Video Encoders Built on Image Representations

The design of a video encoder determines when frames begin to interact and which frame-specific visual evidence remains accessible to the language model. Native video pathways couple neighboring frames during visual encoding, whereas image pathways preserve independently computed frame representations but incur a much larger visual-token cost when all image tokens are forwarded. We ask a basic question: whether a compact video encoder can instead be built on image representations. To answer this question, we separate three operations that are often coupled: per-frame representation, cross-frame token allocation, and temporal interaction. A frozen image encoder first produces frame-specific candidates. A question-aware selector then allocates a fixed token budget across frames using relevance, diversity, and cross-frame correspondence, after which a lightweight learned refiner reads neighboring-frame context and writes residual updates only to the retained anchors. This preserves source positions and keeps the visual output at the fixed budget. Across 13 benchmarks and three vision–language backbones, the resulting pathway matches full-image aggregate performance while using only about 28%–35% of its visual tokens. Specifically, on Qwen3-VL-8B, it achieves a 13-benchmark macro-average of 62.75 with 1,535 visual tokens, compared with 62.58 for the full Image pathway at 4,424 tokens and 59.49 for native Conv3D at 2,212 tokens. On Qwen3-VL-32B, it reaches a 13-benchmark macro-average of 66.28, compared with 66.09 for Image, while providing a 2.16× end-to-end speedup. These results show that compact video encoding does not require early temporal mixing: frame-specific evidence can be preserved first, allocated jointly, and temporally contextualized after selection.