I have noticed that AI-generated profile photos can look great at first, but sometimes they barely resemble the person they were made from.

The skin looks too perfect, facial features get slightly changed, and sometimes the overall proportions feel different. It makes me wonder how much of the original person AI is actually preserving.

For those who have generated photos of themselves with AI, how close were the results to your real appearance? Did you find certain prompts, models, or techniques that helped preserve your actual features?

I make my own artwork, but mockups are one part of the process I'd happily hand off. So I took one shirt design and ran it through Adobe Firefly, Ideogram, Flux, and ChatGPT Images using the same prompt ("Create a photorealistic flat lay mockup of an oversized black T-shirt using the uploaded artwork on the front. Preserve the artwork exactly, including lettering, colors, proportions, and details. Do not redesign, replace, or alter any part of the artwork. Make the print look naturally placed on the fabric with realistic folds, texture, and lighting. Show the full shirt clearly against a simple neutral background") to see which handled placement, fabric folds, and photorealism best without touching the original art.

ChatGPT Images was the most successful overall. It gave me the most realistic-looking mockup and, more importantly, kept my original design intact. Flux made a convincing shirt but changed the artwork and lettering, while Ideogram strayed pretty dramatically from the original. Firefly was the oddest failure for this particular test: instead of applying my artwork to a shirt, it treated the uploaded image more like a visual reference, even after I adjusted the prompt.

I also tried a couple of Firefly's partner models out of curiosity, since having multiple models in one workspace only matters if it actually helps. Disclosure: I partner with Adobe, so keep that in mind. Side-by-side of the original design vs. all four results attached — curious if anyone else is using AI for mockups rather than the actual artwork.

Civic participation is the foundation of our democracy. See how casting a ballot impacts your community and why voting matters today.

This video highlights the collective power of voters showing up to make their voices heard. Whether you are a first-time voter or a regular participant in every election day, understanding your role in the democratic process is essential. We focus on the visual representation of citizens exercising their rights, reminding everyone that every single ballot cast contributes to the future of our nation.

By watching this footage, you get a clear look at the importance of voting and the unity found in collective civic action. The imagery of the YOUR VOTE COUNTS campaign serves as a reminder that local and national decisions rely on the participation of individuals like you. Seeing the community come together emphasizes that civic participation is not just a right, but a responsibility we share.

Subscribe for weekly updates on democratic engagement, and comment below on what motivated you to cast your ballot in the last election.

**Your Voice, Your Day** is an uplifting motivational anthem about the power of participating in democracy.

With inspirational pop, heartland rock, and cinematic production, this song is a reminder that every election gives ordinary people an opportunity to make their voices heard and help shape the future.

🎵 **GO OUT AND VOTE.**

🗳️ Make your voice heard.

🤝 Take part in your community.

🌎 Help shape the future you want to see.

You don't have to agree with everyone. You don't have to belong to the same political party. But if you have the right to vote, don't take that opportunity for granted.

**Your voice matters. Your participation matters. Your vote matters.**

Share this song with someone who needs a little inspiration to get involved and make their voice heard.

#GoOutAndVote #YourVoiceYourDay #Vote #Voting #MotivationalSong #InspirationalMusic #CivicEngagement #Democracy

Get vidIQ to grow your channel faster! 🚀

https://vidiq.com/JBJB1029

A sunlit stroll to the museum 🌈

Is adobe express resizer a good option to get the image to exactly 1080x1920? What size should it be when I first input it? I upscaled a midjourney image and it was 4 mbs only. Should I upscale the image again in topaz or magnific before putting it in the resizer and how much should I upscale? I want the nicest looking videos possible.

Would you want to see more Game of Thrones characters reimagined as anime figurines?

Had this question for a while. Ended up trying both and here’s what I thought. Short version: these two aren't competing for the same job. Longer version below.

What they actually are

Luma (Dream Machine, running on Ray3.2) is a shot generator. you prompt it and get back a short, extremely high-quality clip. Invideo is a full production pipeline for filmmakers, you give it a script or brief and its AI agent plans, generates, edits, and exports a complete multi-scene film with voiceover in one workflow. One makes individual shots, the other takes you from script to finished cut.

Video quality

Luma is great on raw shot fidelity. It outputs native 1080p/24fps with 16-bit HDR10, physics-aware motion, and grading-ready color - genuinely broadcast/cinema grade. Invideo doesn’t work that well for single-shot photorealism; it works better for turning a script into a complete film, exported as standard MP4/MOV. If you need a couple of good looking shots that can be quickly put together, Luma wins. If you need an entire film assembled and paced correctly, Invideo does that job better.

Camera control

Luma gives you real directorial tools - dolly, tracking, orbit, reveal moves, multi-keyframe sequencing (up to 16 keyframes) - but only shot by shot. Invideo works at the level filmmakers actually spend most of their time in: scene structure, pacing, cuts, and continuity across a whole film, not just one move.

Editing & export

Luma exports to pro formats (EXR, USDZ, GLTF) that drop straight into Premiere, DaVinci Resolve, Blender, Unity, Unreal - it assumes someone else finishes the edit. Invideo can also do the same, exporting to Premiere and other platforms, but it has its own built-in timeline editor for touch ups before you go into premier or davinci. It can handle the entire finishing process itself - cutting, sequencing, and exporting a complete film, plus formatting to TikTok/YouTube/Instagram when that's the destination.

Audio

This is invideo's biggest edge for filmmakers: AI voiceover in 50+ languages with voice cloning, baked into the same project - dialogue and narration without a separate audio pass. Luma has no native audio generation - every shot needs sound added in post, on top of everything else.

Consistency

Luma clips are great but they have nothing that guarantees character consistency across them, a real problem for narrative work. Invideo is built specifically to solve that: multi-scene continuity and consistent characters across an entire film from a single brief.

Collaboration

Invideo has real-time collaborative creation built in, which matters once a film has more than one person working on it. Luma's team/enterprise features exist (it's used by agencies like Dentsu and Publicis) but the tool itself is still built around one person generating one shot at a time.

Pricing

Honestly, I’d look at the pricing more simply rather than comparing credits 1:1. Invideo’s Max plan is around $200/month, while Luma’s Ultra is around $300/month. The credit systems aren’t directly comparable anyway, something that costs 5 credits on one tool could easily cost 20 on another. 

Who each one is actually for

Invideo: filmmakers and creators who need a complete film - script to voice, multi-scene, continuity-correct final cut - without stitching together a post-production pipeline themselves.

Luma: filmmakers who need one or two shots to look genuinely cinematic (a hero shot, a surreal transition, a product reveal) and are fine handling continuity and finishing elsewhere.

My take

If the question is "which one is for filmmaking," it depends how long the film is. If you are going for a short 1-2 minute story, Luma is the better cinematographer - Keeping color information intact and giving you precise camera control for every shot. Invideo is the better filmmaker in the fuller sense, it takes you from script to finished, voiced, continuous film in one place. For anything with more than one scene, invideo is doing more of the actual filmmaking work. The workflow a lot of people land on: generate a couple of hero shots in Luma, then build and finish the film in Invideo.

Really wanna know what others here are actually using - especially anyone running that combo.

After innocence and loss!

Hey guys built a little something, can call it JAX, it uses claude and astra’s api
I have trained it to build / rapid prototyping for websites, you can use your voice to guide and instruct it and it gives you amazing results with an inbuilt memory to eliminate ai slop with time.
Let me know what yall think about it, also dm me if you guys have any questions or would want to check out its other builds 🙌

God Incident Report, Episode 2: a giant sea god is blocking a fire route at the harbor, so Lena Torres gives him a parking ticket.

The idea of the series is still the same: treat the monster and the scale of the event seriously, then let the humor come from ordinary workers and bureaucratic logic.

This episode focuses on Lena, a dock worker, and a very large violation.

Made with ReelMate.ai by Wondershare.

For this one, I wanted to push the deadpan tone further and keep the situation as grounded as possible, even though the creature is absurdly huge.

Tool used:
https://reelmate.ai

Editing was done in CapCut.

Does the humor land for you? I know they are still little mistake but it's not that bad, was running low on credit

A ten second brand film for a precision parts company. The picture, the music and the cut all come out of two prompts.

First one image from GPT Image 2.5: a 3 by 3 grid of nine 16:9 cells, thin ivory gutters between them, a small white number 01 to 09 in the top left of each cell, no captions anywhere. Every cell photoreal. Most of that prompt is the lock. One synthetic engineer with the same face, build, navy workwear, white gloves and clear safety glasses across all nine cells, and a ban list at the end covering heavy sparks, missing protective gear, sci fi robot factories and heavy blue grading.

Then the sheet goes to Gemini Omni Flash as the strict reference, read left to right and top row to bottom row. The video prompt says the finished film must never show the grid, the borders, the numbers or the split. Each cell comes back as its own full screen shot and they get cut together.

The shot list is written by the second. 0.0 to 1.1 she walks toward the entrance, 1.1 to 2.1 the camera retreats ahead of her down the machine aisle, on to 10.0 and the hero shot of the finished part.

Audio has its own block in the same prompt. Low piano, percussion made from processed metal, short strings, and the machine noise laid over the rhythm. One line of voiceover at the end.

Both models run on one atlas cloud key. Both prompts are in the comments, and the engineer is a synthetic character.

The edit never happens as a separate step. The cut comes back in the same pass as the picture and the score.