How I Created a Self-Directed Animated Short While Maintaining Authorship at Every Stage

The Myth of Push-Button Filmmaking

It took me roughly nine months to make a two-minute film using tools that are supposedly instantaneous.

When people talk about AI-assisted filmmaking right now, the conversation usually breaks in one of two directions: the tools are treated either like magic or like contamination. Neither framing has been especially useful to me.

What interested me was something more practical: could one independent creator, working on a limited budget and without studio infrastructure, use a hybrid workflow to complete a mythic animated short while still keeping the work visibly authored from beginning to end?

That question became the foundation for PRAYPREY: Library of the Lost Scrolls — Episode One: Scroll of the First Ember, a short film that runs just over two minutes and serves as a mythic entry point into my larger worldbuilding project, PRAYPREY.

The answer was yes. But the truth is more complicated than that. The process worked. It was also imperfect, labor-intensive, and full of tradeoffs.

This was not a push-button film. It was not effortless. And it did not happen quickly.

That nine-month timeline matters, because one of the biggest misconceptions around hybrid workflows is that they erase labor. They do not. What they can do, if used carefully, is compress certain forms of labor enough to make a project possible that would otherwise stall out under the weight of time, cost, and sheer production demand.

That was the real value for me. Not replacement. Not surrender. Compression.

I did not turn to hybrid tools because I lacked the ability to create this material myself. I turned to them because, working alone, I could not produce it at this level fast enough to complete it. The tools compressed time. The authorship remained mine.

What “Maintaining Authorship” Actually Meant

For me, authorship was never just about having the initial idea. It meant that the visual language, narrative intention, symbolic system, tone, selection, revision, and final assembly all had to remain under my control.

That started with design.

The characters appearing in the film were first drawn by hand in Procreate. The world’s sigils and symbolic language were also created by me directly. I wrote the piece, voiced the mantid narrator, designed the thumbnail and presentation materials, and keyframed and distorted a meaningful amount of the animation by hand before compositing and polishing the final material myself.

In other words, the work did not begin with a generated output. It began with authored source material.

That distinction matters to me.

There is a real difference between using tools to extend an already-authored vision and allowing tools to generate the identity of the work for you. In my case, the tools existed downstream of authorship, not upstream of it.

That does not make the process pure. It makes it directed.

The Tools I Used Were Simple, Cheap, and Accessible

One of the reasons I wanted to write about this process is that many independent creators assume animation or hybrid video work requires either a large team, a large budget, or access to expensive end-to-end software pipelines.

That was not my situation.

The workflow I used was built mostly out of low-cost, widely accessible tools, including mobile tools. That was partly financial necessity and partly creative preference. Some of the more powerful systems now emerging can absolutely do things my workflow cannot. Some can likely solve continuity or motion problems more elegantly. But many of them are expensive, very new, or structured in ways that do not necessarily preserve authorship in the way I wanted.

So I built around tools I could actually access.

From those initial Procreate sketches through editing and assembly, I relied on simple mobile tools, including LumaFusion on iPad. For certain image and video generation tasks, I used consumer-facing tools with relatively low barriers to entry. The point was not to build the most advanced pipeline possible. It was to prove that a single creator on a modest budget could still produce mythic, cinematic-looking material without waiting for ideal conditions.

I think that matters for the Stage 32 community.

A lot of creators are not choosing between a $50,000 workflow and a $5,000 workflow. They are choosing between making something with what they can access now, or not making it at all.

This short lives in that reality.

The Hidden Labor Is Still Labor

One of the fastest ways to misunderstand hybrid workflow is to mistake generated assistance for finished work.

That is not how this short came together.

Every character still had to be designed. Every symbolic element still had to be invented. The film still had to be written, voiced, structured, edited, refined, and held together tonally. Outputs had to be rejected constantly. Continuity had to be managed.

To give a concrete example: the characters in my universe are mantid-hybrids with specifically human-like hands. This is an essential piece of biological canon in the story. Forcing the software to consistently respect that anatomical crossover—without drifting into standard human hands or pure insect limbs—required intense manual oversight. The tools did not know the lore; I had to enforce it.

Good results still had to be shaped into coherent sequences. Bad results still had to be thrown away. And because this was not a full studio pipeline, some of the friction simply moved from one part of the process to another.

If a tool saved me time on one shot, I often spent that time elsewhere correcting visual drift, unifying tone, reworking pacing, compositing around imperfections, or finding ways to make disparate pieces feel like part of the same world.

Hybrid process does not eliminate craftsmanship. It relocates some of it.

In some places, it accelerates. In others, it creates new editorial burdens. The creator still has to know what belongs, what does not, and when something is close enough to the intended vision to survive into the final cut.

In that sense, the work remained deeply manual, even when certain pieces of it were assisted.

Why the Process Was Worth It Anyway

With all those caveats, why do it this way at all?

Because for a solo creator, the alternative is often paralysis.

I could have drawn, painted, animated, and composited every single element entirely by hand. I have the ability to do a great deal of that work myself. But ability and viable production scale are not the same thing.

At a certain point, the question stops being, “Can I make this?” and becomes, “Can I finish this in a form strong enough to matter?”

That is where the hybrid model became useful.

It gave me enough lift to move the project past what I could realistically execute alone at the pace available to me. It allowed me to make something more complete, more cinematic, and more immediate than would have been practical if every frame had to be built from scratch in isolation.

It did not give me the film. It gave me leverage.

That distinction is everything.

Because leverage still requires judgment. It still requires taste. It still requires authorship.

And if those things are absent, the result usually looks shallow and disposable. The problem is not machine involvement by itself. The problem is the absence of care, direction, and meaningful artistic control.

People can feel the difference.

What I Learned

The biggest lesson I came away with is that accessible does not mean easy.

This workflow was accessible. It was not effortless.

It was possible on a shoestring budget. It was not fast in any absolute sense.

It was creatively empowering. It was also technically frustrating.

It allowed one person to reach beyond some normal production limits. It also demanded constant vigilance to keep the work coherent and personal.

That combination may be the most honest way to describe the current moment for independent creators working with emerging tools.

There are real possibilities here. There are also real compromises.

The goal, at least for me, is not to pretend those compromises do not exist. It is to understand them clearly enough that the work can still remain truly yours.

That is what I mean by maintaining authorship.

Not purity. Not control over every pixel in a literal sense. But authorship in the deeper sense: the work still bears your mind, your taste, your design language, your symbolic system, your decisions, and your voice.

That is the threshold I cared about crossing with Scroll of the First Ember.

I did not want to prove that one person could automate art. I wanted to prove that one person could still author something ambitious under less-than-ideal conditions, with imperfect tools, without surrendering the soul of the piece.

I think that is a conversation worth having right now, especially among independent creators.

Because many of us are not waiting for perfect circumstances. We are building anyway.

And sometimes the real creative breakthrough is not finding a flawless process. It is finding a workable one that still leaves your fingerprints on the finished thing.

You can see the final video by clicking here!

Let's hear your thoughts in the comments below!

Got an idea for a post? Or have you collaborated with Stage 32 members to create a project? We'd love to hear about it. Email Ashley at blog@stage32.com and let's get your post published!

Please help support your fellow Stage 32ers by sharing this on social. Check out the social media buttons at the top to share on Instagram @stage32 , Twitter @stage32 , Facebook @stage32 , and LinkedIn @stage-32 .