Stuff people ask me a lot.

I started young. GPT-2 came out when I was in high school and I was probably one of the first people to actually use it for something real, mostly to help me write essays because I'm dyslexic.

Went to film school after that. Dropped out partway through, took everything I'd learned about story and framing and editing, and started doing AI video the moment Veo 2 became public. Veo 3 was the moment I realised this was a real business, not just a creative habit.

Nano Banana Pro for image. Seedance for video. Claude is the brain that orchestrates everything.

We built our own infrastructure on top of that, so the tools you see public are really just the surface. The actual work is in how we use them, not what we use.

Short version: it's a film production process done in our infrastructure instead of on location. Onboard, build a director's treatment, generate the shots like a shooting day, post-produce, colour grade, sound design.

The longer version lives on the work pages. Each one walks through a different part of how we actually build things, so pick the one that maps to what you're making.

Less than the traditional version of the same film, and the gap grows with ambition. The honest answer is that it depends on scope: a product film, a full TVC, and a campaign engine are three different animals.

What I can tell you is how the money works. You're not paying for a shooting day, a location, or a crew of thirty. You're paying for direction, taste, and a pipeline. Book a call, tell me the brief, and I'll give you a real number in 15 minutes.

Days to weeks, not months. Burjeel's 8K anniversary film went from brief to a giant event screen in five days. A full TVC with cast, world, motion, and sound typically runs a few weeks including revisions.

The reason it's fast is not that we skip steps. It's that the production day lives inside our infrastructure, so iteration costs hours instead of reshoots.

Both. Agencies bring us in as the AI production arm behind their client work, quietly or openly, whatever the relationship needs. Brands hire us directly for one-off films or ongoing content systems.

Retainers make sense once there's a running pipeline: a monthly volume of content, a campaign engine, or a team we've trained that wants us on call.

Yes, and it's a locked step, not a hope. Before anything moves we build canonical references: your product, your palette, your type, your world. Every shot generates against those references.

That's how four PepsiCo brands each kept their own identity across twelve visual worlds in one production day.

It's not a competition. AI and traditional are both tools, and the best work is often hybrid.

AI wins on things a camera physically can't shoot. A product that doesn't exist yet. Twelve different worlds in one afternoon. A model that represents your customer perfectly.

A camera wins on things that have to be in the room. Live events. Real interviews. Documentary moments. People who frame this as a fight are missing the actual question, which is what the right tool is for the brief.

No. Live events still need a camera. Real moments still need to be in the room.

What's changing is the floor. The cheapest, fastest, most volume-driven production work is moving to AI. The high-craft documentary and event work stays where it always was. The middle is the part that gets squeezed.

Use the tools every single day. Push their limits. Get bored of the easy stuff and start trying the hard stuff.

Then go learn how a film actually gets made. Film school is the unglamorous answer, but it's the right one. Without the story and craft layer, you're just generating slop with a license.

Taste is the only part of the work that can't be automated. Agents can run pipelines, batch prompts, generate variations, manage assets. They can do almost everything.

But what makes a shot land (the framing, the colour, the story, the choice of which thirty frames out of a thousand are the actual film) needs a person.

Taste can't be automated. Everything else can.