Image model choice for AI film stills (creator comparison, May 2026): GPT Image 2 preferred ~80% of the time for coherence/realism/text, Nano Banana Pro for lighting detail, Nano Banana 2 for speed, text and dense instructions, Midjourney for art direction

Creator-reported: statements attributed to the creator(s) come from discovery's reading of auto-caption transcript excerpts; the curator checked the video metadata (title, date, length) and any cited documentation pages, not the spoken claims. Nothing was tested; promotional or sponsored framing applies where stated. Dankieft side-by-side tests with the same simple prompts (R1): GPT Image 2 strongest overall on prompt coherence, realism and colour ("I would pick GT image 2 80% of the time over Nano Banana") but with more background hiccups; Nano Banana has a recognisable look and tends to over-expose; Nano Banana Pro (older, pricier) gives more detail, more accurate lighting and texture, while Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash image) is cheaper, faster, better at text rendering and prompt adherence (R1, R2); Midjourney is best for stylised/art looks and control but weak at reference editing and refused one prompt under its community guidelines; all models lose facial consistency on small, distant faces - closer framing helps; his advice if budget allows is to generate with two models and pick. Nano Banana 2 deep dive (R2): handled a seven-object instruction with readable small text and a mirrored neon sign, translation of an old newspaper image, many-reference composition (14 inputs) and an image-to-floor-plan task better than Nano Banana Pro in his runs; outputs carry SynthID watermarks detectable by Gemini. Shot coverage from one image (R3, Imagine Art node canvas, affiliate): a character-builder node graph produces a sheet then multiple camera angles; a second graph sends one image through an LLM with a system prompt that writes nine shot prompts for a mini-story, then animates them - he stresses checking the generated prompts (e.g. "crystal" vs "diamond"). Seedance course (R4): one finished scene was stitched from four generations; continuity errors (helmet on/off between shots, duplicated faces with two characters) remain. Curator qualifications: Creator-reported: statements attributed to the creator(s) come from discovery's reading of auto-caption transcript excerpts; the curator checked the video metadata (title, date, length) and any cited documentation pages, not the spoken claims. Nothing was tested; promotional or sponsored framing applies where stated. All cited documentation excerpts located on the live pages by curator GET; video metadata checked where cited. Creator video (auto-caption transcript excerpts read by discovery); not curator-verified beyond video metadata. Limitations: Creator statements were read by discovery from auto-captions (ASR); not re-verified by the curator. One creator's subjective judgements with few prompts per category; affiliate/sponsor links (Higgsfield, OpenArt, Imagine Art); model versions as of Mar-May 2026; R4 transcript possibly partial. Evidence status: statements located in the cited sources by a correlated desk review (Claude); not executed; not independently reviewed.

{
  "citations": [
    {
      "url": "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WFURFn8a8M",
      "note": "~29:00; 2:31; 10:19"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZghLm9MXVIY",
      "note": "~29:00; 2:31; 10:19"
    }
  ]
}