3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) has enabled efficient 3D scene reconstruction from everyday images with real-time, high-fidelity rendering, greatly advancing VR/AR applications. Fisheye cameras, with their wider field of view (FOV), promise high-quality reconstructions from fewer inputs and have recently attracted much attention. However, since 3DGS relies on rasterization, most subsequent works involving fisheye camera inputs first undistort images before training, which introduces two problems: 1) Black borders at image edges cause information loss and negate the fisheye's large FOV advantage; 2) Undistortion's stretch-and-interpolate resampling spreads each pixel's value over a larger area, diluting detail density -- causes 3DGS overfitting these low-frequency zones, producing blur and floating artifacts. In this work, we integrate fisheye camera model into the original 3DGS framework, enabling native fisheye image input for training without preprocessing. Despite correct modeling, we observed that the reconstructed scenes still exhibit floaters at image edges: Distortion increases toward the periphery, and 3DGS's original per-iteration random-selecting-view optimization ignores the cross-view correlations of a Gaussian, leading to extreme shapes (e.g., oversized or elongated) that degrade reconstruction quality. To address this, we introduce a feature-overlap-driven cross-view joint optimization strategy that establishes consistent geometric and photometric constraints across views-a technique equally applicable to existing pinhole-camera-based pipelines. Our DirectFisheye-GS matches or surpasses state-of-the-art performance on public datasets. Project Page: https://yzxqh.github.io/DirectFisheye-GS/ .
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Common fisheye camera projection models. It is typically approximated as a unit sphere projection model. P represents a Gaussian point in space, C is the camera center, θ is the angle between the ray PC and the camera optical axis, f is the camera focal length, and rd is the distance from the planar projection point p to the image center.
Figure 3: Illustration of the 3DGS single-view training paradigm and our proposed cross-view joint optimization strategy.
Figure 4: Schematic diagram of our camera association method.
Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of our results against the baselines on the FisheyeNeRF [ 12 ] dataset. Ours has more details, better texture, and fewer floaters.
Globe
Rock
Cube
Flowers
Heart
Chairs
Average
FisheyeNeRF
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
3DGS
0.6355
19.8407
0.5273
0.5306
18.0784
0.5122
0.6491
19.3742
0.5388
0.5412
18.1212
0.5362
0.6842
19.8638
0.5045
0.6338
17.7938
0.5179
0.6124
18.8454
0.5228
3DGS*
0.8587
26.9129
0.2223
0.8108
26.6751
0.2129
0.8356
26.4027
0.2502
0.8187
24.5977
0.2140
0.8163
25.6968
0.2666
0.8036
22.9437
0.2924
0.8240
25.5382
0.2431
Fisheye-GS**
0.8593
26.9145
0.2245
0.8230
26.8117
0.2242
0.8384
26.9748
0.2604
0.8022
24.4500
0.2285
0.8223
24.9219
0.2888
0.7643
20.9969
0.3681
0.8183
25.1783
0.2658
3DGUT
0.8200
26.0860
0.3250
0.7730
25.4410
0.2970
0.8050
26.0730
0.3530
0.7340
23.3250
0.3370
0.7890
24.5390
0.3840
0.8910
26.2380
0.2780
0.8020
25.2837
0.3290
Self-Cali-GS
0.7428
24.6431
0.4628
0.7162
24.4566
0.4955
0.7638
24.9037
0.4702
0.6458
22.1389
0.5398
0.8023
24.6079
0.3839
0.8048
23.3000
0.3522
0.7460
24.0084
0.4507
Table 1: Per-scene results of our method and related state-of-art works on the FisheyeNeRF [ 12 ] Dataset (Train View). * shows the results of undistorted images as inputs and fisheye rendered images as output. ** Fisheye-GS still need to pre-process data before training.
0a5c013435
8d563fc2cc
bb87c292ad
d415cc449b
e8ea9b4da8
fe1733741f
Average
Scannet++
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
3DGS
0.8063
18.3261
0.3430
0.7782
15.6411
0.3899
0.8274
19.8864
0.3522
0.5999
15.5700
0.5401
0.8613
20.8932
0.3445
0.6791
14.8815
0.4825
0.7587
17.5331
0.4087
3DGS*
0.8754
24.5032
0.1918
0.8903
24.9394
0.1894
0.9148
28.6049
0.2044
0.7693
23.8866
0.2780
0.9271
29.6452
0.2127
0.8137
23.6730
0.2573
0.8651
25.8754
0.2223
Fisheye-GS**
0.8940
26.4200
0.1770
0.9050
26.1500
0.1770
0.9330
30.6300
0.1790
0.8550
27.1200
0.2230
0.9460
31.8900
0.1910
0.8490
24.9500
0.2230
0.8970
27.8600
0.1950
3DGUT
0.9300
29.7930
0.2290
0.9010
25.7450
0.2520
0.9340
30.4110
0.2470
0.8650
27.4000
0.2630
0.9510
32.2130
0.2570
0.8440
24.9450
0.2900
0.9042
28.4178
0.2563
Self-Cali-GS
0.8549
22.7834
0.1985
0.8422
21.1700
0.2316
0.8747
25.6795
0.2055
0.7259
21.9833
0.3383
0.9081
28.1148
0.1481
0.7447
20.0664
0.3431
0.8251
23.2996
0.2442
Table 2: Per-scene evaluation results of our method and related state-of-art works on the Scannet++ [ 46 ] Dataset (Test View).
Ruziniu
Coffee
Train View
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
3DGS*
0.7518
20.0220
0.2697
0.8826
24.7996
0.2416
Fisheye-GS**
0.5965
20.8819
0.4447
0.8737
25.6869
0.2661
3DGUT
0.7500
22.2100
0.3400
0.8830
25.7450
0.3310
Self-Cali-GS
0.5224
19.7540
0.5969
0.8873
22.9550
0.2460
Ours
0.8225
24.0154
0.2140
0.9105
27.3528
0.2181
Table 3: Performance of our method and four baselines on Den-SOFT [ 47 ] dataset (Train View & Test View).
Scene
w/o CVO
w/ CVO
3DGUT
Ruziniu
23.0033
23.7625
22.2242
Coffee
26.2492
27.3819
25.8105
Table 4: PSNR comparisons of the image-boundary region on Den-SOFT [ 47 ] dataset.
Ruziniu
Coffee
Method
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
Fisheye model
0.8172
23.7717
0.2230
0.9001
27.1948
0.2223
Fisheye model + CVO(Ours)
0.8225
24.0154
0.2140
0.9105
27.3528
0.2181
Table 5: The performance of Cross-View Joint Optimization (CVO) under native fisheye inputs.
Self-captured Dataset: Ruziniu
Method
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
Num.Points
Fisheye model
0.8172
23.7717
0.2230
6330482
Fisheye model + batchsize (random select)
0.8230
23.5864
0.2174
6872364
Fisheye model + cross-view (ours)
0.8225
24.0154
0.2140
6668098
Table 6: The results of adopting different views selection strategies. “Random-select” refers to training strategy used in MVGS [ 6 ] .
Square2
Coffee
Method
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
3DGS
0.9354
30.5345
0.1505
0.9013
27.2348
0.2237
3DGS + random select
0.9355
30.6498
0.1491
0.8936
26.2880
0.2370
3DGS + CVO
0.9403
30.9500
0.1420
0.9033
27.5138
0.2172
Table 7: Cross-view joint optimization (CVO) performance under pinhole inputs.
Figure 6: Gaussian’s scales statistics for scene: FisheyeNeRF-Chairs . Base: original 3DGS with fisheye model. Ours: fisheye + CVO.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: Toy experiment showing that strong fisheye distortion causes unstable and anisotropic Gaussian optimization near image boundaries.
Figure 8: Toy experiment illustrating the behavior of our method and 3DGUT at fisheye image boundaries. We place a blue sphere in 3D space and render multi-view fisheye images as ground truth. Reconstruction results using 3DGUT and our method are shown above. Our method achieves more accurate fitting near the image boundaries and avoids mosaic-like artifacts, while 3DGUT exhibits degraded geometry under strong distortion.
Globe
Rock
Cube
Flowers
Heart
Chairs
Average
FisheyeNeRF
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
Fisheye-GS**
0.7942
23.4159
0.2667
0.7539
24.4696
0.2575
0.7826
24.4171
0.2948
0.6843
21.5505
0.2901
0.7843
23.6402
0.3108
0.6540
18.6131
0.4262
0.7422
22.6844
0.3077
3DGUT
0.7790
24.0800
0.3420
0.7320
24.1400
0.3130
0.7630
24.3140
0.3690
0.6550
21.3070
0.3690
0.7730
23.6490
0.3930
0.8520
24.6950
0.3070
0.7590
23.6975
0.3488
Self-Cali-GS
0.7443
22.1169
0.4273
0.6799
22.2834
0.4777
0.7414
22.4269
0.4573
0.5868
19.5231
0.5212
0.7907
22.3154
0.3788
0.7710
20.9594
0.3535
0.7190
21.6042
0.4360
Ours
0.7937
24.0818
0.2423
0.7480
24.5222
0.2495
0.7755
24.4438
0.2758
0.6826
21.7037
0.2776
0.7798
23.5701
0.2899
0.8620
25.0001
0.2185
0.7736
23.8870
0.2589
Appendix
Table 8: Per-scene results of our method and related state-of-art works on the FisheyeNeRF [ 12 ] Dataset (Test View). ** Fisheye-GS still need to pre-process data before training.
drjohnson
playroom
train
truck
Method
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
SSIM↑
PSNR↑
LPIPS↓
3DGS
0.9012
29.4539
0.2448
0.9027
30.0726
0.2482
0.8093
22.3197
0.2171
0.8780
25.6492
0.1576
3DGS + random select
0.8975
29.4017
0.2434
0.9009
30.0162
0.2453
0.8182
22.3985
0.2031
0.8824
25.8986
0.1484
3DGS + CVO
0.9024
29.5530
0.2413
0.9083
30.3675
0.2466
0.8250
22.7337
0.2010
0.8872
25.9716
0.1466
Appendix
Table 9: Cross-view joint optimization (CVO) under pinhole inputs of Tanks & Temples [ 18 ] Dataset.
Batchsize
PSNR
LPIPS
Time (min)
Δ PSNR/ Δ Time
1
23.7717
0.2232
38.87
-
2
24.0154
0.2139
62.43
1.0344%
3
24.1583
0.2102
89.83
0.5215%
4
24.2262
0.2077
129.52
0.1711%
5
24.2896
0.2051
160.92
0.2019%
Appendix
Table 10: Performance comparison with varying batch sizes on Scene:Ruziniu in Den-SOFT dataset.
Method
Ours
3DGUT
Self-Cali-GS
Training-Time (h)
0.395
0.404
3.333
Rendering-Speed (FPS)
77
55
31
Appendix
Table 11: Comparisons of computational costs for methods supporting native fisheye inputs. All methods are evaluated on a single NVIDIA A100 GPU.
Figure 9: Qualitative comparison on Den-SOFT [ 47 ] dataset. Our method achieves the best results in both indoor and outdoor large-scale scenes.
Figure 10: Qualitative comparison of ablation studies on cross-view joint optimization (CVO) with fisheye or pinhole camera inputs.
Feed-forward foundation models for multi-view 3-dimensional (3D) reconstruction have been trained on large-scale datasets of perspective images; when tested on wide field-of-view images, e.g., from a fisheye camera, their performance degrades. This degradation arises from changes in spatial arrangements of pixels induced by the non-linear projection model that maps 3D points onto the 2D image plane. While one may surmise that training on fisheye images would resolve this problem, there are far fewer fisheye images with ground truth than perspective images, which limits generalization. To enable inference on imagery exhibiting high radial distortion, we propose Fisheye3R, a novel adaptation framework that extends these multi-view 3D reconstruction foundation models to natively accommodate fisheye inputs without performance regression on perspective images. To address the scarcity of fisheye images and ground truth, we introduce flexible learning schemes that support self-supervised adaptation using only unlabeled perspective images and supervised adaptation without any fisheye training data. Extensive experiments across three foundation models, including VGGT, π3, and MapAnything, demonstrate that our approach consistently improves camera pose, depth, point map, and field-of-view estimation on fisheye images. Code is available at https://github.com/android-xr/fisheye3r.
We present GaussFusion, a novel approach for improving 3D Gaussian splatting (3DGS) reconstructions in the wild through geometry-informed video generation. GaussFusion mitigates common 3DGS artifacts, including floaters, flickering, and blur caused by camera pose errors, incomplete coverage, and noisy geometry initialization. Unlike prior RGB-based approaches limited to a single reconstruction pipeline, our method introduces a geometry-informed video-to-video generator that refines 3DGS renderings across both optimization-based and feed-forward methods. Given an existing reconstruction, we render a Gaussian primitive video buffer encoding depth, normals, opacity, and covariance, which the generator refines to produce temporally coherent, artifact-free frames. We further introduce an artifact synthesis pipeline that simulates diverse degradation patterns, ensuring robustness and generalization. GaussFusion achieves state-of-the-art performance on novel-view synthesis benchmarks, and an efficient variant runs in real time at 15 FPS while maintaining similar performance, enabling interactive 3D applications.
Feed-forward 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) enables reconstruction without per- scene optimisation, but practical stereo-camera applications require nearby-view extrapolation beyond the input views. Stereo depth anchors visible surfaces, yet rendering newly exposed regions also requires learned appearance and additional scene capacity. We introduce StereoGaussians, which predicts a metric 3DGS representation from a single calibrated stereo pair. It reuses intermediate repre- sentations from frozen pretrained stereo networks to predict Gaussian attributes, while calibrated disparity anchors the geometry. A second Gaussian layer and an expanded image canvas provide capacity for disoccluded and outside-field-of- view content. For training, we construct SceneSplat-Stereo from quality-filtered 3DGS teachers, pairing stereo inputs with nearby target views across 803 training scenes. Experiments on unseen real and photorealistic stereo benchmarks demon- strate improvements over strong view-synthesis baselines, while ablation studies support our main design choices.