Seedream 4.5 vs Nano Banana Pro vs. Flux 2 [Compared]

Creative AI Show

4 Dec 202511:54

TLDRIn this video, Raj compares the latest AI image generators: Seedream 4.5, Nano Banana Pro, Flux 2, and Image Art 3.5. He tests each model with a variety of challenging prompts, ranging from simple objects to complex physics-based scenarios. While Nano Banana Pro shows the most consistent and impressive results, Seedream 4.5 holds its own in specific areas, excelling in detail and quick rendering. Each model has strengths and weaknesses, but for standard prompts, Seedream 4.5 is a solid choice, while Nano Banana remains the most reliable for complex tasks. Tune in for more insights on AI in creative fields.

Takeaways

😀The newly released SeaDream 4.5 has dropped, sparking comparisons with other AI image generation models like Nano Banana Pro, Flux 2, and Image Art 3.5.
🤖 Nano Banana Pro produced a strong result with a robot sitting at a kitchen table holding a glass of orange juice, showing good detail but some minor time and placement issues.
🍊 SeaDream 4.5 consistently produced similar results for its prompts, but struggled with showing the full glass of orange juice and clock hands, which other models like Nano Banana handled better.
⚓ A weathered lighthouse keeper in a yellow raincoat during a storm produced good results from Nano Banana and Image Art, but SeaDream 4.5 lagged behind with an unrealistic composition.
🌧️ Nano Banana excelled in creating a realistic, weathered jacket for the lighthouse keeper, which SeaDream 4.5 lacked, making it a standout in this scenario.
🌪️ SeaDream 4.5 showed strong performance when creating visual representations of hot and cold water interacting, but Nano Banana Pro was nearly as impressive in this comparison.
🖋️ In a test with fonts and text, Nano Banana Pro's mood and execution of the scene stood out, with Image Art following closely behind.
🪞JSON code correction Flux 2's performance with mirror reflections showed a lack of accuracy compared to Nano Banana Pro, which created a more convincing mirrored image.
⏰ Nano Banana Pro and SeaDream 4.5 both struggled with clock reflections and showing time correctly, but SeaDream 4.5 was a bit more accurate in terms of reflection physics than some other models.
♟️ The chessboard through a half-full glass of water was a challenging test for all models, but Image Art 1.5 performed remarkably well, accurately reflecting the board and pieces through the glass.
💡 While SeaDream 4.5 is a solid AI model for most standard prompts and is cheaper to use than others, it is less reliable for more challenging image generation tasks compared to models like Nano Banana Pro.

Q & A

What is the main focus of theSeedream vs Nano Banana vs Flux video?
-The video compares the AI image generation models Seedream 4.5, Nano Banana Pro, Flux 2, and Image Art 3.5, testing their capabilities through various prompts and scenarios.
How did Nano Banana perform in the first test with the robot holding orange juice?
-Nano Banana provided a strong result with a fairly accurate representation, showing the robot holding a glass of orange juice almost to the top, with the time displayed as 8:00.
What issue did Seedream 4.5 have with the robot holding orange juice?
-Seedream 4.5 showed a time of 10:10 and failed to depict the hands on the clock, which was a significant issue, as well as not filling the glass of orange juice completely.
How did Seedream 4.5 perform in comparison to Nano Banana with the weathered lighthouse keeper prompt?
-Seedream 4.5 performed reasonably well, presenting a weathered figure in a yellow raincoat, though it leaned more toward a romanticized character rather than a sailor-like figure. Nano Banana, however, showed a better representation of the character with a more realistic jacket.
What were the resultsSeedream 4.5 vs Nano Banana of Flux 2 in the lighthouse keeper test?
-Flux 2's result was less satisfactory, with the figure looking artificial and more like it was shot in a studio, not matching the dramatic scene as well as Nano Banana or Seedream 4.5.
Did Seedream 4.5 perform better or worse than Nano Banana in the hot and cold water prompt?
-Seedream 4.5 outperformed Nano Banana in the hot and cold water test, particularly in rendering the lines between the two substances more convincingly, though there was a small issue with the table's color.
What was the main critique of Flux 2 in the fonts and text test?
-Flux 2 produced a decent result, but it was still considered less impressive than Nano Banana, which had a stronger mood and better overall feel in the scene.
What issue did Seedream 4.5 have with the 'mirror' and 'picture within a picture' challenge?
-Seedream 4.5 failed to depict the mirror reflection properly, showing multiple Mona Lisa images instead of the correct picture within a picture, unlike Nano Banana and Flux, which performed better in this task.
How did the models perform in the reflection of a clock at 3:47?
-Nano Banana performed the best, correctly displaying the time as 2:18 but avoiding the 10:10 error common in many AI models. Flux 2 and Image Art failed to capture the correct time or mirror reflection, while Seedream 4.5 was slightly better but still showed 10:10. For those interested in exploring advanced options, Flux 2 Pro offers enhanced capabilities.
What was the result of the 'chessboard through a half full glass of water' test?
-Nano Banana and Image Art 1.5 performed the best, with Image Art displaying the half-full glass and correct reflections. Seedream 4.5 struggled with the chessboard's accuracy and reflection, which was a weaker point for that model.

Outlines

00:00

🤖 Comparing AI Image Generators: Sea Dance vs. Nano Banana

In this paragraph, the host introduces the topic of comparing the newly released Sea Dance 4.5 with other recent AI image generators like Nano Banana Pro, Flux 2, and Image Art 3.5. The host uses a prompt of a robot sitting at a kitchen table holding a glass of orange juice to test how different models perform. The results of Nano Banana are shown to have a clear and accurate 8:00 on the clock, along with a near-full glass of orange juice. Sea Dance 4.5 provides the same result multiple times, showing consistency but lacking the desired clock hands. Flux 2 and Image Art both fail in showing the full glass and clock details. The host concludes that Sea Dance holds its own in some comparisons, but doesn't surpass Nano Banana in this specific test.

05:02

🌊 Sea Dance vs. Other AI Models: A Lighthouse Challenge

The host moves on to another test involving a lighthouse keeper standing in a storm. This test highlights the performance of different models when generating detailed clothing, especially a weathered yellow raincoat. Nano Banana does well, showing a rugged jacket and an accurate depiction of the lighthouse scene. However, Sea Dance produces a less convincing character, resembling a romance novel figure rather than a weathered sailor. Flux 2 doesn't perform well, with an artificial feel to the image, and Image Art also does a decent job, with the host praising its overall work. Ultimately, Sea Dance is considered strong but not the best in this test.

10:04

💧 AI Models Compared: Hot and Cold Water Physics Test

This paragraph discusses a more complex prompt involving hot and cold water in a physics-based scenario. Nano Banana performs well, but Sea Dance 4.5 may have outperformed it in capturing the physics of the scene. The host shows comparisons with Image Art, which had a flawed design with an unattractive line cuttingComparing AI image models through the middle of the scene. Sea Dance provides a more accurate representation of the water's properties, with a slight flaw in the table's color, but overall, it’s considered the most successful of the models tested here.

🍳 AI Models and Text: Mood in Fonts and Signs

This section tests how the AI models handle scenes with text and fonts. Nano Banana's version stands out for its mood and the visual appeal of the scene, particularly with the 'fresh egg' sign. Flux 2 provides a decent result, but the host still prefers the Nano Banana version. Image Art is placed second due to its good but slightly less impactful mood. Overall, the host emphasizes that preferences can be subjective, and this task shows how subtle differences in mood can lead to ranking variations among the models.

🪞 Reflection Challenges: Testing Mirrors with AI

This paragraph presents a more complex challenge involving mirrors and reflections, particularly in a scenario where a mirror reflects a clock showing a specific time. Flux 2 fails to capture the mirror's reflection properly, and Image Art is similarly disappointing, showing the wrong time. Nano Banana, however, does a great job, not just with the clock’s reflection, but also with the mirror's detail. Sea Dance struggles with this prompt, failing to properly create the mirror and reflection within the image. Despite Sea Dance's shortcomings here, Nano Banana remains the most reliable in handling these difficult tasks.

⏰ AI Image Testing: Clock Reflection and Time Accuracy

In this part, the challenge involves testing AI models with a clock reflecting its time in a mirror. The task is tough, as the clock should show exactly 3:47, and its reflection should mirror the time. Nano Banana accurately shows a time of 2:18, while Flux 2 and Image Art both display 10:10, a common default among AI-generated images. Sea Dance also defaults to 10:10 but manages to show some correct reflections. The host appreciates Sea Dance for getting the reflection aspect right, although it's not perfect. This test reveals that while Sea Dance performs well with some challenging physics, it doesn't outperform Nano Banana.

♟️ Chessboard Through Water: Physics and Reflection

The host presents an advanced test involving a chessboard viewed through a half-full glass of water, a complex physics challenge for AI models. Nano Banana provides an adequate result, but it doesn't fully capture the reflection of chess pieces. Flux 2 offers an image without pieces on the board, which is a less satisfying approach. Image Art 1.5 performs impressively, showing a half-full glass with clear reflections of the board. Sea Dance (Cadream 45) also gets credit for depicting a half-full glass, but the chessboard itself is misaligned. Each model is evaluated for their strengths in handling complex reflections and distorted physics, with the host concluding that Image Art 1.5 provides the best result.

💡 AI Models and Performance: Ranking and Recommendations

The host concludes by reflecting on the overall performance of the four AI models. While Nano Banana is still considered the most consistent and reliable across different tests, Sea Dance (Cadream 45) shows promise with faster rendering times and affordability, though it lacks precision in some complex tasks. Image Art 1.5 and Flux 2 are also good options, but none of the models are perfect. The host emphasizes the importance of testing these models with tough prompts to really understand their strengths and weaknesses. Finally, the host encourages viewers to continue following the Creative AI Show for more insights into AI image generation and its development.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡Seedream 4.5

Seedream 4.5 (also referred to in the transcript with small name variations like "Sea Dance" or "Cadream 45") is one of the AI image-generation models being compared in the video. The presenter tests Seedream 4.5 across multiple prompts to see how well it handles details, physics (reflections, clocks), and mood, noting that it is a strong contender in some tasks but fails in others (for example it produced consistent results for one orange-juice prompt but struggled with mirror/time prompts). In the video's theme of model comparison, Seedream 4.5 represents a recently updated option whose strengths and weaknesses are analyzed against competitors.

💡Nano Banana Pro

Nano Banana Pro is another AI image-generation model and, according to the video, the most consistent performer across many of the test prompts. The host repeatedly praises Nano Banana Pro for getting details right—such as a convincing weathered jacket, clocks, and tricky mirror/mirror-time scenes—and often ranks it first in the comparisons. Within the video's narrative, Nano Banana Pro serves as the benchmark the presenter believes the other models should match or exceed.

💡Seedream 4.5 vs Nano Banana ProFlux 2

Flux 2 is a third model compared in the video; it sometimes performs well but is criticized for particular weaknesses (for instance, the presenter felt some Flux 2 outputs looked like a studio photo pasted onto a background rather than integrated AI-rendered scenes). Flux 2 is used to illustrate that different models have different artistic tendencies and technical failures—examples include failing at mirror time accuracy and producing less convincing environmental integration compared to Nano Banana Pro or Image Art.

💡Image Art (1.5 / 3.5 references)

Image Art is another image-generation model referenced multiple times (the transcript mentions versions like 1.5 and 3.5), and it performs well on several prompts according to the presenter. For example, Image Art produced a strong weathered-lighthouse result and did well on the chessboard-through-water prompt, showing it can handle certain physics and compositional challenges. In the video's comparison theme, Image Art represents a competitive alternative that sometimes wins particular challenges despite not always being the presenter's top pick.

💡Prompt

A prompt is the textual instruction provided to an AI image model that tells it what to generate—throughout the video the host repeatedly uses the same prompt across different models to compare outputs fairly. Examples from the transcript include prompts like "a robot sitting at a kitchen table with a clock showing 8:24 holding a glass of orange juice" or the chessboard seen through a half-full glass of water. Prompt design and consistency are central to the video's methodology for testing each model's strengths and weaknesses.

💡Physics (reflections, distortions, time accuracy)

Physics refers to how well a model respects physical rules in an image—especially reflections, refraction through glass/water, and consistent time displays on clocks. The video challenges models with physics-heavy prompts (mirror showing the same clock time; chessboard distorted through a half-full glass) and highlights that many models still struggle with these tasks, though some handle parts of them better (for example, Cadream/Seedream showed some correct reflection behavior in one test). The presenter uses physics tests to go beyond 'basic' image capability and probe deeper model understanding.

💡Reflection / Mirror challenges

Reflection and mirror challenges are specific prompt types that force models to replicate mirrored content accurately (for example, a clock and its mirror showing the same time or reversed numbers). The transcript contains multiple mirror/time examples where most models returned incorrect times like "10:10" or failed to reverse text properly; these prompts expose weaknesses in how models model spatial transformation. Such challenges are used in the video as a stress test to reveal which models can maintain internal consistency under geometric transformations.

💡Half-full / Glass of water

The half-full glass of water is a recurring motif used to test refraction and distortion: the chessboard-through-water prompt checks whether the squares are distorted correctly through the water column. Several models produced varying quality results—some made a half glass successfully (which the presenter praised), while others produced three-quarter glasses or misaligned boards. This keyword ties into the theme of pushing models beyond simple scenes into detailed optical effects.

💡Clock time accuracy

Clock time accuracy is a concrete measurement used in the video to see whether models faithfully render specified times (e.g., 8:24, 3:47) or default to common, incorrect times like 10:10. The host repeatedly notes when models output the wrong time or fail to render clock hands properly, making 'time accuracy' a clear indicator of how well a model follows precise prompt constraints. This concept is used throughout the tests to highlight differences between models' literalness and attention to small details.

💡Weathered character / Jacket detail

The weathered lighthouse keeper in a yellow raincoat is a test to see how well models handle fine detail, texture, and mood—Nanо Banana is noted for producing a convincingly weathered jacket compared to others that produced a too-new or 'store-bought' look. The presenter uses that example to show how models interpret wear, age, and photographic vs. painterly style choices, which matter for realism and narrative intent in generated images. This keyword illustrates the video’s interest in aesthetic nuance, not just technical correctness.

💡Rendering speed and cost

Rendering speed and cost are practical considerations the narrator mentions—Seedream/Cadream 4.5 is praised for fast renders and a low cost (the transcript cites prices like 4 cents and Image Art at 3 cents). These operational metrics matter to users choosing a model for production work because they affect budget and iteration speed. The video therefore balances visual quality comparisons with these real-world trade-offs when recommending which model might be ‘best’ for different use cases.

💡Model strengths and weaknesses (benchmarking)

Model strengths and weaknesses summarize the comparative outcome: each AI model often "won" at least one test, meaning different architectures or training lead to different specialties (e.g., Nano Banana for consistency, Seedream for certain physics, Image Art for some optical tasks). The presenter advocates systematic benchmarking—using the same prompts across models—to identify where a model excels or fails, giving viewers a practical way to choose a model depending on the task. This concept is the through-line of the video: testing, observing, and ranking models rather than assuming one is universally best.

💡Artistic style vs. realism

Artistic style versus realism is a recurring tension in the comparisons—some outputs look like paintings (the presenter suspects training on certain artists) while others aim for photo-realism, which affects interpretation of a prompt. For example, Seedream sometimes produced images that read more like paintings of the Mona Lisa, while other models delivered photographic textures and realistic reflections; the host notes these stylistic differences when judging which model 'succeeds' for a given prompt. This keyword helps viewers understand that 'better' depends on whether they want an artistic look or realistic fidelity.

Highlights

SeaDream 4.5 vs Nano Banana Pro vs Flux 2 vs Image Art 3.5 – A comprehensive comparison of recent AI image generation models.

SeaDream 4.5 delivers consistently strong results but struggles with certain details, especially in more complex scenarios.

Nano Banana Pro outperforms SeaDream 4.5 in simple prompts, like a robot with a glass of orange juice, by accurately rendering time and glass fill.

In contrast to SeaDream 4.5, Nano Banana Pro shows impressive results in representing a weathered lighthouse keeper in a stormy setting.

SeaDream 4.5 fails to accurately depict the requested 'hands' on the clock, showing 10:10 instead of 8:24.

Nano Banana Pro demonstrates strong performance in visualizing physics, such as the combination of hot and cold water with clear line separation.

SeaDream 4.5 makes a notable attempt at depicting physics, but issues like mismatched table colors detract from its accuracy.

When tested with fonts and text, Nano Banana Pro excels in creating mood, though Flux 2 and Image Art 3.5 offer commendable results as well.

Flux SeaDream 4.5 vs Nano Banana Pro2's depiction of a complex scene with mirrored reflections is weak compared to Nano Banana Pro, which handles the challenging prompt with more precision.

SeaDream 4.5 struggles with images requiring reflections, such as a clock showing time in both a mirror and on the wall.

The models face difficulties when asked to handle difficult reflection prompts, but SeaDream 4.5 demonstrates some success despite inaccuracies.

Nano Banana Pro takes the lead with its handling of complex visual scenarios, offering strong mirror and reflection accuracy.

SeaDream 4.5 falls short in depicting a chessboard seen through a half-full glass of water, while Image Art 3.5 performs the best with accurate reflections.

Despite a few shortcomings, SeaDream 4.5 is praised for its quick rendering speed and low cost, making it a viable option for standard image generation needs.

Each model has its strengths and weaknesses: Nano Banana Pro is consistent across simpler prompts, while SeaDream 4.5 excels in some areas of physics but lags in complex reflections.

Casual Browsing

Pictory vs Invideo vs Fliki vs Synthesia vs Lumen5 | Best AI Video Generator

2024-08-31 05:40:00

Invideo vs Lumen5 | Text to Video AI 2023

2024-08-31 05:06:00

HeyGen VS D-ID 🔥 Best AI Avatar Generator?

2024-10-02 05:18:00

D-ID VS HeyGen - Which AI Talking Avatar Tool Is Better

2024-10-02 01:58:00

Create A.I. Images with Flux-1 Locally using Python

2025-08-08 10:41:14