Multimodal Concert Video Editing: System Design and Exploratory Evaluation
Organizations: Department of Informatics, Reutlingen University 72762 Reutlingen, Germany
Abstract
Editing multi-camera concerts requires coordinated decisions about musical relevance, visual quality and cut timing. We present a modular framework that combines instrument activity from multitrack audio, visible instruments and image sharpness with beat-based timing and probabilistic camera selection. An interpretable scoring model links these components to the choice of views over complete shot intervals. Component tests and an exploratory expert study on a four-camera concert yield mixed assessments across the editing variants. The findings motivate extending local audiovisual relevance with contextual and sequence-level criteria. The architecture provides a basis for testing these extensions and studying how component behaviour affects the quality of complete edits.
Figures & tables
| Axis | Wang et al. (2023) | Our system |
|---|---|---|
| Audio | Instrument classification from mixed audio. | Named stems; relative energy for primary/secondary roles. |
| Instrument matching | Audio–visual instrument agreement contributes when permitted by shot scale. | Explicit audible–visible role bonuses and missing/inaudible-label penalties. |
| Image criteria | Blur and shot-scale information. | Fixed gradient blur thresholds and box-area roles; no framing optimisation. |
| Temporal handling | Downbeat information and an estimated switching rate. | Every-fourth-beat grid and tempo-based target duration; conservative full-interval scoring. |
| Cut positions | Downbeat-based timing. | Next grid point after a tempo-dependent target duration. |
| Camera selection | Highest eligible score under shot-scale transition rules. | Proportional sampling with no immediate repeat and uniform fallback. |
| Camera | View | Class supports | |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAM1 | Audience-oriented view | 481 | 7 / 474 / 0 |
| CAM2 | Close-up view | 480 | 54 / 386 / 40 |
| CAM3 | Close-up view | 481 | 4 / 453 / 24 |
| CAM4 | Wide view | 481 | 481 / 0 / 0 |
| Variant | Window | Cuts | Mean | Median | SD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V1 | Full | 35 | 36 | 12.99 | 6.94 | 19.70 |
| V2 | Full | 65 | 66 | 7.09 | 6.72 | 2.27 |
| V3 | Full | 65 | 66 | 7.09 | 6.72 | 2.27 |
| V4 | Full | 65 | 66 | 7.09 | 6.72 | 2.27 |
| V1 | Music | 34 | 35 | 10.86 | 7.14 | 9.68 |
| V2 | Music | 55 | 56 | 6.79 | 6.67 | 2.18 |
| Variant | E1 | E2 | E3 | Mean | Median | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V1: student reference | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3.00 | 3 | 0.00 |
| V2: random | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2.67 | 3 | 1.53 |
| V3: predicted scores | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4.00 | 4 | 1.00 |
| V4: annotated scores | 4 | 4 | 1 | 3.00 | 4 | 1.73 |
| Concern | Observation and counterpoint | Example locators |
|---|---|---|
| Musical action and view choice | E1 describes V3’s cut positions as matching V2 but its chosen views as worse, often missing the musician carrying the theme. | E1/V3: cut comment, remarks |
| Appropriate moments | Nose blowing and people standing or leaving attract criticism in several variants; this is not exclusive to V3. | E1/V2: cut comment; E1/V4: cut comment; E3/V3: impression comment |
| Framing and view diversity | E2 repeatedly requests better framing and close-ups; E3 criticises the detail-poor wide view. These comments do not prove that better raw alternatives were unavailable. | E2/V1–V4: remarks; E3/V1: sharpness comment |
| Interaction and reactions | E3 praises reactions, laughter and musical responses in V2. Such views can be valuable without showing only the leading instrument. | E3/V2: impression comment, remarks |
| Different pacing criteria | E1/E2 find V2’s pattern schematic or unmotivated, while E3 finds it coherent and dynamic. | E1/V2: cut, transition comments; E2/V2: cut comment; E3/V2: cut comment |
| Contextual audience value | E1/E2 criticise V3’s audience choices; E3 also values some audience reactions while rejecting unmotivated views. | E1/V3: remarks; E2/V3: cut comment; E3/V3: cut and impression comments |
| Component and score pathway | Expert assessment | Architectural change and isolated test |
|---|---|---|
| Audio roles: smoothed relative energy changes match bonuses and missing-label penalties. | E1/V3 remarks report missing musical action; primary-role F1 is 0.654. | Activity and musical relevance could be separated; smoothing or relevance input could vary independently, with score/choice changes logged. |
| Visible roles: box area supplies prominence, without framing, action suitability or reaction context. | E2/V1–V4 remarks criticise framing; E1/V4 cut comment reports an unsuitable moment; E3/V2 remarks praise reactions. | Shot eligibility could be distinguished from musical/contextual relevance, with each tested using independently annotated inputs before introducing a new detector. |
| Quality map: partial blur and not blurred both have multiplier one. | CAM1 has 474 partial-blur reference samples but is predicted not blurred; E1/V2 and E3/V3 sharpness comments mention focus. | Correcting those labels alone has no score effect. A calibrated quality map could be tested separately from label accuracy. |
| Interval/policy: short intervals use their minimum score clipped at zero; zero utility is not a veto under fallback. | E1/V3 cut comment reports poorer views at V2-like cut times; the internal reason is unobserved. | Eligibility, aggregation and sampling could be varied one at a time, with complete decision logs. |
| Timing: a beat/tempo heuristic also covers speech; automatic pacing is matched. | Nine announcement cuts; E2/V2 and V4 cut comments criticise speech timing; E3/V2 cut comment praises rhythm. | A speech/music/applause state could support timing tests separately from view selection. |
| Cue interface: V4 adds pan/clapping labels alongside reference roles. | V4 improves on V3 for two raters but does not outgrade V2. | Label sources could be compared under cue parity, with optional cues then tested as a separate factor. |
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Setting | Symbol / condition | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Visual detector | D-FINE / Objects365 | X |
| Detection confidence | retained predictions | 0.55 |
| Primary visual role | fraction of frame area | |
| Audio RMS frame / hop | seconds | 3.0 / 1.5 |
| Audio smoothing | centred RMS frames | 9 |
| Activity normalisation | shared percentiles | 1 / 99 |
| Not active | Primary | Secondary | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Instrument | P | R | F1 | P | R | F1 | P | R | F1 | |||
| Bass | 189 | .639 | 1.000 | .779 | 0 | — | — | — | 292 | 1.000 | .599 | .749 |
| Drums | 189 | .508 | 1.000 | .674 | 95 | .667 | .021 | .041 | 197 | .541 | .299 | .386 |
| Guitar | 154 | .726 | 1.000 | .842 | 95 | .528 | .905 | .667 | 232 | .953 | .435 | .598 |
| Piano | 481 | 1.000 | .981 | .991 | 0 | — | — | — | 0 | — | — | — |
| Speech | 413 | .998 | .983 | .990 | 68 | .905 | .985 | .944 | 0 | — | — | — |
| CAM1 | CAM2 | CAM3 | CAM4 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class | P | R | F1 | P | R | F1 | P | R | F1 | P | R | F1 |
| Not blurred | .01 | 1.00 | .03 | .16 | .98 | .28 | .01 | 1.00 | .02 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Partially blurred | .00 | .00 | .00 | .90 | .25 | .39 | .94 | .30 | .46 | — | — | — |
| Fully blurred | — | — | — | .38 | .45 | .41 | .44 | .29 | .35 | — | — | — |
| Weighted | .00 | .01 | .00 | .77 | .35 | .38 | .91 | .31 | .45 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Variant | Window / inclusion | Mean | Median | SD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V1 | Announcement | 1 | 80.00 | 80.00 | — |
| V2 | Announcement | 10 | 8.00 | 8.86 | 3.20 |
| V3 | Announcement | 10 | 8.00 | 8.86 | 3.21 |
| V4 | Announcement | 10 | 8.00 | 8.86 | 3.21 |
| V1 | Applause | 2 | 3.85 | 3.85 | 4.09 |
| V2 | Applause | 2 | 3.85 | 3.85 | 3.99 |
| Field | Assessed dimension |
|---|---|
| Ovr | Overall quality and readiness for publication or broadcast. |
| Ed | Appropriateness of cut timing to the musical and content progression. |
| Tr | Coherence and smoothness of image transitions; disruptive changes. |
| Sh | Overall picture quality and sharpness of the selected views. |
| Im | Coherence and aesthetic quality of the overall impression. |
| Variant | Ovr | Ed | Tr | Sh | Im |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V1 | 3 / 3 / 3 | 3 / 2 / 2 | 3 / 5 / 2 | 2 / 1 / 1 | 2 / 3 / 3 |
| V2 | 4 / 3 / 1 | 4 / 4 / 2 | 3 / 3 / 1 | 2 / 1 / 3 | 3 / 3 / 2 |
| V3 | 5 / 4 / 3 | 5 / 4 / — | — / 5 / — | — / 1 / — | — / 4 / — |
| V4 | 4 / 4 / 1 | — / 4 / 1 | — / 3 / 1 | 2 / 1 / 2 | — / 4 / 1 |
| Variant | Ovr | Ed | Tr | Sh | Im |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| V2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| V3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| V4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
Video Editing
Video editing uses AI to alter, compose, relight, or reorganize moving footage while controlling how changes persist across frames.
See all 179 papers