Generative video super-resolution (VSR) can recover visually compelling high-frequency detail by leveraging diffusion priors, but iterative sampling and heavy spatio-temporal coupling make practical deployments difficult. We study a different operating point: practical HD generative VSR on a single high-end consumer GPU without end-to-end retraining. To this end, we present a zero-shot framework built entirely from pretrained components. The proposed system decouples spatial enhancement from temporal stabilization. A time-distilled one-step diffusion backbone handles spatial upscaling, while temporal coherence is promoted by a lightweight pretrained flow-based interpolator that synthesizes intermediate frames between super-resolved keyframes. To further improve scalability, we introduce a resolution-aware hybrid attention scheme that, in a zero-shot manner, replaces selected high-resolution global-attention layers with neighborhood attention while preserving global attention in semantically critical low-resolution layers, while also improving temporal consistency. Experiments show that the proposed framework reaches up to ~32 FPS at 720p resolution under interleaved inference on a single NVIDIA RTX 4090. At 4K, the proposed attention substitution can yield up to a 44% speedup over the original attention implementation. Across standard VSR benchmarks, the method consistently shifts the speed-quality trade-off decisively toward runtime efficiency, trading reconstruction fidelity for strong no-reference perceptual quality, while remaining reasonably competitive against generative approaches in temporal consistency. It also exposes clear limitations in handling more challenging motion, which a simple motion gate partially mitigates. Code will be released upon acceptance.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Our Video Super-Resolution compared to bicubic interpolation on consecutive frames. K denotes the super-resolution frequency; in-between frames are interpolated. L denotes the attention blocks replaced with NATTEN.
Figure 2: Proposed Approach. The system reuses two pretrained assets, namely AdcSR for sparse keyframe super-resolution and RIFE for temporal interpolation. At the same time, the original contribution of this work lies in how these components are combined: a motion-aware interleaved keyframe policy controls when the generative backbone is invoked, zero-shot hybrid attention accelerates the high-resolution layers of the spatial generator, and temporal assembly merges super-resolved keyframes with interpolated intermediate frames.
K
B
Memory (GB)
FPS
1
1
2.03
3.04
8
8.94
16.76
2
1
2.23
5.69
8
8.98
25.64
3
1
2.33
8.28
8
8.99
32.66
Table 1: Throughput and memoryof the proposed pipeline at 1280x720 resolution for different keyframe intervals K and batch sizes B .
Method
Memory (GB)
FPS
Non-Diffusion
RealBasicVSR
4.6
45.53
RVRT
7.1
1.97
Diffusion-based
DLoRAL
8.5
0.15
DiffIR2VR-Zero
9.5
0.08
Table 2: Single-batch HD (1280x720) inference on the same GPU. Peak memory is reported by PyTorch. L=3 for all runs.
Dataset
L
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
DISTS ↓
BRISQUE ↓
MUSIQ ↑
MANIQA ↑
Ewarp↓
tOF ↓
UDM10
0
21.94
0.7879
0.3731
0.1301
11.62
71.65
0.5187
0.0279
1.1653
2
23.21
0.8075
0.3733
0.1203
10.57
68.12
0.4487
0.0228
0.7843
SPMCS
0
19.84
0.5468
0.4671
0.2006
14.92
67.75
0.4363
0.0364
1.1553
2
20.33
0.5443
0.4793
0.2288
13.62
63.96
0.3831
0.0315
0.9226
Vid4
0
18.17
0.6116
0.4290
0.1535
6.50
70.74
0.4397
0.0432
0.2589
2
18.92
0.6161
0.4288
0.1541
7.42
68.73
0.3936
0.0387
0.2754
Table 3: Effect of L=2 at K=1 against baseline ( L=0 ). Best value per dataset and metric is in bold .
Resolution
B
FA FPS
NATTEN FPS
Change
1280 × 720
1
3.01
2.98
-1.0%
8
15.30
16.76
+9.1%
1920 × 1080
1
3.06
3.00
-1.8%
4
6.20
7.31
+18.0%
2560 × 1440
1
2.73
3.49
+27.9%
3840 × 2160
1
0.76
1.10
+44.7%
Table 4: Inference speed with NATTEN relative to PyTorch FlashAttention for K=1 and L=3 .
Ours
Metric
RealBasicVSR
RVRT
DLoRAL
DiffIR2VR-Zero
SeedVR2
K=1 , L=2
K=2 , L=2
K=3 , L=2
UDM10 × 4
PSNR ↑
29.389
33.279
20.957
24.929
29.470
23.206
23.208
23.111
SSIM ↑
0.937
0.985
0.694
0.854
0.939
0.807
0.805
0.801
LPIPS ↓
0.253
0.154
0.325
0.389
0.214
0.373
0.368
0.368
BRISQUE ↓
21.295
49.080
29.212
22.888
25.090
10.569
13.694
13.767
MUSIQ ↑
65.784
59.387
62.180
67.046
65.900
68.123
67.676
67.555
Table 5: Quantitative comparison on UDM10, SPMCS, REDS4, and Vid4 for ×4 super-resolution. Best results are marked in bold , second-best in italic green . K is the interpolation interval, L are the attention layers replaced with NATTEN.
K
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
BRISQUE ↓
MUSIQ ↑
MANIQA ↑
Ewarp↓
tOF ↓
LPIPS inter↓
2 (Ungated)
20.440
0.713
0.390
16.080
68.190
0.427
0.051
4.088
0.364
2 (Gated)
21.500
0.796
0.368
13.410
68.990
0.445
0.034
1.079
0.370
3 (Ungated)
19.570
0.649
0.410
15.920
67.920
0.418
0.056
5.226
0.364
3 (Gated)
21.570
0.804
0.367
12.950
69.120
0.449
0.034
0.848
0.372
Table 6: Super-resolution quality and temporal-consistency metrics on REDS4 under the adaptive motion-gated interpolation schedule with L=2 and key-frame intervals K∈{2,3} . Fallback rates for K=2 are 74% and 90% for K=3 .
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
L
stage
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
DISTS ↓
BRISQUE ↓
MUSIQ ↑
MANIQA ↑
Ewarp↓
tOF ↓
0
baseline
21.9362
0.7879
0.3731
0.1301
11.6197
71.6498
0.5187
0.0279
1.1653
1
up
22.4926
0.7995
0.3705
0.1237
11.4900
70.3318
0.4915
0.0263
1.0258
down
22.0091
0.7777
0.3883
0.1342
11.3235
70.5214
0.4881
0.0266
0.7196
2
up
23.2063
0.8075
0.3733
0.1203
10.5693
68.1227
0.4487
0.0228
0.7843
down
22.3193
0.7728
0.4028
0.1457
12.8239
68.5334
0.4450
0.0245
0.6884
Appendix
Table 7: NATTEN attention replacement in the UNet’s DownSampling (encoder) vs. UpSampling (decoder) stage, head-to-head at matched layer count L , on the full UDM10 dataset (10 clips) with K=1 .
Figure 3: UDM10 clip 000 : comparison on replacing NATTEN on encoder vs decoder of UNet.
Dataset
K
L
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
DISTS ↓
BRISQUE ↓
MUSIQ ↑
MANIQA ↑
LPIPS inter↓
Ewarp↓
tOF ↓
UDM10
1
0
21.94
0.7879
0.3731
0.1301
11.62
71.65
0.5187
0.2155
0.0279
1.1653
1
22.49
0.7995
0.3705
0.1237
11.49
70.33
0.4915
0.2190
0.0263
1.0258
2
23.21
0.8075
0.3733
0.1203
10.57
68.12
0.4487
0.2200
0.0228
0.7843
3
23.29
0.8085
0.3806
0.1263
12.80
68.17
0.4518
0.2209
0.0245
0.9951
2
0
21.97
0.7862
0.3689
0.1297
14.33
71.49
0.5095
0.2003
0.0205
0.6811
1
22.52
0.7976
0.3660
0.1231
14.36
70.08
0.4813
0.2033
0.0190
0.6257
Appendix
Table 8: Ablation on the number of NATTEN-replaced attention layers ( L ) on UDM10, across K . Best value per K group and metric is in bold . ↑ ( ↓ ) indicates that higher (lower) is better.
Figure 5: UDM10 clip 000 : qualitative effect of NATTEN layer count L .
Figure 6: SPMCS clip AMVTG_004 : qualitative effect of NATTEN layer count L .
Figure 7: REDS4 clip 000 : qualitative effect of NATTEN layer count L .
Figure 8: Vid4 clip calendar : qualitative effect of NATTEN layer count L .
K
stat
τgate
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
DISTS ↓
BRISQUE ↓
MUSIQ ↑
MANIQA ↑
Ewarp↓
tOF ↓
LPIPS inter↓
Fallback% ↓
FPS ↑
1
–
–
21.59
0.8058
0.3664
0.1074
12.76
69.23
0.4520
0.0349
0.8184
0.3756
n/a
5.83
2
–
ungated
20.44
0.7133
0.3904
0.1126
16.08
68.19
0.4273
0.0510
4.0881
0.3640
0.0
10.83
mean
τgate=4 (strict)
21.52
0.7988
0.3681
0.1083
13.50
68.90
0.4429
0.0332
1.3015
0.3695
68.0
6.84
max
τgate=15 (strict)
21.50
0.7960
0.3683
0.1082
13.41
68.99
0.4449
0.0341
1.0788
0.3711
74.0
6.62
mean
τgate=6 (mid)
21.21
0.7730
0.3744
0.1097
14.25
68.65
0.4373
0.0380
2.1588
0.3648
45.0
7.81
max
τgate=20 (mid)
21.23
0.7746
0.3736
0.1094
14.06
68.81
0.4406
0.0382
1.7905
0.3680
56.0
7.31
Appendix
Table 9: Max-stat vs. mean-stat motion score compared head-to-head on REDS4, at fixed L=2 , across key-frame intervals K∈{2,3} . Fallback % is the share of frames that exceeded τgate and fell back to per-frame SR instead of interpolating. Batch size = 8.
Figure 9: REDS4 clip 000 : frame-level comparison against baselines.
Figure 10: REDS4 clip 020 : frame-level comparison against baselines.
Figure 11: SPMCS clip AMVTG_004 : frame-level comparison against baselines.
Figure 12: SPMCS clip hdclub_003_001 : frame-level comparison against baselines.
Figure 13: UDM10 clip 000 : frame-level comparison against baselines.
Figure 14: UDM10 clip 004 : frame-level comparison against baselines.
Figure 15: Vid4 clip city : frame-level comparison against baselines.
Figure 16: Vid4 clip calendar : frame-level comparison against baselines.