Organizations: College of Electronics and Information Engineering, Shenzhen University · College of Applied Technology, Shenzhen University · School of Artificial Intelligence, Shenzhen Technology University · Research Center of Networks and Communications, Pengcheng Laboratory
2D Gaussian Splatting (2DGS) has recently become a promising paradigm for high-quality video representation. However, existing methods employ content-agnostic or spatio-temporal feature overlapping embeddings to predict canonical Gaussian primitive deformations, which entangles static and dynamic components in videos and prevents modeling their distinct properties effectively. These result in inaccurate predictions for spatio-temporal deformations and unsatisfactory representation quality. To address these problems, this paper proposes a Spatio-Temporal hash encoding framework for Gaussian-based Video representation (STGV). By decomposing video features into learnable 2D spatial and 3D temporal hash encodings, STGV effectively facilitates the learning of motion patterns for dynamic components while maintaining background details for static elements. In addition, we construct a more stable and consistent initial canonical Gaussian representation through a key frame canonical initialization strategy, preventing from feature overlapping and a structurally incoherent geometry representation. Experimental results demonstrate that our method attains better video representation quality (+0.98 PSNR) against other Gaussian-based methods and achieves competitive performance in downstream video tasks.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: The visual comparison of utilizing different deformation fields for Gaussian-based video representation. The results show that our method better represent both background details and motion patterns.
Fig. 2: Overall of our proposed method STGV. We first select the first frame from a GoP as the key-frame to perform coarse training to construct the canonical space. Then, the canonical space is trained jointly with the spatio-temporal hash encoding to obtain the deformed attributes of Gaussians at each frame. Finally, the Gaussian attributes of canonical space and the frame-specific Gaussian deformation are combined and rendered to generate the corresponding frame.
Fig. 3: The visual comparison between Key Frame Canonical and Multi-frame Initialization upon canonical space.
Fig. 4: Visual comparison results. From left to right are yachtride, cows and boat video. Benefiting from Spatio-Temporal hash encoding and KFCI strategy, our methods achieves best visual quality.
UVG dataset
Model
Training time
Decoding FPS
PSNR
MS-SSIM
Params
SIREN
8h
28
26.27
0.9197
5.8M
NeRV
5h
80
33.40
0.9494
E-NeRV
4h
46
35.09
0.9712
2DGS
4.5h
1800
31.98
0.9537
D2GV
2.2h
310
34.31
0.9635
TABLE I: Quantitative results comparison on UVG and DAVIS dataset. Bold indicates the best performance, and underline indicates the second best.
Model
Decoding FPS
PSNR
MS-SSIM
Params
SIREN
29
26.27
0.9197
3.0M
NeRV
323
34.2
0.9770
E-NeRV
63
37.06
0.9887
HNeRV
96
38.00
0.9880
GaussianVideo
475
34.8
0.9790
GSVR
816
35.65
-
TABLE II: Quantitative results comparison on bunny dataset. Bold indicates the best performance, and underline indicates the second best.
Fig. 5: Compression results on Bunny dataset.
Method
Bee
Swan
Cows
Bos.
Beauty
Avg.
Baseline
27.08
26.25
24.47
22.67
29.13
25.92
D2GV
40.32
29.89
29.30
33.91
35.49
33.78
STGV
41.85
30.21
30.05
34.01
36.41
34.51
TABLE III: PSNR results for video inpainting. ”baseline” means the mask frames before inpainting
Fig. 6: Video inpainting visualization on cows and blackswan.
Fig. 7: The spatial interpolation visualization on Beauty and Honeybee.
Variants
KFCI
Sta.
Dyn.
Bunny
UVG
(V1)
37.26
34.93
(V2)
✓
37.81
35.01
(V3)
✓
✓
37.64
35.19
(V4)
✓
✓
37.33
35.10
Ours
✓
✓
✓
37.93
35.29
TABLE IV: Ablation study on Bunny and UVG datasets in PSNR. KFCI means Key Frame Canonical Initialization strategy, Sta. represents static hash encoding and Dyn. means dynamic hash encoding.
Fig. 8: Visual comparison of static hash encoding and dynamic encoding in bosphorus dataset. Our method achieves the best quality in the dynamic region (red block) and the static region (yellow block).
Encoding method
Dataset
Positional
Plane-based
Spatio-Temporal
Bunny
37.81
37.55
37.93
UVG
35.01
34.00
35.29
TABLE V: Different encoding methods results on Bunny and UVG datasets in PSNR.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Noise
White
Black
Salt & Pepper
Avg
Baseline
26.94
28.18
28.35
27.82
Gaussian
35.64
36.08
36.46
36.06
Uniform
34.35
34.35
34.60
34.43
Median
34.73
38.07
38.15
36.98
Minimum
18.64
14.3
18.75
18.75
Maximum
18.86
23.4
15.15
19.14
Appendix
TABLE VI: Video denoising performance. PSNR is recorded in dB.
Fig. 9: Results with different Gaussian Numbers.
Fig. 10: Visualization of video denoising.
Method
Beauty
Bosph.
Honey.
Jockey
Ready.
Shake.
Yacht.
Avg.
NeRV
35.24/0.9446
33.95/0.9567
39.88/0.9924
34.07/0.9509
27.00/0.9324
34.98/0.9667
28.67/0.9212
33.40/0.9494
E-NeRV
35.82/0.9508
36.01/0.9760
39.06/0.9937
36.09/0.9710
30.30/0.9689
36.53/0.9790
31.34/0.9590
35.09/0.9712
2DGS
33.71/0.9419
33.09/0.9599
32.42/0.9921
34.01/0.9540
28.10/0.9410
30.12/0.9460
31.34/0.9407
31.98/0.9537
D2GV
35.89/0.9510
34.42/0.9705
40.62 / 0.9940
35.54 / 0.9688
28.97 / 0.9380
35.91 / 0.9792
29.79 / 0.9428
34.31/0.9635
Ours
36.68/0.9571
34.31/0.9505
41.87/0.9943
36.04/0.9597
29.63/0.9400
37.13/0.9764
31.38/0.9420
35.29/0.9600
Appendix
TABLE VII: Quantitative results comparison on the UVG dataset in PSNR/MS-SSIM.
Method
Dance
Camel
Bmx
Swan
Cow
Boat
Avg.
NeRV
28.10/0.9678
24.85/0.8860
27.04/0.8897
28.12/0.9061
22.74/0.8099
31.69/0.9482
26.92/0.9013
E-NeRV
30.28/0.9861
26.58/0.9293
29.27/0.9325
30.51/0.9502
22.65/0.8102
32.94/0.9645
28.71/0.9288
2DGS
30.51/0.9801
29.71/0.9431
29.01/0.9221
30.27/0.9299
29.01/0.9641
33.01/0.9554
30.16/0.9491
D2GV
31.38/0.9835
30.89/0.9734
30.78/0.9340
30.42/0.9371
29.79/0.9700
34.31/0.9680
30.26/0.9611
Ours
31.14/0.9814
30.65/0.9630
30.44/0.9367
30.33/0.9382
30.12/0.9731
35.47/0.9756
31.36/0.9613
Appendix
TABLE VIII: Quantitative results comparison on the Davis dataset in PSNR/MS-SSIM.
Fig. 11: Visualization of reconstruction quality on Jockey, Readysteaygo, and Camel (from top to bottom).