Text-to-Video vs Image-to-Video

Text-to-video and image-to-video are not two qualities of the same button. They are different briefs. One starts from language. The other starts from a picture you are willing to keep.

Two different briefs

Text-to-video asks a model to invent the subject, the place, and the motion together. Image-to-video starts from a frame you already accept. The model’s job is narrower: introduce movement without throwing the composition away. Both paths are explained in more detail on the text-to-video and image-to-video pages.

Choose text when you are still deciding

Text is the better start when:

• You do not have a photograph, design, or product render
• You want to try three locations before committing
• The idea is a mood or a camera move more than a specific face

It is also the more surprising path. That is useful for exploration and risky for brand color, wardrobe, or packaging. Those details are exactly what a text model likes to reinterpret.

Choose an image when the still is the point

Image-to-video fits when:

• A product, outfit, or face should stay recognizable
• A designer already approved a frame
• You want a subtle move, not a new world

The tradeoff is drift. The model can change eyes, labels, and edges while it invents motion. Review the clip against the still, not against your memory of it.

A middle path

Many pieces use both. Explore with text until a frame looks right, export a still, then animate that still. Or design the still in a layout tool and only then ask for motion. You are not being inconsistent. You are choosing the input that matches the decision you have already made.

What neither method does for you

Neither method checks facts, clears music, or guarantees a likeness. A text prompt that names a real person, or an image of a real customer, raises consent questions the model will not answer. Commercial use is a terms-of-service question. The notes on choosing a model list what to read before a paid campaign.