Generating the Past, Present and Future from a Motion-Blurred Image
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We seek to answer the question: what can a motion-blurred image reveal about a scene's past, present, and future? Although motion blur obscures image details and degrades visual quality, it also encodes information about scene and camera motion during an exposure. Previous techniques leverage this information to estimate a sharp image from an input blurry one, or to predict a sequence of video frames showing what might have occurred at the moment of image capture. However, they rely on handcrafted priors or network architectures to resolve ambiguities in this inverse problem, and do not incorporate image and video priors on large-scale datasets. As such, existing methods struggle to reproduce complex scene dynamics and do not attempt to recover what occurred before or after an image was taken. Here, we introduce a new technique that repurposes a pre-trained video diffusion model trained on internet-scale datasets to recover videos revealing complex scene dynamics during the moment of capture and what might have occurred immediately into the past or future. Our approach is robust and versatile; it outperforms previous methods for this task, generalizes to challenging in-the-wild images, and supports downstream tasks such as recovering camera trajectories, object motion, and dynamic 3D scene structure. Code and data are available at blur2vid.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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it