Great work! I have been wondering what would it take to train with higher image bit depth (10 or 12b) and/or using camera footage only, not already heavily processed images? The usefulness of video generation in most professional use cases is limited because models are too end to end and completely contaminated with stock footage. Maybe quantities of training material needed is simply not there?

Not blaming you, but asking as I don’t usually have access to professionals working with video training.

No questions but I appreciate the write-up! Thank you for sharing.

yep, Apache 2.0! so anyone's welcome to download and hack away

honestly, it's really hard to shorten the feedback loop in this space. For this, we really just did run one experiment at a time and visually inspect the results everywhere. when you're going 0 -> 1, you're looking for "signs of life" to make sure the basic thing is working. when it comes to testing which (of the infinite levers) to the pull, a lot of it comes from intuition (which i know isn't the most fun answer). we spent a week or so just running experiments on the amount of compression we could squeeze out the VAE without significant degradation in the final results). In hindsight, spending a week on that seems like a waste, since we got the 8x spatial, 4x compression within the first 1-2 days. But in the moment, you're often unsure WHAT will be the key unlock. So, when you're in the middle of storm you're running a quick bayesian process in your head, measuring what you might learn from the outcome of the experiment vs. the time/money it would take to run the experiment. And you, hope that your intuitions become stronger over time, as you take more repetitions. More money, might help the problem (e.g. parallel experiments, more detailed explorations). But, I don't think money is a cure-all. At some point, you get lost in the sauce trying to tie the threads between all the empirical findings you have at your finger tips. Maybe one day AI models could help here integrating these all results. As it stands, they still struggle to reason about this stuff, in context of other research papers and findings (likely because all the context on arxiv is so noisy; you can't trust any particular finding and verifying findings is so hard to do, that it's hard to meta-reason about your experiments correctly).

Hadn’t seen that before! Seems very in line with what with the broader points about regularization. In table 4 they show faster convergence in 200 epochs when used alongside REPA. I’d be curious to see if it ended up beating REPA by itself with full 800 epochs of training — or if something about this new latent space, leads to plateauing itself (learns faster but caps out on expressivity). We’ve seen that phenomena before in other situations (eg UNET learns faster than DiT because of convolutions, but stops learning beyond a certain point).