Panoramic video depth estimation is pivotal for applications such as Virtual Reality and World Models. However, advancements in this field are impeded by two primary obstacles: the scarcity of large-scale training data and the unique spatiotemporal challenges of Equirectangular Projection (ERP), which hinder the direct transfer of perspective models. In this paper, we first present PanoCARLA, a large-scale synthetic RGB-D panoramic video dataset, featuring natural motion trajectories and drone-like roaming perspectives. Building on this foundation, we propose PVDepth, an end-to-end framework adapted from perspective video depth models. To tackle ERP-specific geometric distortions and consequent non-linear temporal dynamics, we introduce two core mechanisms: (1) A Progressive Sphere-aware Noise Initialization strategy that anneals the noise distribution from planar to spherical, guiding the model to adapt to non-uniform information density; and (2) A Cube-rectified Temporal Modeling module that incorporates an auxiliary cubemap temporal branch to rectify non-linear temporal dynamics in the ERP domain. Extensive experiments demonstrate that PVDepth achieves superior performance, generating geometrically accurate and temporally consistent depth sequences. Code and data will be released at https:// github.com/ChuanxinSong/PVDepth.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Illustration of the unique spatiotemporal challenges within ERP. For each timestamp, the side insets display the distortion-free up and down cubemap views. Spatially , ERP severely stretches the polar regions, allocating excessive pixels to represent sparse information. Temporally , ERP’s geometric distortion causes smooth object motion to manifest as discontinuous, non-linear dynamics in the polar regions.
Figure 2: Overview of the PanoCARLA construction pipeline. In Stage I , human-in-the-loop waypoint adjustment ensures smooth and realistic 6-DoF trajectories. In Stage II , an unobstructed recording setup enables drone-view roaming with dynamic altitude variations, supported by six-view collision detection to eliminate environment-clipping artifacts. Finally , the collected data are processed modality-specifically, yielding seamlessly stitched RGB panoramas and geometrically consistent depth annotations.
Figure 3: Overview of the proposed PVDepth . Building upon a pre-trained video diffusion backbone, PVDepth incorporates two key spatiotemporal adaptations to bridge the geometric gap between perspective and panoramic domains: (1) Progressive Sphere-aware Noise Initialization , which smoothly transitions the input noise from a planar to a spherical distribution to adapt to non-uniform ERP information density; and (2) Cube-rectified Temporal Modeling , which introduces an auxiliary distortion-free Cubemap branch to capture linear motion modeling, rectifying ERP-induced non-linear dynamics in the primary ERP branch.
Dataset
Scene
Depth
Syn./Real
Video
#Frames
Structured3D Zheng et al. (2020)
Indoor
✓
Syn.
×
196K
Matterport3D Chang et al. (2017)
Indoor
✓
Real
×
10K
Stanford2D3D Armeni et al. (2017)
Indoor
✓
Real
×
1K
Omni360-Scene Ge et al. (2025)
Outdoor
✓
Syn.
×
61K
PanoCARLA
Outdoor
✓
Syn.
✓
126.7K
Table 1: Comparison with representative panoramic RGB-D datasets.
Method
fps02_len50
fps10_len90
fps20_len110
AbsRel ↓
δ1↑
AbsRel ↓
δ1↑
AbsRel ↓
δ1↑
Panorama image depth-based
DA-2 ZS Li et al. (2025a)
1.367 (0.781)
0.573 (0.742)
1.125 (0.759)
0.617 (0.759)
1.021 (0.731)
0.656 (0.761)
UniK3D ZS Piccinelli et al. (2025)
0.644 (0.486)
0.610 (0.724)
0.580 (0.455)
0.638 (0.741)
0.551 (0.442)
0.666 (0.742)
PanoDA ZS Cao et al. (2025)
0.767 (0.527)
0.262 (0.344)
0.721 (0.526)
0.281 (0.342)
0.642 (0.524)
0.298 (0.341)
DepthAnywhere ZS Wang & Liu (2024)
0.487 (0.260)
0.405 (0.788)
0.493 (0.220)
0.444 (0.806)
0.368 (0.220)
0.543 (0.807)
Table 2: Quantitative comparison. The best and second best performances are bolded and underlined . ZS and FT denote Zero-Shot and Fine-Tuned settings. (Cube-based) refers to the strategy of inferring on decomposed cubemap faces independently and stitching them back. Gray values denote frame-level performance of image-based methods.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparisons on in-the-wild panoramic videos. To visualize the temporal consistency, we show the temporal profiles in red boxes, obtained by slicing the depth values along the time axis at the vertical red line positions.
Method
Components
Metrics
PSNI
CRTM
AbsRel ↓
δ1↑
Baseline
-
-
0.248 (0.232)
0.757 (0.754)
w/ PSNI
✓
-
0.228 (0.215)
0.782 (0.784)
w/ CRTM
-
✓
0.208 (0.213)
0.779 (0.777)
PVDepth (Full)
✓
✓
0.199
0.798
Table 3: Effectiveness of Proposed Components. Values in parentheses denote results trained for 40k steps to match the total computational budget of the full model.
Noise Strategy
CRTM
Metrics
Spherical
Anneal
Res. Normal
AbsRel ↓
δ1↑
-
-
-
-
0.248
0.757
✓
-
-
-
0.235
0.758
✓
-
✓
-
0.231
0.770
✓
✓
-
-
0.228
0.782
✓
✓
✓
-
0.229
0.785
Table 4: Ablation studies on Noise Initialization Strategy. Spherical : Sphere-projected noise; Anneal : Progressive transition strategy; Res. Normal : Residual normal Gaussian noise.
Method Variant
Fusion
KV
Metrics
Strategy
Source
AbsRel ↓
δ1↑
Equi-only (Baseline)
-
Equi
0.248
0.757
Naive Average
Avg
Equi + Equi
0.267
0.704
Naive Add
Add
Equi + Equi
0.356
0.649
CRTM (Self-guided)
Proj. & Add
Equi + Equi
0.214
0.772
CRTM (Cube-guided)
Proj. & Add
Equi + Cube
0.208
0.779
Table 5: Ablation on CRTM Design. KV Source: Source for Attention keys/values in the temporal layers.
Strategy
Noise
Training
Spatial
Metrics
Init
Stages
Update
AbsRel ↓
δ1↑
Baseline (40k step)
Normal
1
-
0.232
0.754
One-Stage Joint
PSNI
1
-
0.221
0.763
Two-Stage Unfrozen
PSNI
2
Train
0.215
0.769
Two-Stage Frozen
Normal
2
Freeze
0.204
0.775
Two-Stage Frozen (Ours)
PSNI
2
Freeze
0.199
0.798
Table 6: Ablation studies on Training Strategy. We compare One-Stage Joint (simultaneously optimizing spatial and temporal modules) against a Two-Stage Protocol ( 1th : Spatial Adaptation via PSNI; 2th : Temporal Modeling via CRTM). Spatial Update : Whether spatial weights are updated during 2th stage.
Resolution
DepthCrafter ZS
DepthCrafter FT
PVDepth
384×192
0.679 (0.473)
0.493 (0.709)
0.455 (0.738)
640×320
0.351 (0.571)
0.354 (0.761)
0.275 (0.801)
768×384
0.310 (0.570)
0.263 (0.769)
0.212 (0.806)
896×448
0.292 (0.577)
0.254 (0.763)
0.207 (0.802)
1024×512
0.290 (0.567)
0.232 (0.754)
0.199 (0.798)
Table 7: Sensitivity to inference resolution. Each fine-tuned model is trained at 640×320 and evaluated at different inference resolutions. Each entry reports AbsRel ↓ , with δ1↑ shown in parentheses. Both metrics are averaged over the three evaluation settings. ZS and FT denote Zero-Shot and Fine-Tuned models.
Metric
UniK3D
ViPE
Matrix-3D
DepthCrafter
PVDepth
Latency (s/frame) ↓
0.05
0.5–3
20
0.355
0.482
GPU Memory (G/clip) ↓
3.84
16.8–34.4
9.22
30.6
30.7
FLOPs (PFLOPs/clip) ↓
0.317
0.758–2.258
2.518
1.986
2.553
AbsRel ↓
0.592
0.670
0.494
0.232
0.199
δ1↑
0.638
0.721
0.513
0.754
0.798
Table 8: Inference Efficiency. Latency is the average inference time per frame at 1024×512 resolution. GPU memory and FLOPs are measured for 110-frame clips at the same resolution. AbsRel and δ1 are averaged over the three evaluation settings. ViPE shows a range because the convergence behavior of SLAM optimization varies across sequences.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: Comparison of ERPs with and without vehicle self-occlusion. For each ERP, the left inset shows its up and down cubemap views. In the self-occlusion case (a), the vehicle body blocks a fixed portion of the down view, introducing persistent visual noise.
Figure 6: Examples of recorded trajectory visualizations in Town01 (a) and Town03 (b). The colored loops represent smooth driving paths generated by our pipeline.
Figure 7: Illustration of the conversion from Cubemap to Equirectangular Projection (ERP).
Statistic
T01
T02
T03
T04
T05
T06
T07
T10
Total
# Clips
18
14
22
13
19
9
14
8
117
# Frames
15512
6626
17822
23531
25436
15788
14899
7082
126696
Distance (km)
5.82
2.53
6.46
10.49
9.63
7.45
5.71
2.52
50.61
Appendix
Table 9: Statistics of different towns in the PanoCARLA dataset. T denotes Town index.
Metric
ViPE Huang et al. (2025)
DepthCrafter Hu et al. (2025)
DA-2 Li et al. (2025a)
PVDepth
SSIM ↑
0.4107
0.3290
0.3147
0.4194
Appendix
Table 10: Reprojection-based geometric consistency evaluation on the GenEx Real-World dataset using SSIM. Higher values indicate better geometric consistency.
Figure 8: Reprojection-based geometric consistency under varying temporal offsets. We report SSIM scores of different methods under varying temporal offsets between the source and target frames. While ViPE achieves strong performance at small temporal offsets due to test-time optimization, its performance degrades more rapidly as the temporal offset increases. In contrast, PVDepth exhibits more stable performance across larger temporal offsets, indicating stronger long-range temporal consistency.
Figure 9: Qualitative visualization of reprojection-based geometric consistency. The top row shows the target panoramic frame. The second and third rows show synthesized target views obtained by forward-projecting point clouds from an anchor frame at a temporal offset of 40 frames using different methods. Gray regions indicate invalid areas that are masked out during evaluation. Compared to other methods, DA-2 exhibits the largest discrepancy from the target frame due to poor depth–pose alignment, while DepthCrafter suffers from noticeable geometric distortions caused by the domain gap between perspective training data and panoramic imagery. In contrast, PVDepth produces more geometrically consistent reprojections that better align with the target frame.
Pose Source
ViPE Huang et al. (2025)
DepthCrafter Hu et al. (2025)
DA-2 Li et al. (2025a)
PVDepth
MapAnything-based
0.3460
0.3023
0.2572
0.3767
ViPE-based
0.4107
0.3290
0.3147
0.4194
Appendix
Table 11: Reprojection-based geometric consistency on the GenEx Real-World dataset under different pose sources, measured by SSIM. Higher values indicate better geometric consistency.
Figure 10: Qualitative visualization of the cube-based strategy after re-projecting cubemap predictions back to the ERP format. The first row shows the input RGB panoramic frames. The second and third rows present the corresponding depth predictions obtained by DepthCrafter in the zero-shot and fine-tuned settings, respectively. Although depth predictions are internally consistent within each cubemap region, significant scale discrepancies can be observed across different cubemap regions after re-projection, leading to visible seams in the ERP panorama. Notably, such cross-region scale inconsistencies persist even after fine-tuning.
Figure 11: Frame-wise qualitative comparisons on in-the-wild panoramic video depth estimation. Columns show individual frames sampled at different temporal positions (Frame 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100) from the same video sequence, while rows correspond to the input RGB panorama and depth predictions from different methods.
Figure 12: Qualitative visualizations of PVDepth on real-world indoor panoramic videos.
Figure 13: Failure cases of PVDepth on reflective water surfaces . While PVDepth produces plausible depth estimates on calm water regions (top row), it struggles in scenarios with strong reflections (bottom row), where reflected structures on the water surface are incorrectly interpreted as physical geometry.
Figure 14: Additional frame-wise qualitative visualization results of PVDepth on in-the-wild panoramic videos.
Figure 15: Additional visualizations of the PanoCARLA dataset. We present sample RGB-D pairs from the collected sequences. The top rows display the stitched RGB panoramas across different environments, while the bottom rows show the corresponding depth visualizations. For better visualization of fine-grained details, each frame is visualized individually rather than using a sequence-level visualization.
Panoramic depth estimation captures the complete 360∘ scene geometry, being essential for robotics and AR/VR applications. While perspective depth models have achieved remarkable zero-shot generalization via large-scale training, panoramic methods lag behind, especially for open-world scenes, due to data scarcity. To bridge this gap, we introduce DA360, a panoramic-adapted version of Depth Anything V2. Our key insight is that the base DAV2 model, trained on perspective images to predict affine-invariant disparity, already exhibits good zero-shot performance on panoramas. Building on this, we design a lightweight adaptation framework that (i) learns a per-image shift from the ViT class token with scale-invariant supervision, transforming affine-invariant disparity into scale-invariant disparity that directly yields well-formed 3D point clouds, and (ii) integrates circular padding into the DPT decoder to eliminate seam artifacts, ensuring spatial coherence. Fine-tuned on a combination of synthetic indoor and outdoor panoramic data, DA360 is evaluated on standard real-world indoor benchmarks and our newly curated outdoor dataset, Metropolis. Results show that DA360 not only outperforms the original DAV2 by over 50% and 12% relative error reduction indoors and outdoors, but also surpasses prior specialized methods like PanDA by about 25--35% across all tests, establishing state-of-the-art zero-shot panoramic depth estimation.
Recent depth foundation models trained on perspective imagery achieve strong performance, yet generalize poorly to 360∘ images due to the substantial geometric discrepancy between perspective and panoramic domains. Moreover, fully fine-tuning these models typically requires large amounts of panoramic data. To address this issue, we propose RePer-360, a distortion-aware self-modulation framework for monocular panoramic depth estimation that adapts depth foundation models while preserving powerful pretrained perspective priors. Specifically, we design a lightweight geometry-aligned guidance module to derive a modulation signal from two complementary projections (i.e., ERP and CP) and use it to guide the model toward the panoramic domain without overwriting its pretrained perspective knowledge. We further introduce a Self-Conditioned AdaLN-Zero mechanism that produces pixel-wise scaling factors to reduce the feature distribution gap between the perspective and panoramic domains. In addition, a cubemap-domain consistency loss further improves training stability and cross-projection alignment. By shifting the focus from complementary-projection fusion to panoramic domain adaptation under preserved pretrained perspective priors, RePer-360 surpasses standard fine-tuning methods while using only 1% of the training data. Under the same in-domain training setting, it further achieves an approximately 20% improvement in RMSE. The code is available at https://github.com/munimo/RePer360.
Cheng Guan, Chunyu Lin, Zhijie Shen +2
Institute of Information Science, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China. · Visual Intelligence +X International Cooperation Joint Laboratory of MOE, Beijing 100044, China.
Existing video depth estimation faces a fundamental trade-off: generative models suffer from stochastic geometric hallucinations and scale drift, while discriminative models demand massive labeled datasets to resolve semantic ambiguities. To break this impasse, we present DVD, the first framework to deterministically adapt pre-trained video diffusion models into single-pass depth regressors. Specifically, DVD features three core designs: (i) repurposing the diffusion timestep as a structural anchor to balance global stability with high-frequency details; (ii) latent manifold rectification (LMR) to mitigate regression-induced over-smoothing, enforcing differential constraints to restore sharp boundaries and coherent motion; and (iii) global affine coherence, an inherent property bounding inter-window divergence, which enables seamless long-video inference without requiring complex temporal alignment. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DVD achieves state-of-the-art zero-shot performance across benchmarks. Furthermore, DVD successfully unlocks the profound geometric priors implicit in video foundation models using 163x less task-specific data than leading baselines. Notably, we fully release our pipeline, providing the whole training suite for SOTA video depth estimation to benefit the open-source community.
Hongfei Zhang, Harold Haodong Chen, Chenfei Liao +12