Skip to content
Computational Pathology Reading Roadmap

Writing study: ReCamMaster: Camera-Controlled Generative Rendering from A Single Video

← ICCV 2025 oral writing corpus

Jianhong Bai, Menghan Xia, Xiao Fu, Xintao Wang, Lianrui Mu, Jinwen Cao, Zuozhu Liu, Haoji Hu, Xiang Bai, Pengfei Wan, Di Zhang · Official ICCV 2025 oral record

Figure, table and section ledger

Editorial contribution type: Architecture & representation (primary).

Layout extraction, not a required paper template. Counts are distinct caption labels; a multi-panel figure counts once. Section spans are estimated from heading positions, including floats and whitespace. Method and limitations.

Canonical PDF
11 physical pages
Before references / appendix
≈ 8.15 page-equivalents
Main figures / tables
6 / 4
Attached appendix figures / tables
0 / 0
Attached appendix span
No boundary detected; not assumed zero
Before references / appendix: ≈ 74.09%References / intervening material: ≈ 25.91%Estimated layout envelopes, not text/artwork area. Unresolved appendix boundaries remain within the undivided post-body material.

Extraction notes: No attached appendix boundary detected. Zero means no recognized caption, not independently verified absence.

Source-bound correction: Restore the source heading across its line break; the measured start position is unchanged.

Section-by-section lengths and source pages

The title/abstract/front matter precede the first numbered heading. A span ends at the next detected top-level heading, not at the last sentence; end-page whitespace is included. References and statements are listed separately. These are not measurements of text-only or artwork area.

Top-level headingStarts on PDF pageEstimated spanShare of entire PDF
1. Introduction2≈ 0.71 pp.6.45%
2. Related Works2≈ 0.51 pp.4.64%
3. Multi-Cam Video: A High-Quality Multi-Camera Synchronized Video Dataset3≈ 0.54 pp.4.91%
4. Camera-Controlled Video Re-Generation3≈ 2.41 pp.21.91%
5. Experimental Results6≈ 2.08 pp.18.91%
6. Applications of ReCamMaster8≈ 0.53 pp.4.82%
7. Conclusion and Limitations8≈ 0.21 pp.1.91%
Acknowledgments9≈ 0.11 pp.1%
References9≈ 2.85 pp.25.91%
All detected figure and table locations

Main text

Attached appendix

    No recognized caption labels.

    Argument and organization

    1. 1 Introduction; 2 Related Works; 3 Multi-Cam Video

      Defines synchronized re-shooting and motivates rendered paired multi-camera data.

    2. 4 Camera-Controlled Video Re-Generation

      Compares source-video injection alternatives before target-camera conditioning and training strategies.

    3. 5 Experimental Results; 6 Applications; 7 Conclusion and Limitations

      Separates quality, camera accuracy and synchronization, then presents application extensions with explicit scope limits.

    Problem, claim and contribution

    Changing the camera of an existing dynamic video is distinguished from unconstrained text/image-to-video generation by appearance and time-synchronization requirements.

    Sections 1 and 4, physical pp.2–3 · Main paper

    Argument and section order

    The data-construction section precedes the architecture because synchronized target/source pairs are part of the training contract.

    Sections 3–4, pp.3–5 · Main paper

    Figures, captions and visual explanation

    Three conditioning diagrams use the same block vocabulary to expose frame, channel and view concatenation, while snowflake/flame symbols distinguish frozen and trained components.

    Figure 3, p.4 · Main paper

    Tables, comparisons and evidence

    The main table groups metrics into visual quality, camera accuracy and view synchronization; the conditioning ablation holds camera injection, training data and steps fixed.

    Tables 1–3 and Section 5.3, pp.7–8 · Main paper

    Appendix and reproducibility

    Dataset details, scene/trajectory ablations and additional videos are assigned to appendices/project material; complex trajectories are explicitly omitted from the printed examples for clarity.

    Section 3, p.3; Section 5.2, p.7 · Main paper

    Clarity and writing conventions

    A footnote states that the zoom-in application is local central-patch enhancement, not conventional full-frame super-resolution.

    Section 6, p.8 · Main paper

    What to reuse—and what not to infer

    Transferable lesson: Use matched diagrams and controlled ablations for conditioning alternatives, and qualify tempting application labels at the point of use.

    Boundary: The study uses an internal pretrained video base and synthetic synchronized training data. Plausible unseen content is generated rather than recovered ground truth; source-camera estimation and intrinsics are omitted from conditioning, and static frames cannot independently validate temporal synchronization. Temporal flickering is not the best score in Table 2.

    Apply this lesson using the argument and evidence worksheet.

    Inspection record and sources

    Checked
    2026-10-07
    Reading status
    Writing-focused manuscript scan + selected visuals inspected
    Main text
    Writing-oriented scan across the main manuscript, physical PDF pp.1–8, covering framing, section progression, method explanations, captions, comparison protocols and concluding scope; reference boundary checked. Selected full-page rasters were inspected. Not exhaustive line-by-line reading, proof verification or experimental reproduction.
    Appendix / supplement
    Main-paper appendix/supplement references were checked. A separate supplementary source is linked in the inventory but was not retrieved or inspected; its contents are not included in the reading or visual-page counts.
    Visually inspected PDF pages
    4, 7

    This is a writing-focused scan of the manuscript and the stated supplementary scope: framing, organization, visual explanation, evidence presentation and wording. It is not a line-by-line proof audit, reproduction of results or exhaustive scientific review.