Prevalent Computational Aberration Correction (CAC) methods are typically tailored to specific optical systems, leading to poor generalization and labor-intensive re-training for new lenses. Developing CAC paradigms capable of generalizing across diverse photographic lenses offers a promising solution to these challenges. However, efforts to achieve such cross-lens universality within consumer photography are still in their early stages due to the lack of a comprehensive benchmark that encompasses a sufficiently wide range of optical aberrations. Furthermore, it remains unclear which specific factors influence existing CAC methods and how these factors affect their performance. In this paper, we present comprehensive experiments and evaluations involving 24 image restoration and CAC algorithms, utilizing our newly proposed UniCAC, a large-scale benchmark for photographic cameras constructed via automatic optical design. The Optical Degradation Evaluator (ODE) is introduced as a novel framework to objectively assess the difficulty of CAC tasks, offering credible quantification of optical aberrations and enabling reliable evaluation. Drawing on our comparative analysis, we identify three key factors -- prior utilization, network architecture, and training strategy -- that most significantly influence CAC performance, and further investigate their respective effects. We believe that our benchmark, dataset, and observations contribute foundational insights to related areas and lay the groundwork for future investigations. Benchmarks, codes, and Zemax files will be available at https://github.com/XiaolongQian/UniCAC.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of the linear relationship between RMS radius and ODE with the CAC results. (a) We select 12 lenses and use the same model [ 2 ] for lens-specific training. The red line shows the least squares linear fit, with R2 indicating correlation strength (closer to 1 means stronger correlation). (b) Visual results: Lens1, with a larger RMS radius, retains more details, while Lens2, with a smaller RMS radius, loses fine structures.
Figure 2: Optical Degradation Evaluator (ODE) pipeline. It assesses lens optical degradation severity via standard checkerboard imaging. The spatial branch calculates OIQ for various FoVs, the channel branch for different channels.
Figure 3: Benchmark overview. The sampled lenses are divided into 5 levels based on ODE, with 3 lenses from each level showcased to facilitate presentation. Each lens is illustrated with the ray tracing diagram, PSFs for 3 FoVs, and corresponding aberration image patches. The distribution of quantification dimensions for each lens is also presented in a bar chart.
Figure 4: (a) The ray tracing diagram, spot diagrams and RMS spot sizes produced by the simulation framework closely resemble those obtained from Zemax . The tested system is a single-lens optical system. (b) Comparison between simulation and real-shot aberration images.
Figure 5: (a) Relevance between ODE components and CAC performance. (b) Distribution of different quantification dimensions in our sampled lens library.
Figure 6: (a) Weighted average value of PSNR, SSIM, and OIQE. (b) Weighted average value of Image Fidelity, Optical Quality, and Perceptual Quality. (c) Effect of varying coefficient ratios of OIQ and Us on the linearity of ODE and O. P. (d) Effect of varying coefficient ratios of Uc on the linearity of ODE and O. P.
Model
Blind?
Model Type
Learning Paradigm
CAC
WienerDeconv [MITPress49] [ 49 ]
✗
Optimization
-
FSANet [OE22] [ 27 ]
✗
Optimization&CNN
Regression
PART [TIP24] [ 19 ]
✗
Transformer
Regression
Peng et al . [TOG19] [ 34 ]
✓
CNN
GAN
DFUnet [TOG21] [ 5 ]
✓
CNN
Regression
FOV-KPN [ICCV21] [ 4 ]
✓
CNN
Regression
Table 1: Overview of the 24 evaluated methods.
Method
Params (M)
FLOPs (G)
Time (ms)
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
FID ↓
OIQE ↑
ClipIQA ↑
O. P. ↑
Wiener [MITPress49] [ 49 ]
0.21
19.62
0.699
0.448
122.8
0.475
0.242
0.972 (24)
FSANet [OE22] [ 27 ]
12.86
54.14
7.57
21.60
0.751
0.268
88.19
0.298
0.344
1.191 (20)
PART [TIP24] [ 19 ]
19.35
51.86
79.09
28.10
0.866
0.228
43.66
0.608
0.389
1.494 (7)
Peng et al . [TOG19] [ 34 ]
44.59
21.68
1.01
21.81
0.744
0.318
104.5
0.279
0.267
1.108 (21)
DFUnet [TOG21] [ 5 ]
4.23
18.90
5.99
26.33
0.844
0.252
52.28
0.611
0.393
1.436 (12)
FOV-KPN [ICCV21] [ 4 ]
4.01
19.00
9.68
26.34
0.824
0.184
50.27
0.631
0.422
1.502 (6)
Table 2: Quantitative performance of methods across 5 aberration severity levels. O. P. denotes overall performance. The ranking in parentheses represents the overall performance ranking of the methods. The number of parameters, FLOPs, and inference time of each method are also listed. The image with a resolution of 256×256 is used to calculate FLOPs and inference time. The best and second best performances are in bold and underline .
Figure 7: Ranking trends of different methods across aberration severity levels, with severity increasing from L1 to L5.
Figure 8: Visual comparison of five representative methods at 3 levels of aberration severity. We provide RMS/ODE values to facilitate a better understanding of the relationship between quantitative values and qualitative outcomes.
Figure 9: Line charts of different methods under five levels of spatial uniformity ( Us ) and five levels of chromatic aberration severity ( Uc ).
Work
Key Specs (FoV, F/#, Elem.)
Test Set (# Lenses)
Lens Type
Aberration Quantification
Li et al. [ 24 ]
Unspecified
Small / Unknown
Unspecified
N/A (Random)
Gong et al. [ 14 ]
Unspecified
∼ 5
Unspecified
N/A (Random)
OmniLens [ 20 ]
Discrete (6 Specific Sets)
6 (Handcrafted)
Spherical + Aspherical
Spot RMS Radius
UniCAC (Ours)
40 ∼ 80 ∘ , F/2 ∼ 4, 1 ∼ 6 Elem.
120 (Unseen)
Spherical + Aspherical
ODE (Proposed)
Table 3: Comparison with existing CAC benchmarks. UniCAC features strictly defined optical design ranges and a large-scale stratified test set, whereas prior works rely on unspecified or discrete lens samples.
Figure 10: (a) Examples of automatically designed lenses with diverse specifications. (b) t-SNE visualization of aberration distributions in our benchmark. Best viewed when zoomed in.
Figure 11: More comparison with Zemax . For additional validation, we test the simulation system using Cooke triplet lens and Double-Gauss lens.
Figure 12: Comparison between the real aberration image and the extracted pseudo-GT image.
Figure 13: Pipeline for OIQE calculation.
Figure 14: Overall performance comparison of different methods across five aberration severity levels. To enhance visual clarity, we normalize PSNR to a range of 20dB to 30dB and transform LPIPS values by subtracting them from 1.
Figure 15: Overall performance comparison of different methods under 5 image spatial uniformity levels.
Figure 16: Overall performance comparison of different methods under 5 image chromatic aberration levels.
Method
GAN
Codebook
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
ClipIQA ↑
FeMaSR
✗
✗
26.83
0.147
0.491
✓
✗
26.86
0.145
0.512
✓
✓
26.94
0.136
0.520
Table 4: Ablation results of training scheme and clean image prior
Method
FoV
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
ClipIQA ↑
DFUnet
✗
25.88
0.253
0.377
✓
26.33
0.252
0.393
Method
PSF
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
ClipIQA ↑
PART
✗
27.22
0.264
0.370
✓
28.10
0.228
0.389
Table 5: Ablation results of optical prior
CAC Dataset
Model
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
FID ↓
OIQE ↑
ClipIQA ↑
AODLib [ 20 ]
FOV-KPN [ICCV21] [ 4 ]
23.90
0.756
0.244
74.51
0.477
0.430
SwinIR [ICCVW21] [ 26 ]
25.05
0.793
0.226
65.18
0.418
0.418
FeMaSR [MM22] [ 2 ]
24.15
0.748
0.235
67.73
0.568
0.476
UniCAC (Ours)
FOV-KPN [ICCV21] [ 4 ]
26.34
0.824
0.184
50.27
0.631
0.463
SwinIR [ICCVW21] [ 26 ]
27.22
0.848
0.264
54.41
0.513
0.370
FeMaSR [MM22] [ 2 ]
26.94
0.841
0.136
34.59
0.722
0.520
Table 6: Quantitative evaluation of the UniCAC .
Metric
Aberration Severity
Model
PART
DFUnet
FOV-KPN
MIMOUnet
NAFNet
Restomer
Uformer
FeMaSR
PromptIR
DiffBIR
PSNR ↑
L1
29.22
27.57
28.02
28.24
28.47
27.77
28.87
28.05
27.77
28.14
L2
28.82
27.07
27.03
28.22
28.65
27.77
28.66
27.53
27.63
28.08
L3
28.29
26.45
26.33
27.52
27.98
27.33
28.10
26.91
27.35
27.84
L4
27.99
25.81
26.12
27.39
27.53
27.04
27.98
26.68
26.94
27.77
L5
26.19
24.75
24.20
25.43
26.25
25.29
26.12
25.53
25.12
26.42
Table 7: Quantitative results under 5 different aberration severity levels.
Metric
Spatial Uniformity
Model
PART
DFUnet
FOV-KPN
MIMOUnet
NAFNet
Restomer
Uformer
FeMaSR
PromptIR
DiffBIR
PSNR ↑
Us1
29.22
26.87
27.10
28.30
28.66
27.98
28.89
27.56
27.78
28.18
Us2
27.89
26.10
26.44
27.56
27.95
27.22
28.17
26.98
27.07
27.89
Us3
27.73
25.97
26.17
27.07
27.50
26.76
27.74
26.61
26.69
27.41
Us4
27.37
25.61
25.67
26.71
26.92
26.62
27.42
26.44
26.64
27.37
Us5
26.43
24.75
25.19
25.65
26.06
25.42
26.11
25.49
25.35
26.51
Table 8: Quantitative results under 5 different spatial uniformity levels.
Computational imaging combines optical and sensor design with algorithms to recover or infer scene information from indirect, compressed, or noisy measurements.
Simplified optical systems often exhibit residual lens aberrations and Veiling Glare (VG), resulting in spatially varying blur and contrast reduction. Large-scale Lens Libraries (LensLib) enable reusable aberration correction models by covering diverse Point Spread Functions (PSFs), but their aberration-only training distribution does not include target-specific veiling glare. Extending such foundations to compound degradation is challenging because realistic target-system compound pairs are difficult to obtain. To address this challenge, we propose LensBridge, a two-stage framework that first establishes a reusable aberration correction foundation and then adapts it to compound optical degradation using only a few unpaired target observations. In Stage I, we build a PSF-aware one-step diffusion foundation by constructing discrete degradation priors from LensLib PSFs and learning to retrieve them directly from aberrated images, enabling PSF-aware correction without requiring explicit PSF at inference. In Stage II, we adapt this foundation to compound degradation through frequency-domain guidance. At the data level, Frequency-guided Degradation Completion (FDC) transfers target low-frequency characteristics to LensLib aberrated images while preserving aberration structures to synthesize compound training pairs; at the model level, Frequency-guided Pseudo Decomposition (FPD) forms aberration- and VG-dominant pseudo observations to condition separate adaptation branches. Extensive experiments across multiple optical systems demonstrate that LensBridge effectively extends reusable aberration correction foundations to joint aberration correction and veiling glare removal without target-system paired supervision. All code will be available at https://github.com/XiaolongQian/LensBridge.
Restoring archival film remains a fundamentally challenging problem due to the absence of paired training data and the lack of standardized evaluation benchmarks. Pristine versions of deteriorated footage are physically unrecoverable, requiring supervised methods to rely on synthetic data that often fail to capture the complex, temporally coherent nature of real film degradation. At the same time, existing real-world datasets are limited in scale, quality, and accessibility, hindering reliable evaluation and fair comparison across methods. We address both limitations with AbsoluteDegradation, a physics-inspired, modular pipeline for synthesizing realistic film degradations, and a new large-scale archival benchmark. The proposed pipeline models the analog-to-digital process as a structured composition of artifact families, incorporating signal-dependent grain, parametric scratches, and temporally coherent camera motion, enabling controlled generation of diverse degradation regimes. In parallel, we introduce a curated dataset of 81,576 high-resolution frames sourced from real archival footage, designed for consistent evaluation under real-world conditions. Together, these contributions provide a unified framework for training and benchmarking restoration models. Extensive experiments across multiple architectures show that models trained with AbsoluteDegradation generalize better to real-world footage, while the proposed benchmark reveals systematic failure modes of current methods. We hope this work establishes a foundation for reproducible and domain-authentic evaluation in archival film restoration.
Mikołaj Jastrzębski, Dawid Glinkowski, Dawid Zieliński +3
Monocular metric depth estimation (MMDE) is a core challenge in computer vision, playing a pivotal role in real-world applications that demand accurate spatial understanding. Although prior works have shown promising zero-shot performance in MMDE, they often struggle with generalization across diverse camera types, such as fisheye and 360∘ cameras. Recent advances have addressed this through unified camera representations or canonical representation spaces, but they require either including large-FoV camera data during training or separately trained models for different domains. We propose UniDAC, an MMDE framework that presents universal robustness in all domains and generalizes across diverse cameras using a single model. We achieve this by decoupling metric depth estimation into relative depth prediction and spatially varying scale estimation, enabling robust performance across different domains. We propose a lightweight Depth-Guided Scale Estimation module that upsamples a coarse scale map to high resolution using the relative depth map as guidance to account for local scale variations. Furthermore, we introduce RoPE-φ, a distortion-aware positional embedding that respects the spatial warping in Equi-Rectangular Projections (ERP) via latitude-aware weighting. UniDAC achieves state of the art (SoTA) in cross-camera generalization by consistently outperforming prior methods across all datasets.
Girish Chandar Ganesan, Yuliang Guo, Liu Ren +1
Michigan State University · Bosch Research North America & Bosch Center for AI (BCAI) · University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill