12 results for “preset”
Snapseed Prepares Dedicated Long Exposure Modes for Its In-App Camera
Google is testing preset capture modes such as Light trails, Silky water, and Night with exposure times up to 6 seconds.
✅ Details - https://www.androidauthority.com/snapseed-camera-long-exposure-controls-apk-teardown-3727836
🎉 Elba Beta 1 is live!
Leaving Lightroom? Take your presets with you.
Elba is a small macOS app that converts your Lightroom presets into DxO PhotoLab presets. No more rebuilding them by hand.
Looking for beta testers who use both apps and will tell me honestly what works and what doesn’t.
More info: https://www.stephansimonis.com/elba/
Interested? Reply or DM me for the download link.
Boosts appreciated 🙏
#Lightroom #DxO #PhotoLab #macOS #Photography #LeavingAdobe #AdobeAlternatives
Immidiate Synthwave by Glitchedtones 🎹
24 synthwave kits (12 keys), 72 MIDI files, 96 WAV loops, 24 Cthulhu presets. 756MB.
🎁 FREE (reg. $20) until Nov 6, 2026
🔗 Link in bio!
On a whim I decided today that I wanted a new #Minecraft skin that represents my fursona. And I didn't want to wait for someone to do a commission so I just bit the bullet and tried my hand at making it myself! super scary
I don't really do #PixelArt or anything of that nature, but I am really happy with how this turned out! Especially since this was done from scratch in #GIMP without any templates, tutorials, presets or anything like that. :heart:
DATE: October 27, 2026 at 07:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG
** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------
TITLE: We’ll pay to get revenge on an algorithm, even though it can’t feel a thing
URL: https://www.psypost.org/well-pay-to-get-revenge-on-an-algorithm-even-though-it-cant-feel-a-thing/
When a computer algorithm treats people unfairly, they tend to get just as angry and retaliate just as often as they would against a human wrongdoer. A new series of experiments published in Journal of Experimental Psychology: General provides mixed evidence on whether punishing a machine brings the same sense of closure as punishing a person, but it suggests that a machine’s response to being punished, such as sounding hurt or promising to make fairer offers, can strengthen people’s sense that justice was done. The findings suggest that as artificial intelligence takes on more decision-making roles in society, organizations may need to design systems that can communicate accountability when things go wrong.
Automated systems are increasingly tasked with consequential choices, from screening job applicants to steering vehicles and prioritizing medical care. To understand how people react when these systems cause harm, psychologists study a concept known as mind perception, which is the everyday process of judging what kind of mental life another entity possesses. People generally evaluate minds along two separate dimensions: agency, meaning the ability to think, plan, and act intentionally, and experience, meaning the capacity to feel physical pain, pleasure, fear, and emotions.
In human interactions, the capacity to commit a moral wrong and the capacity to experience punishment usually go together, since a sane adult can both plan a harmful act and feel the sting of a penalty. Artificial intelligence splits these two qualities apart because people often view machines as having enough agency to cause deliberate harm, yet almost no ability to feel pain or remorse. For instance, research covered by PsyPost in 2023 found that people judged AI agents as more deserving of blame than humans in one classic life-and-death dilemma. Similarly, another 2023 study covered by PsyPost showed that people hold automated driving assistants responsible for road outcomes while simultaneously categorizing the software as a mere tool rather than a true moral being.
This mental divide raises questions about whether punishing an algorithm can produce justice satisfaction, which is the feeling of closure, fairness, and resolution a victim experiences after an offender is penalized. Psychological theories generally propose two reasons why punishment feels satisfying: either it fulfills a desire for retribution by making the wrongdoer suffer for their actions, or it serves a communicative role by teaching the wrongdoer a moral lesson.
Because people tend to see machines as unable to genuinely suffer or feel guilt, study author Alexander Eng, an associate professor of organizational behavior in the Department of Management at the Asia School of Business in Kuala Lumpur, and co-author Kai Chi Yam of the National University of Singapore examined how people emotionally and behaviorally respond during and after they penalize an unfair algorithm.
“Research on punishment usually assumes that anyone capable of doing wrong can also be punished,” Eng told PsyPost. “We tend to see a young child as unable to truly commit a wrong, and so also as unfit for punishment. Machines break that link: people see AI as able to make decisions that hurt them, yet unable to feel pain, regret, or learn a moral lesson. As AI takes on decisions like medical triage and firing employees, we wanted to know how people respond when they try to hold it accountable, and whether punishing it gives them any sense that justice was done.”
The researchers began with a pilot study of 380 English-speaking adults in the United States, recruited through the online platform Prolific, to verify whether people actually punish algorithms. Participants played a single round of an economic exercise called the ultimatum game, in which a partner was given £0.50 and proposed how to split it. If the participant accepted the split, both parties kept their share, but if the participant rejected it, neither party received anything, making rejection a form of costly punishment.
Participants were told their partner was either another human participant or an algorithm, and they received either a fair offer of £0.25 each or an unfair offer where the partner kept £0.45 and left the participant just £0.05. In reality, the researchers preset all offers. Receiving a stingy offer from an algorithm provoked much higher anger (an average of 3.12 on a 5-point scale) than receiving a fair offer from an algorithm (1.31). When given the unfair deal, participants felt comparable anger toward algorithms (3.12) and humans (2.91), and they punished the unfair algorithm by rejecting its offer 57.8 percent of the time, which was not statistically different from the 62.2 percent rejection rate for unfair humans.
In their first main experiment, the authors examined what happens after punishment is delivered using a final sample of 123 Prolific participants. Every participant received the unfair £0.05 offer in the ultimatum game from either a human or an algorithm, decided whether to accept or reject it, and then answered five questions measuring their justice satisfaction, such as whether they felt everyone got what they deserved. Afterward, participants played a second exercise called the dictator game, where they were given £0.50 and could unilaterally share any amount in £0.05 increments with their partner, while also having the option to switch to a new human partner first.
As in the pilot study, participants rejected unfair offers from algorithms (38 out of 62) and humans (40 out of 61) at similar rates. Overall, the 78 participants who punished their partner by rejecting the offer reported higher justice satisfaction (3.57 out of 5) than the 45 who accepted it (2.63). Controlling for whether participants switched partners, the satisfaction gap between those who punished and those who did not was larger when the offender was a human than when it was an algorithm, and higher justice satisfaction in turn predicted greater generosity in the second game.
Because the option to switch partners or the belief that computers have no use for money might have influenced the first experiment, the researchers conducted a second study with a stricter setup among 739 participants, preregistered along with the third and fourth experiments through the journal’s registered-report review process. Participants were told that five algorithms and five human research assistants were competing across multiple negotiations, and that while neither kept the money personally, the lowest-earning algorithm and human would be eliminated from the competition.
Participants were not allowed to switch partners between the ultimatum game and the dictator game, and they also completed scales measuring their partner’s perceived agency and emotional experience, along with their own baseline tendency to attribute human-like consciousness to technology, a trait known as anthropomorphism.
Participants rated human partners higher on agency (3.30 versus 2.79 out of 5) and much higher on the capacity for emotional experience (3.20 versus 1.86) than algorithmic partners. Even so, participants rejected the unfair offer at comparable rates for algorithms (71.0 percent, or 262 of 369) and humans (65.4 percent, or 242 of 370), and those who punished their partner felt much greater justice satisfaction (3.53) than those who accepted the unfair split (2.71). In contrast to the first study, after controlling for baseline anthropomorphism, the link between punishing and justice satisfaction, and in turn generosity, was equally strong whether the partner was an algorithm or a human.
“People react to an unfair machine much as they react to an unfair person,” Eng said. “Participants got just as angry at an algorithm that made them a lowball offer as at a human who made the same offer, and they were just as willing to give up their own money to punish it. Whether punishing the machine felt as satisfying was less consistent across studies.”
A third study tested these dynamics in a different scenario called the trust game with 735 participants who chose to invest £0.20 with a human research assistant or an algorithm. The investment was tripled to £0.60, and the partner broke the participant’s trust by returning just £0.10 instead of a fair £0.30 split. Participants could then penalize their partner by recommending on a 1-to-5 scale that the partner be removed from the player pool, before rating their justice satisfaction and playing a second round where the roles were reversed.
Participants gave similar removal ratings to unfair algorithms (3.37 out of 5) and unfair humans (3.26). Unexpectedly, harsher removal ratings were associated with lower justice satisfaction rather than higher closure. The authors suspect this is because participants only submitted a recommendation and never saw a penalty take effect, so the ratings may have reflected anger more than punishment. In an exploratory analysis looking directly at anger, feeling angrier predicted lower justice satisfaction and less generosity toward both types of partners, with anger reducing justice satisfaction slightly more when the partner was human than when it was an algorithm.
In a fourth study involving 3,684 participants who rejected the unfair £0.05 offer in the ultimatum game, the researchers tested whether a message from the penalized partner could increase justice satisfaction. Immediately after rejecting the offer from a human or an algorithm, participants received either no message at all, a message expressing emotional distress over repeated rejections, a message calmly acknowledging that the offer was too low and promising to be fair in the future, or a combined message expressing both distress and a moral lesson learned. A separate preliminary test with 305 people confirmed that these messages effectively conveyed emotional suffering and moral learning as intended.
Across the entire sample, participants paired with an algorithm reported slightly lower justice satisfaction (3.56 out of 5) than those paired with a human (3.66), a small difference that accounted for about half a percent of the overall variation in satisfaction scores. However, receiving a message from an algorithm expressing emotional suffering (3.57) or moral learning (3.62) produced higher justice satisfaction than receiving no response from the algorithm (3.42).
For human partners, the differences between receiving no message (3.57) and receiving a suffering (3.66) or moral learning (3.69) message were not statistically significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons. Still, the boost from a message was not statistically larger for algorithms than for humans, and combining both messages added no measurable benefit beyond either one alone. The results suggest that a response from a machine can help satisfy people’s need for redress, even though participants rated algorithms as far less capable of feeling than humans.
“We expected an apology or a show of remorse from an algorithm to count for little, since people don’t believe algorithms feel anything,” Eng explained. “Yet those messages raised people’s sense of justice for algorithms at least as much as the same messages did for humans. It was also striking that people paid to punish an algorithm that couldn’t keep the money and couldn’t experience the loss.”
A final supplemental experiment with 1,093 participants examined whether dissatisfaction after being wronged causes people to take out their frustration on an innocent bystander, a behavior known as displaced aggression. Participants received the unfair £0.05 offer in the ultimatum game from a human or an algorithm, decided whether to accept or reject it, and then played the dictator game paired with a brand-new human research assistant who had no involvement in the first round.
Controlling for baseline anthropomorphism, participants who punished their initial partner by rejecting the unfair offer shared slightly more money with the innocent bystander (an aggression score of 6.75 versus 7.07 on an 11-point scale, where higher scores mean less money shared) than those who did not punish, regardless of whether the original wrongdoer was a person or a machine.
“The anger and punishment results held up across more than 6,000 participants,” Eng noted. “The machine-versus-human differences in justice satisfaction were small where they appeared at all: in our largest study, of about 3,700 people, partner type explained roughly half a percent of the variance. I’d treat that as a modest pattern that needs more testing.”
As with all research, there are some caveats to consider when interpreting these results. All of the experiments relied on brief online financial games where the harm consisted of being offered an unfair split of £0.50 by an anonymous text-based partner. How people think and feel when a simple computer program shortchanges them by a few cents may differ from how they react to high-stakes algorithmic harm in the real world, such as an automated system wrongfully denying a mortgage, firing an employee, or causing a traffic accident. In addition, participants chose for themselves whether to punish, so differences between those who punished and those who did not may partly reflect who chose to punish rather than the effect of punishing itself.
“These were online economic games with small stakes, splitting 50 pence,” Eng pointed out. “Real harms from AI, like a denied loan or a wrong diagnosis, carry much more weight, so the effects could look different there. The justice satisfaction results were also mixed: one study found a clear gap between machines and humans and another found none, so I wouldn’t claim that punishing machines never satisfies people.”
The evidence on whether punishing a machine feels less satisfying than punishing a person was mixed across the studies, appearing in the first and fourth experiments but not in the second, while the third experiment’s punishment measure did not work as intended. The clearest gap came from the smallest experiment, which included 123 participants after dozens of duplicate entries were removed and which had originally been preregistered to test different outcomes; the larger, preregistered second experiment did not replicate it.
The authors also noted that their five-item survey measuring justice satisfaction showed relatively low internal consistency in the fourth study, indicating a need to develop more precise tools for measuring psychological closure after technological failures. Future research could explore how different types of real-world errors and corrective feedback shape public trust, helping engineers and policymakers design accountability measures, such as holding human creators rather than machines responsible, that satisfy human intuitions of fairness.
“We want to test other kinds of wrongdoing and punishment beyond economic games, and develop a better measure of justice satisfaction,” Eng added. “In a related project, I’m studying the ‘AI disclosure penalty,’ where people value content less once they’re told AI made it.”
The study, “Artificial Intelligence and Machines Are Capable of Harm, but Not of Experiencing Punishment,” was authored by Alexander Eng and Kai Chi Yam.
URL: https://www.psypost.org/well-pay-to-get-revenge-on-an-algorithm-even-though-it-cant-feel-a-thing/
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #ArtificialIntelligence #AI #Algorithms #MachineLearning #AIethics #Psychology #SocialPsychology #Justice #Accountability #HumanBehavior
I wanted to create a 60-second cinematic FPV travel film across the United States, moving from New York to San Francisco and Los Angeles.
The goal wasn't simply to generate impressive AI footage. I wanted the entire film to feel like one continuous drone journey rather than a collection of unrelated clips stitched together in post-production.
That introduced three practical challenges:
I built the film using GMI Cloud's video generation models, frame chaining, and FFmpeg.
The final output was exactly 60 seconds long, rendered at 1080p, with a targeted replacement for a shot that generated incorrectly.
Here's how the pipeline worked, including the API issues, failed generations, and techniques that made the workflow more reliable.
1. Understanding the Duration Constraint
The first step was checking the available models and their actual generation limits.
Rather than relying on model names or assumptions, I used GMI Cloud's get_model tool to inspect the supported parameters, duration limits, and pricing.
get_model({ model_id: "seedance-2-5-260628" })
get_model({ model_id: "wan3.0-video" })
get_model({ model_id: "veo-3.1-generate-001" })
The following figures reflect the catalog and pricing I observed during development in October 2026. Verify them against the current catalog before using them in production.
seedance-2-5-26062830 seconds$0.569First-frame and last-frame conditioning, reference images, audio generationwan3.0-video30 seconds$0.20Frame conditioning, reference images, separate negative promptveo-3.1-generate-0018 seconds$0.40High photorealism, two-frame conditioningkling-3.0-turbo-t2v15 seconds$0.14Text-to-video generationseedance-2-0-260128-upscale15 seconds$0.056Budget-oriented optionveo-3.1-lite-generate-0018 seconds$0.05Lower-cost generation at supported resolutions
These capabilities and prices are model- and configuration-dependent. Check the current API schema before building around a particular parameter.
The key constraint was straightforward: no model in this selection could generate the entire 60-second film in one request.
I therefore split the project into two 30-second generations.
Fewer, longer clips reduce the number of boundaries that need to be managed. A six-clip pipeline introduces five joins, while a two-clip pipeline introduces just one.
However, clip length shouldn't be the only consideration. The structure of the film matters, too. If a story naturally contains three distinct locations or sequences, three shorter clips may be easier to control than two longer generations.
The objective is to minimize unnecessary joins without forcing unrelated scenes into one generation.
2. Prompt Engineering: Control the Camera Before the Scene
One of the biggest lessons from this project was that a video prompt needs to describe motion, not just visual content.
My initial prompts combined several events into short sequences:
The results were inconsistent. Architecture distorted, transitions became muddy, and the camera sometimes appeared to blend incompatible locations.
The problem was trying to control too many independent events in a single prompt.
My revised approach was to define a continuous camera movement with explicit scene timing.
The single-movement principle
Describe one continuous camera journey per generation, and use FFmpeg for editorial cuts.
This doesn't mean a longer generation must contain only one location. It means the transitions between locations should follow a physically understandable camera movement rather than asking the model to perform several unrelated edits.
For example, an aircraft wing can pass across the lens and temporarily obscure the entire frame. The next location can emerge as the wing clears.
That provides a visual transition the model can attempt to render as part of the camera movement.
Here's an excerpt from the prompt used for the film:
Ultra-realistic cinematic FPV drone travel film, 30 seconds, 16:9.
One continuous high-speed journey across the United States.
Maintain forward camera momentum throughout.
Photorealistic imagery, consistent teal-and-orange commercial
color grading, high dynamic range, natural film grain,
subtle horizontal anamorphic lens flare, and a wide 14mm lens.
Use smooth motion blur only during the fastest movements.
No text, captions, subtitles, logos, watermarks, or readable
signage.
SHOT 1 (0-7s):
Above New York City at sunrise. Low mist surrounds the
skyscrapers as the drone tips forward and dives between
glass towers. Golden light reflects across the facades.
SHOT 2 (7-15s):
The camera descends to street level and races down a wide
Manhattan avenue. Moving cars pass beneath the camera,
their headlights and taillights creating flowing light trails.
SHOT 3 (15-22s):
The drone rises over New York Harbor. A ferry crosses the
water below, leaving a white wake. The camera sweeps around
to reveal the Statue of Liberty in the morning haze.
SHOT 4 (22-30s):
An aircraft wing passes directly across the lens, filling
the frame. As it clears, the camera emerges above turquoise
Pacific water near San Francisco, moving toward the Golden
Gate Bridge as its red towers appear through coastal fog.
The timing provides structure, but it doesn't guarantee that the model will follow every boundary precisely. Treat shot durations as guidance and inspect the generated footage before editing.
Keep the visual identity consistent
Consistency doesn't require identical lighting throughout the film.
The sequence moves between sunrise, daylight, golden hour, and night. Those changes are part of the story.
What should remain relatively stable is the visual treatment:
I repeated the same visual descriptors across prompts while allowing the lighting and environment to change.
This gave the film a more consistent look without making every location feel artificially identical.
Negative prompts are model-specific
Different models expose different controls.
For example, wan3.0-video supports a dedicated negative_prompt parameter, while the Seedance 2.5 configuration I used did not expose that parameter.
For Seedance, I placed unwanted elements directly in the prompt:
No text, captions, subtitles, logos, watermarks, or readable
signage anywhere in the frame.
The general lesson is to inspect the actual model schema rather than assume that every video model supports the same parameters.
3. Frame Chaining: Maintaining Continuity Between Clips
Frame chaining was the central technique in this project.
Instead of generating two unrelated clips and trying to hide their differences afterward, I used the final frame of the first clip to condition the beginning of the second.
The pipeline is simple:
first_frame parameter when generating clip B.The second generation now has a visual reference for where the first generation ended.
Extracting the frame with FFmpeg
I extracted a frame near the end of the first clip:
ffmpeg -y -ss 29.9 -i clipA.mp4 \
-frames:v 1 chain_last.png
I then normalized the image to the intended output dimensions and converted it to JPEG:
ffmpeg -y -i chain_last.png \
-vf "scale=1920:1080:force_original_aspect_ratio=increase,crop=1920:1080" \
-q:v 3 chain_first.jpg
The output dimensions should match the intended video aspect ratio. If the source frame already has the correct dimensions, unnecessary scaling and cropping can be avoided.
The extracted image becomes the conditioning frame for the next generation.
Uploading the frame to GMI Cloud
The upload_media operation returns a signed upload_url and a public_url.
These serve different purposes:
upload_url is the destination for uploading the file.public_url is the image URL supplied to the video generation request.The signed URL doesn't upload the file automatically. You must send the image bytes to it.
Here's a minimal Python example:
import urllib.request
upload_url = "<upload_url from upload_media>"
with open("chain_first.jpg", "rb") as image_file:
image_data = image_file.read()
request = urllib.request.Request(
upload_url,
data=image_data,
method="PUT",
headers={"Content-Type": "image/jpeg"},
)
with urllib.request.urlopen(request) as response:
print(response.status)
Use the URL and HTTP method specified by the upload operation. If the signed URL expires or the upload returns a signature error, request a fresh URL and retry.
I encountered a 403 SignatureDoesNotMatch error with an earlier upload URL. Requesting a new URL resolved the problem in my case.
Generating the next clip
With the frame uploaded, I passed its public URL to Seedance 2.5.
The following is a representative request structure; use the exact field names and request envelope documented by the current API.
{
"model_id": "seedance-2-5-260628",
"prompt": "<your scene and camera-movement prompt>",
"parameters": {
"duration": 30,
"resolution": "1080p",
"ratio": "adaptive",
"first_frame": "<public_url of chain_first.jpg>",
"generate_audio": true,
"watermark": false
}
}
The critical setting was ratio.
The ratio configuration issue
I encountered failed generations when using an explicit ratio: "16:9" and when omitting the ratio entirely.
The API returned an error explaining that, when first-frame or first-and-last-frame conditioning is used, the output aspect ratio follows the input frame.
The configuration that worked was:
"ratio": "adaptive"
For this particular model configuration, using ratio: "adaptive" resolved the issue.
Don't assume that a parameter's default value is valid for every generation mode. Frame-conditioned generation can have different validation rules from text-to-video generation.
Verify this behavior against the current API documentation before relying on it in another model version.
What frame chaining actually guarantees
Frame chaining is useful, but it is important to distinguish three different forms of continuity.
Frame continuity: The next generation receives a reference image matching the preceding clip's endpoint.
Temporal continuity: Camera motion, object movement, lighting, and perspective evolve naturally across the boundary.
Subject continuity: People, vehicles, and other objects maintain their identity and appearance across shots.
Frame chaining primarily addresses the first problem. It can help with the second, but it doesn't guarantee a perfect motion transition. It also doesn't guarantee subject consistency across independently generated scenes.
A matching boundary frame is not proof that the surrounding motion will be seamless.
For recurring subjects, combine frame conditioning with reference images where the model supports them.
wan3.0-videoreference_image, reference_videoUp to 10 images and 5 videosseedance-2-5-260628reference_images, reference_videosUp to 9 images and 3 videoshappyhorse-1.1-r2vreference_imageUp to 5 images
These limits are model-specific and should be verified before use.
I also found that frame chaining works best when the next clip continues a compatible scene.
A coastline transitioning into a bridge approach provides a natural continuation. A sudden jump from San Francisco to a Los Angeles street is a different editorial event and is often better handled as a deliberate cut.
Chain compatible camera movements. Use editing to handle genuine changes in scene or location.
4. Stitching the Film with FFmpeg
Once the clips were generated, I assembled them into the final video.
For a simple join, FFmpeg's concat demuxer is convenient when the input files have compatible stream properties.
Create a file named list.txt:
file 'clipA.mp4'
file 'clipB.mp4'
Then concatenate the clips:
ffmpeg -y -f concat -safe 0 -i list.txt \
-t 60.0 \
-vf "fps=24,scale=1920:1080:flags=lanczos,format=yuv420p" \
-c:v libx264 -preset slow -crf 17 \
-c:a aac -movflags +faststart \
out/master.mp4
This example assumes that the input streams are compatible with the chosen filter and encoding pipeline. Incompatible codecs, time bases, resolutions, or audio streams may require normalization before concatenation.
The command also re-encodes the video, so it is not a lossless join.
When the clips need different processing
For the final replacement, I needed to combine a 50-second section of the existing master with a newly generated 10-second clip.
I used a filter graph to concatenate the video and audio streams while normalizing the video output:
ffmpeg -y -i head.mp4 -i clipFix.mp4 \
-filter_complex \
"[0:v][1:v]concat=n=2:v=1:a=0,fps=24,scale=1920:1080:flags=lanczos,format=yuv420p[v]; \
[0:a][1:a]concat=n=2:v=0:a=1[a]" \
-map "[v]" -map "[a]" \
-t 60.0 \
-c:v libx264 -preset slow -crf 17 \
-profile:v high -level 4.2 \
-c:a aac -b:a 192k \
-movflags +faststart \
out/america_60s_16x9_v2.mp4
This version assumes both inputs contain compatible audio streams. If one clip lacks audio, the filter graph needs to be adjusted to create or omit the missing stream.
Also, -t 60.0 limits the output duration; it doesn't independently guarantee that the final file contains exactly 60 seconds of usable footage.
To verify the result, inspect the actual duration and frame count.
ffprobe -v error \
-show_entries format=duration \
-of default=noprint_wrappers=1:nokey=1 \
out/america_60s_16x9_v2.mp4
For a 24 fps output, 60 seconds corresponds to 1,440 frames. Checking both duration and frame count is useful when exact delivery specifications matter.
Creating a cinematic 2.39:1 presentation
The source video was generated at 16:9, but I also wanted to test a wider cinematic presentation.
One option is to scale the image to 1920 × 804 and add black bars to restore a 1920 × 1080 canvas:
ffmpeg -y -i master.mp4 \
-vf "scale=1920:804:flags=lanczos,pad=1920:1080:0:138:black" \
-c:v libx264 -preset slow -crf 17 \
-profile:v high \
-c:a copy \
-movflags +faststart \
out/master_239.mp4
This produces an approximately 2.39:1 image area within a 16:9 video frame.
Letterboxing preserves the entire scaled image, unlike a direct vertical crop that discards parts of the original frame.
However, scaling the full 16:9 image to 1920 × 804 changes its proportions unless the image is cropped first. For a geometrically correct widescreen presentation, use a crop-and-scale pipeline when necessary.
5. Re-Rendering One Bad Shot Instead of the Entire Film
One of the most useful aspects of this workflow was the ability to replace a specific segment without rebuilding the whole video.
During generation, the Hollywood sign appeared as "HOLFWOOD" instead of "HOLLYWOOD".
This is a familiar limitation of generative video models: text can look convincing at a glance while individual characters remain incorrect or unstable.
Regenerating the entire 60-second film would have wasted both time and credits.
Instead, I extracted the frame at the replacement boundary, used it as the new clip's first_frame, and generated a replacement segment.
ffmpeg -y -ss 50.0 -i out/master.mp4 \
-frames:v 1 splice_first.jpg
After uploading the frame and generating the replacement clip, I rebuilt the master from the unchanged opening section and the new footage.
The replacement was approximately 10 seconds long.
Prompting for accurate text
For the replacement, I made the lettering requirement explicit:
CRITICAL: The hillside sign must read exactly HOLLYWOOD.
The spelling is H-O-L-L-Y-W-O-O-D: nine letters.
The fourth letter must be L, not F.
The letters are large, white, individually formed capital
letters arranged in a straight horizontal line on a dry,
brown hillside.
Keep the lettering stable, correctly formed, and clearly
visible from the front. Do not distort, rearrange, or replace
any characters.
The revised generation produced the intended spelling.
This doesn't mean literal prompts can reliably solve text rendering in every model. It means a specific description of the expected output and known failure can improve the next attempt.
For shots containing signs, product labels, or other critical text, I recommend treating one or two targeted re-renders as part of the production budget.
When exact typography is essential, a more reliable approach is to add the text during post-production rather than depend on the video model to render it correctly.
6. Practical Issues I Encountered
The creative workflow was only part of the implementation. Several API and environment issues also affected the process.
Keep generation parameters in the expected structure
My generation-estimation requests required model-specific parameters to be nested under parameters.
For example:
{
"model_id": "seedance-2-5-260628",
"prompt": "<prompt>",
"parameters": {
"duration": 30,
"resolution": "1080p",
"ratio": "adaptive"
}
}
Use the structure expected by the relevant operation. An estimation endpoint and a generation endpoint may not accept identical request bodies.
An MCP timeout doesn't necessarily mean generation failed
One submit_generation request timed out on the client side while the server-side generation continued running.
Submitting the same request again could have created unnecessary work or additional charges.
Instead, I used list_generations to inspect the existing jobs and recover their status.
For production systems, keep track of generation IDs, request parameters, and job status. When supported, use idempotency controls to distinguish intentional re-renders from accidental duplicate submissions.
Check which credits apply to each model
My account displayed a zero-dollar balance alongside promotional credits. One model returned an insufficient_balance error, while another accepted the request.
This was an account-specific result, not proof that all promotional credits are restricted in the same way.
Before running a large batch, verify that the available credits apply to the selected model and generation configuration.
Verify your FFmpeg version
My system FFmpeg installation was too old to handle the HEVC Main10 output produced by the video model.
The resulting codec errors initially looked like a problem with the downloaded file.
I installed a newer FFmpeg binary through imageio-ffmpeg:
pip install imageio-ffmpeg
Then I checked the binary path:
python -c "import imageio_ffmpeg; print(imageio_ffmpeg.get_ffmpeg_exe())"
Use a sufficiently recent FFmpeg build with the codecs required by your source footage.
For reproducible workflows, check the installed version and codec support before beginning a batch of generations.
Verify audio instead of trusting the response
Although I requested audio generation, both clips returned valid AAC audio streams that were effectively silent.
I checked the audio levels with:
ffmpeg -i clip.mp4 \
-af volumedetect \
-f null - 2>&1 | grep -E "mean_volume|max_volume"
A valid audio stream doesn't necessarily contain audible sound. Inspect the output and listen to the actual result before delivery.
Separate language-model usage from media-generation costs
The account-summary information I inspected reported language-model usage separately from image and video generation.
Don't treat an LLM token-cost report as a complete accounting of a media-generation project.
Track the actual generation requests and their associated charges, and reconcile them against the relevant billing information.
7. Cost Breakdown
The final film used two 30-second clips and one 10-second replacement.
The total cost was $39.83 for a final 60-second film.
Notice that the generation duration adds up to 70 seconds, not 60. The extra 10 seconds came from replacing the incorrect segment.
The effective cost was approximately $0.66 per second of finished video.
These figures reflect the pricing and usage observed during this project. They exclude any additional costs not reflected in the recorded generation charges.
A lower-cost model may make experimentation more affordable, but cheaper generation can also require additional attempts to reach the desired visual quality.
The right choice depends on the importance of photorealism, continuity, generation speed, and budget.
Budget for re-renders from the beginning. A pipeline that assumes every generated shot will be usable is likely to underestimate its actual cost.
8. Scaling the Pipeline Beyond 60 Seconds
The same approach can be extended to longer films.
At a maximum of 30 seconds per clip:
These counts assume full-length 30-second clips. Shorter clips may be more appropriate when the story contains distinct scenes or requires tighter control.
Each additional join creates another opportunity for mismatched motion, lighting, composition, or subject appearance.
Several practices make a longer pipeline easier to manage.
Choose boundary frames deliberately
Don't extract the final frame automatically without checking it.
Look for a frame where the camera is passing behind an object, approaching a new landmark, or entering a natural visual transition.
These moments can make an editorial boundary less noticeable.
However, the extracted frame should also provide a useful starting composition for the next generation. A visually interesting boundary is not necessarily a good conditioning frame if the next scene cannot continue naturally from it.
Preserve intermediate frames and generation metadata
Archive the conditioning frame used for every clip, along with:
If clip 4 needs to be regenerated, the saved endpoint from clip 3 allows you to reproduce its starting condition without rebuilding the earlier footage.
This makes the workflow easier to debug and maintain.
Parallelize independent generations
Once the necessary reference frames are available, independent segments can be generated concurrently.
A fully sequential chain cannot be generated entirely in parallel because each clip may depend on the preceding clip's output.
A practical compromise is to divide the film into sequences that can be generated independently, then chain clips within each sequence.
Use idempotency controls where supported, and check the job list before retrying a timed-out request.
Make every segment independently replaceable
Treat each generated clip as a separate production asset.
The master video should be a reproducible output of the individual segments and the editing pipeline, not the only copy of the project.
That allows a single failed shot to be replaced without rebuilding the entire film.
9. Visual Verification Before Delivery
A successful API response doesn't mean the video is ready to publish.
I used FFmpeg to extract representative frames from across the timeline and assemble them into a contact sheet.
This made it easier to identify changes in visual style, unexpected objects, and problems with transitions.
For example, to inspect eight points in the film:
mkdir -p keys
for t in 1 9 17 25 33 41 49 58; do
ffmpeg -y -ss "$t" -i out/master.mp4 \
-frames:v 1 \
-vf "scale=470:-1" \
"keys/m_${t}.jpg"
done
The individual frames can then be assembled into a contact sheet.
A contact sheet is useful for reviewing the overall visual progression, but it won't reveal every temporal artifact.
For that, inspect the actual footage around each join, preferably frame by frame or at reduced playback speed.
For the Hollywood sign, I also extracted frames at half-second intervals to check whether the lettering remained stable throughout the replacement segment.
This helped distinguish incorrect lettering from frames where the sign was partially visible or viewed at an angle.
My final verification checklist included:
The model generates the footage. The editing and verification pipeline determines whether it is ready to ship.
Conclusion
Building a continuous AI-generated film is not just a prompting problem. It is a pipeline problem involving generation limits, frame conditioning, asset management, editing, and quality control.
For this project, frame chaining provided a practical way to connect separately generated clips while keeping each segment independently replaceable.
The most important lessons were:
The final film cost $39.83 in recorded generation charges and required 70 seconds of generated footage to produce 60 seconds of finished video.
The broader takeaway is that AI video generation becomes more manageable when treated as a reproducible media pipeline rather than a sequence of isolated prompts.
Frame chaining won't eliminate every continuity problem, but it gives you a useful degree of control over how separately generated footage fits together.
Model capabilities, parameter support, and pricing are subject to change. The figures in this article reflect observations from October 2026. Check the current GMI Cloud model catalog and API documentation before implementing the workflow.#ai #tutorial #beginners #showdev #software #coding #development #engineering #inclusive #community
Frame-Chaining AI Video: Building a 60-Second Film with GMI Cloud
This InDesign Welcome Kit Presentation Template Doesn’t Just Look Good, It’s Also Easy to Customize
E-Type’s Welcome Kit Presentation Template, a 16-page InDesign file built at 1080 x 1920 pixels for screen presentations, is one of the more complete attempts, I have to say.
This review works from the template’s official preview spread; the full 16-page layout is exactly as E-Type ships it, plus the technical specifications are listed on Adobe Stock. No slides here are rebuilt or restyled. What follows is what’s actually in the file, read page by page, and what a working designer can expect once it opens in InDesign.
Download the kit from Adobe Stock.Please note that this template requires Adobe InDesign to be installed on your computer. Whether you use Mac or PC, the latest version is available on the Adobe Creative Cloud website—take a look here.
Adobe InDesign Welcome Kit Presentation Template by E-Type. Download the kit from Adobe Stock.What Is a Welcome Kit Presentation Template, Exactly?
A welcome kit presentation template is a pre-built slide system that agencies and freelancers send to new clients at the start of a project. It usually covers who the studio is, what the engagement includes, and what happens next. Unlike a pitch deck, it isn’t selling the work. It’s confirming the work after the contract is already signed.
That distinction matters for how you judge this template. A welcome kit doesn’t need to persuade anyone. It needs to look organized, feel personal, and get out of the way fast. E-Type’s version is designed specifically for that narrower job.
Inside the 16 Pages: A Breakdown That Matches the Index
The deck opens with a cover slide, then an index page listing six sections: About Us, Case Study, Partnerships, The Team, Manifesto, and Feedback. That index isn’t decoration. Every page after it maps directly to one of those six categories, which is rarer than it sounds in template packs this size.
The Full Page List
Sixteen slides, zero filler pages. Plenty of template packs pad the count with duplicate layouts wearing a different color. This one doesn’t do that. Every slide earns its spot in the sequence.
How the Template Is Built: What the File Structure Tells You
Both listings confirm the color system runs on a swatch palette rather than hardcoded fills, which means updating brand colors should take minutes, not hours. Change the swatches once, and the pink, coral, and mint blocks update across all 16 pages. That’s standard practice for a well-built template, though plenty of template packs skip it and force a manual hunt through every frame instead.
The listings also confirm photo placeholders sit on their own layer, separate from text and background elements. That layer separation is what makes InDesign’s Content Grabber tool useful here: click an image frame, and the grabber lets you swap the photo without disturbing its crop or position. None of the preview photography ships with the download. That detail trips up first-time template buyers constantly, so it’s worth repeating.
Adding Motion With the Animation Panel
Because this template targets screen presentations instead of print, the Animation panel (Window > Interactive > Animation) is where it earns a second look. Anyone comfortable with that panel can stagger headline text so words appear in sequence or fade a photo in gently rather than having it snap into place. Neither effect is built into the file by default. You add both yourself, per object, through motion presets and per-frame delay settings.
If you’ve never touched the Animation panel, budget an extra hour to learn it. The template doesn’t walk you through that part.
Where This Welcome Kit Presentation Template Wins and Where It Doesn’t
The typography does the heavy lifting here. Bold, condensed, uppercase headlines against a warm off-white background give every page a consistent editorial weight, even before a single word of real content goes in. Pair that with free fonts linked directly in the included help file, and you avoid the usual font-licensing scramble that kills momentum on a Friday afternoon deadline.
Where it struggles: the Offer slide assumes a four-tier pricing structure. If your agency sells one flat retainer, you’ll either delete three rows or stretch thin content across a layout built for density. The Team and Creators slides also assume four people. Solo freelancers will need to rebuild those grids from scratch rather than just deleting a box.
The Six-Screen Trust Arc: A Framework I Use for Judging Welcome Decks
I’ll be direct about this: the Six-Screen Trust Arc isn’t an industry term. It’s a shorthand I started using this year after comparing a dozen welcome kit presentation templates side by side, and it’s useful enough to name here.
The idea is simple. The first six screens of any client-facing welcome deck should move through a specific order: cover, index, who-we-are, what-we-do, mission, and proof. Skip the proof slide, or bury it past screen ten, and the client starts asking questions the deck should have already answered. E-Type’s template follows this arc almost exactly, placing the case study at position six. That placement alone suggests whoever built this has sat through real client onboarding calls.
A second shorthand worth naming: the Narrative-to-Data Ratio, which is just the proportion of storytelling slides (About Us, Manifesto, Feedback) against pure data slides (Statistics, Offer). This deck runs roughly 70/30 in favor of narrative. That’s the right ratio for a welcome kit. A sales deck should flip it.
Who Should Buy This Welcome Kit Presentation Template
Small design studios and solo creative directors get the most value here, specifically teams onboarding clients onto retainer work rather than one-off projects. The vertical 1080 x 1920 format also fits directly into screen-share presentations and Instagram Stories exports, which agencies increasingly use for onboarding content.
Skip it if your pricing model doesn’t fit four tiers, or if you need a landscape deck for a projector presentation. E-Type sells a separate landscape version of the same system, worth checking if that’s your format.
Quick Reference: Welcome Kit Presentation Template Specs
SpecDetailDesignerE-Type (Adobe Stock contributor)FormatAdobe InDesign (.indd / .idml)Page count16 fully editable pagesDimensions1080 x 1920 px (vertical, screen-ready)FontsFree fonts, linked in the included help filePhotographyPreview only, not included in the downloadColor systemSwatch-based, editable in one clickAnimationManual, via InDesign’s Animation panelBest forAgency and freelance client onboarding decksWhere to Find It
The kit is available on Adobe Stock. Pricing on Adobe Stock runs through its standard template licensing, either a subscription credit or a single-template purchase, so check current terms before buying.
Download the kit from Adobe Stock.Frequently Asked Questions
Does the welcome kit presentation template include the stock photos shown in the preview?
No. The preview photography is for display only. You add your own images to the 16 placeholder frames after purchase.
Can I edit this welcome kit presentation template in Canva instead of InDesign?
Some versions of E-Type’s welcome kit templates ship with a Canva file alongside the InDesign version. Check the specific listing you’re buying, since not every variant includes both formats.
Is the 1080 x 1920 format good for Instagram Stories or LinkedIn carousels?
Yes. That vertical ratio matches Instagram Stories natively and works well as an exported image carousel for LinkedIn, though you’ll need to export each page individually.
Do I need InDesign experience to use this template?
Basic experience helps, especially for the animation panel. Swapping text and photos requires almost no InDesign knowledge, since the Content Grabber handles image replacement without disturbing the layout.
How do I add the fade and sequential text animations to the slides?
Open Window > Interactive > Animation, select a text or image frame, then assign a motion preset like Fade In or Appear. Set the delay for each object manually to control the sequence.
Browse WE AND THE COLOR’s Templates category for more.
Subscribe to our newsletter!
#AdobeInDesign #AdobeStock #brandKit #InDesignTemplate #presentation #presentationTemplate #welcomeKit
https://www.europesays.com/fr/1265841/ Le préfet du Rhône renouvelle le couvre-feu à Lyon dimanche soir #actu #Actualités #AuvergneRhôneAlpes #EU #europe #FR #France #Lyon #manifestation #News #Police #Pru00e9fecture #RépubliqueFrançaise #ru00e9glementation
https://www.europesays.com/fr/1266254/ Manifestation du 24 octobre à Lyon : L’Après dénonce un maintien de l’ordre « catastrophique » et demande des « explications sérieuses » au préfet #actu #Actualités #AuvergneRhôneAlpes #EU #europe #FR #France #Lyon #News #RépubliqueFrançaise
https://www.europesays.com/fr/1263653/ Meurthe-et-Moselle. Crash du Mirage 2000D : le préfet invite les promeneurs à ne pas toucher aux débris #Accident #actu #Actualités #DéfenseGuerreConflit #ÉditionNancyEtAgglomération #ÉditionPontàMousson #ÉditionToul #EU #europe #FaitsDiversJustice #FR #France #GrandEst #MeurtheEtMoselle #Nancy #News #RépubliqueFrançaise
En direct, manifestations du 24 octobre : le cortège de Paris arrive Porte de Vincennes, des tensions à Lyon, Marseille et Bordeaux, suivez la journée de mobilisation
Le préfet de Haute-Vienne a publié un nouvel arrêté interdisant tous les rassemblements de plus de…
#Lyon #FR #France #Actu #News #Europe #EU #2026 #24 #actu #Actualités #arrive #Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes #cortège #direct #europe #Manifestations #octobre #Paris #porte #Républiquefrançaise #Société
https://www.europesays.com/fr/1262774/
En direct, manifestations du 24 octobre : à Paris, le cortège défile dans le calme, Mélenchon appelle Macron « à céder », tensions à Lyon et Nantes, suivez la nouvelle journée de mobilisation
Le préfet de Haute-Vienne a publié un nouvel arrêté interdisant tous les …
#Lyon #FR #France #Actu #News #Europe #EU #2026 #24 #actu #Actualités #Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes #calme #cortège #défilé #direct #europe #Manifestations #octobre #Paris #Républiquefrançaise #Société
https://www.europesays.com/fr/1262660/