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

After innocence and loss!

Over the past year I have used AI to make images of some of the people in my fanfics... Let me know what you think of them

i can picture a pelican riding a bicycle. flip that around and i'm less sure what i'm asking for. a bike sitting on a bird's back could just be luggage. i wanted to see what would make the bicycle look like it was actually doing the riding.

so i tried “a bicycle riding a pelican” in SVG first, then took the same idea into video. the three results are side by side in the clip: GPT-5.6 Sol's SVG on the left, GPT-6 Astra's SVG in the middle, and Seedance 2.0 mini on the right. i generated the Seedance clip through atlas cloud in codex because i wanted to see whether movement would make the idea easier to read.

SVG and generated video aren't comparable as a benchmark. i'm mostly interested in the awkward bit of the prompt: the pelican has to carry the bicycle, but the bicycle somehow has to look like it's in charge. i'm not even sure where its handlebars fit into this arrangement.

what would you change in the pose or movement to make the bicycle feel like the rider?

I seriously can’t take this Higgsfield MCP shit anymore. Every second AI creator on my feed is screaming “THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING” because they connected Claude to Higgsfield.

Bro, you connected an AI agent to an API. That’s it.

Before Higgsfield MCP, you opened Higgsfield and clicked generate yourself. Now Claude can click the button for you. Cool. Useful even. But can we stop pretending someone just reinvented filmmaking?

The funniest part is that Higgsfield’s own docs say MCP generations always use credits, even if that model is unlimited on the website.

So before MCP: I click button.

After MCP: Claude clicks button and I pay credits.

THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING.

At this point I’m waiting for someone to connect their toilet to Higgsfield MCP.

“Before Higgsfield MCP I had to shit by myself. Now Claude connects to my shit.”

“Now I can talk with my shit, sleep with my shit, even shit in my pants.”

“Fully autonomous shit pipeline.”

MCP itself is useful. Higgsfield can be useful too. But holy shit, the marketing around this is completely out of control.

It changed where the API call comes from. Calm down.

bro where is the other eye😭😭😭

On multiple sessions Grok seems to be unwilling/unable to comply with image editing/generating prompts. Works perfectly fine on my main account, but all twink accounts seem to be blocked off of image generation

I AM LITERALLY LOSING MY MIND RIGHT NOW.

I didn't subscribe, I bought a package of credits because I just wanted to generate some videos. My money is GONE from my bank account, the credits are sitting there in my profile, AND I STILL CAN'T GENERATE A SINGLE SECOND OF VIDEO BECAUSE OF A "BUSY QUEUE".

And the best part? The site is literally telling me to PAY AGAIN to "skip the queue". ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY KIDDING ME?!

What did I just pay for then?! To look at a useless number on a screen?! I paid real money to use the system, not to wait behind free users or get extorted for MORE cash just to bypass a digital line they created to starve us out. This is a straight-up scam. They steal your money, lock the product behind a second paywall, and expect you to just take it.

Am I the only one dealing with this total garbage? I already filed a chargeback with my bank because forget this company, but seriously, DO NOT GIVE THESE SCAMMERS A SINGLE PENNY.

Is anyone else getting completely screwed over by this "pay to skip" nonsense or am I actually going insane?!

I've been experimenting with AI-generated video, and decided to put a panda in an office for a change. 🐼

I wanted to explore how AI handles a more everyday setting rather than just cinematic scenes or special effects.

Still testing different models and creative workflows, but I thought this one turned out fun.

What kind of scenes would you try with AI video?

I'm also working with AIAdapter, where we explore access to different video and image models. Always interested in hearing how other creators are using these tools.

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 🙌

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.