Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
❤12👍3🔥1
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
❤6
Using the orientation media query in HTML video content for users devices orientation, enhancing usability and performance.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
❤15👍1
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
❤19👍5🔥3
Forwarded from How AI Helps
I tested one dangerous-looking first-person video idea through four fal.ai models, compared price and realism, and learned why Seedance 2.0 still won my small experiment overall
I used fal.ai because I could test several video models from one service and keep the same queue flow. I wanted a hard starting prompt: one long first-person action shot, clear height, parachute, industrial yard, and a muddy landing.
I picked Seedance 2.0 as the cinematic baseline, Kling v3 Pro for action and smart shot planning, Veo 3.1 because it is the premium Google option, and Wan 2.7 as a cheaper 1080p challenger.
What I got: Seedance 2.0 was best. It kept the helmet-camera feeling, the hands, the parachute lines, and the story rhythm most clearly. My only real complaint was the realism of the fall into the puddle. It cost about $2.43 for 8s at 720p.
Kling v3 Pro gave me good image quality, but the actions were not realistic. With audio on, 8s cost about $1.34.
Wan 2.7 accepted the prompt, but the result was basically an absurd video made from disconnected cuts. At 1080p, 8s cost about $1.20.
Veo 3.1 was the tricky one. The first request with the same prompt hit a content policy check. Then I softened the wording a little, sent it again, and got a video. It lost the first-person view and switched to third-person, but the result still looked cool. That successful 8s 1080p run with audio cost about $3.20.
So my successful clips cost about $8.17 total if I count the second Veo run. My winner was not the cheapest one; it was the one that followed the whole idea with the least confusion.
See the result 👇
I used fal.ai because I could test several video models from one service and keep the same queue flow. I wanted a hard starting prompt: one long first-person action shot, clear height, parachute, industrial yard, and a muddy landing.
I picked Seedance 2.0 as the cinematic baseline, Kling v3 Pro for action and smart shot planning, Veo 3.1 because it is the premium Google option, and Wan 2.7 as a cheaper 1080p challenger.
What I got: Seedance 2.0 was best. It kept the helmet-camera feeling, the hands, the parachute lines, and the story rhythm most clearly. My only real complaint was the realism of the fall into the puddle. It cost about $2.43 for 8s at 720p.
Kling v3 Pro gave me good image quality, but the actions were not realistic. With audio on, 8s cost about $1.34.
Wan 2.7 accepted the prompt, but the result was basically an absurd video made from disconnected cuts. At 1080p, 8s cost about $1.20.
Veo 3.1 was the tricky one. The first request with the same prompt hit a content policy check. Then I softened the wording a little, sent it again, and got a video. It lost the first-person view and switched to third-person, but the result still looked cool. That successful 8s 1080p run with audio cost about $3.20.
So my successful clips cost about $8.17 total if I count the second Veo run. My winner was not the cheapest one; it was the one that followed the whole idea with the least confusion.
See the result 👇
❤16
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
❤10👍8🔥2