Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 40 references

AdaptiveAE: An Adaptive Exposure Strategy for HDR Capturing in Dynamic Scenes

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read AdaptiveAE claims that a reinforcement-learning agent selecting ISO and shutter speed jointly captures higher-quality HDR images in dynamic scenes than fixed or shutter-only exposure rules.

desk verdict A genuinely new joint ISO/shutter RL agent with a well-built simulator, but the SOTA numbers are only verified inside that simulator, not on real camera data. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.13503 v1 pith:2JE6PCVH submitted 2025-08-19 cs.CV eess.IV

Tianyi Xu , Fan Zhang , Boxin Shi , Tianfan Xue , Yujin Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVeess.IV
keywords adaptiveexposureHDRimagingreinforcementlearningmotionblursynthesiscameranoisemodelISOandshutterspeeddynamicscenesbracketing
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

AdaptiveAE tries to establish that exposure bracketing for HDR should be treated as a sequential decision problem solved by reinforcement learning, rather than as a fixed or histogram-driven rule. The agent chooses each LDR's shutter speed and ISO together, balancing the noise a high ISO adds against the motion blur a long shutter speed causes, and it does so before the LDRs are fused. The paper argues that this capture-time optimization produces higher fused-HDR quality than prior exposure-setting methods, which either fix ISO, ignore motion, or tune only shutter speed. The reported evidence is a PSNR-µ of 39.70 on the HDRV test set versus 37.59 for Hasinoff et al. and 36.46 for Wang et al., with the advantage holding on DeepHDRVideo and across three different fusion networks.

What carries the argument

The machinery is an actor-critic reinforcement-learning agent (A3C) that casts exposure bracketing as a Markov decision process: the state is the current set of LDR images, and the action is a discrete ISO and shutter-speed pair from a fixed camera-parameter grid. The load-bearing component that makes it trainable is the blur-aware synthesis pipeline: motion blur is generated by interpolating consecutive HDR frames with RIFE and integrating the chosen shutter speed (Equation 2), and noise is added with the three-source camera noise model of Hasinoff et al. (Equation 3). This pipeline converts any proposed ISO/shutter-speed pair into a realistic LDR, enabling the policy to learn from the reward computed on DeepHDR-fused outputs.

What would settle it

A concrete disconfirmation would be a real-camera experiment on dynamic scenes in which AdaptiveAE's chosen ISO and shutter-speed brackets, fused by the same network, fail to beat a fixed ±2 EV bracket with ISO set to a noise-optimal value, even though the simulated training pipeline predicts a clear advantage; that mismatch would show the synthetic blur-and-noise pipeline is not faithful enough to support the transfer claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a policy trained with asynchronous advantage actor-critic (A3C) can learn shutter-speed-and-ISO choices that optimize the final fused HDR image instead of a proxy such as SNR or histogram coverage. The agent operates in three refinement stages: it first re-anchors the mid-exposed frame to a new EV zero, then adjusts the underexposed frame, then the overexposed one, each choice conditioned on the previously synthesized LDRs. The reward is a negative sum of a reconstruction loss, a saliency-masked loss, a motion-masked ghost loss, and a penalty for brackets longer than three frames. The paper further claims that its blur-aware synthesis—motion blur from RIFE interpolation between consecutive HDR frames plus photon/readout/ADC noise from the Hasinoff model—is what lets the policy transfer to real dynamic scenes. The reported result is state-of-the-art fused HDR quality on Real-HDRV and DeepHDRVideo, with increasing robustness over baselines as scene motion grows.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the synthesized LDRs—motion blur from RIFE interpolation plus the Hasinoff noise model—match what a real sensor would capture closely enough that a policy trained only on simulated images still picks the right exposure settings on a real camera.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the policy is correct, exposure bracketing becomes scene-adaptive: the agent will assign faster shutter speeds to the reference frame when it detects motion, and rely on higher ISO for dark scenes, rather than using a fixed EV bracket.
  • Because capture-time choices are optimized, downstream fusion networks yield better results without any post-hoc deblurring or deghosting; the gap over prior exposure methods widens when a stronger fusion network is used.
  • The same trained policy transfers across datasets without retraining, as demonstrated by testing on DeepHDRVideo after training on Real-HDRV.
  • The reward design, with saliency and motion masks, implies that exposure choices can be steered toward the regions viewers care about most, such as faces and moving subjects.
  • The framework naturally extends to more than three frames when a scene demands them, with the step penalty keeping the bracket within the user's time budget.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If simulation-to-real transfer holds, a testable extension is to train the policy on a camera's own preview buffer (zero shutter lag) so it adapts to that specific sensor's noise and readout characteristics, potentially improving real-capture quality beyond the paper's fixed-noise-model experiment.
  • The same MDP formulation could be extended to optimize aperture as a third parameter, which the paper lists as future work; such an extension would let the policy trade depth of field against noise and blur.
  • One implicit consequence is that the optimal exposure policy depends on the fusion network; if the fusion network is retrained, the exposure policy might need recalibration, and jointly training both could yield further gains beyond the paper's frozen-fusion setup.
  • The motion-mask loss hints that exposure decisions could be conditioned on semantic scene understanding rather than saliency alone—for example, prioritizing text or faces—which could improve perceived quality in specific applications like document scanning or portrait photography.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes AdaptiveAE, a reinforcement-learning method that sequentially selects ISO and shutter speed for multi-exposure HDR capture in dynamic scenes. A synthesis pipeline is introduced to generate training LDRs with motion blur (via RIFE interpolation of consecutive HDR frames) and sensor noise (following the model of Hasinoff et al.), and an A3C actor-critic agent is trained with a reward combining reconstruction error, saliency-weighted priority loss, motion-mask ghost loss, and a step penalty. The agent refines exposure parameters in three stages and can also produce more than three frames. Experiments are reported on the Real-HDRV and DeepHDRVideo datasets using DeepHDR for fusion, with PSNR-\mu, SSIM-\mu, PU-PSNR, PU-SSIM, and HDR-VDP-2; the paper reports state-of-the-art numbers (e.g., PSNR-\mu 39.70 on HDRV versus 37.59 for Hasinoff et al.) and also shows a qualitative real-camera demo on a SONY Alpha 7C-II.

Significance. If the reported gains transfer to real cameras, the contribution is significant: it jointly optimizes shutter speed and ISO during exposure bracketing, explicitly models motion blur and noise during capture, and formulates exposure selection as an MDP solvable with RL. The reward design is thoughtful, the synthesis pipeline is a reasonable training device, and the real-camera demonstration, though qualitative, indicates that the learned policy can produce plausible exposure decisions. The paper also ships a substantial set of ablations and a cross-fusion-method study. However, the central quantitative claim of state-of-the-art performance currently rests entirely on a simulator that is also the training distribution, so the significance outside the simulation loop is not yet established.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.1, Table 1 and §3.1/Eq. (A4)] The headline quantitative results are obtained by synthesizing test LDRs with the same function S (Eq. A4) that generated the training data. Motion blur uses the same RIFE-based interpolation (Eq. 2) and noise uses the model of Eq. (3) with constants U, sigma_read, and sigma_ADC borrowed from Hasinoff et al. [6] without calibration to the SONY Alpha 7C-II used in the real-capture demo. Consequently, the reported PSNR-mu advantage (39.70 vs. 37.59 on HDRV) measures performance on the training distribution, not on independently captured real data. The only real-camera evidence is qualitative (Fig. 6). To support the state-of-the-art claim, the authors should provide quantitative evaluation on real captured bracketed sequences whose HDR ground truth is measured or independently generated, or alternatively calibrate the noise model to the target camera and show that the ranking of methods is stable across a range of simulator parameters (e.g., varying U and noise variances). Without such evidence, the central claim is not yet verified outside the simulation loop.
  2. [§4.1, Cross datasets test] The evaluation on DeepHDRVideo uses synthesized HDR ground truth for frames other than the middle frame, generated by DeepHDR [33]. Since DeepHDR is also the fusion method used both in the reward during training and in the main evaluation, this creates a circular dependency: the test metric may favor exposure settings that are well matched to DeepHDR's particular error patterns, and the 'ground truth' HDR for non-middle frames is itself a DeepHDR reconstruction. Please clarify exactly how the test LDRs and reference HDRs are generated for DeepHDRVideo, and either evaluate only on frames with native ground-truth HDR or synthesize the missing reference frames with a different method. This is required to interpret the cross-dataset generalization claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Supplementary Table A2] In Table A2, the Ours row reports SSIM-mu = 0.9208, while Table 1 reports SSIM-mu = 0.9408 for the same PSNR-mu = 39.70 and identical PU-PSNR/PU-SSIM values. This is likely a typographical error, but it should be corrected for consistency.
  2. [Table 1 and Figure 4 captions] The captions refer to 'DeepHDR [7]', but reference [7] is RIFE; DeepHDR is reference [33]. The same incorrect citation appears in Figure 4 and in the Section 3.4 text mentioning the 'adopted fusion method [7]'. Please update these citations to [33].
  3. [Introduction, repeated paragraph] The paragraph beginning 'Current datasets [3, 8, 9, 13, 26] are inadequate...' appears twice, verbatim, in the introduction. One copy should be removed.
  4. [Section 4.1, Inference time] The sentence 'With average exposure time n (≤ 30ms) and prediction time m (≤ 10ms), the total execution time is 6n + 3m (≤ 250ms)' uses symbols n and m that are not defined in the main text; the formula also seems inconsistent with the preceding description of 'six LDR captures'. Please clarify the counting and the symbols.
  5. [Section 3.1, Eq. (2)] The definition of m_j as a floor of a ratio is clear, but the formula for the blurred HDR b^L_j would benefit from a brief explanation of the averaging over the interpolated frames, especially the case m_j = 0. A short sentence would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: predictions are evaluated on held-out HDR scenes through a fixed synthesis pipeline; simulation-to-real fidelity is a validation risk, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that an RL policy selects ISO/shutter-speed sequences that improve fused HDR quality. The derivation chain is: (i) HDR ground-truth video frames are taken from public datasets; (ii) an explicit synthesis function S (Eq. A4) converts those frames and candidate camera settings into LDR images using RIFE interpolation for blur and a Hasinoff-style noise model; (iii) the policy is trained by A3C to maximize a reward computed from DeepHDR fusion quality; and (iv) Table 1 reports metrics on held-out test scenes from the same datasets. The test LDRs are indeed produced by the same synthesis pipeline used in training, but this is not a circular reduction: the predicted ISO and shutter speed are not inputs to the definition of the target metric, and the test HDR scenes are disjoint from training. The baselines are evaluated through the same synthesis pipeline, so the relative comparison is internally consistent. The real weakness is external validity: if the simulation of motion blur and noise is not faithful to the SONY Alpha 7C-II, the quantitative SOTA numbers may not transfer to real captures, and the only real-camera evidence is qualitative. That is a correctness and generalization concern, not a case where a prediction reduces by construction to its inputs. No load-bearing self-citation appears: RIFE and HDRFlow are externally published, code-reproduced tools used for synthesis or evaluation protocols, not invoked as an unverified uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The paper does not define its output in terms of its input, fit a parameter and then rename it as a prediction, or conceal a fitted quantity inside the evaluation. Consequently, no circular step is exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

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

No new physical quantities or entities are introduced; all elements are camera settings, losses, and existing network components.

free parameters (3)
  • K (motion threshold) = 0.2
    Threshold on normalized optical flow magnitude for the ghost mask in Sec 3.4, chosen empirically; affects the reward and the learned policy.
  • alpha (step penalty coefficient) = not stated
    Coefficient of the (j-H)^2 penalty in Eq. 7; chosen by hand but its value is not reported, so the balance between quality and bracket length is unspecified.
  • mu (tonemapping constant) = 5000
    Mu-law tone mapping parameter used in blur synthesis and PSNR-mu/SSIM-mu evaluation; standard in HDR literature but still a choice that affects reported numbers.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Aperture and focus are held constant, so exposure is controlled by shutter speed and ISO alone.
    Stated in Sec 3.1; this restricts the action space and is standard in prior exposure bracketing work.
  • domain assumption The Hasinoff noise model with constants U, sigma_read, sigma_ADC from [6] accurately describes the target cameras, including the SONY Alpha 7C-II.
    Used in Eqs. 3 and A2 to synthesize training and test LDRs; no calibration is reported.
  • domain assumption RIFE frame interpolation between consecutive HDR frames produces realistic temporal samples for motion blur synthesis.
    Eq. 2 builds the blurred HDR from 256 interpolated frames; if the interpolation is unphysical, the simulated blur does not match real motion blur.
  • domain assumption The L2 losses between DeepHDR fusion and HDR ground truth are valid proxies for HDR quality.
    The reward in Eq. 6 is a sum of L2 terms; this assumes pixel-wise fidelity tracks perceptual quality.
  • domain assumption SalGAN saliency and RAFT optical flow provide reliable importance and motion masks.
    Used to weight Ppriority and Pghost in Sec 3.4; errors in these pretrained models would bias the reward.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AdaptiveAE: An Adaptive Exposure Strategy for HDR Capturing in Dynamic Scenes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2JE6PCVH

@misc{pith2026250813503,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AdaptiveAE: An Adaptive Exposure Strategy for HDR Capturing in Dynamic Scenes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2JE6PCVH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.13503}
}
read the original abstract

Mainstream high dynamic range imaging techniques typically rely on fusing multiple images captured with different exposure setups (shutter speed and ISO). A good balance between shutter speed and ISO is crucial for achieving high-quality HDR, as high ISO values introduce significant noise, while long shutter speeds can lead to noticeable motion blur. However, existing methods often overlook the complex interaction between shutter speed and ISO and fail to account for motion blur effects in dynamic scenes. In this work, we propose AdaptiveAE, a reinforcement learning-based method that optimizes the selection of shutter speed and ISO combinations to maximize HDR reconstruction quality in dynamic environments. AdaptiveAE integrates an image synthesis pipeline that incorporates motion blur and noise simulation into our training procedure, leveraging semantic information and exposure histograms. It can adaptively select optimal ISO and shutter speed sequences based on a user-defined exposure time budget, and find a better exposure schedule than traditional solutions. Experimental results across multiple datasets demonstrate that it achieves the state-of-the-art performance.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [6]

    Noise-optimal capture for high dynamic range photography

    Samuel W Hasinoff, Fr ´edo Durand, and William T Freeman. Noise-optimal capture for high dynamic range photography. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 553–560, 2010. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8

    work page 2010

  2. [33]

    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 European Conference on Com- puter Vision (ECCV), 2018. 6, 7

    work page 2018

  3. [1]

    PU21: A novel perceptually uniform en- coding for adapting existing quality metrics for HDR

    Maryam Azimi, Vedad Hulusic, Philippe Hanhart, and Touradj Ebrahimi. PU21: A novel perceptually uniform en- coding for adapting existing quality metrics for HDR. In Proceedings of the Picture Coding Symposium (PCS), pages 1–5, 2021. 6

    work page 2021

  4. [2]

    Nicholas Hone, and Thomas E

    Neil Barakat, A. Nicholas Hone, and Thomas E. Darcie. Minimal-bracketing sets for high-dynamic-range image cap- ture. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 17(10):1864– 1875, 2008. 6, 1

    work page 2008

  5. [3]

    Wong, and Lei Zhang

    Guanying Chen, Chaofeng Chen, Shi Guo, Zhetong Liang, Kwan-Yee K. Wong, and Lei Zhang. HDR video reconstruc- tion: A coarse-to-fine network and a real-world benchmark dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 2502–2511, 2021. 2, 6, 7, 1

    work page 2021

  6. [4]

    Automated exposures selection for high dynamic range structured-light 3-D scanning

    Wenyuan Chen, Xingjian Liu, Changhai Ru, and Yu Sun. Automated exposures selection for high dynamic range structured-light 3-D scanning. IEEE Transactions on Indus- trial Electronics, 70(7):7428–7437, 2023. 3

    work page 2023

  7. [5]

    Multi-exposure imaging on mobile devices

    Natasha Gelfand, Andrew Adams, Sung Hee Park, and Kari Pulli. Multi-exposure imaging on mobile devices. In Pro- ceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Mul- timedia, pages 823–826, 2010. 3

    work page 2010

  8. [7]

    Real-time intermediate flow estimation for video frame interpolation

    Zhewei Huang, Tianyuan Zhang, Wen Heng, Boxin Shi, and Shuchang Zhou. Real-time intermediate flow estimation for video frame interpolation. In Proceedings of European Con- ference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2022. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1, 3

    work page 2022

Show all 40 references
  1. [8]

    Deep high dynamic range imaging of dynamic scenes

    Nima Khademi Kalantari and Ravi Ramamoorthi. Deep high dynamic range imaging of dynamic scenes. ACM Transac- tions on Graphics (TOG), 36(4):144:1–144:12, 2017. 2

    2017

  2. [9]

    Goldman, and Pradeep Sen

    Nima Khademi Kalantari, Eli Shechtman, Connelly Barnes, Soheil Darabi, Dan B. Goldman, and Pradeep Sen. Patch- based high dynamic range video. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 32(6):202:1–202:10, 2013. 2

    2013

  3. [10]

    SAFNet: Selective alignment fusion net- work for efficient HDR imaging

    Lingtong Kong, Bo Li, Yike Xiong, Hao Zhang, Hong Gu, and Jinwei Chen. SAFNet: Selective alignment fusion net- work for efficient HDR imaging. InProceedings of European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2024. 2

    2024

  4. [11]

    DeblurGAN-v2: Deblurring (orders-of-magnitude) faster and better

    Orest Kupyn, Tetiana Martyniuk, Junru Wu, and Zhangyang Wang. DeblurGAN-v2: Deblurring (orders-of-magnitude) faster and better. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision, pages 8878–8887,

  5. [12]

    Stevenson

    Jieyu Li, Ruiwen Zhen, and Robert L. Stevenson. A lightweight exposure bracketing strategy for HDR imaging without access to camera RAW. Electronic Imaging, 2023 (15):116–1–116–6, 2023. 3

    2023

  6. [13]

    Joint HDR denoising and fusion: A real-world mobile HDR image dataset

    Shuaizheng Liu, Xindong Zhang, Lingchen Sun, Zhetong Liang, Hui Zeng, and Lei Zhang. Joint HDR denoising and fusion: A real-world mobile HDR image dataset. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13966–13975, 2023. 2

    2023

  7. [14]

    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 Proceedings of European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2022. 2, 6, 7, 8

    2022

  8. [15]

    Deep guided learning for fast multi- exposure image fusion

    Kede Ma, Zhengfang Duanmu, Hanwei Zhu, Yuming Fang, and Zhou Wang. Deep guided learning for fast multi- exposure image fusion. IEEE Transactions on Image Pro- cessing, 29:2808–2819, 2020. 2

    2020

  9. [16]

    Rempel, and Wolf- gang Heidrich

    Rafał Mantiuk, Kil Joong Kim, Allan G. Rempel, and Wolf- gang Heidrich. HDR-VDP-2: A calibrated visual metric for visibility and quality predictions in all luminance conditions. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 30(4):1–14, 2011. 6

    2011

  10. [17]

    Exposure fusion: A simple and practical alternative to high dynamic range photography

    Tom Mertens, Jan Kautz, and Frank Van Reeth. Exposure fusion: A simple and practical alternative to high dynamic range photography. Computer Graphics Forum, 28(1):161– 171, 2009. 2

    2009

  11. [18]

    Asynchronous methods for deep reinforcement learning

    V olodymyr Mnih, Adri`a Puigdom`enech Badia, Mehdi Mirza, Alex Graves, Timothy Lillicrap, Tim Harley, David Silver, and Koray Kavukcuoglu. Asynchronous methods for deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint:1602.01783, 2016. 2, 5

    2016 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Yuzhen Niu, Jianbin Wu, Wenxi Liu, Wenzhong Guo, and Rynson W. H. Lau. HDR-GAN: HDR image reconstruction from multi-exposed LDR images with large motions. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 30:3885–3896, 2021. 2, 6, 8

    2021

  13. [20]

    O’Connor, Jordi Torres, Elisa Sayrol, and Xavier Gir´o-i Nieto

    Junting Pan, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Kevin McGuinness, Noel E. O’Connor, Jordi Torres, Elisa Sayrol, and Xavier Gir´o-i Nieto. SalGAN: Visual saliency prediction with gen- erative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint:1701.01081,

    arXiv

  14. [21]

    Exposure bracketing via automatic exposure selection

    Reza Pourreza-Shahri and Nasser Kehtarnavaz. Exposure bracketing via automatic exposure selection. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), pages 320–323, 2015. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7

    2015

  15. [22]

    Puterman

    Martin L. Puterman. Markov decision processes. In Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Sci- ence, chapter 8, pages 331–434. North-Holland, Amsterdam,

  16. [23]

    TransMEF: A transformer-based multi-exposure image fu- sion framework using self-supervised multi-task learning

    Linhao Qu, Shaolei Liu, Manning Wang, and Zhijian Song. TransMEF: A transformer-based multi-exposure image fu- sion framework using self-supervised multi-task learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, pages 2126–2134, 2022. 2

    2022

  17. [24]

    Noise and dynamic range optimal computational imaging

    Kalpana Seshadrinathan, Sung Hee Park, and Oscar Nestares. Noise and dynamic range optimal computational imaging. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Confer- ence on Image Processing (ICIP) , pages 2785–2788, 2012. 3

    2012

  18. [25]

    Human-aware mo- tion deblurring

    Ziyi Shen, Wenguan Wang, Xiankai Lu, Jianbing Shen, Haibin Ling, Tingfa Xu, and Ling Shao. Human-aware mo- tion deblurring. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision , pages 5572–5581,

  19. [26]

    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

  20. [27]

    Scale-recurrent network for deep image deblurring

    Xin Tao, Hongyun Gao, Xiaoyong Shen, Jue Wang, and Ji- aya Jia. Scale-recurrent network for deep image deblurring. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8174–8182, 2018. 2

    2018

  21. [28]

    RAFT: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow

    Zachary Teed and Jia Deng. RAFT: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow. InProceedings of European Con- ference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2020. 6, 8

    2020

  22. [29]

    BANet: A blur-aware attention network for dynamic scene deblurring

    Fu-Jen Tsai, Yan-Tsung Peng, Chung-Chi Tsai, Yen-Yu Lin, and Chia-Wen Lin. BANet: A blur-aware attention network for dynamic scene deblurring. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 31:6789–6799, 2022. 2, 1, 3

    2022

  23. [30]

    Improved image selection for stack-based HDR imaging

    Peter van Beek. Improved image selection for stack-based HDR imaging. Electronic Imaging, 2019(4):581–1–581–6,

    2019

  24. [31]

    Non-uniform deblurring in HDR image reconstruction

    Channarayapatna Shivaram Vijay, Chandramouli Para- manand, Ambasamudram Narayanan Rajagopalan, and Rama Chellappa. Non-uniform deblurring in HDR image reconstruction. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 22 (10):3739–3750, 2013. 2

    2013

  25. [32]

    Zhouxia Wang, Jiawei Zhang, Mude Lin, Jiong Wang, Ping Luo, and Jimmy S. Ren. Learning a reinforced agent for flexible exposure bracketing selection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1820–1828, 2020. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8

    2020

  26. [34]

    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. 8

    2024

  27. [35]

    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, 2019. 2

    2019

  28. [36]

    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

    2020

  29. [37]

    DeepExposure: Learning to expose photos with asynchronously reinforced adversarial learning

    Runsheng Yu, Wenyu Liu, Yasen Zhang, Zhi Qu, Deli Zhao, and Bo Zhang. DeepExposure: Learning to expose photos with asynchronously reinforced adversarial learning. In Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31 , pages 8377–8386, 2018. 3

    2018

  30. [38]

    Image deblurring with blurred/noisy image pairs

    Lu Yuan, Jian Sun, Long Quan, and Heung-Yeung Shum. Image deblurring with blurred/noisy image pairs. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 26(3):1:1–1:10, 2007. 2

    2007

  31. [39]

    Deblurring by realis- tic blurring

    Kaihao Zhang, Wenhan Luo, Yiran Zhong, Lin Ma, Bj ¨orn Stenger, Wei Liu, and Hongdong Li. Deblurring by realis- tic blurring. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 2737– 2746, 2020. 2

    2020

  32. [40]

    Self-supervised high dy- namic range imaging with multi-exposure images in dy- namic scenes

    Zhilu Zhang, Haoyu Wang, Shuai Liu, Xiaotao Wang, Lei Lei, and Wangmeng Zuo. Self-supervised high dy- namic range imaging with multi-exposure images in dy- namic scenes. arXiv preprint:2310.01840, 2023. 2 AdaptiveAE: An Adaptive Exposure Strategy for HDR Capturing in Dynamic S...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.