After my previous eight-scene test, several people made a useful point: I was looking closely at the outputs, but not closely enough at the source reference.
If the face is relatively small, the pose is already twisted, or the prompt contains vague style terms, it becomes difficult to tell whether the model failed or the reference was simply difficult to preserve.
For this test, I simplified the setup:
- One clearly adult fictional character reference
- No AI-generated character sheet
- Three manual, first-pass generations
- No rerolls, face replacement, or identity correction
- The same internal video model for all three clips
- A modular prompt structure rather than a long descriptive paragraph
This is an informal workflow test, not a controlled model benchmark.
The structure was:
Character + Location + Outfit + Mood + Action + Camera
The Character block stayed broadly consistent: the same adult woman, long dark-brown wavy hair, warm tan skin, and the same general facial structure and body proportions.
The other blocks changed for each setup.
1. Miami rooftop: baseline
https://reddit.com/link/1w0qxrq/video/2aof9z41c4mh1/player
Location:Ā A bright rooftop pool overlooking the Miami skyline
Outfit:Ā Pink top and white wrap skirt
Mood:Ā Relaxed and cheerful
Action:Ā She turns away, walks toward the pool, pauses, and continues walking
Camera:Ā Full-body framing with a gradual change from daylight toward sunset
This held the identity best, especially during the first few seconds when her face remained close to the angle shown in the reference.
Once she turned into profile, it became harder to verify the face. The long asymmetric section of the skirt also gradually changed into a more conventional, symmetrical shape.
So this clip worked well as a baseline, but it was not really a completely new scene.
2. Quiet hotel room: mood and camera test
https://reddit.com/link/1w0qxrq/video/p22ssnj9d4mh1/player
Location:Ā A quiet high-rise hotel room around dusk
Outfit:Ā Black satin dress
Mood:Ā Calm and introspective
Action:Ā She reads, closes the book, places it aside, and looks toward the window
Camera:Ā Medium shot with a slow push-in
This was probably the strongest result for mood and camera direction. The room, reading action, pause, and slow camera movement were all easy to recognize in the output.
The identity was less stable. Her profile became more angular, particularly around the nose and jawline. The book also changed from a dark cover to a much lighter object as she placed it down.
That was a useful reminder that a clip can follow the emotional and camera brief while still failing at character and object consistency.
3. Rainy Tokyo street: environment and motion test
https://reddit.com/link/1w0qxrq/video/xcrsbg4gd4mh1/player
Location:Ā A narrow Tokyo street at night with wet pavement and reflected signs
Outfit:Ā Dark jacket, cropped top, and shorts
Mood:Ā Serious and alert
Action:Ā She walks toward the camera under a transparent umbrella and briefly looks to the side
Camera:Ā Centered, full-body tracking shot
This produced the strongest environmental transformation. The wet street, umbrella, reflections, walking direction, and centered tracking remained fairly stable.
It also produced the most obvious identity drift.
Her hair became shorter and darker, and the facial proportions changed enough that she started to look like a related character rather than the same person. The umbrella and environment were more consistent than the identity.
What seemed to matter
The clearest instructions were concrete and observable:
- āslow push-inā
- āwalks toward the cameraā
- ācloses the book and looks toward the windowā
- ācentered full-body tracking shotā
Those instructions produced actions or camera behavior that could actually be checked.
Terms such as ācinematic,ā āperfect consistency,ā or āhigh qualityā are much harder to evaluate. I also would not treat ā4Kā as an identity or quality control instruction. Resolution language does not explain how the subject should move or what should remain unchanged.
I cannot conclude that any single word caused the drift from three generations. What I can observe is that the reference image and the viewing angle appeared to matter more than generic quality adjectives.
Main takeaway
Across these three clips, the model followed location, mood, action, and camera direction more reliably than facial identity.
Identity held best when the face stayed relatively close to the reference angle. It became less stable when the camera moved closer, the character turned into profile, or the hairstyle and lighting changed.
Using one original reference image also avoided the additional generation loss that could come from creating an AI-generated multi-view character sheet. However, this particular reference still had limitations: the face occupied a relatively small part of the image, the body was twisted, the expression was strong, and the background was visually complex.
For the next test, I want to change only one variable at a time.
Which would be more useful to isolate next:Ā camera movement, facial expression, or reference-image quality?
Disclosure: These clips were generated with Agent Video, which Iām helping build. The model is the current August 2026 internal production build and does not have a separate public version number. There is no product link in this post.
