Camera-controlled video generation has attracted increasing interest for its applications in simulation, gaming, and world modeling. However, current models often deform rigid objects and scene structure as the viewpoint changes. We investigate whether this failure is related to a measurable internal property: the view consistency of diffusion representations. Across a diverse collection of camera-controlled image-to-video diffusion models, we find that models exhibiting more view-consistent representations generate videos with superior 3D consistency. We complement this correlation-based evidence with a within-model controlled intervention, ViCoDR, which directly supervises the view consistency of internal diffusion representations, during training. Across camera-controlled image-to-video, camera-controlled text-to-video, and multi-view generation tasks, ViCoDR consistently improves output 3D consistency. Finally, we evaluate the loss used for these interventions as an auxiliary training objective by retraining a camera-controlled I2V model using either ViCoDR or existing methods for supervising diffusion representations under the same training setup. We show that the ViCoDR loss improves output 3D consistency more reliably than the alternatives and remains effective across design variants, while exhibiting camera-control trade-offs and requiring additional training computation. Together, these results establish view consistency of internal diffusion representations as an important property for analyzing and improving camera-controlled video generation. Project page: https://danier97.github.io/ViCoDR.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Internal view consistency is strongly associated with output 3D consistency. MEt3R and geometric-correspondence results are shown for seven camera-controlled I2V models spanning U-Net and DiT architectures on RE10K [ 115 ] and DL3DV [ 51 ] .
Figure 2: Overview of ViCoDR. During video diffusion training, ViCoDR additionally supervises internal diffusion representations (ha,hb) extracted from frame pairs (xa,xb) with a 3D correspondence loss ( Eq. 5 ), so as to learn view-consistent representations (here PCA feature maps are visualized).
Model
PSNR ( ↑ )
FVD ( ↓ )
RErr ( ↓ )
TErr ( ↓ )
Succ % ( ↑ )
MEt3R ( ↓ )
RPE ( ↓ )
RE10K
CameraCtrl
16.89
113
0.80
2.31
86.3
0.066
0.385
+ ViCoDR
17.04
115
0.61
1.88
92.3
0.059
0.334
DaS
17.23
108
0.52
1.65
93.5
0.056
0.310
+ ViCoDR
17.24
109
0.51
1.62
93.8
0.053
0.295
RealCamI2V
17.36
104
0.47
1.50
94.4
0.052
0.286
Table 1: ViCoDR interventions for camera-controlled I2V. We compare image/video quality , camera-control accuracy , and output 3D consistency under matched training. Each base model is followed by its matched +ViCoDR run. DaS and RealCamI2V already use explicit 3D-aware conditioning.
Model
FVD ( ↓ )
RErr ( ↓ )
TErr ( ↓ )
Succ % ( ↑ )
MEt3R ( ↓ )
RPE ( ↓ )
MotionCtrl
780
1.119
4.676
89.1
0.075
0.306
+ ViCoDR
559
1.217
5.288
96.4
0.059
0.255
UCPE
520
0.569
1.257
95.0
0.055
0.300
+ ViCoDR
539
0.509
1.139
95.8
0.049
0.266
Table 2: ViCoDR interventions for camera-controlled T2V on RE10K.
Model
CD ( ↓ )
Depth ( ↓ )
cPSNR ( ↑ )
cSSIM ( ↑ )
cLPIPS ( ↓ )
ViFiGen
2.98
11.66
28.91
0.92
0.04
+ ViCoDR
2.97
11.59
29.03
0.94
0.05
Table 3: ViCoDR intervention for multi-view generation on OmniObject3D.
Figure 3: Camera-controlled I2V comparison on CameraCtrl. Training with ViCoDR reduces geometric deformation while respecting the conditioning camera trajectory. Frame indices and camera poses are shown in each example.
Figure 4: Camera-controlled T2V comparison on MotionCtrl. Arrows highlight 3D-consistent and 3D-inconsistent regions. See the Appendix for additional examples.
Figure 5: Multi-view generation comparison on ViFiGen. Training with ViCoDR maintains consistent geometry.
Model
PSNR ( ↑ )
FVD ( ↓ )
RErr ( ↓ )
TErr ( ↓ )
Succ % ( ↑ )
MEt3R ( ↓ )
RPE ( ↓ )
RE10K
CameraCtrl
1 6.888
113
0.795
2.313
86.3
0 .066
0.385
+ Track4Gen
16.211
132
0.852
2.861
88.7
0.072
0.398
+ GF
16.845
117
0 .721
2 .234
9 0.0
0.067
0.381
+ JOG3R
16.103
120
0.913
2.702
86.7
0 .066
0 .375
+ ViCoDR
17.043
1 15
0.605
1.883
92.3
0.059
0.334
DL3DV
CameraCtrl
1 3.318
113
2 .119
4.619
63.4
0.120
0.662
Table 4: Alternative auxiliary objectives on CameraCtrl. Improvements from GF, JOG3R, and Track4Gen are mixed across metrics and datasets; ViCoDR is the only evaluated objective that improves both consistency metrics on both datasets.
Model
FVD ( ↓ )
RErr ( ↓ )
TErr ( ↓ )
Succ % ( ↑ )
MEt3R ( ↓ )
RPE ( ↓ )
CameraCtrl
113
0.795
2.313
86.3
0.066
0.385
+ ViCoDR (simple)
118
0.640
1.950
91.0
0.061
0.346
+ ViCoDR (w/o edge)
118
0.618
1.966
92.0
0.061
0.350
+ ViCoDR (DUSt3R)
117
0.627
2.012
90.3
0.060
0.341
+ ViCoDR (full)
115
0.605
1.883
92.3
0.059
0.334
Table 5: Analysis of ViCoDR on CameraCtrl using RE10K. “+ViCoDR (full)” is the default setup using VGGT pseudo-labels.
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
RE10K
DL3DV
Model
MEt3R ( ↓ )
Geo. Corr. ( ↑ )
MEt3R ( ↓ )
Geo. Corr. ( ↑ )
CameraCtrl †
0.060
65.2
0.113
43.8
CameraCtrl
0.066
57.7
0.120
36.7
CameraCtrl + ViCoDR
0.059
91.0
0.110
75.0
Appendix
Table A1 : Output 3D consistency and geometric correspondence for CameraCtrl trained with and without ViCoDR. † denotes the pretrained checkpoint released by [ 29 ] ; the other two models use matched training.
Figure A1 : User study results. Preference ratios are shown for four pairwise comparisons. CameraCtrl+ViCoDR is preferred substantially more often than each baseline for maintaining shape and structural consistency.
Model
FVD ( ↓ )
RErr ( ↓ )
TErr ( ↓ )
Succ % ( ↑ )
MEt3R ( ↓ )
RPE ( ↓ )
MotionCtrl
780 (18)
1.119 (0.057)
4.676 (0.238)
89.1 (1.7)
0.075 (0.001)
0.306 (0.008)
+ ViCoDR
559 (14)
1.217 (0.024)
5.288 (0.049)
96.4 (1.1)
0.059 (0.001)
0.255 (0.002)
UCPE
520
0.569
1.257
95.0
0.055
0.300
+ ViCoDR
539
0.509
1.139
95.8
0.049
0.266
Appendix
Table A2 : Full results of the ViCoDR intervention on camera-controlled T2V generation. Mean results over three seeds are reported for both models; standard deviations are additionally reported for MotionCtrl.
Model
mPSNR ( ↑ )
mSSIM ( ↑ )
mLPIPS ( ↓ )
FID ( ↓ )
ViFiGen
19.08
0.77
0.19
27.87
+ ViCoDR
19.78
0.81
0.13
20.35
Appendix
Table A3 : Additional results on multi-view generation. On OmniObject3D, ViCoDR outperforms ViFiGen across all four ground-truth-referenced appearance metrics.
RE10K
Model
PSNR ( ↑ )
SSIM ( ↑ )
LPIPS ( ↓ )
FVD ( ↓ )
RErr ( ↓ )
TErr ( ↓ )
Succ % ( ↑ )
MEt3R ( ↓ )
RPE ( ↓ )
CameraCtrl
1 6.888
0 .695
0 .273
113
0.795
2.313
86.3
0 .066
0.385
+ Track4Gen
16.211
0.666
0.300
132
0.852
2.861
88.7
0.072
0.398
+ GF
16.845
0.693
0.278
117
0 .721
2 .234
9 0.0
0.067
0.381
+ JOG3R
16.103
0.670
0.296
120
0.913
2.702
86.7
0 .066
0 .375
+ ViCoDR
17.043
0.699
0.266
1 15
0.605
1.883
92.3
0.059
0.334
Appendix
Table A4 : Full comparison of alternative auxiliary objectives on CameraCtrl. This table complements the compact main-paper comparison by additionally reporting SSIM and LPIPS.
Figure A2 : Failure case 1: very large view changes. Given the input frame , ViCoDR fails to improve the 3D consistency of CameraCtrl in the highlighted region across view one and view two , which is exposed to large view changes. ViCoDR produces clearer edges.
Figure A3 : Failure case 2: clearer but distorted edges. Given the input frame , compared to CameraCtrl, ViCoDR produces clearer edges across view one and view two . However, this can appear less natural compared to the smeared edges in the CameraCtrl output.
Figure A4 : Impact of λ on RE10K performance. Increasing λ further reduces MEt3R but increases RErr and TErr, revealing a trade-off between output 3D consistency and camera-control accuracy; the default ViCoDR setting nevertheless improves both over CameraCtrl.
Figure A5 : Visual comparison of removing edge sampling . Over-sampling keypoints for L3DC on edges during training leads to fewer artifacts on lines and corners, as can be seen from the MEt3R reprojection error map (middle column).
Table A5 : Details of the pre-trained VDMs analyzed for 3D consistency. The last column specifies the depth/optical flow models used during inference of each model.
RE10K
DL3DV
Model
RErr ( ↓ )
TErr ( ↓ )
RErr ( ↓ )
TErr ( ↓ )
CameraCtrl
0.381
1.260
0.725
1.403
+ Track4Gen
0.498
1.945
1.120
1.878
+ GF
0.385
1.322
0.811
1.634
+ JOG3R
0.538
1.786
1.080
1.761
+ ViCoDR
0.302
1.247
0.773
1.367
Appendix
Table A6 : RErr and TErr results of ViCoDR on image-to-video generation. Results are reported only on successfully reconstructed videos common to all methods.
Model
RErr ( ↓ )
TErr ( ↓ )
MotionCtrl
0.718 (0.017)
3.509 (0.121)
+ ViCoDR
0.965 (0.039)
4.917 (0.064)
Appendix
Table A7 : RErr and TErr results of ViCoDR on text-to-video generation. Results are reported only on successfully reconstructed videos common to all methods. Mean and standard deviation over three seeds are reported on RE10K.
Figure A6 : Additional results on multi-view generation. The red circles highlight regions of improved 3D consistency.
Figure A7 : Additional qualitative results on camera controlled image-to-video generation. Given the input frame , ViCoDR better maintains 3D consistency across view one and view two compared to the baselines.
Figure A8 : Additional qualitative results on camera controlled image-to-video generation. Given the input frame , ViCoDR better maintains 3D consistency across view one and view two compared to the baselines.
Figure A9 : Qualitative results of applying ViCoDR to text-to-video generation. The input text prompt is shown above the images. Arrows highlight 3D consistent/inconsistent regions.
Video is a rich and scalable source of 3D/4D visual observations, and camera control is a key capability for video generation models to produce geometrically meaningful content. Existing approaches typically learn a mapping from camera motion to video using additional camera modules and paired data. However, such datasets are often limited in scale, diversity, and scene dynamics, which can bias the model toward a narrow output distribution and compromise the strong prior learned by the base model. These limitations motivate a different perspective on camera control. In this paper, we show that camera control need not be modeled as an implicit mapping problem, but can instead be treated as a form of geometric guidance that induces displacements across frames. Specifically, we reformulate camera control into a set of displacement fields and apply them via differentiable resampling of latent features during denoising. Our simple approach achieves effective camera control with minimal degradation across diverse quality metrics compared to fine-tuned baselines. Since our method is applicable to most video diffusion models without training, it can also serve as a probe to study the camera control capabilities of base models. Using this probe, we identify universal biases shared by representative video models, as well as disparities in their responses to camera control. Finally, we benchmark their performance in multi-view generation, offering insights into their potential for 3D/4D tasks.
Chen Hou, Christian Rupprecht
Visual Geometry Group · Visual Geometry Group University of Oxford
Camera control has been extensively studied in conditioned video generation; however, performing precisely altering the camera trajectories while faithfully preserving the video content remains a challenging task. The mainstream approach to achieving precise camera control is warping a 3D representation according to the target trajectory. However, such methods fail to fully leverage the 3D priors of video diffusion models (VDMs) and often fall into the Inpainting Trap, resulting in subject inconsistency and degraded generation quality. To address this problem, we propose DepthDirector, a video re-rendering framework with precise camera controllability. By leveraging the depth video from explicit 3D representation as camera-control guidance, our method can faithfully reproduce the dynamic scene of an input video under novel camera trajectories. Specifically, we design a View-Content Dual-Stream Condition mechanism that injects both the source video and the warped depth sequence rendered under the target viewpoint into the pretrained video generation model. This geometric guidance signal enables VDMs to comprehend camera movements and leverage their 3D understanding capabilities, thereby facilitating precise camera control and consistent content generation. Next, we introduce a lightweight LoRA-based video diffusion adapter to train our framework, fully preserving the knowledge priors of VDMs. Additionally, we construct a large-scale multi-camera synchronized dataset named MultiCam-WarpData using Unreal Engine 5, containing 8K videos across 1K dynamic scenes. Extensive experiments show that DepthDirector outperforms existing methods in both camera controllability and visual quality. Our code and dataset will be publicly available.
Dong-Yu Chen, Yixin Guo, Shuojin Yang +2
BNRist, Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University Beijing 100084, China
Re-rendering an existing video from a novel camera viewpoint requires the output to follow the prescribed camera trajectory while preserving the appearance and dynamics of the original scene across every frame. Existing methods rely on per-frame pose embeddings, noisy point-cloud renderings, or implicit learned correspondences, none of which provides an explicit, temporally continuous link between source and target pixels. We propose Track2View, which conditions a video diffusion transformer on paired 3D point tracks: sparse trajectories of scene points projected into both the source and target camera views. These tracks provide explicit spatiotemporal correspondences that are temporally continuous by construction, encoding what content should appear where and when. At the core of Track2View is a dual-view track conditioner that transfers visual context from source to target view through parameter-free geometric operations and learned temporal aggregation, ensuring generalization to arbitrary camera trajectories without memorizing specific motions. We further introduce a data curation pipeline that extracts one-to-one track correspondences by running a 3D point tracker on temporally concatenated multi-camera view pairs. On a 400-video benchmark spanning static and dynamic scenes, Track2View achieves state-of-the-art results across visual quality, view synchronization, and camera accuracy, reducing rotation error by 30-65% and translation error by 61-72% relative to leading baselines. Project page is available at this https URL: https://qjizhi.github.io/track2view
Feng Qiao, Zhaochong An, Zhexiao Xiong +2
Washington University in St. Louis · University of Copenhagen