flux-3-cinematic-inserts

name	flux-3-cinematic-inserts
description	Use when writing a FLUX 3 text-to-video prompt for a standalone shot. Covers shot craft, reliable concept patterns, camera, continuity, and review.
metadata	{"author":"Black Forest Labs","version":"1.0.0","tags":"flux, flux-3, bfl, text-to-video, cinematic, b-roll, prompting"}

FLUX 3 Cinematic Inserts

Build one standalone shot around one motivated physical or atmospheric event: B-roll, a bridge, a material detail, a capability test. Reroute when success requires supplied media (flux-3-keyframes-continuation), exact typography, frame-accurate sync, a multi-step mechanism, close human performance, or finished ad copy; those need conditioning or post, not a text-only generation.

Before writing, settle the contract in one sentence: the visible cause, the physical response, and the payoff. Then pick a proven lane from references/field-guide.md (atmospheric light in a medium, wet reflections, viscous macro, tactile contact and ignition, restrained noir); treat anything it marks experimental or parked as a test, not a promise.

Write the shot in this order:

1. Opening frame: composition, subject, setting, light.
2. Visible cause: source and contact point in the same frame as the response.
3. Physical response: direction, material behavior, restraint.
4. Payoff: one final state that works as an edit point or a still.
5. Continuity contract: same set and geometry; no cuts, transitions, frozen or repeated frames, or resets.
6. Audio intent: name material textures; route critical sync and mixing to post.

Camera is one physical contract: framing, angle, movement, focus. A locked-off camera cannot track; an extreme close-up cannot establish. Locked and deliberate by default; move only when it serves the event.

Style must be visible: "tense" becomes rigid posture, shallow breathing, and a slow push-in; "vintage" becomes a named capture format, grain structure, and practical light. No unmotivated sparks, bells, or effects.

Draft first (draft: true) while the concept is unproven, and judge the draft on event legibility, composition, camera, and continuity; softness is the low-step trade and resolves at full quality. Iterate as a ladder, one consequential change per variant: event geometry, then material or light, then composition, then duration. After two structurally similar misses, change the concept or the production method, not the adjectives. Review the result with references/review-scorecard.md: a technically valid clip still has to be useful, physically legible, deliberate, and interesting.

Hand the finished prompt to flux-3-generate as a text-only request, with the risks and anything post must own.