Flux 2 Pro VS Nano Banana Pro

The speaker compares several image-generation models (referred to as Cedrine 4.0/Cadream/Cream 4.0, Nano Banana Pro, Flux.2 Pro, and Flux.2 Flex) by running the same prompt. They note visual differences — some outputs have Instagram-like filters, others look more natural or ‘AI-like.’ The narrator reruns generations (e.g., Flux.2 Pro) to compare consistency and points out an instance where a rerun produced a poor result with heavy dark artifacts on the face. They invite viewers to comment which look they prefer, mention OpenArt’s limited-time offers (unlimited Flux.2 Pro and Nano Banana Pro for 13 days and a Black Friday 60% annual discount), and encourage using the link in the video description. Overall tone: side-by-side visual comparison, claiming Cream 4.0 as one of the best looks while acknowledging variability between runs and occasional AI artifacts.

The speaker walks viewers step-by-step through OpenArt’s UI to create images: selecting models (Nano Banana Pro, Flux.2 Pro, Flux.2 Flex), choosing aspect ratio (16:9), and setting resolution (2K vs 4K). They emphasize cost differences in credits — Flux2 is much cheaper than NanoModel comparison and review Banana Pro — and discuss how upscaling and higher resolutions change credit usage. The narrator runs several test prompts (for example, a hyper-detailed 3D laboratory with floating orbs) and creates multiple images to compare visual results and typography handling. They note Flux.2 Pro’s strong typography and overall clarity in some tests, while Flux.2 Flex upscales and sometimes worsens color/quality. Conclusion: Flux.2 Pro (and Flux.2 variants) can produce better, cheaper results in many cases, but outputs vary per prompt and settings.

This paragraph focuses on using image references (e.g., a K-pop group or a portrait) and demonstrates problems that arise when mixing uploaded references and aspect-ratio choices. The speaker attempts to recreate a portrait in 16:9 but the model sometimes crops or treats vertical references as portraits, producing blurred or oddly composed results. They compare Nano Banana Pro, Flux.2 Pro, and Flux.2 Flex: Nano Banana Pro sometimes produces sharper faces but the composition may be wrong; Flux.2 Pro fills the full frame better but can exhibit stains or less-sharp facial details; Flux.2 Flex tends to smooth faces. The narrator also encounters content policy flags on certain generations and notes fluctuating credit costs when image references are used. They emphasize reusing settings and double-checking aspect ratio to avoid undesired vertical crops and explain that some runs require recreating prompts to correct mistakes.

Here the speaker continues close-up comparisons across model variants. They find Flux.2 Flex smooths faces heavily (over-smoothed, ‘plasticky’ look), while Flux.2 Pro is cheaper and appears more realistic. Nano Banana Pro is realistic in some runs but sometimes misinterprets prompts (e.g., adding a phone because it assumed an 'influencer' context). The narrator toggles prompts to remove misleading cues (removing 'influencer') to guide the model to avoid unwanted props. They also test the earlier Nano Banana (v1) and discuss differences vs Nano Banana Pro. Repeatedly, the speaker notes content policy violations that interrupt some generations. Overall preference shifts toward Flux.2 Pro or the earlier Nano Banana model depending on the particular output — with Flux.2 Pro praised for realism and Flux.2 Flex criticized for over-smoothing.

The narrator compares Flux Pro (Flux 1 series) to Flux.2 Pro and notes a marked improvement in sharpness and detail with Flux.2. They test a complex two-subject reference (flying on a carpet) using multiple uploaded reference images and observe that reference count increases credit cost. When comparing outputs, Flux.2 Pro yields sharper results with better background defocus handling, while Nano Banana variants sometimes produce Photoshop-like artifacts or low-resolution blurry backgrounds. The speaker repeats prompts and uploads to re-run tests, encountering content policy 'impossible request' messages at times. They also emphasize how upload/compression by OpenArt can degrade faces and that model behavior and costs can be inconsistent across attempts.

In the concluding tests the speaker compares Cream 4.0, Nano Banana Pro, Flux.2 Pro and Flux variants on the same prompt and image references. Observations: Cream 4.0 often applies an Instagram-like filter and stronger color effects; Nano Banana Pro tends toward natural rendering; Flux.2 Pro produces a variety of results (sometimes more artistic or with different perceived ethnicity — e.g., returning an Asian-looking subject vs a Caucasian-looking subject for the same prompt). The narrator reiterates that Flux.2 Pro can give more realism but may be inconsistent on reruns (occasionally producing poor/dark facial artifacts). They remind viewers about OpenArt promotions (unlimited Flux.2 Pro generation for a limited period and a Black Friday 60% annual discount) and ask viewers to comment which model output they prefer. Final takeaway: choose Flux.2 Pro for realism and cost efficiency in many cases, but expect variability and test multiple runs and settings for best results.