VideoHandles: Editing 3D Object Compositions in Videos Using Video Generative Priors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generative methods for image and video editing leverage generative models as priors to perform edits despite incomplete information, such as changing the composition of 3D objects depicted in a single image. Recent methods have shown promising composition editing results for images. However, in the video domain, editing methods have focused on editing objects’ appearance and motion, or camera motion. As a result, methods for editing object composition in videos remain largely unexplored. We propose VideoHandles as a method for editing 3D object compositions in videos of static scenes with camera motion. Our approach enables the editing of an object’s 3D position across all frames of a video in a temporally consistent manner. This is achieved by lifting intermediate features of a generative model to a 3D reconstruction that is shared between all frames, editing the reconstruction, and projecting the features on the edited reconstruction back to each frame. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first generative approach to edit object compositions in videos. Our approach is simple and training-free, while outperforming state-of-the-art image editing baselines. Our project page is https://videohandles.github.io.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".