Camera-controllable video generation aims to synthesize videos with flexible and physically plausible camera movements. However, existing methods either provide imprecise camera control from text prompts or rely on labor-intensive manual camera trajectory parameters, limiting their use in automated scenarios. To address these issues, we propose a novel Vision-Language-Camera model, termed CT-1 (Camera Transformer 1), a specialized model designed to transfer spatial reasoning knowledge to video generation by accurately estimating camera trajectories. Built upon vision-language modules and a Diffusion Transformer model, CT-1 employs a Wavelet-based Regularization Loss in the frequency domain to effectively learn complex camera trajectory distributions. These trajectories are integrated into a video diffusion model to enable spatially aware camera control that aligns with user intentions. To facilitate the training of CT-1, we design a dedicated data curation pipeline and construct CT-200K, a large-scale dataset containing over 47M frames. Experimental results demonstrate that our framework successfully bridges the gap between spatial reasoning and video synthesis, yielding faithful and high-quality camera-controllable videos and improving camera control accuracy by 25.7% over prior methods.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: A high-level overview of CT-1’s architecture, its integration with the video generation model, and comparisons.
Figure 2: Overview of the proposed camera-controllable video generation framework based on the CT-1 model, which includes (a) a vision–language module for semantic embedding, (b) a Diffusion Transformer module for modeling camera trajectory distributions, and (c) controllable generation models that synthesize videos conditioned on the trajectories.
Figure 3: Wavelet analysis of camera trajectories over 1,000 examples, including energy dominance, smoothness, geometric retention, and the trade-off between jitter and trajectory deviation across low- and high-frequency components.
Figure 4: Overview of the CT-200K data curation pipeline, designed to address missing or ambiguous camera-motion annotations in existing datasets and to support annotation for reasoning scenarios.
Inference Type
Method
Dolly-in
Pan Left
Truck Left
Tilt Down
Regular
Complex
Average ↑
or Right
or Right
or Up
Speed
Motion
Trajectory-input-based using VLM
MotionCtrl [ 31 ]
24.0
31.1
18.5
27.5
30.2
21.8
25.5
CameraCtrl [ 9 ]
29.0
36.1
22.6
31.3
34.7
27.0
30.1
Trajectory-input-based using AR
MotionCtrl [ 31 ]
18.0
24.4
14.3
22.5
24.9
17.1
20.2
CameraCtrl [ 9 ]
22.0
28.9
16.7
25.0
28.1
20.6
23.6
Prompt-input-based w/ PE
LTX-Video [ 8 ]
34.0
58.3
28.6
50.0
56.2
45.7
45.5
Table 1: Zero-shot quantitative results on CameraBench100 for camera trajectory estimation across six typical tasks using the Success Rate metric. PE denotes Prompt Extension for fair comparison, and AR denotes autoregressive trajectory generation.
Method
Aesthetic
Imaging
Motion
Dynamic
Quality ↑
Quality ↑
Smoothness
Degree
LTX-Video [ 8 ]
0.535
0.628
0.972
0.981
CogVideoX [ 35 ]
0.540
0.681
0.985
0.445
Wan2.1 [ 26 ]
0.565
0.685
0.977
0.505
Wan2.2 [ 26 ]
0.548
0.665
0.970
0.810
LTX-Video [ 8 ]
0.542
0.634
0.973
0.980
Table 2: Comparison of generated video quality with baseline methods using VBench. Results w/o PE are in gray.
Figure 5: Qualitative comparison in out-of-distribution (OOD) scenarios with CogVideoX [ 35 ] , LTX-Video [ 8 ] , and Wan2.2 [ 26 ] .
Method
Param.
Imaging
Dynamic
Regular
Complex
Quality
Degree
Speed
Motion
CT-1 (Base)
33M
0.623
0.674
72.3
64.8
CT-1 (Large)
130M
0.685
0.769
82.7
76.4
CT-1 (Huge)
458M
0.708
0.830
87.6
81.5
Table 3: Ablation of camera control and video generation performance across different CT-1 scales.
Method
Imaging
Dynamic
Regular
Complex
Quality
Degree
Speed
Motion
WavReg / β=0
0.681
0.802
82.0
76.1
WavReg / β=1.0
0.678
0.799
80.9
77.2
WavReg / β=0.5
0.682
0.808
82.0
79.3
WavReg / β=0.3
0.702
0.824
83.1
80.4
WavReg / β=0.05
0.697
0.816
84.3
79.3
Table 4: Impact of the WavReg loss and the parameter β on the performance of the CT-1 model.
Method
Imaging
Dynamic
Regular
Complex
Quality
Degree
Speed
Motion
Prompt → Images
0.663
0.780
82.0
75.0
Image → Prompts
0.725
0.810
88.8
85.9
Table 5: Ablation analysis under the settings of the same image with different prompts (Image → Prompts) and the same prompt with different images (Prompt → Images).
Data
Scale (K)
Imaging
Dynamic
Regular
Complex
Quality
Degree
Speed
Motion
w/ GS
80 / 120
0.674
0.782
80.9
70.7
w/ RS
80 / 80
0.631
0.735
77.5
73.9
CT-200K
80 / 200
0.691
0.809
84.2
77.8
Table 6: Comparison of CT-1 training performance across different dataset settings (GS: General Scenarios; RS: Reasoning Scenarios). a/b denotes an a subset from the b dataset.
Model
Length
Time cost (seconds)
Memory (GB)
CT-1 model
13-step
22.81
28.91
Video generation
49-frame
429.02
39.48
Table 7: Comparison of the time and memory costs of the CT-1 estimation stage and the video generation stage.
Figure 6: Visualization of camera trajectories estimated by CT-1. The red (X), green (Y), and blue (Z) axes indicate the camera’s local coordinate system [ 24 ] : the red axis denotes the right–left direction, the green axis represents the vertical direction (down or up), and the blue axis corresponds to the viewing direction (forward or backward, i.e., zoom-in or zoom-out).
Figure 7: Visualization of camera trajectories estimated by CT-1 under longer textual descriptions.
Figure 8: Visualization of a single image with multiple camera descriptions. Given a fixed reference image, we apply three different camera motion descriptions to the same scene and visualize the camera trajectories predicted by CT-1.
Figure 9: Visualization of a single camera description with multiple reference images. Given a fixed camera motion description, we pair it with three different reference images and infer the corresponding camera trajectories using CT-1.
Figure 10: Qualitative results of generated videos. Given an input reference image and a textual prompt, CT-1 infers semantically consistent camera motion trajectories, which are further used to drive a camera-controllable video generation model [ 39 ] . In each case, scene-related elements are highlighted with a light blue background to indicate the visual content explicitly referenced by the input camera description within the user intent.
Figure 11: Qualitative results of applying the trajectories results of the CT-1 on CameraCtrl [ 9 ] model, which is a camera-controllable video generation model. The tested scenes are from the RealEstate10K dataset [ 43 ] .
Figure 12: Qualitative results of applying the trajectories results of the CT-1 on MotionCtrl [ 31 ] model, which is a camera-controllable video generation model. The tested scenes are from the MultiCamVideo dataset [ 1 ] .
Figure 13: Qualitative results of deep reasoning-based setting, showcasing the CT-1 model’s ability to infer camera motion from semantic and visual clues in complex scenes. The red boxes highlight implicit cues in the text that require visual context for interpretation.
Figure 14: Qualitative results of camera-controllable video generation in driving scenarios on DrivingDoJo dataset [ 30 ] . For each example, we provide a reference image and a forward-driving textual prompt as input to CT-1, which predicts the corresponding camera trajectory and drives the subsequent video diffusion model for synthesis.
Figure 15: User preference on 30 selected videos. Longer pink bars indicate greater satisfaction with our method.
Method
Aesthetic
Imaging
Regular
Complex
Quality
Quality
Speed
Motion
CT-1∗ -GR
0.557
0.681
83.9
76.8
CT-1∗ -AR
0.573
0.688
85.1
79.4
CT-1
0.585
0.709
87.6
81.5
Table 8: Comparison of camera trajectory quality with different CT-1 variants. The second-best results are underlined.
Evaluation Setting
Size
Protocol
CT-1
Wan2.2 [ 26 ] w/ PE
Gap
Stability
Fixed CameraBench100
100
Fixed balanced subset
81.6
64.9
+16.7
–
Bootstrap CI
100
1000 bootstrap resamples
81.6 [74.8, 87.9]
64.9 [56.8, 72.7]
+16.7
CI reported
Random balanced subsets
100
Mean over 20 subsets
80.9 ± 1.7
63.8 ± 2.2
+17.1 ± 1.1
CT-1 wins 20/20
Larger balanced subsets
200
Mean over 10 subsets
81.2 ± 1.1
64.3 ± 1.5
+16.9 ± 0.8
CT-1 wins 10/10
Larger balanced subsets
300
Mean over 10 subsets
81.0 ± 0.9
64.5 ± 1.2
+16.5 ± 0.6
CT-1 wins 10/10
Table 9: Statistical stability analysis of CameraBench100. We compare CT-1 and Wan2.2 across different test sets.
Method
Aesthetic
Imaging
Regular
Complex
Quality
Quality
Speed
Motion
VelReg
0.559
0.683
84.1
76.9
AccReg
0.562
0.705
85.7
79.1
Jerk
0.567
0.702
86.5
80.0
LowPass
0.570
0.696
87.0
80.7
WavReg
0.585
0.709
87.6
81.5
Table 10: Comparison of different trajectory regularization strategies. The second-best results are underlined.
Method
Aesthetic
Imaging
Regular
Complex
Quality
Quality
Speed
Motion
Text-only Modeling
0.453
0.578
41.7
33.9
Vision-only Modeling
0.546
0.671
40.4
32.1
Pooled Modeling
0.579
0.683
82.8
76.2
<CAM> Modeling
0.585
0.709
87.6
81.5
Table 11: Comparison of different camera-context token strategies. The second-best results are underlined.
Figure 16: High- and low-frequency analysis of camera trajectories within a single scene, including angular velocity magnitude, linear velocity magnitude, acceleration energy, and high-frequency D1 energy.
Figure 17: Example instances from the CT-200 dataset. For the raw data, we apply the data curation pipeline proposed in this work to produce fine-grained annotations of camera motion descriptions. The figure shows representative video frames along with their corresponding camera motion prompts.
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
We present Gen Through the Lens, a camera-controllable image-to-video generation framework that synthesizes videos from a given reference image while enabling realistic and physically consistent camera operations. Unlike previous models that treat camera motion as abstract conditioning or rely on a single coordinate system, our approach explicitly decomposes and fuses control signals across three coordinate spaces: the camera coordinate (modeled by intrinsic parameters), the world coordinate (represented by spatial geometry hints), and the object coordinate (described by 3D bounding boxes of target subjects). Through cross-coordinate conditioning fusion, these heterogeneous cues are unified to guide the generative process, enabling precise control of camera motion, focus, and framing while preserving temporal and spatial coherence. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method produces controllable and visually consistent results across diverse camera operations, outperforming existing approaches in both realism and editability.
Camera motion control is essential for directing viewpoint changes in generative systems. However, existing methods typically condition the generation process on a single specific modality, such as explicit pose trajectories or reference videos, limiting their ability to support heterogeneous user inputs. To address this limitation, we present TriMotion, a modality-agnostic framework for camera-controlled video generation that maps video, pose, and text inputs, describing the same camera trajectory into a shared motion embedding space. Learning such a space requires synchronized supervision across modalities. Therefore, we build the Motion Triplet Dataset by extending a Multi-Cam Video Dataset with geometry-grounded motion descriptions derived from camera extrinsics. We further introduce a latent motion consistency objective that leverages the motion embedding space to encourage the generated video to follow the target camera trajectory directly in latent space, avoiding the cost of pixel-space decoding. Extensive experiments show that TriMotion generates high-quality videos that accurately follow the target camera trajectories across all three modalities. Beyond standard generation, the shared motion embedding space also enables flexible applications such as sequential motion composition and cross-modal motion interpolation.
Seunghyun Shin, Jifei Song, Wooseok Jeon +2
GIST · Huawei Noah’s Ark Lab · Yonsei University +1