Text to video tools sound exciting on paper. Type a prompt, get a video, move on. In reality, most developers and product teams want to know one thing. Does it actually help in real work?
I decided to test a text to video AI tool inside an actual workflow. Not a demo. Not a one off experiment. A real use case with deadlines, revisions, and feedback.
This post shares what worked, what did not, and where this type of tool fits today.
Why I Tried Text to Video AI
I often need short videos. Product demos, landing page previews, onboarding clips, and quick explainers for internal teams. Traditional video creation takes time. Scripts, screen recordings, edits, exports. It adds up fast.
I wanted something that could help me:
• Create fast visual drafts
• Test ideas before committing to production
• Support non designers on the team
• Reduce back and forth during early stages
That is where text to video AI looked promising.
The Workflow I Used
I kept the setup simple and close to how most teams work.
Step one was writing a rough script. Nothing polished. Just clear sentences explaining a feature or flow.
Step two was generating short video clips from those prompts. I tested different tones. Product focused. Neutral. Slightly creative.
Step three was placing the output into real contexts. A landing page draft. A product walkthrough. An internal demo deck.
This helped me judge the tool based on usefulness, not novelty.
What Worked Well
The biggest win was speed. I could turn an idea into a visual in minutes. That alone made it useful during early planning.
Another strong point was clarity. The videos helped explain concepts that were hard to describe with text alone. This was helpful for async communication and early stakeholder reviews.
I also noticed that the tool worked best when prompts were clear and structured. Simple language produced better results than vague descriptions.
During this test, I explored a few platforms, including this text to video option: Kling 2.5 Turbo. It handled short, focused prompts well and fit naturally into quick iteration cycles.
Where It Fell Short
Text to video AI is not a replacement for real video production. At least not yet.
Fine control is limited. You cannot easily tweak small details the way you would in a video editor. If something feels slightly off, you often need to regenerate instead of adjusting.
Consistency can also be a challenge. When you need multiple clips that look and feel the same, it takes effort to guide the tool with careful prompts.
This means the output works best as a draft or supporting asset, not a final polished video.
How It Fit the Team
This tool was most useful for:
• Early stage demos
• Internal presentations
• Product concept previews
• Quick onboarding explanations
It helped non technical teammates understand features faster. It also reduced the pressure on designers and video editors during early phases.
Once the direction was clear, we still moved to traditional tools for final assets.
Tips If You Want to Try It
Based on this test, here are a few practical tips.
Start with short videos. Thirty to sixty seconds works best.
Write prompts like instructions, not marketing copy.
Test videos inside real layouts. Context matters.
Use it early. Do not wait until the final stage.
Treat the output as a draft, not a finished product.
You Should Try it For Real Results
Text to video AI is most useful when you treat it as a thinking tool, not a shortcut to final content. It helps you explore ideas, explain flows, and move faster during planning.
For developers and product teams, that can be enough to justify using it. Not because it replaces anything, but because it helps you decide what to build next with more clarity.
If you are curious, try it inside a real workflow. That is where its strengths and limits become clear.
References:
https://dev.to/alifar/automating-text-to-video-pipelines-with-sora-2-and-n8n-lh0
https://workspace.google.com/resources/text-to-video/
Top comments (0)