You know that feeling. It's like 11 .0 p .m.
You've got this amazing movie scene in your head.
It's so vivid. You see the light, the mood, the
actor. Everything. So you sit down, you open
your video generator, you type in a prompt, you
hit enter, you wait that agonizing minute, and
then... That absolute garbage. It's just heartbreaking.
The lighting is completely off. The character
has morphed into a different person. Or, and
this is my personal favorite, they suddenly have
six fingers. So what do you do? You tweak a word.
You pull the lever on the slot machine again.
Exactly. You burn another 50 credits. It's what
we've all come to know as the prompt lottery.
It really is the universal frustration of this
whole early AI era. You feel like you're gambling,
not creating. Just crossing your fingers and
hoping the machine spits out something usable.
What if that whole... And it's such a fascinating
read because the whole argument is that we've
been doing it wrong. We treat AI like a slot
machine hoping for a jackpot when we should be
treating it like a film crew. It's a shift from
just, you know, writing stories to actively managing
visual continuity. So welcome to the deep dive.
We're going to unpack this whole murder board
method step by step. And I got to say, the name
murder board, it's a little intense. It is, right.
But the metaphor, once you get it. is actually
spot on. Yeah. Think about any detective show
you've ever seen. You've got that big cork board
on the wall, photos, timelines, pieces of evidence.
And the red string connecting everything. The
classic whodunit map. Exactly. No, just apply
that same logic to AI video. Max Anne's point
is that in 2026, you can't just wing it with
prompts. You need a visual control system. You
have to track every single seed, every reference,
every prompt. So the murder board is your project
management layer. It's your continuity engine,
because without it, the AI just hallucinates
a new reality every single time you hit generate.
It has no memory of what it did five minutes
ago unless you force it to remember. OK, so we're
shifting from being writers to being. What? Project
managers. Visual directors. Precisely. And to
do that, Anne lays out a very specific tech stack
for 2026. It's a pipeline. All right. So let's
map this out for everyone listening. First, we're
going to cover the ingredients. Then the brain,
which is the LLM. Then the visual base, which
he calls Nano Banana Pro. A name I still cannot
say with a straight face. It's sticky. You got
to give them that. Then we move to the motion
engine, Kling 2 .6. And finally, the part that
I think is the biggest game changer. The secret
weapon. Ah, shut deck. That's where the real
magic happens, but we have to earn it. Fair enough.
Let's start with a core idea. The guide says
the prompt lottery is dead. We've heard that
before. Why is this different? Because it changes
the entire order of operations. See, most people
think the workflow is write a prompt, then generate
a video and says that's just a recipe for failure.
The new workflow is a hierarchy. It's a sigh.
Gather assets, then generate still frames, and
only then do you even think about touching the
video button. So you're never asking the video
AI to actually compose the shot for you? Never.
The video engine is just for movement. The composition,
the artistry, that all happens way upstream.
You've got your strategy layer, like a chat TPT
5 .2, acting as your director of photography.
Then Nano Banana Pro creates the high -res stills,
and Kling 2 .6 just... It just animates the thing
you already built. It's assembly line logic.
Let's back up to that first step. Gather assets.
The guide calls them base ingredients. And this
part really surprised me. He says before you
write a single word, you need boring images.
Boring is the key word. You start with ass in
A. the character reference. He uses that example
of Captain Renfield. Right. And the advice is
super specific. A clear, well -lit portrait facing
forward with a totally neutral expression. No
dramatic lighting, no weird angles, nothing.
But wait, why neutral? If I want to make a dramatic
movie, why am I starting with what is essentially
a passport photo? It's because of how the AI
maps geometry. If you feed it a reference where
the character is, say, screaming or in heavy
shadow, the AI bakes that emotion into the character's
identity. Ah, so then every shot you generate,
they look like they're screaming. You got it.
You need a clean map of the face so the AI can
apply emotions later without... distorting the
actual bone structure underneath. Okay, that
makes so much sense. It's like a texture map
in a video game. You want the base layer to be
totally flat so you can paint light and shadow
onto it later. Exactly. And it's the same logic
for asset B, the scene reference. If you want
a pirate ship, find a clean image of a deck.
It doesn't need to be some artistic masterpiece.
It just needs to tell the AI, hey, here's the
floor, here's the mast. We're anchoring the hallucination.
That is the perfect way to put it. Language is
just too slippery. If I type rugged captain,
the AI has... What, a million definitions for
that? But a specific JPEG of a face. That's hard
data. You're putting a leash on the randomness
before you even introduce the chaos of motion.
Speaking of language being slippery, let's talk
about the prompting itself. I am so guilty of
the adjective soup approach. We all are. I'll
just type cinematic, moody, dark, cool lighting,
8K, masterpiece, and I'm just expecting Ridley
Scott to pop out. And you get a blurry mess.
Max Anne is brutal on this point. He says writing
prompts by hand in 2026 is a huge mistake. Humans
use adjectives. Machines need engineering specs.
So we use the LMM as a prompt engine. Yes. You
don't write the prompt yourself. You talk to
Claude or ChatGPT and it writes the prompt for
you. But you don't just ask it nicely. You give
it this massive custom instruction block. I was
looking at the template from the source. It is
so rigorous. It has the specific character count
between 2 ,200 and 3 ,000 characters. Why that
range? Why not just write a novel? It all comes
down to the attention mechanism in the image
generator. Anne notes that if you're under 2
,200 characters, there's just not enough density
to force a specific style. But if you go over
3 ,000, the model gets overwhelmed. It suffers
from what he calls loss of focus. It just starts
ignoring things. Around 2 ,800 characters. That's
the sweet spot where the AI is forced to pay
attention to everything. That is incredibly specific.
It's like finding the exact resonant frequency
of the model. But the part of that template that
really stood out to me was the grounding block.
Yeah, this is mandatory. You paste this text
at the end of every single prompt you generate.
And it explicitly demands things like real materials,
real lighting, real physics, and it bans stuff
like fantasy glow. or illustrative techniques.
No fantasy glow. I feel like default AI art is
90 % fantasy glow. Everything looks like it's
been smeared with Vaseline. Why is that? It does,
and there's a technical reason. These models
are trained on millions of images. So when they
get confused or when they try to optimize an
image, they just regress to the mean, they smooth
everything out, they average the data. So smoothness
is actually the AI failing to be specific. In
a way, yeah. Realism is messy. realism has grain
dust noise sharp edges by banning stylized rendering
and demanding gravity you're forcing the model
to stop averaging and start making specific gritty
choices you're fighting that plastic look you're
telling the cinematographer Don't use the beauty
filter. I want to see the pores. Exactly. You
want the imperfections. That's what our brains
register as real. Okay. So we have our neutral
assets. We have this massive technical prompt
from our LLM. Now we go to the visual -based
Nano Banana Pro to make the image. And here,
the guide suggests a workflow hack he calls the
two -by -two grid. The contact sheet strategy.
Love this. Instead of making one image, you generate
four at once. Is that just to save time? It's
about consistency and coverage. Think about a
real film shoot. You don't just set up one camera,
take one shot and move on, right? You get coverage.
Wide shot, medium, close up, a reverse angle.
Exactly. But usually in AI, if I generate four
images, they look like four totally different
movies. That's where Nano Banana Pro is different.
If you run a two by two grid in a single generation,
all four images usually share the same seed noise.
That means the lighting, the color palette, the
texture. It all stays consistent across all four
angles. So we get a wide shot, an over -the -shoulder,
and a close -up that actually look like they
were filmed on the same day with the same camera.
That's the idea. You get an instant scene kit,
you just pick the best one, crop it, and you're
good to go. It saves you from burning hundreds
of credits on 50 disconnected attempts. That's
huge for continuity. Now, there's one more hack
in this section that I just have to mention it
because it's so simple, but the reasoning blew
my mind. The aspect ratio. Ah, the cinematic
hack. The guide basically screams, use 21 .9
ultra widescreen. And he says, to strictly avoid
16 .9, which is your standard TV shape, why does
the shape of the rectangle change the quality
of what's inside it? That sounds like magic.
It's all about the training data. The neural
network is just a giant association machine.
So think about it. What kind of images in the
world are cropped to 16 .9? TV shows, the news,
YouTube videos. Right. And what do those generally
look like? Kind of flat lighting, digital cameras,
broadcast quality. Okay. Now... What kind of
images are cropped to 21 .9? Big budget Hollywood
movies. Exactly. So when you force the aspect
ratio to 21 .9, you're subconsciously triggering
the movie magic pathways in the AI's brain. It
associates that wide rectangle with better color
grading, more dramatic lighting, higher production
value. That is wild. So just by changing the
crop, I'm tricking the AI into thinking we're
making a blockbuster. You're hacking the data
set. You ask for 16 .9, you get a soap opera.
You ask for... 21 .9, you get Dune. It's a probability
game. I love that. And then there's a quick mention
of an optional polish step using something like
Topaz Gigapixel to add fabric fibers, dust, stone,
just really leaning into that texture we talked
about. It's all about removing that digital sheen.
You want the viewer to subconsciously feel the
grit. All right. So at this point in the murder
board method, we have a beautiful, gritty 21
.9 still image. It looks like a movie still,
but it's frozen. Now we have to make it move.
And this is where it all falls apart for most
people. This is where it falls apart for me.
The shimmering, the weird morphing, the floating.
Enter Kling 2 .6, the motion engine. Right. So
Kling is the tool of choice here because it respects
that 21 .9 aspect ratio we fought so hard for.
But the real secret isn't the software. It's
the video prompt. Which is totally different
from the image prompt. Completely different.
In the image prompt, you describe the scene.
In the video prompt, you describe the camera.
And there's one instruction in the murder board
guide that seems completely counterintuitive.
The shaky cam. Yeah. Camera is handheld and visibly
shaky. It lists terms like persistent micro jitter,
imperfect motion blur, breathing. It sounds like
you're asking for a bad cameraman. Yeah. I usually
want those smooth gliding drone shots. Why are
we asking for shake? Because smoothness is the
enemy of realism in AI video. Explain that. Well,
when an AI generates perfectly smooth motion,
it often looks floaty. The physics just don't
feel quite right. It falls straight into the
uncanny valley. But when you add micro jitter
and handheld shake, that chaotic motion works
like visual camouflage. It hides the crimes.
It hides the crimes, exactly. If a background
element warps a little bit or a shadow glitches,
the viewer's brain just forgives it because the
whole frame is shaking. It masks the artifacts.
It's like a magician using misdirection to hide
a cut. And it adds emotional texture. A handheld
camera feels like a documentary. It feels like
you're there. A perfect glide feels like a computer
simulation. I have to admit, this is a bit of
a vulnerable moment for me. I still wrestle with
prompt tricked all the time. I'll have a character,
and as soon as they turn their head, they're
a different person. This shaky cam trick, it
feels like a cheat code. I wish I knew a year
ago. It pretty much is. But we have to be honest
about the limits. The guide calls it the Hulk
out problem. The Hulk out. You've seen this.
The character smiles and suddenly their jaw unhinges
or their neck muscles bulge out like a bodybuilder.
Or they grow a second row of teeth. Yeah, it's
horrifying. So cling 2 .6 is good, but it's not
magic. The work around here is just volume. You
generate three to five variations of the same
motion. Trim the ends, right? Always trim the
ends. The first second is usually the AI figuring
out the physics. And the last second is where
it runs out of steam and everything starts to
melt. The gold is in the middle. So perfection
looks fake. Chaos looks real. That's the lesson
here. That's the mantra. We have one more big
segment to get to. The secret weapon. And honestly,
this is the part that made me feel like I needed
to go back to film school to even understand
it. It's the biggest level up in the entire guide.
We'll get into the metadata magic of Shotdeck
right after this. Midroll sponsor read. Okay,
we are back. We are deep in the murder board
method, and we've reached the final piece of
this puzzle. The secret weapon. Shotdeck. Now,
I know ShotDeck, it's a tool for, you know, real
filmmakers, directors, DPs to find reference
images. It's this huge library of high -res frames
from actual movies. How does that fit into an
AI workflow? This is all about moving beyond
the word cinematic. The guide argues that cinematic
is a lazy word. It means nothing to an AI. It's
too vague. Cinematic could be the Avengers or
it could be the Godfather. Two very different
things. Exactly. So the workflow is this. You
go to ShotDeck. You find a frame from a real
movie that has the exact look you want. Maybe
it's Andor for that gritty, industrial, desaturated
look. Or maybe it's 2001, a space odyssey for
that sterile, precise, bright white feeling.
Okay. So I find my shot. And you don't just look
at the picture, you look at the metadata. ShotDeck
lists the specific lens that was used, the camera
body, the f -stop, the lighting diagram, even
the film stock. We're talking literal hardware
specs. Extremely specific hardware specs. You
screenshot that data, you feed it to your LLM,
and you say, extract these specs, and then you
paste that exact technical data into your image
prompt. Whoa, wait. So instead of saying cool
lighting, I'm telling the AI what exactly? You
are telling the AI, cook as... Does the AI, does
it actually know what that means? And that's
the moment of wonder. Yes, it does. Because the
AI was trained on the entire internet. It was
trained on photography forums and tech reviews
and film databases where all these images were
tagged with that exact data. It knows how light
physically bends through a 50mm Cooke lens versus
how it bends through a 14mm fisheye. That is
incredible. So it's not just applying a look
or a filter. It's simulating the physics of the
glass. It stops guessing. It stops hallucinating
a style and starts emulating a specific engineering
signature. The guide says when you do this, the
lighting gains real depth. Shadows hold detail.
The image stops looking like AI art and starts
looking like actual photography. This feels like
a fundamental shift in what the creator is even
doing. If I'm just copying lens data from Blade
Runner, am I really a prompter anymore? That
is the big question. The guide suggests you're
not a writer finding cool adjectives. You're
a technical director managing a list of equipment
specs. You're building a virtual camera rig inside
the machine. It's less once upon a time and more.
Set aperture to f1 .4. And that's a hard pivot
for a lot of creative types who just want to
tell a story. But in 2026, that technical precision
is the difference between amateur and professional
output. So let's pull this all together. We have
the murder board to track our assets. We have
the LLM creating these engineered prompts. We've
got the 21 .9 aspect ratio hacking the training
data. And we have ShotDeck providing the actual
lens physics. It's a complete end -to -end ecosystem.
If I'm a listener and I'm just sort of... dipping
my toes into this. What is the big idea? Is it
that I need to buy all these new tools? No, not
at all. The big takeaway is that creativity is
no longer the bottleneck. The bottleneck is discipline.
Discipline. The murder board method is fundamentally
about documentation and constraints. It's about
resisting that urge to just hit generate and
see what happens. It's about doing the prep work.
It's all the boring stuff. The neutral face assets.
Yeah. The 2 ,800 character limits. Right. And
using handheld motion to mask the AI's flaws.
It's a rigorous system. Max Ann argues that in
2026, The real AI director doesn't write stories.
They manage visual continuity. That is a powerful
thought. Because anyone can generate one cool
image. But can you generate 50 cool images that
all look like they exist in the same universe?
That's the real challenge. And that's the difference
between a slot machine and a film crew. Well,
I am definitely going to try this two -by -two
grid approach. Even if I'm not making a movie,
just seeing the difference in composition in
one run. Seems incredibly valuable. I think you
should. It forces you to think about framing
wide, medium, close instead of just content.
And I challenge everyone listening to try it
too. Next time you open your tool of choice,
don't just generate one square. Ask for a contact
sheet. See if you can get that continuity. And
maybe build your own murder board. Get the red
string out. I think I'm going to need a bigger
cork board. We all are. That's it for this deep
dive into the murder board method. Thanks for
listening and we will catch you in the next one.
Keep creating.