Turning what you have into a video

There are only two real inputs

However the conversion is phrased, one of two things is actually handed over: a subject written as a sentence, or a YouTube URL. Everything else on this page is one of those two in the reader's own vocabulary, and each page says which.

That is worth stating at the top rather than discovering at the render. A page titled "article to video" and a page titled "topic to video" describe the same machine doing the same thing, and the only honest difference between them is the words the reader arrived with.

Where a conversion needs you to do something first

The engine does not read your article, your thread or your transcript. For those, what it takes is the subject in a sentence, and it then does its own research and writes its own script rather than rewriting yours. That is a real limitation and every page here states it before the pricing rather than after, because finding out at the render is worse than reading it now.

It is also a deliberate one. A tool that rewrites your text into narration inherits every error in it and adds none of its own research; a tool that starts from the subject can check the claim and find footage that belongs to it. Which of those you want depends on whether the text you have is the point, or whether the subject behind it is.

What comes back

The same thing every time, whichever phrasing brought you here: a vertical Short with sourced research behind it, narration, real archive footage, spoken-word captions, and a credits file naming where each clip came from. Nothing on this shelf produces a different artefact; they are different doors into one room.

When the answer is the other kind of tool

If the text itself has to survive into the video word for word, this is the wrong shelf and the pages here say so. A script you have already written and approved wants a tool that reads it aloud over footage you choose. That is a different product and a legitimate one; it is simply not this one.