High-quality 4D reconstruction enables photorealistic and immersive rendering of the dynamic real world. However, unlike static scenes that can be fully captured with a single camera, high-quality dynamic scenes typically require dense arrays of tens or even hundreds of synchronized cameras. Dependence on such costly lab setups severely limits practical scalability. To this end, we propose a sparse-camera dynamic reconstruction framework that exploits abundant yet inconsistent generative observations. Our key innovation is the Spatio-Temporal Distortion Field, which provides a unified mechanism for modeling inconsistencies in generative observations across both spatial and temporal dimensions. Building on this, we develop a complete pipeline that enables 4D reconstruction from sparse and uncalibrated camera inputs. We evaluate our method on multi-camera dynamic scene benchmarks, achieving spatio-temporally consistent high-fidelity renderings and significantly outperforming existing approaches. Project page available at https://inspatio.github.io/sparse-cam4d/
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Spatio-temporal inconsistency. Real cameras (grey) capture consistent content of multi-view dynamic scene, while generative results (orange) include additional observations at different poses and time. Inconsistencies across poses at the same time are referred to as spatial inconsistencies , and inconsistencies across time at the same pose are referred to as temporal inconsistencies .
Figure 3: Method overview. Given a generated frame at temporal index t and pose index s , each 4D Gaussian at c=(x,y,z) is projected onto the planes of the Spatio-Temporal Distortion Field to obtain deformation features, which are then decoded by a small MLP to produce the deformation values. We use separate photometric losses for real and generated frames, and additionally introduce regularization terms on pose, feature plane, and spatial smoothness to enhance optimization stability.
Method
Technicolor
Neural 3D Video
Nvidia Dynamic Scenes
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
HyperReel [ 1 ]
14.14
0.453
0.616
15.63
0.582
0.500
19.88
0.528
0.396
4DGaussians [ 38 ]
16.20
0.505
0.552
17.40
0.673
0.320
16.81
0.372
0.516
4D-Rotor [ 5 ]
14.85
0.426
0.581
18.20
0.708
0.357
19.38
0.508
0.389
RealTime4DGS [ 43 ]
16.53
0.510
0.542
17.31
0.649
0.442
17.91
0.479
0.426
MonoFusion* [ 35 ]
17.97
0.578
0.352
18.43
0.738
0.270
20.22
0.590
0.192
Table 1: Qualitative comparisons on Technicolor [ 26 ] , Neural 3D Video [ 13 ] , and Nvidia Dynamic Scenes [ 46 ] Datasets. The first and second best performances are highlighted in red and yellow. Our method shows superior performance compared to all baseline methods across all metrics. Note that MonoFusion ∗ is our reproduced version.
Figure 4: Qualitative Comparisons of different methods on Technicolor [ 26 ] , Neural 3D Video [ 13 ] , and Nvidia Dynamic Scenes [ 46 ] Datasets . We conduct comparisons with representative dynamic scene reconstruction methods: MonoFusion [ 35 ] , 4DGS [ 38 ] , 4D-Rotor [ 5 ] , and Realtime4DGS [ 43 ] . MonoFusion ∗ is our reproduced version. Our method significantly outperforms other baselines, producing visually reliable results with sharper details. Please zoom in for more details. Additional qualitative comparisons are included in the supplementary material.
Setting
Train
Jumping
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
w/o distortion field
0.608
0.426
0.319
0.674
w/o time axis
0.458
0.480
0.279
0.738
w/o pose axis
0.469
0.462
0.268
0.733
Ours
0.264
0.656
0.170
0.793
Table 2: Ablation studies on STDF. We randomly select one representative scene from Technicolor [ 26 ] and Nvidia Dynamic Scenes [ 46 ] to ablate Spatio-Temporal Distortion Field.
Figure 5: Spatio-Temporal Consistency. Rendering results (top) and space-time slices (bottom) constructed by concatenating the red pixel locations across all time steps, demonstrate that direct reconstruction from diffusion observations leads to severe blur and temporal instability(e.g., the moving hand at the bottom right).
Setting
Train
Jumping
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
w/o pose optimization
0.336
0.569
0.217
0.754
w/o Llpips
0.285
0.646
0.185
0.782
w/o LTV
0.309
0.616
0.191
0.768
w/o Lsmooth
0.308
0.619
0.191
0.770
Ours
0.264
0.656
0.170
0.793
Table 3: Ablation studies on pose optimization and loss components. We randomly select one representative scene from Technicolor [ 26 ] and Nvidia Dynamic Scenes [ 46 ] Datasets to ablate pose optimization and loss components.
Figure 6: Visualization of the STDF. Spatio-Temporal Distortion Field output is rendered as a per-primitive attribute, with brighter regions indicating higher distortions (left). The corresponding areas in the input generated image (right) align with regions exhibiting noticeable deformation (red box).
Cook Spinach
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
ViewCrafter (w/o STDF)
21.42
0.775
0.302
ViewCrafter (w STDF)
23.93
0.832
0.232
ReCamMaster (w/o STDF)
21.97
0.756
0.315
ReCamMaster (w STDF)
23.61
0.806
0.247
Table 4: Ablation study with alternative video diffusion models (VDMs) on Cook Spinach.
Figure 7: Spatio-Temporal consistency on ReCamMaster.
Figure 8: Visualization of selected training cameras. The non-red frustums denote the cameras used for training, corresponding to the images shown at the bottom and on the right respectively. The remaining red frustums indicate the cameras used for evaluation.
Figure 9: Reliability of PSNR vs. LPIPS in Ablation Experiments. We find that directly using generated-view reconstruction introduces severe oversmoothness that, paradoxically, favors PSNR computation, preventing PSNR from accurately reflecting changes in reconstruction quality. In contrast, LPIPS effectively captures the variations in reconstruction quality under these ablation settings.
3 views
6 views
9 views
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
4DGaussian
16.72
0.435
0.546
19.86
0.581
0.448
21.41
0.601
0.430
Ours
21.56
0.656
0.264
23.58
0.687
0.243
24.72
0.751
0.205
Table 5: Performance with different number of camera views. We set 4DGaussian as the baseline model for dynamic scene reconstruction and evaluate the rendering quality with different number of training views.
Figure 10: Visualization of the point-cloud rendering condition, generation prior, and final results.
Coffee Martini
Playground
Average
RealTime4DGS
11.48fps
11.51fps
11.50fps
Ours
11.82fps
11.97fps
11.90fps
Table 6: Efficiency Comparison with RealTime4DGS.
Figure 11: Visualization of one failure case. From left to right are the source image and point-cloud–rendering condition provided to ViewCrafter, the corresponding generated image, and a Gaussian rendering near that generated image. Since ViewCrafter is primarily trained on scene-centric data with few human subjects, this example suffers from an out-of-domain issue. In addition, the quality of the point-cloud–rendering condition is relatively low. These factors jointly lead to low-quality generated images, which in turn degrade the Gaussian reconstruction quality on the human body.
Figure 12: Visualization of Spatio-Temporal Distortion Field
Figure 13: Additional qualitative comparison results on Technicolor Dataset. We highlight the geometric completeness of background structures, bottom decorations, and the red bridge across different viewpoints, as well as the temporal consistency of dynamic regions such as human faces, the ‘Happy Birthday’ text, and the toy train.
Figure 14: Additional qualitative comparison results on Neural 3D Video Dataset (part I).
Figure 15: Additional qualitative comparison results on Neural 3D Video Dataset (part II).
Figure 16: Additional qualitative comparison results on Neural 3D Video Dataset (part III).
Figure 17: Additional qualitative comparison results on Neural 3D Video Dataset (part IV).
Figure 18: Additional qualitative comparison results on Nvidia Dynamic Scenes Dataset (part I). In the top panel, we emphasize the geometric completeness of the left archway and the right escalator across different viewpoints, as well as the temporal consistency of dynamic regions such as the human body, balloon, and the blue tether. In the bottom panel, we highlight the fine details of background grass, shoes, and umbrella textures, together with accurate motion fitting under fast movement in the leftmost column.
Table 7: PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS of our framework on Technicolor, with cam00, cam09 and cam15 served as training views.
Neural 3D Video - PSNR
coffee martini
cook spinach
cut roasted beef
flame salmon
flame steak
sear steak
Average
HyperReel
14.07
16.44
17.04
10.64
17.57
17.28
15.63
4DGaussians
14.49
17.94
18.34
14.83
19.53
18.57
17.40
4DRotor
15.86
19.65
18.51
16.10
19.69
19.05
18.20
RealTime4DGS
15.07
17.95
17.04
14.65
19.57
18.86
17.31
MonoFusion
15.59
19.71
19.15
15.42
20.02
19.91
18.43
Table 8: PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS of our framework on Neural 3D Video, with cam01, cam05 and cam10 served as training views.
Nvidia Dynamic Scenes - PSNR
jumping
balloon1
balloon3
playground
skating
umbrella
Average
HyperReel
24.45
15.46
22.58
15.41
21.05
24.74
19.88
4DGaussians
17.38
16.96
14.56
12.75
19.70
19.52
16.81
4DRotor
21.90
14.55
20.33
10.95
26.28
22.29
19.38
RealTime4DGS
17.85
18.36
19.07
13.96
18.52
19.71
17.91
MonoFusion
20.72
20.31
19.81
16.86
23.55
20.07
20.22
Table 9: PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS of our framework on Nvidia Dynamic Scenes, with cam01, cam06 and cam10 as training views.
Technicolor - PSNR
Fabien
Theater
Train
Birthday
Painter
Average
cam01
25.581
21.231
23.456
19.562
26.322
23.23
cam02
21.886
19.203
21.202
18.227
25.736
21.251
cam03
18.844
18.5
19.468
17.692
27.939
20.488
cam04
28.676
23.089
23.59
20.991
27.423
24.754
cam05
28.162
23.422
23.833
20.837
27.249
24.701
Table 10: PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS of our framework on Technicolor. Three cameras (cam00, cam09 and cam15) are served as training views for scene Fabien , Theater and Train , while only two cameras (cam00 and cam15) are training views for scene Birthday and Painter .
Neural 3D Video - PSNR
coffee martini
cook spinach
cut roasted beef
flame salmon
flame steak
sear steak
Average
cam00
21.654
28.114
26.901
22.323
27.558
27.744
25.715
cam02
25.236
25.926
25.206
24.866
25.472
25.365
25.345
cam03
-
25.194
24.231
-
25.489
25.891
25.201
cam04
25.477
31.417
-
25.741
31.034
30.641
28.862
cam06
20.31
27.966
26.145
21.048
27.624
27.609
25.117
Table 11: PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS of our framework on Neural 3D Video. Three cameras (cam01, cam05 and cam10) are training views.
Nvidia Dynamic Scenes - PSNR
jumping
balloon1
balloon3
playground
skating
umbrella
Average
cam02
25.867
26.076
28.318
19.736
32.098
26.946
26.507
cam03
23.858
25.564
27.681
19.201
26.698
27.409
25.069
cam04
25.41
25.337
26.352
18.441
30.907
27.033
25.58
cam05
26.698
26.248
27.455
20.261
32.017
28.36
26.84
cam07
24.477
25.839
27.519
19.161
29.468
22.384
24.808
Table 12: PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS of our framework on Nvidia Dynamic Scenes. Three cameras (cam01, cam06 and cam10) are training views.
Although dynamic 3D (i.e., 4D) reconstruction from a monocular dynamic camera has recently advanced, it remains fundamentally limited by depth ambiguity. In this paper, we focus on an alternative practical way, i.e., sparse dynamic camera setup, where a handful of independently moving cameras capture the same subjects. While keeping capture costs low, this setup introduces multi-view constraints and remains practical for real-world video production such as sports, concerts, and TV shows. Despite its potential, our experiments show that naive extensions of existing monocular or dense-fixed camera-based methods are insufficient since they fail to resolve the complex spatiotemporal inconsistencies across views and time. To fill this gap, we propose a simple yet effective 3D track initialization method designed to ensure spatiotemporal consistency by integrating inter-camera feature matching with intra-camera point tracking. Additionally, we incorporate a noise-robust depth-ordering regularization loss and a spatiotemporally diverse batch sampling strategy to enhance optimization stability and cross-view generalization. Furthermore, to address the lack of standardized benchmarks for this task, we introduce LetCamsGo, a new real-world video dataset with 5 sequences across 4 diverse environments, recorded by three independently moving cameras and one fixed camera. Comprehensive benchmarking on LetCamsGo demonstrated that our proposed framework improves 4D reconstruction quality in dynamic regions compared with baselines, paving the way for a low-cost 4D reconstruction paradigm in the wild.
Kazuki Ozeki, Shun Kenney, Yuto Shibata +6
Keio University · Sony AI · Sony Group Corporation
This paper tackles the challenge of recovering 4D dynamic scenes from videos captured by as few as four portable cameras. Learning to model scene dynamics for temporally consistent novel-view rendering is a foundational task in computer graphics, where previous works often require dense multi-view captures using camera arrays of dozens or even hundreds of views. We propose 4C4D, a novel framework that enables high-fidelity 4D Gaussian Splatting from video captures of extremely sparse cameras. Our key insight lies that the geometric learning under sparse settings is substantially more difficult than modeling appearance. Driven by this observation, we introduce a Neural Decaying Function on Gaussian opacities for enhancing the geometric modeling capability of 4D Gaussians. This design mitigates the inherent imbalance between geometry and appearance modeling in 4DGS by encouraging the 4DGS gradients to focus more on geometric learning. Extensive experiments across sparse-view datasets with varying camera overlaps show that 4C4D achieves superior performance over prior art. Project page at: https://junshengzhou.github.io/4C4D.
Junsheng Zhou, Zhifan Yang, Liang Han +4
School of Software, Tsinghua University · Kuaishou Technology
Dynamic urban environments are often captured by cameras placed at spatially separated locations with little or no view overlap. However, most existing 4D reconstruction methods assume densely overlapping views and struggle under sparse multi-location observations, producing unstable reconstructions in unobserved intermediate regions. To address this practical yet underexplored setting, we propose Stitch4D, a unified 4D reconstruction framework that compensates for missing spatial coverage in sparsely observed urban environments. Stitch4D synthesizes intermediate bridge views between distant camera locations and jointly optimizes real and synthesized observations in a unified coordinate frame with inter-location consistency constraints. By recovering intermediate spatial coverage before optimization, Stitch4D mitigates geometric collapse and improves reconstruction stability in sparse regions. To evaluate this setting, we introduce Urban Sparse 4D (U-S4D), a controlled CARLA-based benchmark for free-viewpoint reconstruction under sparse multi-location configurations. Experiments on U-S4D show that Stitch4D consistently outperforms representative 4D reconstruction baselines in image-quality metrics. These results suggest that recovering intermediate spatial coverage is an effective strategy for stabilizing 4D reconstruction in sparse urban environments. The project page is provided in https://stitch4d-project-page.vercel.app/.
Hina Kogure, Kei Katsumata, Taiki Miyanishi +1
Keio University, Japan · The University of Tokyo, Japan