Last night I tested two GenAI video tools side by side with the same prompt: Sora (older storyboard version) and the free version of Flow. I wanted to create a short teaser clip for our cat café simulation. On Sora, it took 3+ attempts to get a version where the café lead was even close to interacting with the tablet. A cup in the background ended up with two handles. The cat disappeared. Hands ended up multiplied in one version. There were a lot of small things to correct along the way. Then I tried Flow using the same concept and reference image. On the first try I got something relatively close to what I was looking for. It still needs refining, but the character, framing, and action were noticeably more stable. This is a good reminder that different tools and models behave differently, especially when we need realistic movement, consistent characters, and believable object interaction in training simulations. Curious if anyone else is experimenting with these. What have you noticed? #UIDesign #LearningDesign #Prototyping #Microlearning #eLearning #InstructionalDesign #LearningAndDevelopment #DesignIteration #DevLearn #DevLearn2025
I was just testing Flow this morning and have been impressed with the output so far. Another video creation tool that I like is called Kling AI. The free version can only provide short clips but it is a powerful tool as well.
I’ve been playing with the same prompt across Sora 2 and Veo 3 and got totally different vibes. Posted my clips, and Sora 2’s been the cleanest so far with spot-on sound and silky transitions. Testing Veo 3.1 next. Let’s see who wins this tiny AI battle.
Really interesting comparison, Melissa. I’m seeing the same thing with GenAI video tools. They can create impressive visuals, but the small details like object handling, hand movements, and character consistency still break the realism we need for training simulations. It makes me wonder whether the gap is in the tools themselves or in how we’re expected to prompt and refine them. Do you think these platforms will eventually handle accuracy on their own, or will designers always have to fix things frame by frame? Curious what you think about the future of using AI for real instructional video work, not just teasers.
Noticed the same! It’s both fun and frustrating that different tools produce different results in terms of quality, speed, or accuracy to your desired outcome. Fun, because I get to have many options based on how fast or how good I need something. But frustrating because now I need to pay two subscriptions to keep enjoying both 😆 Google’s Flow has been generating faster and better though, so maybe I’ll keep that this month. (Until the next better one comes)
Kerry Avery, M.Ed. Has been doing a ton of AI video research. She'd have some input on this.
I enjoyed this comparison, I am experimenting with Krea using WAN 2.1. I like that I can create the images, scenes, in Krea then provide starting and ending frames. These are very short, but by combing these small clips together along with ElevenLabs voice over I’m seeing opportunity now that didn’t exist before.
Really insightful comparison, Melissa! I’ve been trying out InVideo AI lately love how it streamlines prompt to video creation while keeping room for quick edits. #AIvideo #LearningDesign
Yes I’m the same. And unfortunately that means I have subscriptions to several different tools concurrently.
I’m really enjoying using Microsoft Clipchamp for AI video creation. I’ve made several explainer videos that were almost exactly what I was aiming for. The only drawback is that I couldn’t change the AI-generated voice to an Australian accent unless I uploaded the transcript manually. While the platform offers regional accents in other parts of the application, this feature isn’t available in the video generation tool.