Answer: Seedance's standard route handles most real-face references — a clean photograph of a person usually conditions the shot without complaint. The ultra-wide route exists for the cases the standard review refuses: it is a broader moderation path, supports real-face references by design, and costs 1.5× to 2.1× the standard rate at the same resolution.
The published moderation page reads conservatively on this — it lists real-person depictions as prohibited — and that wording is why people assume the model cannot hold a face at all. In practice the standard route passes the majority of ordinary real-face jobs; the refusal is the model's review being stricter than the brief, not a blanket ban.
What the two routes actually do
| Standard route | Ultra-wide route | |
|---|---|---|
| Real-face references | usually accepted | the intended use |
| Review path | the model's own check | broader moderation |
| Price, 2.0 Mini 480P | 2 credits / s | 3 credits / s |
| Price, 2.5 1080P | 21 credits / s | 45 credits / s |
| Subscription needed | Starter or higher | Starter or higher |
| Refund on refusal | automatic | automatic |
So the working rule is: try standard first, move to ultra-wide when the review says no. Standard is cheaper and, for ordinary ports of a real photograph into a shot, it is where most jobs succeed.
The checklist that gets a real-face job through
- One clean reference per person. Frontal, evenly lit, no sunglasses, no heavy filter. Two photos of the same face average into a third person.
- Give the image a job. "The woman from @Image1" beats "use the reference". It tells the model which decision that photograph owns.
- State what must not change, then what should. Identity, wardrobe and framing first; camera, light and environment second.
- Write the beat, not the vibe. A shot that says what happens reads better than four adjectives: "she turns from the window, the coat catches the light, she looks at the door".
- Consent is yours to hold. Uploading a photograph of someone else is a representation that you have the right to use it. The acceptable-use policy applies on both routes, and a wider review path is not a licence.
- No public figures. Even on ultra-wide, recognisable third parties are a liability rather than a feature.
What it costs, concretely
| Job | Route | Credits | USD at settlement |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 s · 2.0 Mini · 480P | standard | 10 | $0.10 |
| 5 s · 2.0 Mini · 480P fallback | ultra-wide | 15 | $0.15 |
| 5 s · 2.0 Mini · 720P | ultra-wide | 30 | $0.30 |
| 10 s · 2.5 · 720P | standard | 120 | $1.20 |
| 10 s · 2.5 · 1080P | ultra-wide | 450 | $4.50 |
A reference video adds an input-duration charge on top. Twice the resolution is not twice the price here — it is 2.5×.
The failure you will see, and what to do with it
If the standard review refuses the job, it is a guideline refusal rather than a silent downgrade:
Your content violated community guidelines.
No task is created at the prompt-screening stage, so nothing is charged. If a job passes screening and fails later, the credits are refunded automatically after reconciliation and the activity page shows a refund note.
The response is not to rewrite adjectives. Change one of three things: the route (ultra-wide), the reference (a synthetic face, or a different photograph of the same person), or the subject (a scene that does not hinge on a recognisable individual).
When ultra-wide is the wrong choice
- The standard route already passes. You are paying 1.5–2.1× for a path you did not need.
- Fully synthetic people. If the character is generated rather than photographed, standard is cheaper and the review is the one designed for it.
- You are still testing composition. Draft framing with a synthetic face, then re-run the approved shot with the real reference.
- The brief needs a brand. Neither route passes trademark-heavy prompts reliably; generic descriptions travel further.
FAQ
Does the standard route accept real faces? In most cases, yes. It is the cheapest route that does, and ultra-wide is the fallback for refusals.
Does ultra-wide guarantee a pass? No. It is a broader path with a review, not automatic approval.
Can I use real faces without a subscription? No. Both routes require an active Starter plan or higher.
What if the prompt passes but the frames fail? That is the visual layer: the job fails during or after generation and the credits are refunded after reconciliation.
The six worked real-face examples are on Callirra's wide-limit page, the review rules are published at the Seedance community guidelines, and both routes run from the video generator. If you have a reference set that passes on standard every time, the prompt and the photograph are the two things worth sharing.
Top comments (6)
The moderation page says prohibited while the standard route passes most ordinary references — that gap is why people assume the model can't hold a face.
'The woman from @Image1' beats 'use the reference' is the most useful prompt tip here; naming what the image owns is the whole game.
Two photos of the same face averaging into a third person is a great warning; one clean reference per person is the rule I'd pin.
Consent being yours to hold is worth stating plainly — a wider review path is not a licence.
Try standard first, move to ultra-wide when review says no — and automatic refund on refusal makes it low-risk to try.
The concrete job table (5s Mini 480P standard = 10 credits) is what makes the cost comparison actionable.