Organizations: The University of Hong Kong Hong Kong, China · University of Newcastle Callaghan, NSW, Australia · Santa Clara University Santa Clara, CA, USA · Futurewei Technologies, Inc. San Jose, CA, USA
High-fidelity free-viewpoint video (FVV) and interactive rendering increasingly rely on explicit Gaussian representations, yet practical deployment remains constrained by representation size, dynamic updates, and computational cost. Existing multi-view video benchmarks provide valuable real-captured content, but they make it difficult to isolate the effects of controlled camera geometry, representation efficiency, and temporal redundancy. We introduce M3ISR, a controlled synthetic benchmark for 3D and 4D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS/4DGS). The benchmark contains 25 scenes from five indoor and outdoor scene groups, two camera/motion configurations, six synchronized 1080p views, and dense ground-truth annotations including RGB, camera parameters, depth, semantic and instance segmentation, and static--dynamic masks. The shared-center camera design intentionally isolates angular view variation and enables controlled evaluation of novel-view synthesis and representation efficiency. We organize M3ISR into five complementary tracks covering 3DGS synthesis, 4DGS synthesis, 4DGS streaming, 3DGS compression, and 4DGS compression. Representative baseline results show small differences in static reconstruction quality but substantial differences in representation storage, while the evaluated streaming methods exhibit substantially higher reported training or reconstruction cost than the corresponding offline dynamic reconstruction baselines. We further define feedforward compression tasks for 3DGS and 4DGS and provide reference rate--distortion formulations and preliminary baseline evaluations. The benchmark is intended as a controlled and complementary testbed for systematic study of Gaussian-based FVV reconstruction, compression, and streaming.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. M 3 ISR camera configuration. Six synchronized views share a common scene center and cover a 120∘ horizontal fan at yaw angles {−60∘,−40∘,−20∘,+20∘,+40∘,+60∘} . Each frame is paired with RGB and camera parameters.
Figure 2. Representative synchronized multi-view samples from M 3 ISR. The displayed figure shows four representative scene groups; the Outdoor row groups the two dataset categories Outdoor1 and Outdoor2 for readability. Each row contains six synchronized camera views.
Dataset
Year/Venue
Type
#Cams
Resolution
FPS
Scenes / Rig Geometry
N3DV ( 23 )
CVPR 2022
R
18–21
2028×2704
30
6 scenes; forward-facing planar
Meeting Room ( 22 )
NeurIPS 2022
R
13
1280×720
30
3 scenes; forward-facing planar
SelfCap ( 49 )
SIGGRAPH Asia 2024
R
22
3840×2160
–
3 sequences; inward-facing surround
Google Immersive Video ( 4 )
SIGGRAPH 2020
R
46
2560×1920
30
15 scenes; hemispherical dome
Ego-Exo4D ( 15 )
CVPR 2024
R
1–4 ego + exo
1440×1440
30
large-scale hybrid ego/exo capture
EPIC-KITCHENS-100 ( 10 )
PAMI 2020
R
ego (+ exo)
1920×1080
60
egocentric trajectories
Table 1. Representative datasets for 3DGS/4DGS streaming evaluation. R denotes real capture and S denotes synthetic. M 3 ISR provides six synchronized views with a shared-center camera layout.
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison of Track 1 sparse-view 3DGS reconstruction on M 3 ISR. Ground truth and results from 3DGS, CoR-GS, FSGS, and DropGS are shown for representative indoor and outdoor scenes.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Storage (MB) ↓
3DGS
18.705
0.655
0.461
1331
CoR-GS
18.825
0.658
0.445
3174
FSGS
18.726
0.654
0.475
508
DropGaussian
18.864
0.657
0.466
992
Table 2. Average static 3DGS metrics on M 3 ISR. Storage is total disk usage over 25 scenes.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Storage (MB) ↓
Train/Recon. Time (s) ↓
Render FPS ↑
QUEEN ( 14 )
15.93
0.5125
0.4786
1734
351.48
54.64
Octree-/LoD-structured ( 31 )
16.32
0.5336
0.4650
1452
356.90
60.10
Table 3. Average streaming metrics reported on M 3 ISR. Time refers to the training or reconstruction time reported by the reference implementation and should not be interpreted as end-to-end streaming latency.
Figure 4. Qualitative comparison of Track 3 4DGS streaming reconstruction on M 3 ISR. Ground truth and results from QUEEN and Octree-LOD are shown for representative dynamic scenes.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Storage (MB) ↓
FPS ↑
Deformable 3DGS ( 51 )
22.79
0.7258
0.4024
257
12.84
4DGS ( 47 )
22.57
0.7323
0.3598
200
52.84
Table 4. Average dynamic Gaussian reconstruction results on M 3 ISR.
Figure 5. Qualitative comparison of Track 2 dynamic 4DGS reconstruction on M 3 ISR. Ground truth and results from Deformable 3DGS and 4DGS are shown for representative dynamic scenes.
Figure 6. The 3DGS compression performance of the FCGS method on our M 3 ISR benchmark.
Figure 7. The 3DGS compression performance of the HAC method on our M 3 ISR benchmark.
Figure 8. The 4DGS compression performance of the D-FCGS method on our M 3 ISR benchmark.