MV2 / DATASET + BENCHMARK

MV2: Multi-View Multi-Vehicle Driving Dataset for Novel View Synthesis

A real-world benchmark for evaluating novel view synthesis under large viewpoint changes in dynamic driving scenes. MV2 records the same outdoor scene from a car, a two-wheeler, and a drone, enabling train-on-one-platform and test-on-another evaluation.

Sanjay Bhargav Dharavath1 · Hanvitha Saraswathi Mukkamala1 · Faizan Farooq Khan3 · Ioannis Kakogeorgiou4 · Aditya Arun5 · C.V. Jawahar1 · Zakaria Laskar2

1Centre for Visual Information Technology, IIIT Hyderabad

2Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Thiruvananthapuram

3King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST)

4IIT, National Centre for Scientific Research “Demokritos”

5Adobe MDSR, India

MV2 dataset overview showing car, two-wheeler, and drone viewpoints for novel view synthesis
MV² / dataset overviewcar · two-wheeler · drone
50
Pose-verified scenes
retained from 200 recorded scenes
12,000
Registered images
1080×1920 · sampled from 60 FPS at 2 FPS
3
Platforms
car · two-wheeler · drone
2
Evaluation setups
Eval-Car-Train and Eval-Drone-Train
Paper snapshot

A benchmark built for viewpoint gaps

MV2 captures synchronized dynamic urban scenes from independent ground and aerial trajectories, then tests whether a model can render views it never saw during training.

Capture 2 hours · 5 days

GoPro 10 sensors on a car, scooty, and drone follow adjacent trajectories across urban and semi-urban roads, producing five camera sequences per recorded scene.

Registration COLMAP + manual checks

All views share one coordinate frame. A sequence is retained only when the maximum epipolar error is at most 30 pixels.

Best reported result PVG · 27.01 dB

Eval-Car-Train on TC→C: 27.01 PSNR, 0.72 SSIM, and 0.20 LPIPS.

Hardest direction Drone → ground

On TD→C, PVG reaches 12.65 PSNR, showing the cost of the aerial-to-ground viewpoint gap.

Dataset samples

Synchronized frame triplets from the same timestamp across the car, two-wheeler, and drone capture platforms.

scene
frame 000010 · car + scooty + drone synchronized
seq10 car forward frame 000010
VC · car frontframe 000010 · training stream
seq10 scooty forward frame 000010
VS · scooty frontframe 000010 · cross-vehicle view
seq10 drone frame 000010
VD · droneframe 000010 · aerial stream

Why MV2?

Most driving NVS benchmarks test interpolation along the same vehicle trajectory. MV2 instead measures cross-platform extrapolation: train on one moving platform and render from another.

Real multi-platform capture

A car, a two-wheeler, and a drone observe the same dynamic outdoor scene from independent synchronized trajectories.

real-worlddynamic

Cross-view evaluation

Models are trained on one platform and evaluated on another, exposing failures hidden by same-trajectory test splits.

TC→STD→C

Pose-verified benchmark

COLMAP poses are filtered with manual region annotations, dense RoMA correspondences, and epipolar consistency checks.

SfMem ≤ 30 px

Dataset construction

A short version of the capture and filtering protocol used in the paper.

1

Capture

GoPro 10 cameras mounted on a car, two-wheeler, and drone capture synchronized 1080×1920 videos at 60 FPS.

car · two-wheeler · drone
2

Segment

Videos are sampled at 2 FPS and split into 100-frame segments. Congested, tunnel, red-light, and poorly aligned segments are removed.

200 scenes recorded
3

Register

Training sequences are reconstructed with COLMAP. Test images are localized using the nearest training images.

single world frame
4

Verify

Relative poses are accepted only when the maximum epipolar error over annotated correspondences is at most 30 pixels.

50 scenes retained

Evaluation protocol

A split name TX→Y means the model is trained on platform X and rendered/evaluated from platform Y.

Eval-Car-Train train: VC
TC→Csame car trajectory; closest to conventional NVS interpolation
TC→Lleft car-mounted camera; small lateral baseline
TC→Stwo-wheeler trajectory; cross-vehicle generalization
Eval-Drone-Train train: VD
TD→Dsame drone trajectory; aerial interpolation
TD→Cdrone-to-car rendering; aerial-to-ground gap
TD→Sdrone-to-two-wheeler rendering; cross-platform gap

Key findings

The page keeps only the main conclusions needed for a project website.

01

Viewpoint gap hurts NVS

Performance consistently drops as the test viewpoint moves away from the training trajectory, especially from TC→C to TC→S.

02

One extra car camera is not enough

TC→L introduces only a small baseline. TC→S is the more realistic cross-vehicle test.

03

Aerial-to-ground is difficult

Training on drone images and rendering ground views causes a large degradation for both static and dynamic NVS methods.

04

Pose estimation remains open

Feed-forward pose estimators trail COLMAP under wide-baseline cross-platform localization.

Benchmark

Interactive table using the paper's main NVS results. Use tabs to switch training platforms; PSNR/SSIM higher is better and LPIPS lower is better.

— entries

Table values are copied from the main paper. Feed-forward methods use 12 context views; 2-view and 6-view ablations can be added later if needed.

Citation