Imagine directing an entire cinematic movie where
your only camera is a keyboard. Beat. No set.
No crew. Just you. Right. Just you. And a machine
learning to dream on command. Welcome to this
deep dive. I am so glad you were here with us
today. Yeah, thanks for having me. I'm excited
for this one. We are going to take our time with
this topic. We're slowing things down just a
bit to break apart a highly structured, repeatable
workflow for AI video creation. Which is something
a lot of people desperately need right now. Absolutely.
We're exploring how to combine two powerful systems,
Google Flow and Claude AI. The goal here is to
bypass that chaotic learning curve of AI video
and actually build consistent, controllable scenes.
I mean, it's a huge shift. We aren't just looking
at software tools today. We are looking at a
complete architectural process. First, we build
the writer's room. Then we construct the visual
blueprint. And finally, we direct the animation
piece by piece. To really understand this workflow,
we first have to understand why beginners usually
fail. because it comes down to choosing the wrong
type of tool from the absolute start. Yeah, that
is the great AI video divide. There's basically
this steep learning curve that stems from fragmented
tools. Right, you have individual models. Exactly,
models like Kling or Runway. They give you incredibly
deep control, but they require juggling multiple
platforms and... multiple subscriptions. It gets
overwhelming. It does. But then, there are all
-in -one workspaces. Google Flow solves that
juggling act by combining three specific models
into one place. So what are those three? Well,
you've got Nano Banana Pro for your images, you've
got VO3 .1 for your video generation, and then
Gemini Omni. Which brings in multimodal editing.
Yes. Which, just to define that simply, means
combining text, images, and video to guide the
AI. Right, exactly. But the really interesting
part is Claude AI's role in all this. Yeah, because
Claude doesn't actually generate any art, right?
No, not a single pixel. It sits alongside Google
Flow, purely as a scene planner and a prompt
writer. I kind of like to compare this setup
to a traditional movie set. Oh, yeah. Yeah, so
Google Flow is your director of photography,
and Claude AI is your head writer. That's a perfect
way to look at it. But let me ask you this. If
Google Flow is a true all -in -one tool, why
rely on an external text model like Claude at
all? Well, Google Flow is optimized for manipulating
visual data. Claude is just vastly superior at
maintaining narrative logic over long context
windows. So Claude handles the logic, freeing
Google Flow to focus purely on the visuals. Precisely.
You let the writer write, And the camera film.
Makes sense. So now that we have our writer and
our DP, we have to actually teach the writer
how to talk to the DP. Yeah, and this is where
people get stuck. I mean, I still wrestle with
prompt drift myself where my text instructions
just get messy over time. Oh, absolutely. Writing
prompts from scratch every time just leads to
inconsistent garbage. The AI loses the thread.
Right. So the solution is creating a custom skill
inside Claude AI. You literally call it the AI
video prompt writer. How does that actually work
in the interface? You just go to customize, then
skills, then create with Claude. And you paste
in exact instructions to always generate three
specific types of prompts. Three types. OK, what's
the first one? Number one is the design sheet
that covers your characters, your props, the
overall style. Number two is the storyboard.
That's your panel by panel camera angles. And
number three is the scene prompt, which are the
direct instructions for VO 3 .1. That's so structured.
The source actually uses this great example.
A woman and her dog escaping Manhattan during
a zombie outbreak. Yeah, a classic setup. You
literally just typed that one simple sentence
and Claude generates all the structured technical
prompts for you. It really does. It removes all
the friction. But wait, why do we need three
separate highly specific prompts instead of just
one master prompt describing the whole video?
Because if you feed a model a massive block of
text, it simply drops details. It hallucinates.
It can't balance all those variables at once.
Breaking it down prevents the AI from getting
overwhelmed and mixing up complex instructions.
Exactly. You have to segment the cognitive load.
OK. So with Claude generating these text blueprints,
we must translate those into a visual foundation
before generating any video. Right. And this
is where we move into Google Flow, specifically
using Nano Banana Pro for images. So we are building
the design sheet next. Yes. You must definitively
establish the world. What does the main character
look like? The dog. The zombie. What are the
clothing and props like? You're defining the
color palette too. Everything. And here's a crucial
tip. Start with low resolution. Oh, to save generation
credits. Yeah, it saves credits and it generates
way faster. You use that low -res draft to check
for mistakes. If an element is missing, you don't
fix it in Google Flow. You go back to Claude.
Right. You go back to Claude for text revision.
And once the image is perfect, then you render
it in full resolution. That is smart. So then
we move to the storyboard. We use Claude to generate
a 12 -panel storyboard prompt. Like the convenience
store, the zombie attack, the escape. Right.
And we generate this in Google Flow using the
design sheet as a visual reference to lock in
that consistency. You have to attach it. It's
mandatory. So what actually happens under the
hood if you get impatient and skip the design
sheet step? The model just invents a completely
new reality for every panel. The woman and the
dog will look different in every single shot.
Without it, the AI literally forgets what your
characters look like between every shot. Yeah,
it has zero object permanence without that visual
anchor. Sponsor. Okay. So we have our storyboard.
We have our character DNA. Now we finally step
onto the stage to make things move. The fun part.
Switching over to VO 3 .1 for video generation
in Google Flow. But before writing the scene
prompt, the guide says you must upload two references.
Yes. First, the design sheet for your world and
character consistency, and second, the specific
storyboard panel image. Which locks in your framing
and composition. Exactly. Then, and only then,
do you feed VO3 .1 the scene prompt from Claude.
So for the first four panels, it's walking through
the dark store, looking nervous, and then a zombie
jumps out. Right. Whoa. I just have to pause
and think about this. Imagine scaling to a billion
queries across the globe. But here we're just
intimately tweaking one single perfect frame
of a zombie attack. It's wild. It really is a
staggering amount of compute power, just focused
on the shadow of a zombie in an aisle. But it
doesn't always come out perfectly on the first
try. No, definitely not. So we have to use this
review and improve methodology. You do not throw
away a whole clip if one cut looks wrong. Never.
A weak first output is totally normal. You generate
a second version with specific instructions.
Like telling it to do a direct cut to a close
-up. Exactly. And then you combine the strongest
parts of both outputs in post. But why can't
VO3 .1 just recognize a bad cut and fix it automatically
in a single generation? Because it doesn't understand
human anatomy or cinematic timing. It just predicts
pixel patterns based on data. The AI lacks human
taste. It needs us to stitch the best parts together.
Right, you have to be the editor. So generating
one good scene is great. But a 12 panel story
will fall apart if you try to render it all at
once. We have to control the AI's pacing. Yeah,
you cannot do all 12 panels at once. This introduces
the rule of chunking. Which means animating only
four panels at a time. Right. Trying all 12 overwhelms
VO 3 .1. It causes random hallucinatory transitions.
It's like staffing Lego blocks of data. You do
it piece by piece so the whole thing doesn't
topple. I love that analogy. So for each chunk,
you need three references uploaded. Yes. Number
one, the cropped storyboard row. Number two,
the design sheet. And number three, the final
frame of the previous clip. That last one seems
like a real secret weapon. Oh, it absolutely
is. What about fixing weak cuts? Like, if a character
shifts positions suddenly mid -scene. If that
happens, instruct Vio to hold on a close -up
before cutting to the next action. It hides the
error. And again, you combine the best elements.
I want to go back to that third reference for
a second. Why is feeding the final frame of the
previous clip back into the machine so critically
important? Because it creates a rigid anchor
in time. It prevents the model from subtly changing
the lighting or the camera distance. It forces
the new scene to mathematically lock into the
last clip's ending. Perfectly said. Down to the
exact pixel. Even with chunking, the entire project
can unravel if you forget the overarching philosophy
of AI video. Visual consistency over everything
else. Without a doubt. The most common reason
videos fall apart isn't bad text prompts. It's
losing visual consistency. The characters change.
The environments shift. Yeah, it just looks amateur.
So rule number one is that the design sheet is
the visual anchor. Keep it attached as a reference
for every single generation. Let's talk about
some mistakes that just burn time and credits.
Number one. generating from text only. That forces
the AI to guess entirely on its own. Number two,
animating more than four panels at once. We covered
that. It destroys the pacing. Number three, skipping
the revision process or just expecting a perfect
first output. You have to think like an editor.
It's an iterative process. And number four, moving
forward with an incomplete design sheet. Right,
because any error there propagates into every
single scene that follows. I do want to push
back gently on that first mistake, though. Since
text is how we naturally talk to AI, why is generating
from text only considered such a massive mistake?
Because human language is just too imprecise.
If you say dark store, that means a billion different
pixel variations to the model. Words are too
ambiguous for video. Visual references provide
the only undeniable truth. Exactly. You have
to show it, not just tell it. So to recap this
whole structured journey, AI video isn't luck.
It's a process. It really is. You build the design
sheet, you map the storyboard, you use Claude
for precise prompts, you generate in small four
-panel chunks with VO, and always, always keep
your visual references attached. If you're going
to try this for the first time, my advice is
to keep it incredibly simple. One character,
one location, one action scene. Master the workflow
before building a complex epic. Walk before you
run, for sure. It's just wild to think about
where this is heading. Pete. If these dual AI
tools can synthesize a cohesive, terrifying zombie
escape from just a few structured constraints,
Beat, what happens when this workflow gets fully
automated? Yeah, that's the big question. If
the AI eventually learns to manage its own visual
consistency between shots, what exactly becomes
the human director's role in the filmmaking of
the future? Yeah, Beat, it's something to think
about. Thank you so much for joining us on this
Deep Dives. Take care. UT over music.