Answer: Seedance's standard route handles most real-face references — a clean photograph of a person usually conditions the shot without complaint. The ultra-wide route exists for the cases the standard review refuses: it is a broader moderation path, supports real-face references by design, and costs 1.5× to 2.1× the standard rate at the same resolution.
The published moderation page reads conservatively on this — it lists real-person depictions as prohibited — and that wording is why people assume the model cannot hold a face at all. In practice the standard route passes the majority of ordinary real-face jobs; the refusal is the model's review being stricter than the brief, not a blanket ban.
What the two routes actually do
| Standard route | Ultra-wide route | |
|---|---|---|
| Real-face references | usually accepted | the intended use |
| Review path | the model's own check | broader moderation |
| Price, 2.0 Mini 480P | 2 credits / s | 3 credits / s |
| Price, 2.5 1080P | 21 credits / s | 45 credits / s |
| Subscription needed | Starter or higher | Starter or higher |
| Refund on refusal | automatic | automatic |
So the working rule is: try standard first, move to ultra-wide when the review says no. Standard is cheaper and, for ordinary ports of a real photograph into a shot, it is where most jobs succeed.
The checklist that gets a real-face job through
- One clean reference per person. Frontal, evenly lit, no sunglasses, no heavy filter. Two photos of the same face average into a third person.
- Give the image a job. "The woman from @Image1" beats "use the reference". It tells the model which decision that photograph owns.
- State what must not change, then what should. Identity, wardrobe and framing first; camera, light and environment second.
- Write the beat, not the vibe. A shot that says what happens reads better than four adjectives: "she turns from the window, the coat catches the light, she looks at the door".
- Consent is yours to hold. Uploading a photograph of someone else is a representation that you have the right to use it. The acceptable-use policy applies on both routes, and a wider review path is not a licence.
- No public figures. Even on ultra-wide, recognisable third parties are a liability rather than a feature.
What it costs, concretely
| Job | Route | Credits | USD at settlement |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 s · 2.0 Mini · 480P | standard | 10 | $0.10 |
| 5 s · 2.0 Mini · 480P fallback | ultra-wide | 15 | $0.15 |
| 5 s · 2.0 Mini · 720P | ultra-wide | 30 | $0.30 |
| 10 s · 2.5 · 720P | standard | 120 | $1.20 |
| 10 s · 2.5 · 1080P | ultra-wide | 450 | $4.50 |
A reference video adds an input-duration charge on top. Twice the resolution is not twice the price here — it is 2.5×.
The failure you will see, and what to do with it
If the standard review refuses the job, it is a guideline refusal rather than a silent downgrade:
Your content violated community guidelines.No task is created at the prompt-screening stage, so nothing is charged. If a job passes screening and fails later, the credits are refunded automatically after reconciliation and the activity page shows a refund note.
The response is not to rewrite adjectives. Change one of three things: the route (ultra-wide), the reference (a synthetic face, or a different photograph of the same person), or the subject (a scene that does not hinge on a recognisable individual).
When ultra-wide is the wrong choice
- The standard route already passes. You are paying 1.5–2.1× for a path you did not need.
- Fully synthetic people. If the character is generated rather than photographed, standard is cheaper and the review is the one designed for it.
- You are still testing composition. Draft framing with a synthetic face, then re-run the approved shot with the real reference.
- The brief needs a brand. Neither route passes trademark-heavy prompts reliably; generic descriptions travel further.
FAQ
Does the standard route accept real faces? In most cases, yes. It is the cheapest route that does, and ultra-wide is the fallback for refusals.
Does ultra-wide guarantee a pass? No. It is a broader path with a review, not automatic approval.
Can I use real faces without a subscription? No. Both routes require an active Starter plan or higher.
What if the prompt passes but the frames fail? That is the visual layer: the job fails during or after generation and the credits are refunded after reconciliation.
The six worked real-face examples are on Callirra's wide-limit page, the review rules are published at the Seedance community guidelines, and both routes run from the video generator. If you have a reference set that passes on standard every time, the prompt and the photograph are the two things worth sharing.