Real-time free-viewpoint rendering requires balancing multi-camera redundancy with the latency constraints of interactive applications. We address this challenge by combining lightweight geometry with learning and propose 3DTV, a feedforward network for real-time sparse-view interpolation. A Delaunay-based triplet selection ensures angular coverage for each target view. Building on this, we introduce a pose-aware depth module that estimates a coarse-to-fine depth pyramid, enabling efficient feature reprojection and occlusion-aware blending. Unlike methods that require scene-specific optimization, 3DTV runs feedforward without retraining, making it practical for AR/VR, telepresence, and interactive applications. Our experiments on challenging multi-view video datasets demonstrate that 3DTV consistently achieves a strong balance of quality and efficiency, outperforming recent real-time novel-view baselines. Crucially, 3DTV avoids explicit proxies, enabling robust rendering across diverse scenes. This makes it a practical solution for low-latency multi-view streaming and interactive rendering. Project Page: https://stefanmschulz.github.io/3DTV_webpage/
Figures & tables
Single GPU Reconstruction
Method
Venue
Real-time
Multi-Object
# Cameras
online
offline
Nerfacto-big Tancik et al. (2023)
SIG ’23
✘
✔
> 30
✘
✘
Splatfacto-big Tancik et al. (2023)
’24
✘
✔
> 30
✘
✘
RIFTCast Zingsheim et al. (2025)
ACM MM ’25
✔
✔
> 10
✘
✔
ENeRF Lin et al. (2022)
SA ’22
(✔)
✔
> 2
✔
✔
GPS-Gaussian Zheng et al. (2024)
CVPR ’24
(✔)
(✔)
2
✔
✔
Table 1: Method capabilities and limitations overview.
Figure 2: Overview of our real-time view interpolation framework. A lightweight Ghost-based backbone extracts multi-scale feature pyramids from the input images (left). A coarse-to-fine module then estimates depth and alpha for the target view using grouped correlations and residual refinement (center). Finally, a hierarchical fusion decoder aggregates projected features and synthesizes the novel RGB image (right).
Figure 3: Details on the Correlation Block (left) and Proj Block (right) from Fig. 2 . The correlation block computes pairwise group correlations from depth-projected features and masks, processes them with depth proposals in a shared encoder–decoder, and refines the fused latents with the upsampled depth. The projection block warps features using the current depth, predicts per-view weights, and aggregates them with a ConvNet into a latent representation.
RIFTCast Zingsheim et al. (2025)
DNA Rendering Cheng et al. (2023)
LLFF Mildenhall et al. (2020)
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Dense
Nerfacto-big* Tancik et al. (2023) (x)
26.2
0.891
0.078
29.5
0.920
0.061
(11.7)
(0.308)
(0.706)
Splatfacto-big* Tancik et al. (2023) (x)
30.7
0.920
0.058
34.5
0.976
0.028
(13.7)
(0.438)
(0.669)
RIFTCast Zingsheim et al. (2025) (x)
29.1
0.953
0.033
29.9
0.932
0.030
n/a
n/a
n/a
Sparse
FrugalNeRF* Lin et al. (2025) (3)
23.0
0.894
0.114
24.2
0.928
0.098
19.1
0.609
0.273
ENeRF Lin et al. (2022) (3)
24.9
0.939
0.072
26.0
0.949
0.073
21.3
0.712
0.209
Table 2: Quantitative comparison across multiple datasets for human capture and scenes without humans. Values in parentheses indicate the number of source views used for novel view synthesis, where (x) denotes all available views. Colored boxes show the best and second-best results per metric of sparse-view methods (2-3 images). LLFF represents a challenging out-of-distribution scenario with complex scene geometry, which lies outside the training distribution of our model.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison on multiple datasets for human capture and non-human containing scenes with real-time capable methods. While the first method, RIFTCast Zingsheim et al. (2025) , requires all views available and isolated scene content, the other methods can achieve novel view synthesis with 2 to 3 views.
1024 x 1024
2048 x 2048
Memory ↓
Training time ↓
Inference time ↓
Memory ↓
Training time ↓
Inference time ↓
Nerfacto-big* Tancik et al. (2023) (x)
12.1 GB
100.3 min
7.8 ms
12.8 GB
108.3 min
9.6 ms
Splatfacto-big* Tancik et al. (2023) (x)
0 1.2 GB
11.2 min
1.3 ms
0 2.6 GB
13.1 min
1.8 ms
FrugalNeRF* Lin et al. (2025) (3)
20.2 GB
12.3 min
13.2 ms
20.4 GB
16.2 min
16.5 ms
ENeRF Lin et al. (2022) (3)
0 8.1 GB
0 ms
97.3 ms
13.1 GB
0 ms
233.7 ms
GPS-Gaussian Zheng et al. (2024) (2)
0 3.2 GB
0 ms
73.7 ms
0 8.1 GB
0 ms
119.2 ms
Table 3: Memory and Speed comparisons of the tested methods on a NVIDIA RTX 4090 GPU using the official implementations. We also provide a version of our method optimized with TensorRT (Ours RT ) to allow for real-time usage.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Memory ↓
FPS ↑
full model
25.9
0.952
0.074
2.2 GB
40.8
2 views
23.6
0.913
0.089
1.7 GB
49.4
# channels halved
24.9
0.927
0.090
2.2 GB
41.3
# channels doubled
26.1
0.952
0.072
2.6 GB
32.6
3-level pyramid
22.8
0.893
0.112
2.2 GB
42.4
6-level pyramid
25.8
0.953
0.077
2.2 GB
41.0
Table 4: Quantitative comparison of different model variants with TensorRT optimization. Showcase of the improvements and sweet spot our different modules and choices bring with them at 1024 × 1024 resolution on DNA Rendering dataset.
Figure 5: Generalization behavior of 3DTV across geometry, viewpoint, and resolution. Despite synthetic-only training, the model predicts coherent depth and stable synthesis under varying camera depths and scales to higher output resolutions without retraining.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Exemplary Delaunay triangulation for the RIFTCast [ 9 ] capture stage setup. The scene has been scaled for visualization purposes.
Figure 7: Evaluation of hyperparameter choices and their influence on the resulting triangulation.
Figure 8: (Cont.) Evaluation of hyperparameter choices and their influence on the resulting triangulation.
Loss Term
Phase 1.1 ( ≤25 )
Phase 1.2 ( 26−100 )
Phase 2 ( >100 )
λ1
2.0
2.0
2.0
λ2
2.0
2.0
2.0
λ3
1.0
1.0
0.5
λ4
1.0
1.0
0.5
λ5
1.0
1.0
1.0
λ6
0.0
0.5
0.5
Appendix
Table 5: Loss Weighting Schedule. Weights for each loss component across the three training phases.
Scene
Train Views
Test View
Fern
IMG_4035*, IMG_4041*, IMG_4029
IMG_4043
Flower
IMG_2962*, IMG_2970*, IMG_2983
IMG_2984
Horns
DJI_2020…842*, DJI_2020…122*, DJI_2020…633
DJI_2020…048
Leaves
IMG_2997*, IMG_3004*, IMG_3011
IMG_3010
Orchids
IMG_4468*, IMG_4472*, IMG_4476
IMG_4470
Room
DJI_2020…006*, DJI_2020…455*, DJI_2020…082
DJI_2020…910
Appendix
Table 6: LLFF View Selection. Training views for 2-view (*) and 3-view setups. Test views are held out for all methods; offline baselines utilize all remaining views.
Figure 9: Snap-Snap produces significant ghosting and duplication artifacts when rendering the frontal view from the RIFTCast [ 9 ] dataset.
Figure 10: Example of reconstruction failure in DNA Rendering [ 85 ] , where Snap-Snap fails to properly fuse the front and back views, resulting in duplicated geometry.
Figure 11: Failure analysis of FWD: The model fails to maintain proper object proportions and exhibits significant blurring compared to the ground truth.
Figure 12: Qualitative comparison of our method to online and offline reconstruction methods. (Part 1.1)
Figure 13: Qualitative comparison of our method to online and offline reconstruction methods. (Part 1.2)
Figure 14: Qualitative comparison of our method to online and offline reconstruction methods. (Part 2.1)
Figure 15: Qualitative comparison of our method to online and offline reconstruction methods. (Part 2.2)
Figure 16: Qualitative evaluation (Part 1) of our model and the different influences of individual parts to our overall network.
Figure 17: Qualitative evaluation (Part 2) of our model and the different influences of individual parts to our overall network.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Full model (3 views)
25.7
0.941
0.073
2 views
23.0
0.909
0.093
# channels halved
24.8
0.915
0.094
# channels doubled
26.1
0.950
0.073
3-level pyramid
22.4
0.888
0.118
6-level pyramid
25.5
0.939
0.080
Appendix
Table 7: Quantitative Ablation on RIFTCast [ 9 ] . Evaluation of model variants with TensorRT optimization at 1024×1024 resolution. The results highlight the performance trade-offs regarding channel depth, pyramid levels, and our proposed depth modules.
Live free-viewpoint visualization of real humans is critical for immersive communication and interactive digital experiences. Existing methods either rely on computationally expensive optimization or require calibrated cameras and low-resolution inputs, making real-time high-resolution deployment impractical. In this work, we present Tele360, the first real-time feed-forward system for dynamic human reconstruction and live free-viewpoint visualization from sparse, unposed RGB streams. Our system jointly estimates camera poses and reconstructs a dynamic 3D Gaussian representation for each time instance in a single forward pass. To achieve this, we start by designing a lightweight sparsity-aware multi-view transformer backbone that tokenizes foreground human regions while preserving global context through a shared scene token. We then employ a fully transformer-based Gaussian decoder to mitigate convolution-induced over-smoothing while keeping decoding sparse and efficient. In addition, we introduce a hybrid feature pyramid that injects multi-scale appearance cues into geometry prediction. We further introduce a lightweight differentiable Levenberg-Marquardt camera refinement layer to enhance multi-view consistency and geometric alignment. Moreover, to stabilize learning under sparse, unposed inputs, we transfer multi-view geometry priors from a large visual-geometry foundation model via teacher-student distillation. Finally, the predicted Gaussian maps are streamed with video codecs to remote devices for interactive free-viewpoint rendering. Extensive experiments show that Tele360 achieves state-of-the-art visual quality on studio benchmarks while supporting real-time 2K input-to-rendering at over 25 FPS on a single consumer GPU. Additional captured sequences illustrate its performance across varied subjects, clothing, and motions under our multi-camera setup.
Hanzhang Tu, Zhanfeng Liao, Wei Min +2
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · Shadow AI, Beijing, China
High-quality 3D streaming from multiple cameras is crucial for immersive experiences in many AR/VR applications. The limited number of views - often due to real-time constraints - leads to missing information and incomplete surfaces in the rendered images. Existing approaches typically rely on simple heuristics for the hole filling, which can result in inconsistencies or visual artifacts. We propose to complete the missing textures using a novel, application-targeted inpainting method independent of the underlying representation as an image-based post-processing step after the novel view rendering. The method is designed as a standalone module compatible with any calibrated multi-camera system. For this we introduce a multi-view aware, transformer-based network architecture using spatio-temporal embeddings to ensure consistency across frames while preserving fine details. Additionally, our resolution-independent design allows adaptation to different camera setups, while an adaptive patch selection strategy balances inference speed and quality, allowing real-time performance. We evaluate our approach against state-of-the-art inpainting techniques under the same real-time constraints and demonstrate that our model achieves the best trade-off between quality and speed, outperforming competitors in both image and video-based metrics.
Leif Van Holland, Domenic Zingsheim, Mana Takhsha +4
Multi-camera tracking with overlapping fields of view typically relies on centralized fusion, which creates computational bottlenecks that prevent deployment at scale. We present MV3DT, a fully distributed framework for real-time multi-view 3D tracking that achieves accurate identity propagation and occlusion recovery through peer-to-peer coordination, eliminating the need for central aggregation. Each camera node executes a lightweight modular pipeline comprising monocular 3D perception, distributed multi-view association, and collaborative fusion via lightweight messaging. MV3DT achieves 96.5% IDF1, 93.1% MOTA, and 94.6% MOTP on WILDTRACK, competitive with state-of-the-art centralized methods, and unprecedented 41.7% IDF1 and 50.9% MOTA on SCOUT while demonstrating superior scalability: sustaining 30 FPS on 100 cameras with <10ms inter-camera latency and only 2.2% communication overhead. MV3DT operates in a zero-shot regime given camera calibrations, requiring no scene-specific learning and making it directly deployable in new environments. These results establish MV3DT as a practical solution for real-time multi-view tracking in large-scale overlapping camera networks.
Byron Hernandez, Fangyu Li, Aotian Wu +3
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA · NVIDIA Corporation, Santa Clara, CA, USA