Product: Adobe Firefly (Image to Video Generation)
Summary: The Adobe Firefly video generation AI is fundamentally incapable of creating a simple, mechanical animation of a recliner footrest opening, even when provided with explicit start and end keyframe images. After nearly 20 systematic and increasingly restrictive prompt variations, the AI consistently ignores user-provided keyframes and direct text commands, resulting in chaotic, nonsensical animations that break object constancy. This indicates a critical flaw where the AI's internal creative bias overrides all user input and visual data.
Problem Description: The goal was to create a simple, 5-second product demonstration video showing a recliner's footrest moving from a closed position to an open position. Both the start and end images were provided as keyframes for the AI to work between.
Over the course of 19+ attempts, we tried the following strategies, all of which failed:
- Simple Prompts: Basic descriptions of the motion resulted in the AI inventing spins, flips, and extra parts.
- Highly Restrictive Prompts: We explicitly forbade all unwanted motions (spinning, rocking, rotating, overshooting) and commanded the AI to keep the chair body static. The AI ignored these negative constraints.
- Geometric Language: We described the motion in boring, geometric terms ("slides horizontally, then lifts"). The AI still created dramatic, arcing motions or caused the entire chair back to recline.
- "Object Lock" Prompts: We commanded the AI to preserve the material and texture of the object. This led to the AI literally transforming the upholstered footrest into a flat metal panel.
- "Keyframe Lock" Prompts: We explicitly instructed the AI that its only job was to interpolate the frames between our provided start and end images. The AI ignored this and still inserted its own rocking and tilting motions that did not exist in the keyframes.
- "Pseudocode" Prompts: We attempted to communicate in a technical, code-like format to force a literal interpretation. This produced the most chaotic and nonsensical result of all.
- "Reverse Animation" Best Practice: We attempted the industry-standard workaround of animating the footrest closing (Open -> Closed), which should be a cleaner motion. The AI still failed catastrophically.
- Green Screen Isolation: As a final step, the object was perfectly isolated on a green screen to remove any possible confusion from the background. Even with this clean plate, the AI still hallucinated new chair parts (a different base) and performed a chaotic, spinning animation.
Expected Result: A direct, simple animation showing only the footrest pivoting from the position in the start image to the position in the end image, with the rest of the chair and background remaining completely static.
Actual Result: In every attempt, the AI produced a catastrophic failure, including but not limited to:
- The entire chair body rocking, tilting, or spinning.
- The footrest overshooting its final position and bouncing.
- The footrest flipping up vertically in a high arc.
- The object's material changing from fabric to metal.
- The generation of completely new, hallucinated parts (spider-like legs, different chair bases, wheeled platforms).
- A complete disregard for the visual data provided in the start and end keyframes.
Conclusion: This exhaustive process proves that for certain objects or motions, the Firefly AI is broken. Its internal programming to make motion "creative" or "natural" is so strong that it cannot be overridden by user commands or even direct visual evidence from keyframes. The tool is unreliable for precise, technical product animations of this nature. This is a critical bug that makes the tool unusable for this purpose.
I would also like to add that i have completely exhaused my credits in the process of this
1
Reply
AdChoices