AI video generation in 2026: what actually works (and what doesn't)

The state of the art, without hype

The AI video generation market has exploded. Every month a new model drops, every week someone declares "traditional cinema is dead." I use these tools daily in my AI video production workflow for real clients. Here's what actually works in 2026, without proclamations.

The tools I use and how I judge them

Runway Gen-4. The most versatile for professional work. Camera control is the best available: pan, tilt, zoom, dolly — coherent and predictable responses. I use it for generating environmental elements, backgrounds and sequences where precise movement control is needed. The weak point remains face coherence in long sequences.

Veo (Google). Impressive visual quality — individual frames are often indistinguishable from real footage. I used it extensively for the Roche project, where single-frame quality was the priority. The limitation: less camera control than Runway and longer generation times.

Kling AI. Excellent for human subject movement — walks, gestures, facial expressions. Where Runway and Veo produce rigid body movements, Kling generates natural fluidity. I use it when the video protagonist is a person in motion.

Sora (OpenAI). Powerful on cinematic quality and real physics understanding — water, smoke, bouncing light. But the workflow is less flexible for professional production. I use it for concept and pre-visualization more than final output.

Midjourney (for reference frames). It doesn't generate video, but remains irreplaceable for creating key frames I then use as reference for generative video. Midjourney's aesthetic quality is still superior to any frame extracted from AI video.

What works for professional production

Concept and pre-visualization. Here AI is already irreplaceable. Need to explore ten creative directions for a director or agency? I generate visual variants in hours, not days. For Doppelganger AI generated the project's entire visual base.

Environmental elements and backgrounds. Dramatic skies, landscapes, fantastic environments — AI produces excellent material I then integrate in compositing with traditional VFX techniques.

Fully AI-generated content. For projects where the budget doesn't allow traditional production, AI produces professional results. The Roche project demonstrates this: a complete video with broadcast quality, entirely made with AI tools then refined in post-production.

Prototyping for commercial pitches. An agency needs to sell a concept to a client? Instead of a static mood board, I deliver an AI video concept in a few days. The approval rate is incomparably higher.

What doesn't work (yet)

Character coherence. Same person, same face, same clothes for thirty seconds of video. No tool does this reliably. Workarounds are needed — face swap, compositing, frame-by-frame generation with reference — and all require hours of manual work.

Readable text. AI generates text in video like a drunk writes on a blackboard. For any content with on-screen text — titles, lower thirds, name straps — traditional motion graphics is still needed.

Precise subject-object interaction. A hand gripping a specific object, a finger pressing a button, a product manipulated by human hands. AI produces obvious artifacts. For product videos with human interaction, traditional 3D animation is needed.

Synchronized audio. Lipsync, coherent ambient sounds, Foley — AI-generated audio is still primitive by professional standards. AI video always needs to be paired with separate audio production.

The factor nobody mentions: post-processing

Here's the truth that AI tool demo reels don't show: raw AI video is never the final video. Every generated clip goes through my post-production workflow — color correction, stabilization, artifact cleanup, compositing with real elements, grading for coherence with the rest of the project.

This is why twenty years of post-production experience are my real competitive advantage in the AI era. Anyone can generate a video. Very few know how to transform it into a professional product.

Where we're heading

In one year, character coherence will be solved. In two, frame-by-frame control will be standard. In three, the distinction between "shot" and "generated" will be irrelevant for 90% of applications.

But the principle doesn't change: someone with the eye, experience and taste to direct these tools will always be needed. Not "use them" — direct them. Like a director directs a crew, an experienced professional directs AI. And the result is incomparably different.