Recent advances in trajectory-controllable video generation have achieved remarkable progress. Previous methods mainly use adapter-based architectures for precise motion control along predefined trajectories. However, all these methods rely on a multi-step denoising process, leading to substantial time redundancy and computational overhead. While existing video distillation methods successfully distill multi-step generators into few-step, directly applying these approaches to trajectory-controllable video generation results in noticeable degradation in both video quality and trajectory accuracy. To bridge this gap, we introduce FlashMotion, a novel training framework designed for few-step trajectory-controllable video generation. We first train a trajectory adapter on a multi-step video generator for precise trajectory control. Then, we distill the generator into a few-step version to accelerate video generation. Finally, we finetune the adapter using a hybrid strategy that combines diffusion and adversarial objectives, aligning it with the few-step generator to produce high-quality, trajectory-accurate videos. For evaluation, we introduce FlashBench, a benchmark for long-sequence trajectory-controllable video generation that measures both video quality and trajectory accuracy across varying numbers of foreground objects. Experiments on two adapter architectures show that FlashMotion surpasses existing video distillation methods and previous multi-step models in both visual quality and trajectory consistency.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Illustration of the motivation and capabilities of FlashMotion . We define the SlowGenerator as the multi-step video model and the FastGenerator as its few-step distilled version. The SlowAdapter is trained with the SlowGenerator , while the FastAdapter is fine-tuned for the FastGenerator . (a) Using the SlowAdapter with SlowGenerator under few-step inference causes blurry outputs. (b) Applying the SlowAdapter to the FastGenerator degrades both quality and trajectory accuracy. (c) Finetuning the adapter with only diffusion loss still leads to blur artifacts. (d) Finetuning the adapter with existing distillation methods yields suboptimal quality and trajectory control. (e) FlashMotion achieves high-quality, accurate few-step trajectory-controllable video generation.
Figure 2: Overview of FlashMotion training pipeline. FlashMotion is trained in three stages: (1) a SlowAdapter is first trained on the SlowGenerator with a diffusion loss; (2) a FastGenerator is distilled from the SlowGenerator under the supervision of a distribution matching [ 59 ] loss; and (3) the SlowAdapter is finetuned to align with the FastGenerator using a hybrid training strategy that combines adversarial and diffusion losses.
Figure 3: (a) Architecture of FlashMotion . The trajectory adapter is finetuned upon the FastGenerator with a hybrid strategy that combines both diffusion and adversarial objectives. (b) Detailed illustration of our diffusion discriminator architecture. The discriminator adopts a DiT backbone cloned from the SlowGenerator , while several intermediate features from its DiT blocks are fed into an attention-based classifier to distinguish real videos from generated ones.
Methods
FlashBench
MagicBench
DAVIS
Denoising Time (s)
Params (B)
FID( ↓ )
FVD( ↓ )
M/B IoU( ↑ )
FID( ↓ )
FVD( ↓ )
M/B IoU( ↑ )
FID( ↓ )
FVD( ↓ )
M/B IoU( ↑ )
MultiSteps (50 Steps)
MagicMotion [ 18 ]
20.03
138.83
68.10/73.68
15.17
107.21
76.61/81.45
50.36
760.95
53.94/72.84
1158.63
11.53
Wan2.2 (ResNet) [ 40 ]
19.03
139.61
52.19/57.76
21.72
140.41
62.09/67.85
46.44
703.15
31.22/42.74
333.00
5.02
Wan2.2 (ControlNet) [ 40 ]
16.93
152.04
65.41/71.28
20.05
157.98
72.80/78.46
43.70
791.80
52.76/71.20
664.53
10.28
DragAnything [ 49 ]
34.93
267.56
58.54/61.72
31.36
253.40
66.30/70.85
70.70
1166.22
40.13/53.60
589.07
2.21
Table 1: Quantitative results on FlashBench , MagicBench , and DAVIS . We report FID, FVD, and mask/box IoU (%) for both ResNet and ControlNet adapters. For each metric, the best result is highlighted in bold , and the second best is underlined . Denoising time is measured for generating 121 frames on one A100 GPU.
Figure 4: Qualitative Comparisons results. FlashMotion demonstrates superior qualitative performance, outperforming both previous multi-step trajectory-controllable methods and few-step distillation baselines.
Figure 5: Ablation studies on the FastAdapter training stage, diffusion loss, GAN loss, and the dynamic loss scaling strategy.
Methods
FlashBench
MagicBench
DAVIS
FID( ↓ )
FVD( ↓ )
M/B IoU%( ↑ )
FID( ↓ )
FVD( ↓ )
M/B IoU%( ↑ )
FID( ↓ )
FVD( ↓ )
M/B IoU%( ↑ )
Adapter Type: ResNet
Slow Adapter
22.75
168.46
49.79 / 56.62
21.59
162.93
60.24 / 67.23
52.01
992.26
36.33 / 51.37
w/o Diffusion Loss
18.87
161.07
52.04 / 58.04
21.95
162.31
63.14 / 69.02
55.28
983.91
37.22 / 52.47
w/o GAN Loss
22.74
206.75
65.82 / 70.60
30.51
167.91
73.86 / 78.48
66.46
1015.81
47.13 / 62.58
w/o Dynamic Scale
26.32
210.93
65.54 / 69.77
21.90
167.00
73.60 / 78.15
73.12
998.85
47.01 / 60.12
Table 4: Comprehensive ablation study of FlashMotion. We analyze both adapter variants (ResNet and ControlNet) by progressively removing key components — including the FastAdapter training stage, diffusion loss, GAN loss, and the dynamic diffusion loss scaling strategy. The results show that each component plays a crucial role in preserving high video quality and precise motion alignment.
Methods
FlashBench
MagicBench
DAVIS
FID( ↓ )
FVD( ↓ )
M/B IoU%( ↑ )
FID( ↓ )
FVD( ↓ )
M/B IoU%( ↑ )
FID( ↓ )
FVD( ↓ )
M/B IoU%( ↑ )
Adapter Type: ResNet
VC only
16.76
110.83
62.07 / 67.76
14.73
114.61
71.00 / 75.86
53.22
800.50
43.97 / 60.16
SS+VC
16.31
109.02
62.54 / 68.05
14.44
113.88
71.16 / 76.28
52.34
830.14
44.61 / 62.50
TC+VC
16.64
110.01
62.99 / 69.36
14.87
114.11
71.70 / 77.31
53.16
830.57
45.11 / 62.56
FlashMotion
15.81
108.96
63.96 / 70.01
14.16
109.20
72.34 / 77.92
50.58
786.42
46.74 / 64.00
Table 5: Ablation study on the discriminator architecture. VC denotes the Video Cross-Attention layer, SS denotes the Semantic Self-Attention layer, and TC denotes the Trajectory Cross-Attention layer. Results show that our discriminator design achieves the best overall performance across all benchmarks and metrics.
Figure 6: Additional ablation study results. Only our full method can generate videos with both high visual quality and trajectory accuracy.
Figure 7: Additional ablation study results. Only our full method can generate videos with both high visual quality and trajectory accuracy.
Figure 8: Additional ablation study results. Only our full method can generate videos with both high visual quality and trajectory accuracy.
Method
Video Length
Video Resolution
Denoising Latency(s)
Total Params(B)
Base Model
LeviTor [ 41 ]
16
288 × 512
80.08
2.21
SVD [ 1 ]
DragAnything [ 49 ]
14
320 × 576
589.07
2.21
SVD [ 1 ]
SG-I2V [ 26 ]
14
576 × 1024
1277.15
1.52
SVD [ 1 ]
Tora [ 62 ]
49
480 × 720
691.13
6.32
CogVideoX [ 55 ]
MagicMotion [ 18 ]
49
480 × 720
1158.63
11.53
CogVideoX [ 55 ]
Wan+ResNet [ 40 ]
121
704 × 1280
333.00
5.02
Wan2.2 [ 40 ]
Table 6: Comparison of model configurations and backbone architectures, including supported video length, spatial resolution, denoising latency, and total parameters. FlashMotion achieves the fastest denoising speed while supporting the highest resolution and longest generation length.
Methods
Obj_Num=1
Obj_Num=2
Obj_Num=3
FID( ↓ )
FVD( ↓ )
M/B IoU( ↑ )
FID( ↓ )
FVD( ↓ )
M/B IoU( ↑ )
FID( ↓ )
FVD( ↓ )
M/B IoU( ↑ )
MultiSteps (50 Steps)
MagicMotion [ 18 ]
53.62
741.91
67.93/83.46
59.37
697.50
61.05/73.47
52.44
563.38
66.13/72.92
Wan2.2 (ResNet) [ 40 ]
49.01
599.93
61.10/76.34
56.19
582.42
51.49/62.07
57.39
566.53
50.06/56.75
Wan2.2 (ControlNet) [ 40 ]
50.04
594.54
66.07/83.98
51.20
591.56
59.64/73.18
49.49
547.90
62.64/70.01
DragAnything [ 49 ]
76.28
1076.20
62.70/74.88
91.08
1196.46
53.34/63.06
89.26
1099.45
54.01/57.55
Table 7: Quantitative comparison results on FlashBench for scenes containing 1, 2, and 3 controlled objects. The detailed evaluations show that FlashMotion with a ControlNet-based adapter consistently outperforms all competing methods across all metrics, while the ResNet-based adapter also delivers superior visual quality compared to prior work.
Methods
Obj_Num=4
Obj_Num=5
Obj_Num>5
FID( ↓ )
FVD( ↓ )
M/B IoU( ↑ )
FID( ↓ )
FVD( ↓ )
M/B IoU( ↑ )
FID( ↓ )
FVD( ↓ )
M/B IoU( ↑ )
MultiSteps (50 Steps)
MagicMotion [ 18 ]
45.67
546.40
70.29/73.21
44.41
450.10
73.86/76.93
44.41
409.25
69.29/62.35
Wan2.2 (ResNet) [ 40 ]
61.69
575.65
50.89/53.93
52.04
476.04
55.56/56.98
41.59
453.60
44.31/41.03
Wan2.2 (ControlNet) [ 40 ]
49.25
503.03
66.15/68.65
43.58
409.57
70.70/70.94
37.11
406.06
67.27/61.05
DragAnything [ 49 ]
75.00
997.03
59.97/60.23
83.35
812.67
62.92/61.48
97.48
1006.25
56.95/49.51
Table 8: Quantitative comparison results on FlashBench for scenes containing 4, 5, and above 5 controlled objects. The detailed evaluations show that FlashMotion with a ControlNet-based adapter consistently outperforms all competing methods across all metrics, while the ResNet-based adapter also delivers superior visual quality compared to prior work.
Figure 9: Qualitative Comparisons results with different methods.
Figure 10: Qualitative Comparisons results with different methods.
Figure 11: Qualitative Comparisons results with different methods.
Figure 12: Qualitative Comparisons results with different methods.
Figure 13: Qualitative Comparisons results with different methods.
Figure 14: Qualitative Comparisons results with different methods.
Figure 15: Qualitative Comparisons results with different methods.
Figure 16: FlashMotion supports generating videos of different styles.
Figure 17: FlashMotion enables controllable camera movements, such as zooming in or out, by adjusting the bounding box size of the foreground object (e.g., the cup or the woman’s mask).
Figure 18: FlashMotion supports scene navigation in various environments—such as a bakery or a museum—by manipulating the bounding boxes of key objects, including the dinosaur, the mammoth, and the industrial mixer.
Figure 19: Distribution of video frame counts in FlashBench, demonstrating its support for evaluating long video generation.
We present FlashRender, a few-step generative rendering framework that retakes a source video along a target camera trajectory in seconds. We identify sampling-step-dependent camera control as a prominent manifestation of discretization error in existing multi-step generative rendering models and show that resolving this inconsistency substantially lowers denoising trajectory curvature, facilitating subsequent step distillation. To this end, we introduce Representation Transformation and Alignment (RETA), which aligns hidden source-video representations with target-video features from a frozen visual geometry model. This directly encodes the geometric transformation within the source-video stream, enabling sampling-step-consistent camera control. We then fine-tune the model with the MeanFlow objective on the lower-curvature denoising trajectory induced by RETA, allowing the model to more effectively address discretization error. Finally, we apply on-policy flow map distillation to correct self-rollout errors under fixed few-step sampling. Extensive experiments show that RETA, MeanFlow, and on-policy flow map distillation play complementary roles in few-step generative rendering. Together, they enable our approach to match multi-step baselines in video quality and geometric consistency at 25x lower sampling cost while achieving superior camera controllability, even under out-of-distribution target camera trajectories.
Video diffusion and flow models require many sequential evaluations, making generation computationally expensive. Few-step distillation reduces this cost but poses a capacity allocation problem: a student must match the teacher's iterative generation with far less sequential computation. Existing trajectory methods ask the student to reproduce teacher transitions that are highly curved at high noise, which can exceed its capacity and degrade fine detail. We introduce Parametric Trajectory Distillation (PTD), which lets the student parameterize teacher trajectory segments as polynomials and learn from teacher guidance along its own predicted path. PTD is designed to let the learned curvature adapt to the backbone's predictive capacity, preserving motion and diversity. The curvature head is used only in training; inference keeps the original backbone architecture. On Wan2.1-14B, four-step PTD sets a new state of the art for trajectory distillation, significantly improving dynamic quality and naturalness over PDD, the best-performing trajectory-only method on this model, under the same training setting. On the 33B audio-video MiniMax-H3, LoRA-trained PTD significantly improves diversity and naturalness over the state-of-the-art LightX2V Turbo. Blinded human votes give PTD 55.1% and 63.4% preference shares against PDD and LightX2V Turbo. Project page: https://alan-lanfeng.github.io/PTD/.
Training-free motion customization imposes motion patterns from reference videos onto video generators through test-time computation. Most existing methods target full diffusion models, requiring many denoising steps and high computational cost. With the rise of efficient distilled models, a natural question arises: can test-time motion customization be applied directly to distilled generators with their accelerated sampling and efficiency gains? However, our analysis reveals that existing training-free techniques fail on distilled models. Distillation fundamentally alters the denoising dynamics that prior test-time guidance relies on, and the large denoising steps of distilled generators discard the dense intermediate states that score guidance requires, rendering existing motion control strategies incompatible with fast generation. To address this limitation, we propose MotionEcho, a novel training-free test-time distillation framework that enables motion customization for distilled video generators. The key idea is to correct the student model's sampling trajectory with restricted usage of a high-quality diffusion teacher at inference time. Teacher supervises the student's denoising by re-noising the student's endpoint onto its dense trajectory to form a motion-aligned clean endpoint, then interpolating it with the student's, while an adaptive scheduling mechanism determines when and how much teacher guidance is needed. As a result, MotionEcho restores generative trajectories for distilled video generators via lightweight, adaptive test-time teacher guidance, enabling accurate motion control without compromising generation efficiency. Extensive experiments on multiple distilled video generation models demonstrate that our method significantly improves motion fidelity and visual quality while retaining the efficiency advantages of distilled generation.
Jintao Rong, Xin Xie, Xinyi Yu +4
Zhejiang University of Technology · University of New South Wales (UNSW Sydney) · University of Auckland +1