Organizations: Computational Mathematics, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China. · Faculty of Computing, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China.
When zooming between dual cameras on smartphones, prominent discontinuities in both geometric perspective and color rendition inevitably degrade the visual experience of users. To address this issue, we introduce the dual-camera smooth zoom (DCSZ) task, aiming to synthesize continuous intermediate frames for fluid zooming. However, directly applying existing video frame interpolation (VFI) models to this task is severely hindered by substantial domain gaps and the practical intractability of capturing real-world continuous ground-truth. To this end, we propose a novel data synthesis framework to generate high-fidelity DCSZ training sequences, named ZoomGS v2. It explicitly decouples geometric and color transformations from 3D scene representation modeling, thereby enabling extensive data generation from easily accessible single-camera 3D scenes. Furthermore, we develop ZoomFI, a specialized VFI network tailored to the DCSZ task, which leverages complementary bidirectional warping for comprehensive dual-camera information fusion. Extensive experiments on test datasets captured using two mobile phones demonstrate that training with the constructed DCSZ data significantly improves the performance of various VFI models. Moreover, ZoomFI achieves state-of-the-art results in both quantitative metrics and visual quality. The datasets, code, and pretrained models are available at https://hitjunjief.github.io/DCSZ-v2
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : (a) Existing dual-camera digital zoom. For zoom transitions between the UW and W cameras ( i.e . , from ×0.6 to ×1.0 ), commercial smartphones generally crop the corresponding region from the UW image and resize it to the target dimensions. When the zoom factor transitions from ×0.9 to ×1.0 , the active lens switches abruptly from UW to W, inducing severe geometric perspective and color rendition discontinuities in the preview. (b) The proposed dual-camera smooth zoom (DCSZ) pipeline. (c) Visual illustration of geometric and color rendition discontinuities in conventional dual-camera zoom previews.
Fig. 2 : Comparison of ZoomGS [ 72 ] and ZoomGS v2. (a) Overall Pipeline and Results of ZoomGS. ZoomGS models the scene with Base Gaussians and uses the CamTrans Module to learn spatial and color transitions between the two endpoint 3DGS [ 28 ] representations, and then transforms the Base Gaussians to target Gaussians of virtual cameras for rendering. (b) Overall Pipeline and Results of ZoomGS v2. ZoomGS v2 first calibrates the distribution of camera and color parameters from a small set of dual-camera data, and then applies them to Gaussians constructed from large-scale single-camera data to generate 3DGS representations for scene rendering.
Fig. 3 : (a) Calibration of Camera Parameter Distribution. ZoomGS v2 collects multiple camera parameter offsets ΔV (Eq. ( 3 )) from UW-W pairs and models their distribution using a Gaussian distribution. (b) Calibration of Color Parameter Distribution. ZoomGS v2 trains a CNN-based [ 30 ] color prediction module on UW-W pairs to predict the parameters of the color transformation pipeline from UW to W.
Fig. 4 : Statistical distributions and Gaussian fitting results of ΔV , which represents the relative vector offset between the UW and W images captured by Xiaomi (a) and Huawei (b) model smartphones. From left to right, the plots represent ΔVx , ΔVy and ΔVz , respectively.
Fig. 5 : Comparison of forward and backward warping for transforming UW to W (Left) and transforming W to UW (Right) using SEA-RAFT [ 64 ] .
Fig. 6 : Overview pipeline of ZoomFI. The bidirectional warping is used for dual-camera information fusion.
TABLE I: Quantitative comparisons of VFI models on the Xiaomi test dataset. † denotes models fine-tuned on data generated by ZoomGS [ 72 ] , and ‡ denotes models fine-tuned on data generated by ZoomGS v2. ↑ indicates that higher values are better, and ↓ indicates that lower values are better. The best results are marked in red , while the second-best results are marked in blue . Models evaluated without fine-tuning produce excessively blurry results, which can artificially improve the color-continuity metrics by suppressing frame-to-frame color variations.
TABLE II: Quantitative comparisons of VFI models on the Huawei test dataset. † denotes models fine-tuned on data generated by ZoomGS [ 72 ] , and ‡ denotes models fine-tuned on data generated by ZoomGS v2. ↑ indicates that higher values are better, and ↓ indicates that lower values are better. The best results are marked in red , while the second-best results are marked in blue . Models evaluated without fine-tuning produce excessively blurry results, which can artificially improve the color-continuity metrics by suppressing frame-to-frame color variations.
Fig. 7 : Visual comparisons on the Xiaomi test dataset of ZoomFI models trained with data generated by ZoomGS [ 72 ] and ZoomGS v2. The top and bottom rows correspond to the ×0.6↔×1.0 and ×0.85↔×1.0 settings, respectively.
Fig. 8 : Visual comparisons on the Huawei test dataset of ZoomFI models trained with data generated by ZoomGS [ 72 ] and ZoomGS v2. The top and bottom rows correspond to the ×0.6↔×1.0 and ×0.85↔×1.0 settings, respectively.
Fig. 9 : Visual comparisons of different VFI models on the Xiaomi test dataset. The top and bottom rows correspond to the ×0.6↔×1.0 and ×0.85↔×1.0 settings, respectively.
Fig. 10 : Visual comparisons of different VFI models on the Huawei test dataset. The top and bottom rows correspond to the ×0.6↔×1.0 and ×0.85↔×1.0 settings, respectively.
Networks
FLOPs (G)
Parameters (M)
Time (ms)
RIFE [ 23 ]
708.3
10.1
48.7
AMT [ 35 ]
540.3
3.0
183.2
VFIMamba [ 81 ]
1792.9
16.1
159.7
ZoomFI-Lite
422.7
12.5
40.9
ZoomFI
724.2
12.5
52.1
TABLE III: Comparison of FLOPs, parameters, and inference time of different VFI models at a test resolution of 1632×1216 .
Fig. 11 : Visual comparison of different sampling strategies for ΔV . Gaussian sampling produces fewer misalignment artifacts and better visual results than Uniform sampling.
ΔV sample
MUSIQ ↑ / MANIQA ↑ /
DOVER ↑ /
Smooth - ΔEmean↓ /
manner
TOPIQ ↑
FasterVQA ↑
Smooth - ΔEmax↓
Uniform
65.692 / 0.397 / 0.561
82.12 / 0.841
0.021 / 0.096
Gaussian
66.172 / 0.399 / 0.567
82.48 / 0.846
0.023 / 0.082
TABLE IV: Ablation studies of the ΔV sampling strategy in ZoomGS v2.
Fig. 12 : Color-difference trajectories of sequences generated by ZoomFI models trained with and without color transformation. For each sequence, we compute ΔE [ 43 ] between each generated frame and its corresponding UW image. Four representative scenes are shown as examples, with each column corresponding to one scene. The ΔE values are normalized within each plot.
Gamma
Linear Map
MUSIQ ↑ / MANIQA ↑ /
DOVER ↑ /
Smooth - ΔEmean↓ /
Params
Params
/ TOPIQ ↑
FasterVQA ↑
Smooth - ΔEmax↓
×
×
66.198 / 0.400 / 0.566
82.36 / 0.845
0.029 / 0.090
×
✓
66.028 / 0.397 / 0.565
82.39 / 0.844
0.026 / 0.084
✓
×
63.022 / 0.370 / 0.520
81.76 / 0.829
0.189 / 0.441
✓
✓
66.172 / 0.399 / 0.567
82.48 / 0.846
0.023 / 0.082
TABLE V: Ablation study of color-transformation module and its gamma-correction and linear-mapping components.
Fig. 13 : Visual comparison of the UW images before and after color transformation.
Fig. 14 : Visual comparisons of ZoomFI with different combinations of forward and backward warping. Combining both warping directions yields better visual results than using either direction alone.
Percentage
MUSIQ ↑ / MANIQA ↑ /
DOVER ↑ /
Smooth - ΔEmean↓ /
of Data
TOPIQ ↑
FasterVQA ↑
Smooth - ΔEmax↓
1.0%
64.324 / 0.385 / 0.539
82.02 / 0.837
0.036 / 0.117
10%
65.174 / 0.393 / 0.551
82.06 / 0.841
0.034 / 0.110
100%
66.172 / 0.399 / 0.567
82.48 / 0.846
0.023 / 0.082
TABLE VI: Effect of training data scale on VFI performance using data generated by ZoomGS v2.
backward
forward
MUSIQ ↑ / MANIQA ↑ /
DOVER ↑ /
Smooth - ΔEmean↓ /
warp
warp
TOPIQ ↑
FasterVQA ↑
Smooth - ΔEmax↓
✓
×
65.917 / 0.391 / 0.552
82.39 / 0.847
0.032 / 0.096
×
✓
65.229 / 0.384 / 0.553
82.05 / 0.839
0.045 / 0.129
✓
✓
66.172 / 0.399 / 0.567
82.48 / 0.846
0.023 / 0.082
TABLE VII: Ablation study of backward and forward warping in ZoomFI.
Digital zoom transitions between dual cameras often exhibit conspicuous discontinuities in geometric structure and chromatic consistency, degrading the user experience. While recent dual-camera smooth zoom (DCSZ) methods attempt to mitigate this by fine-tuning frame interpolation (FI) models on DCSZ data, they struggle with the large cross-view disparities and complex geometric transformations. Considering that the generative prior of diffusion models is suitable for addressing this problem, we explore their application to DCSZ. However, naively applying existing diffusion-based FI models still yields low-fidelity transitions due to insufficient conditional guidance, high-frequency information loss during VAE encoding, as well as inadequate temporal consistency. To address this, we propose ZoomDiff, a high-fidelity diffusion model that leverages dual-camera inputs in both latent and pixel spaces for photo-realistic transitions. Specifically, we first strengthen dual-image conditional guidance during the multi-step denoising process to improve geometric consistency. Then we inject flow-aligned multi-scale features from the VAE encoder into the VAE decoder to recover high-frequency details, where flow-guided temporal consistency supervision are introduced to produce more smooth transitions. Extensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate that ZoomDiff outperforms state-of-the-art methods quantitatively and qualitatively. Project page: https://jiayi-hit.github.io/ZoomDiff.github.io/.
Jiayi Zhang, Renlong Wu, Yukang Ding +2
Harbin Institute of Technology · Taobao, Alibaba Group
Large pre-trained video diffusion models excel in video frame interpolation but struggle to generate high fidelity frames due to reliance on intrinsic generative priors, limiting detail preservation from start and end frames. Existing methods often depend on motion control for temporal consistency, yet dense optical flow is error-prone, and sparse points lack structural context. In this paper, we propose FC-VFI for faithful and consistent video frame interpolation, supporting 4×x and 8× interpolation, boosting frame rates from 30 FPS to 120 and 240 FPS at 2560×1440resolution while preserving visual fidelity and motion consistency. We introduce a temporal modeling strategy on the latent sequences to inherit fidelity cues from start and end frames and leverage semantic matching lines for structure-aware motion guidance, improving motion consistency. Furthermore, we propose a temporal difference loss to mitigate temporal inconsistencies. Extensive experiments show FC-VFI achieves high performance and structural integrity across diverse scenarios.
Ganggui Ding, Hao Chen, Xiaogang Xu
⋆Zhejiang University · † Chinese University of Hong Kong
We propose Symmetric Nonlinear Motion-guided Generative Video Frame Interpolation (SNM-VFI), a training-free framework for motion-controllable generative video frame interpolation with pre-trained optical flow and video diffusion models. Unlike conventional diffusion-based VFI methods that synthesize intermediate frames from random noise, SNM-VFI guides the generative process with correspondence-aware frames produced by a symmetric nonlinear motion model. Specifically, we first utilize a pre-trained optical flow model to construct multi-frame nonlinear flow-based intermediate frames and confidence maps. These flow-guided frames are then encoded as latent priors to initialize and iteratively guide a pre-trained Video Diffusion model, enabling the diffusion model to preserve dense motion correspondence while improving perceptual realism. To further enhance output quality, we employ confidence maps to fuse structurally reliable flow-based predictions with diffusion-generated details in uncertain regions such as occlusions and object boundaries. Extensive evaluations on challenging benchmarks, including DAVIS, Sintel, and KITTI, demonstrate that SNM-VFI achieves strong perceptual quality, competitive reconstruction accuracy, and robust temporal coherence across diverse motion scenarios.
Jisoo Jeong, Hong Cai, Jamie Menjay Lin +5
Qualcomm AI Research · Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.