What Muse Spark Open can do: from video editing to 3D, review is key

What can Muse Spark Open do? Released by Meta on October 15, 2026, this open-weight model can combine text, images, audio, and video to understand a task, then work through it by calling tools through an agent. Two concrete uses are especially useful for creators: reviewing video footage to select clips, and using renders from multiple angles to keep improving a 3D asset.

The model produces text. Editing software performs the crops, while code and a renderer display the three-dimensional object. Connecting these stages lets a workflow move from “make a suggestion” to “check what still needs fixing after the work is done.”

Editing video starts with choosing what to keep

Meta’s launch announcement describes a local workflow test: Muse Code, powered by Muse Spark Open, operated DaVinci Resolve, reviewed footage frame by frame, identified the strongest clips, and cropped them into a vertical format.

This involves two different judgments. Selecting a clip means assessing whether an action, emotion, or piece of information is complete. Cropping it vertically means checking whether the subject and important details remain in frame. A moment that makes a good opening may not work as a direct vertical crop. Keeping “why choose this clip?” separate from “where should it be cropped?” makes needed changes easier to identify.

To apply this approach to your own project, start by asking for an editing plan. Here is an example task:

I’ll provide the footage. The goal is a 30-second vertical teaser.
First, list the start and end times of the clips you recommend keeping, why you chose them, and which actions or lines of dialogue must be preserved.
For each clip, explain the focus of the 9:16 frame and any important information the crop might remove. List clips that aren’t suitable for a vertical crop separately.
Wait for approval of the plan before making changes. In each revision, address only the confirmed issues.

The value of this deliverable is that you can check it. Why a clip was dropped or whether a line of dialogue was cut off becomes a specific point to discuss. Missing shots can also be listed as pickup needs before you continue with storyboarding and video creation.

In 3D, a good front view isn’t enough

A hands-on test by Hugging Face demonstrated another approach. They combined a 2-bit quantized version of Muse Spark Open with the Pi coding agent and llama.cpp. The model wrote Three.js asset code, rendered it in a browser, and received screenshots from several angles for its own review. Pi then revised the code in response to visible problems and continued to the next round.

The public task specified ten fixed viewpoints, including axis-aligned, oblique, and detail views, and required screenshots, reviews, and change records across five rounds of improvement. Keeping the camera positions, lighting, and object orientation fixed matters: if the angle changes every round, it becomes difficult to tell whether the structure actually improved.

This turns “make it more refined” into a revision tied to a location. First identify the view, the part, and the visible issue, then suggest a correction. In the next round, return to the same view to check whether it was resolved. The number of rounds doesn’t establish quality; unresolved defects should stay on the issue list.

This review method also works for character sheets, object views, and video pickups. You can organize feedback with a task like this:

Preserve the same object’s silhouette, colors, and key details. Compare fixed front, side, back, and detail views.
First, make a list using “view — location — visible issue — suggested change.”
Address only the 1 to 3 confirmed items in this round. Keep everything else unchanged.
After revising, compare each item in the same view. Explain what has been resolved and what remains. Don’t guess about areas you can’t see clearly.

Multi-view concept images and runnable 3D assets are different deliverables. The former help define the design and revision requirements; the latter also require code, geometry, and actual rendering. Review the work against the finished output you need.

Make reviewing the result part of the creative brief

Both cases follow the same creative sequence: observe the material, make an actionable decision, let a tool execute it, then return to the result and check it. Editing focuses on time ranges and framing; design focuses on fixed views and specific parts. The more precisely feedback identifies a location, the easier the next revision is to explain.

When creating images or videos in PagePop, you can also start with a clear creative brief: provide reference material, state the finished work you want, identify what must stay, and specify what should change in this round. Once you have a result, continue revising the specific image or frame. This makes it easier to preserve the parts you already like and move the revision forward than simply adding more adjectives.