Saragih, G. Schwartz, A. Lehrmann, and Y . Sheikh, “Neural volumes: Learning dynamic renderable volumes from images,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , pp. 65:1–65:14, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    NeRF in the Wild: Neural Radiance Fields for Unconstrained Photo Collections,

    R. Martin-Brualla, N. Radwan, M. S. M. Sajjadi, J. T. Barron, A. Doso- vitskiy, and D. Duckworth, “NeRF in the Wild: Neural Radiance Fields for Unconstrained Photo Collections,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2021,...

    2021

  17. [25]

    Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti- aliasing neural radiance fields,

    J. T. Barron, B. Mildenhall, M. Tancik, P. Hedman, R. Martin-Brualla, and P. P. Srinivasan, “Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti- aliasing neural radiance fields,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , 2021, pp. 5855–5864

    2021

  18. [26]

    Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields,

    J. T. Barron, B. Mildenhall, D. Verbin, P. P. Srinivasan, and P. Hedman, “Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields,” in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2022, pp. 5470–5479

    2022

  19. [27]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding,

    T. M ¨uller, A. Evans, C. Schied, and A. Keller, “Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), vol. 41, pp. 102:1–102:15, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Tensorf: Tensorial radiance fields,

    A. Chen, Z. Xu, A. Geiger, J. Yu, and H. Su, “Tensorf: Tensorial radiance fields,” in Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2022, pp. 333–350

    2022

  21. [29]

    Plenoxels: Radiance fields without neural networks,

    Sara Fridovich-Keil and Alex Yu, M. Tancik, Q. Chen, B. Recht, and A. Kanazawa, “Plenoxels: Radiance fields without neural networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2022, pp. 5501–5510

    2022

  22. [30]

    Mobilenerf: Exploiting the polygon rasterization pipeline for efficient neural field rendering on mobile architectures,

    Z. Chen, T. Funkhouser, P. Hedman, and A. Tagliasacchi, “Mobilenerf: Exploiting the polygon rasterization pipeline for efficient neural field rendering on mobile architectures,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2023,...

    2023

  23. [31]

    Nan: Noise-aware nerfs for burst- denoising,

    N. Pearl, T. Treibitz, and S. Korman, “Nan: Noise-aware nerfs for burst- denoising,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2022, pp. 12 672–12 681

    2022

  24. [32]

    Deblur-nerf: Neural radiance fields from blurry images,

    L. Ma, X. Li, J. Liao, Q. Zhang, X. Wang, J. Wang, and P. V . Sander, “Deblur-nerf: Neural radiance fields from blurry images,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2022, pp. 12 861–12 870

    2022

  25. [33]

    Bad-nerf: Bundle adjusted deblur neural radiance fields,

    P. Wang, L. Zhao, R. Ma, and P. Liu, “Bad-nerf: Bundle adjusted deblur neural radiance fields,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2023, pp. 4170– 4179

    2023

  26. [35]

    Barf: Bundle-adjusting neural radiance fields,

    C.-H. Lin, W.-C. Ma, A. Torralba, and S. Lucey, “Barf: Bundle-adjusting neural radiance fields,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , 2021

    2021

  27. [36]

    Nope-nerf: Optimising neural radiance field with no pose prior,

    W. Bian, Z. Wang, K. Li, J. Bian, and V . A. Prisacariu, “Nope-nerf: Optimising neural radiance field with no pose prior,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023, pp. 4160–4169

    2023

  28. [37]

    Nerf-art: Text-driven neural radiance fields stylization,

    C. Wang, R. Jiang, M. Chai, M. He, D. Chen, and J. Liao, “Nerf-art: Text-driven neural radiance fields stylization,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (TVCG) , pp. 1–15, 2023. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 13

    2023

  29. [38]

    Fov-nerf: Foveated neural radiance fields for virtual reality,

    N. Deng, Z. He, J. Ye, B. Duinkharjav, P. Chakravarthula, X. Yang, and Q. Sun, “Fov-nerf: Foveated neural radiance fields for virtual reality,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (TVCG) , pp. 1–11, 2022

    2022

  30. [39]

    Regnerf: Regularizing neural radiance fields for view synthesis from sparse inputs,

    M. Niemeyer, J. T. Barron, B. Mildenhall, M. S. M. Sajjadi, A. Geiger, and N. Radwan, “Regnerf: Regularizing neural radiance fields for view synthesis from sparse inputs,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2022, pp. 5480–5490

    2022

  31. [40]

    Freenerf: Improving few-shot neural rendering with free frequency regularization,

    J. Yang, M. Pavone, and Y . Wang, “Freenerf: Improving few-shot neural rendering with free frequency regularization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023, pp. 8254–8263

    2023

  32. [41]

    pixelNeRF: Neural radiance fields from one or few images,

    A. Yu, V . Ye, M. Tancik, and A. Kanazawa, “pixelNeRF: Neural radiance fields from one or few images,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2021, pp. 4578–4587

    2021

  33. [42]

    Sinnerf: Training neural radiance fields on complex scenes from a single image,

    D. Xu, Y . Jiang, P. Wang, Z. Fan, H. Shi, and Z. Wang, “Sinnerf: Training neural radiance fields on complex scenes from a single image,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.00928 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Fusion4d: Real-time performance capture of challenging scenes,

    M. Dou, S. Khamis, Y . Degtyarev, P. Davidson, S. R. Fanello, A. Kow- dle, S. O. Escolano, C. Rhemann, D. Kim, J. Taylor et al. , “Fusion4d: Real-time performance capture of challenging scenes,” ACM Transac- tions on Graphics (TOG) , pp. 1–13, 2016

    2016

  35. [44]

    Dynamicfusion: Reconstruc- tion and tracking of non-rigid scenes in real-time,

    R. A. Newcombe, D. Fox, and S. M. Seitz, “Dynamicfusion: Reconstruc- tion and tracking of non-rigid scenes in real-time,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2015

    2015

  36. [45]

    4d visualization of dynamic events from unconstrained multi-view videos,

    A. Bansal, M. V o, Y . Sheikh, D. Ramanan, and S. Narasimhan, “4d visualization of dynamic events from unconstrained multi-view videos,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2020

    2020

  37. [46]

    X-fields: Implicit neural view-, light-and time-image interpolation,

    M. Bemana, K. Myszkowski, H.-P. Seidel, and T. Ritschel, “X-fields: Implicit neural view-, light-and time-image interpolation,” ACM Trans- actions on Graphics (TOG) , pp. 1–15, 2020

    2020

  38. [47]

    Consistent video depth estimation,

    X. Luo, J. Huang, R. Szeliski, K. Matzen, and J. Kopf, “Consistent video depth estimation,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , 2020

    2020

  39. [48]

    Space-time neural irradi- ance fields for free-viewpoint video,

    W. Xian, J.-B. Huang, J. Kopf, and C. Kim, “Space-time neural irradi- ance fields for free-viewpoint video,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2021, pp. 9421–9431

    2021

  40. [49]

    Nerfies: Deformable neural radiance fields,

    K. Park, U. Sinha, J. T. Barron, S. Bouaziz, D. B. Goldman, S. M. Seitz, and R. Martin-Brualla, “Nerfies: Deformable neural radiance fields,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2021, pp. 5865–5874

    2021

  41. [50]

    Neural body: Implicit neural representations with structured latent codes for novel view synthesis of dynamic humans,

    S. Peng, Y . Zhang, Y . Xu, Q. Wang, Q. Shuai, H. Bao, and X. Zhou, “Neural body: Implicit neural representations with structured latent codes for novel view synthesis of dynamic humans,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVP...

    2021

  42. [51]

    D- nerf: Neural radiance fields for dynamic scenes,

    A. Pumarola, E. Corona, G. Pons-Moll, and F. Moreno-Noguer, “D- nerf: Neural radiance fields for dynamic scenes,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2021, pp. 10 318–10 327

    2021

  43. [52]

    HumanNeRF: Free-viewpoint rendering of moving people from monocular video,

    C.-Y . Weng, B. Curless, P. P. Srinivasan, J. T. Barron, and I. Kemelmacher-Shlizerman, “HumanNeRF: Free-viewpoint rendering of moving people from monocular video,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022, pp. 16 210–16 220

    2022

  44. [53]

    Flow supervision for deformable nerf,

    C. Wang, L. E. MacDonald, L. A. Jeni, and S. Lucey, “Flow supervision for deformable nerf,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2023, pp. 21 128– 21 137

    2023

  45. [54]

    Robust dynamic radiance fields,

    Y .-L. Liu, C. Gao, A. Meuleman, H.-Y . Tseng, A. Saraf, C. Kim, Y .-Y . Chuang, J. Kopf, and J.-B. Huang, “Robust dynamic radiance fields,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2023, pp. 13–23

    2023

  46. [55]

    Editable free-viewpoint video using a layered neural representation,

    J. Zhang, X. Liu, X. Ye, F. Zhao, Y . Zhang, M. Wu, Y . Zhang, L. Xu, and J. Yu, “Editable free-viewpoint video using a layered neural representation,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 1–18, 2021

    2021

  47. [56]

    Neural 3d video synthesis from multi-view video,

    T. Li, M. Slavcheva, M. Zollh ¨ofer, S. Green, C. Lassner, C. Kim, T. Schmidt, S. Lovegrove, M. Goesele, R. Newcombe, and Z. Lv, “Neural 3d video synthesis from multi-view video,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022...

    2022

  48. [57]

    T ¨orf: Time-of-flight radiance fields for dynamic scene view synthesis,

    B. Attal, E. Laidlaw, A. Gokaslan, C. Kim, C. Richardt, J. Tompkin, and M. O’Toole, “T ¨orf: Time-of-flight radiance fields for dynamic scene view synthesis,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 34, pp. 26 289–26 301, 2021

    2021

  49. [58]

    Fast dynamic radiance fields with time-aware neural voxels,

    J. Fang, T. Yi, X. Wang, L. Xie, X. Zhang, W. Liu, M. Nießner, and Q. Tian, “Fast dynamic radiance fields with time-aware neural voxels,” in SIGGRAPH Asia 2022 , 2022, pp. 1–9

    2022

  50. [59]

    Depth-supervised nerf: Fewer views and faster training for free,

    K. Deng, A. Liu, J.-Y . Zhu, and D. Ramanan, “Depth-supervised nerf: Fewer views and faster training for free,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022, pp. 12 882–12 891

    2022

  51. [60]

    Urban radiance fields,

    K. Rematas, A. Liu, P. P. Srinivasan, J. T. Barron, A. Tagliasacchi, T. Funkhouser, and V . Ferrari, “Urban radiance fields,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022, pp. 12 932–12 942

    2022

  52. [61]

    Ddnerf: Depth distribution neural radiance fields,

    D. Dadon, O. Fried, and Y . Hel-Or, “Ddnerf: Depth distribution neural radiance fields,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) , 2023, pp. 755–763

    2023

  53. [62]

    Ray tracing volume densities,

    J. T. Kajiya and B. P. V on Herzen, “Ray tracing volume densities,” ACM SIGGRAPH computer graphics , pp. 165–174, 1984

    1984

  54. [63]

    A* sampling,

    C. J. Maddison, D. Tarlow, and T. Minka, “A* sampling,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , vol. 27, 2014

    2014

  55. [64]

    Categorical reparameterization with gumbel-softmax,

    E. Jang, S. Gu, and B. Poole, “Categorical reparameterization with gumbel-softmax,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.01144 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Nerf– : Neural radiance fields without known camera parameters,

    Z. Wang, S. Wu, W. Xie, M. Chen, and V . A. Prisacariu, “Nerf– : Neural radiance fields without known camera parameters,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.07064, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Novel view synthesis of dynamic scenes with globally coherent depths from a monocular camera,

    J. S. Yoon, K. Kim, O. Gallo, H. S. Park, and J. Kautz, “Novel view synthesis of dynamic scenes with globally coherent depths from a monocular camera,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2020, pp. 5336– 5345

    2020

  59. [68]

    Mask r-cnn,

    K. He, G. Gkioxari, P. Doll ´ar, and R. Girshick, “Mask r-cnn,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2017, pp. 2961–2969

    2017

  60. [69]

    Ibrnet: Learning multi-view image-based rendering,

    Q. Wang, Z. Wang, K. Genova, P. P. Srinivasan, H. Zhou, J. T. Barron, R. Martin-Brualla, N. Snavely, and T. Funkhouser, “Ibrnet: Learning multi-view image-based rendering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2021, pp. ...

    2021

Pith tools

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