arXiv preprint ·
Do Image Editors Follow Depth-Dependent Blur and Aperture Response? A Rendered-Ground-Truth Pilot Audit
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
General image editors are asked to make a photo look as if it were taken at f/1.4, yet it is rarely checked whether the blur they add follows thin-lens optics. A physical aperture edit spreads blur across depth in thin-lens proportions and changes the blur when the aperture changes; prior evaluations check blur monotonicity, sharpness-trend correlation, effective-aperture error, or vision-language judgments, and none we found reports the two properties separately at known depths. In this pilot audit of two editors (Gemini~3.1 Flash Image and GPT-image-2.5) we compare against a rendered oracle: Blender Cycles scenes with true thin-lens depth of field, one blur-width estimator applied identically to oracle and editor outputs, and preregistered depth and aperture indices. In 24 texture scenes rendered in one three-panel geometry, accepted and measurable panels show f/1.4-to-f/2.8 width ratios, $\barσ_{1.4}/\barσ_{2.8}$, of 0.99--1.18 against 1.98--2.13 for the oracle, and ratios of pooled median Gaussian-equivalent near/far blur widths of about 1.18--1.25 (Gemini) and 0.97--1.05 (GPT-image) against 1.69--1.82. Preregistered black-box interventions show that qualitative wording changes blur strength by roughly 2--10 times, whereas a request for 2 versus 6 px changes it 1.1--1.3 times and no tested wording of the f-number meets the registered ``followed'' criterion. The depth compression appears in the original and reversed centre-focus layouts; with the focus on the near panel, the available-panel depth index reaches the registered threshold, and the aperture response stays attenuated in every layout tested. Scalar metrics adapted from published ones give oracle-like scores to synthetic editors whose proportions are compressed.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computer Vision
Pooling Representation Autoencoders for Efficient Diffusion
Mid-Training Language Models on Raw Video
Adaptive Visual Token Reduction for Accelerated Image Understanding
Expression-Diverse References for Identity-Preserving Video Generation
PhyDiCT: Plug-and-Play CT Reconstruction from Sparse X-Rays via Differentiable Rendering and Strong Priors
Get the few papers worth your time in Computer Vision every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.