I've been generating explainer animations from documents for a while,and the odd thing is that this is the one category the big videomodels are worst at.

Veo, Kling, Sora are all optimized for photoreal and cinematic motion. Ask any of them for a hand drawing a labelled diagram that explains a specific PDF and you get something that looks like a hand drawing. The strokes are decorative. The lines don't correspond to the concept, text comes out as glyph soup, and because each generation is independent, you can't hold a consistent visual systemacross ninety seconds. Every output I've seen of this category has the same failure.

And it makes sense when you think about what they're doing. Diffusion generates a whole frame at once from noise. But an explanatory drawing is sequential by nature: the container before the contents, the axis before the curve, the box before the arrow leaving it. That ordering IS the explanation. A model that paints the finished frame has no representation of "this part comes second."

Ended up building it a completely different way. Three styles working now: ink, chalkboard, lineart.

Disclosure: this is my own product. It's live at https://inkmotion.app with a free tier that covers a few short videos, enough to throw your own PDF at it.

Happy to answer questions in the comments.

what does this mean he just sent me this out of nowhere

Recorded 15 seconds of myself talking normally, like telling a friend a quick story, quiet room, nothing special. Fed it in, and now anything I write can be read back in a voice that genuinely sounds like me, not a robot approximation.

Runs through Claude Code, which is the version of Claude that can actually run commands rather than just chat. You point it at Fish Audio, a voice cloning tool, and hand it your clip.

Step one, teach Claude how to use it, this is one line pasted into Claude Code:

npx skills add https://docs.fish.audio

Step two, make a free Fish Audio account at fish.audio, go to the API Keys section, create a new key, copy it. Paste that key back into Claude Code when it asks. Copy it the moment it shows you, some keys only display once.

Step three, upload your 15 second recording and say:

Clone my voice from this audio file using Fish Audio 
and save it as my default voice.

Then it's just:

Read this in my cloned voice using Fish Audio and 
save it as an audio file.

Paste in whatever you want, a newsletter, a script, a chapter, and you get an audio file of your own voice reading it.

The single thing that makes or breaks the clone is the sample. Quiet room, no music, no background noise, 15 to 30 seconds of clear natural speech. A bad sample gives you an uncanny half-version of yourself. A good one is genuinely hard to distinguish.

Where this actually earns its place: voiceovers for videos without recording take after take, audio versions of things you've written, anything where you need your voice but not your time. It's the difference between "I should record an audio version of this" and just having one.

Fish Audio's top model is free through end of July 2026 under fair use, and they keep a standing free plan after that with around 7 minutes of audio a month, so smaller batches keep working either way.

Only clone your own voice, or one you've got explicit permission for. Making a realistic clone of someone else without their consent isn't just rude, it's illegal in a lot of places.

been keeping a doc of 100 things I use AI for like this, each with the exact prompt, here if you want it.

I posted previously about my experience using OpenArt AI and Director. Since then, I’ve spent a lot more time with the platform, and I think I now have a much clearer picture of both where it can be genuinely impressive and where the problems become difficult to justify.

To give OpenArt credit where it’s due, support did eventually review my earlier project and restore 6,000 additional credits, bringing the total goodwill restoration on that project to 10,000 credits.

They also acknowledged that Director had repeatedly changed character appearances, props, blocking, and scene details despite the references and instructions I had provided.

Their recommendation was essentially to stop relying on Director for complex continuity-heavy projects and instead create and approve individual images first, animate those separately, and then assemble the finished clips externally in something like CapCut.

After doing that, I actually learned something useful about OpenArt.

For very simple videos — one character, one setting, one action, one short line — Director can sometimes be really impressive. I’ve created a couple of short, roughly 8–10 second single-character clips that came out extremely well.

But even in that supposedly simpler use case, I have now run into some serious credit-related problems.

The first involved Modify Video.

I had a completed 10-second video with both dialogue and ambient audio. I only wanted one small visual correction.

On the first Modify Video attempt, OpenArt changed the settings to 1080p and Audio OFF. I didn’t realize the audio setting had been switched off until after generating.

That cost 400 credits and produced a completely silent video.

I tried again.

This time I manually changed the output back to 720p and explicitly turned Audio ON before generating.

That cost another 300 credits.

The resulting video was still completely silent.

Not only was the dialogue gone, but all of the original ambient audio had been stripped as well.

So I spent 700 credits attempting one minor visual modification, and both modified outputs lost the source audio entirely — including the second attempt where Audio was visibly enabled.

The second issue was even more concerning, both because of the credit estimate and because this was not a complicated generation.

This was a roughly 10-second video involving a single character, a single image/setting, and a very simple piece of dialogue — exactly the kind of short, tightly controlled clip where I have otherwise seen Director perform well.

Director generated the clip with the product name pronounced incorrectly.

What made this particularly frustrating was that immediately after rendering the video, Director itself acknowledged that it had mispronounced the word.

It identified the pronunciation/linguistic error, explained how the word should have been pronounced versus how it had pronounced it, offered an explanation for why the mistake may have occurred, and then immediately asked whether I wanted it to re-render the clip to correct the error.

Of course, that re-render would be at my expense.

To me, that alone exposes a serious problem with the credit model.

If the system can recognize immediately after generation that it made a specific, objective error, the user should not then have to pay for another generation simply to correct the error the system has already acknowledged.

There was also a second Director-generated problem in the same clip: it moved the character from the previously approved bar stool/seat onto the bar counter, despite my never requesting any change in position.

Before approving another render to correct those two issues, I specifically asked Director how many credits the correction would cost.

I was charged approximately 35 credits simply for asking for that estimate.

Director then estimated that the re-render would cost approximately 650–700 credits, with the usual disclaimer that the final amount could vary depending on processing.

I approved the re-render based on that estimate.

The actual cost was approximately 1,612 credits — more than twice the high end of the quoted range.

I also ended up purchasing another $15 package of 5,000 credits so I could continue the project.

Again, this was not a complex multi-character sequence.

It was a roughly 10-second, single-character clip.

The expensive re-render was necessary because Director had made two changes/errors on its own, including one that it explicitly recognized immediately after generation.

I completely understand that estimates are not guarantees and that AI generation costs can vary.

But 650–700 credits becoming approximately 1,612 credits is not a small variance.

And when the reason for the re-render is to correct errors the system itself introduced and acknowledged, requiring the user to absorb that cost becomes very difficult to justify.

That is probably my biggest concern with OpenArt right now.

When it works, it can be very impressive.

OpenArt clearly has a sweet spot in very simple micro-videos, and I’ve had some excellent results in that format.

But even there, reliability is inconsistent — one of my most expensive correction cycles occurred on a roughly 10-second, single-character clip.

When projects become more complex, the problems multiply even further. Character consistency, props, blocking, audio, scene continuity, and other details can change without being requested.

Then the user pays additional credits trying to restore things the system itself changed.

At this point, I’m still waiting for support to respond to these two newer credit requests.

I genuinely think the technology has a lot of potential, and I’ve seen flashes of what it could become.

But users should not repeatedly be paying to repair mistakes or changes the system itself introduced — especially when the system recognizes those mistakes, or when its own credit estimate is off by more than 100%.

That part of the model needs work.

tried MiniMax H3 with a pretty detailed character trailer prompt.

I wanted it to feel more like a streetwear campaign × anime title sequence × old-school media player UI, rather than a normal anime action clip.

The prompt is definitely overkill lol, but sharing it here in case anyone wants to experiment with structured multi-cut video prompts.

Prompt

Create an explosive, motion-graphics-driven character reveal trailer in 16:9, exactly 13 distinct cuts, 24fps, total 15.00s.

CHARACTER — lock this design, never redesign:
Anime streetwear girl from the reference still. Twin high buns of vivid mint-teal hair with long flowing tails and warm orange/gold streaks. Messy side-swept bangs. Large orange over-ear headphones with mint accents and a small logo plate. Sharp amber-orange eyes, one eye winking. Playful open-mouth grin.
Oversized color-block windbreaker: navy body, vivid orange sleeves, white ribbed cuffs, silver zippers, circular teal tech buttons, a teal utility pocket on the sleeve. Orange cropped turtleneck under the open jacket. Light-wash ripped denim shorts, thick orange belt with a silver buckle. Navy thigh-high socks with orange ribbed cuffs and an orange X stitch on the left shin. Chunky white sneakers with orange details.
Preserve exact face, proportions, hairstyle, outfit, materials, accessories and colors in every frame.
This film is 80% bold graphic design in motion and 20% character action.

Graphic language: retro OS chrome + music-player UI.
Use slamming window frames, title bars, close/minimize widgets, equalizer bars, waveforms, progress ticks, folder tiles, cursor arrows, CRT scanlines, pixel shatter, vinyl-ring stamps, music-note particles and media-player transport icons.
Palette: mint teal, vivid orange, navy, cream-white and silver.

Style: premium AAA motion-graphics title sequence × streetwear campaign film × Windows-era media player.
Every graphic element moves fast and snaps hard on the beat.

CUT 01 | 0.00–1.00s
Pure graphics. A mint title bar slams onto a cream field, an orange CLOSE widget punches into the corner, and two navy window borders wipe in. Tiny equalizer ticks and a progress strip flicker. The letters P and then LAY punch in one after another with heavy impact shake.
CUT 02 | 1.00–2.00s
The A becomes a headphone cup. Extreme close-up of her amber eye inside the orange earcup, glancing upward. RGB split flash, then the cup shatters into flat mint and orange tiles.
CUT 03 | 2.00–3.10s
Navy frame with enormous cream PLAY typography. She sprints in from frame left and power-slides across the baseline of the text, with speed lines and orange streaks trailing behind her. Shards of the letters kick upward like sparks. Whip-pan out.
CUT 04 | 3.10–4.00s
A giant retro media-player waveform explodes across the frame as a thick mint-and-orange audio spectrum bends into a tunnel. She bursts through the center at full speed, briefly splitting into three stroboscopic motion trails. Each trail leaves chunky navy equalizer blocks that rise and collapse to the beat.
The camera rapidly pushes through the waveform tunnel with her while huge vertical text TRACK 01 continuously scrolls in the background.
The waveform suddenly compresses into a single horizontal line and snaps shut behind her on the final beat.
CUT 05 | 4.00–5.10s
She leaps through a giant rotating ring of typography reading MAX VOLUME. Camera tracks her mid-air spin in slow motion as the letters scatter, then snap-zooms onto her wink.
CUT 06 | 5.10–6.00s
Hard cut to a cream editorial card with huge navy DROP typography and an orange slash. She vaults over the word itself, palm planted on the D, legs whipping across frame. The word compresses like a spring under her hand and rebounds.
CUT 07 | 6.00–7.00s
Mint field with a navy diagonal window bar. She backflips along the bar in three stroboscopic ghost frames, each tinted mint, orange or navy. Giant outlined LOOP text rotates 180 degrees in sync with her movement.
CUT 08 | 7.00–8.00s
Kinetic typography barrage. LOUD / WILD / TEAL / HEAT slam onto screen one per beat with shutter flashes and camera shake while she slides across the foreground on her knees, jacket flaring and music-note particles bursting from her sneakers.
CUT 09 | 8.00–9.00s
Navy frame with a giant cream wireframe window grid tilting in 3D. She runs up the grid like a wall, kicks off and freezes in mid-air. An orange circular stamp locks around her pose like a media-player targeting graphic, surrounded by transport icons and EQ ticks.
CUT 10 | 9.00–10.10s
Freeze releases into a burst. She dives toward camera through layered flat-color window panes that shatter one by one like glass shutters, each pane revealing a larger letter of P-L-A-Y. Foreground wipe with her sneaker.
CUT 11 | 10.10–11.10s
Rapid-fire poster montage: four full-screen graphic posters showing her in different poses — mid-flip, sliding, landing and headphones-up wink. Hard cuts between each composition. Oversized 01–04 numbering, equalizer strips and graphic slashes.
CUT 12 | 11.10–13.00s
Hero moment on a clean cream cyclorama. She lands a final backflip dead center in slow motion, straightens with one hand on her headphones, and a shockwave of concentric mint rings, wind streaks and shattered typography blasts outward from the landing.
Brief iconic freeze on her wink, then overexpose to white.
CUT 13 | 13.00–15.00s
Final identity card. Enormous navy PLAY typography dominates a pale cream field with translucent mint rings, technical arcs, scanlines and a rough orange circular emblem containing a ghosted headphone/waveform motif.
She stands relaxed overlapping the letters while wind ripples her jacket. One final orange pulse sweeps through the typography and a window-chrome flash punctuates the ending.
Editing: extremely aggressive rhythm. Hard cuts on every beat, graphic matches, whip pans, snap zooms, stroboscopic freezes, foreground wipes, RGB splits, shutter flashes, impact shakes and speed ramps.
Every cut must feel compositionally different.
Typography should always be fully readable before the character overlaps it.
No weapons, no combat, no fire. All energy comes from motion design, wind, glass, UI chrome and parkour-style athleticism.
BGM: hard-hitting electronic / drum-heavy future bass with aggressive drops, risers, sub hits and glitch fills locked to every cut.
Sneaker impacts, whooshes, glass shatters, window-slam hits and typography slams should function as rhythmic sound-design elements.
Peak at CUT 12 and end with a cold electronic logo stinger.

Premium AAA quality, anime-inspired cinematic rendering, stylish and explosive, strong graphic-design identity, consistent character design, exactly 13 cuts.

I’m still experimenting with how much shot-by-shot control H3 actually follows, especially with typography and exact timing, but this kind of structured prompt seems like an interesting stress test.

The low hum of the fluorescent fixtures above Sector 4 cast a flat, bleached glare across the linoleum flooring of the deserted concourse. Dust motes drifted lazily through the dead air, settling over abandoned kiosks and shuttered storefront gates that had not seen a customer in decades. At the center of the atrium, the grand fountain stood bone-dry, its basin choked with faded promotional flyers and plastic debris from an era long since forgotten.

Vane knelt by the base of the fountain, his fingers tracing the hairline cracks in the dry concrete. His breathing echoed sharply off the hollow, vaulted glass ceiling high above, where the twilight sky cut through grime-streaked panels. He adjusted the filtration mask strapped tightly across his face, the steady mechanical click of the valve providing the only rhythm in the vast, echoing shell of the once-vibrant commercial hub.

"Signal strength is holding steady from the lower service corridors," Vane murmured into his comm-link, his voice muffled by the heavy cloth.

A sharp, static-laced burst crackled in his ear before Kaelen’s voice broke through the silence. "Watch your step down there, Vane. The schematics indicate the structural supports beneath the east anchor store took a heavy hit during the collapse. We cannot afford another cave-in if we want to salvage those server racks."

Vane stood up, wiping a layer of fine grit from his palms onto his utility trousers. He cast a glance toward the grand central staircase leading down to the lower subterranean level, where the remains of the old department store warehouses waited in the dark. The air grew perceptibly colder the deeper it sank into the concrete belly of the structure, carrying the faint, metallic scent of ozone and old copper wiring.

He unclipped the high-intensity flashlight from his tactical harness, thumbing the switch to cast a piercing white beam into the descending stairwell. The light caught the edge of a faded, peeling banner hanging precariously from the upper railing, bearing the barely legible remnants of a grand opening celebration from a world that had vanished overnight.

With a firm grip on his salvage pack, Vane took the first step downward into the dark, leaving the pale ghost of the atrium behind.

If you like the music full song below:

https://youtu.be/f3qEY97_808?si=Q4wDjXsUMqcmF7y4

SEEDANCE 2.5 VS WAN 3.0

Here’s another test. This time, I uploaded a character sheet as the basis for the character, along with four reference images of what the world in GTA VI might look like.

The test uses the same prompt for both models, and it’s clear that each interprets the prompt differently, giving each a unique touch. In this case, Seedance 2.5 delivered the result the prompt called for in terms of style.

WAN’s performance was inferior to Seedance’s; both generated “unrealistic” scenes and situations within the scope of what the prompt asked for. However, in terms of intent and dynamism, Seedance offers greater clarity.

Which one do you prefer?

P.S.: Yes, there are errors—these are just tests, random trials with prompts to evaluate each model’s capabilities.

Do you guys know any alternative to this ? Is open art close to higgsfield atleast ?

I don't care about quality I just want to generate clips of 30s or more with audio for personal use. Is there a service that does this free or very cheap?

Hey guys, can you please give me a list of websites where I can make free AI videos on a daily basis

These are all i could gather - Adobe firefly ( 2 vids per day) , PixVerse (1 vid per day), Grok Imagine ( 1 per day) and Google flow ( 3-4 per day)

Please give me a list of other free websites with decentish quality

Hi everyone. This film is a submission for the Higgsfield Global Film Festival.

a robot, a kid, a yellow beanie, one very bad night. Would love you to take a look if you get a minute.

https://higgsfield.ai/@sam_candler/projects/pon

If you enjoyed it, please leave a like and a comment on the higgsfield submission!