Do Image Editors Follow Depth-Dependent Blur and Aperture Response? A Rendered-Ground-Truth Pilot Audit

Depth-of-field control is a fundamental tool in photography, yet post-capture bokeh editing from a single image remains challenging. A practical editor should handle images captured under arbitrary focus and aperture settings. Existing methods typically assume an all-in-focus input, or first recover an all-in-focus image before rendering new bokeh. Such pipelines can discard useful blur cues from the source image and propagate reconstruction artifacts into the final edit. We introduce AnyBokeh, a physics-guided framework for any-to-any bokeh editing. Instead of treating source blur merely as a degradation to be removed, AnyBokeh estimates the source blur state with a signed circle-of-confusion map and a disparity map. By modeling the linear relation between signed circle of confusion and disparity difference, AnyBokeh estimates a source-specific optical fingerprint and transfers the source optical characteristics to the desired focus and aperture setting. A generative editor conditioned on both source and target circle-of-confusion maps then performs relative blur synthesis, enabling spatially adaptive deblurring, preservation, and defocus rendering. To support physically supervised learning, we further construct a high-fidelity synthetic dataset with accurate depth, focus distance, and full EXIF metadata. Experiments on real-world benchmarks show that AnyBokeh achieves faithful and controllable editing across any-to-any bokeh editing, all-in-focus-to-bokeh rendering, and defocus deblurring, while avoiding all-in-focus reconstruction and test-time bokeh-level calibration commonly required by existing approaches. The code and dataset will be available at https://github.com/itsmag11/AnyBokeh.

Instruction-based image editors insert objects, restyle scenes and render new viewpoints, but it is unknown which camera they assume when they paint into a photograph. Asked to cover the floor with a checkerboard, an editor paints projective structure from which classical vanishing-point geometry reads pitch, roll, focal length, yaw and, on renders, the principal point, without any training. Unlike a calibrator such as GeoCalib, which estimates the camera of an image, this isolates the camera under which the editor paints. On 120 rendered cameras with exact ground truth, Qwen-Image-Edit-2511 paints tile edges that meet their vanishing points within 0.26 degrees, and its implicit camera matches the true one to 0.8 degrees in pitch and 6% in focal length, more accurately than GeoCalib except in roll. Asked to draw the horizon or mark a vanishing point instead, the editor fails, so this knowledge is revealed by painting and not by the explicit tasks we tried. The implicit camera has two priors: roll is pulled towards level (slope 0.71), and telephoto perspective towards a default of about 30 mm, which roughly matches the camera the models paint without any scene. For Qwen, the priors do not grow when blur removes four fifths of the line evidence. They are stronger on real photographs, and on NYUv2 a shorter wording of the task removes the difference for roll. On photographs from a 24--240 mm zoom lens the painted perspective grows with only 0.62 of the lens's slope, while GeoCalib and MoGe-2 saturate at about 52 and 42 mm. FLUX.1 Kontext and LongCat-Image-Edit are pulled much harder. Finally, from a level camera a camera-control LoRA executes pose commands at only 50--70% of their strength, and a board painted into its output agrees with the camera it produced.

Can general-purpose image editors predict physical maps from a single RGB image? General-purpose image editors differ from standard task-specific dense-prediction models: they do not directly take an image and output a physical map. Instead, they must be guided by prompts, examples, or image-based textual cues. To this end, we introduce PhysEditBench, a novel protocol-conditioned benchmark to evaluate and standardize image editors in dense physical-map prediction that covers five targets: depth, normal, albedo, roughness, and metallic maps. For evaluation data, we build a target-dependent benchmark substrate. We use OpenRooms-FF for depth, surface normal, albedo, and roughness, InteriorVerse as an additional source for depth, normal, albedo, and a new procedurally generated source for metallic maps. We curate the data with quality checks, valid-region masks, scene-level sampling, and lighting-based stress subsets to ensure reliable and diverse evaluation. For each target, PhysEditBench defines a fixed protocol that specifies the allowed input, expected output format, and scoring procedure. Each score, therefore, reflects the performance of a model under a specified protocol, rather than its best possible performance under all prompts or interaction modes. Experimental results show that specialized models remain much stronger on depth, normal, and albedo, and stronger image editors can produce more reasonable map-like outputs. For roughness and metallic, image editors can match or outperform specialized baselines on some scalar metrics, but they still suffer from structural errors, sparsity effects, and sensitivity to lighting.