We understand your product because we build them ourselves.
Lumaris Studio was built by engineers who got tired of watching technically wrong videos represent technically brilliant products. The team that makes your videos has written the same kind of code you're building.
The commit history
of a studio built by engineers.
Before a single video was produced, there were ten years of engineering. Microsoft/GitHub. IBM. Marko Živić spent a decade as a Team Lead and Product Owner writing production code, managing engineering teams, and shipping software products to enterprise clients. He learned how software is actually built, not how it's explained in a demo.
While reviewing vendor-produced videos for technical products at his day job, Marko noticed a pattern: every video had errors. Wrong syntax. Inaccurate commands. Misleading architecture diagrams. The companies making these videos were not the problem, they were competent videographers. The problem was structural: they didn't understand the technology they were filming.
The decision wasn't to become a videographer. It was to build the studio that should have existed already. One where the editors have programming backgrounds, where every script is verified by developers before a frame is touched, and where the structural claim "video editors who write code" is a literal description of the team, not marketing copy.
The first major client validated the premise immediately. The brief went in. The editor read the codebase. No briefing call required. First draft delivered. Zero revision rounds on technical accuracy. The client shipped a video explaining AI-assisted code review to a developer audience and every claim in it was correct.
JetBrains. MongoDB. Warp. Sentry. Clerk. Tech World with Nana. Code with Antonio. Each new client tested the same premise. Each delivery held the same record. The technical accuracy guarantee, "if you find an error, your next video is free" was offered publicly because 200 videos had already proven it was safe to offer.
200+ videos delivered. Zero syntax errors maintained. Currently accepting 2 new clients. The studio that was built to fix a structural problem in technical video production is now the proof that the problem is fixable and that the fix holds at scale.
Technical video production is structurally broken.
It's not that production companies are bad at their jobs. It's that the job was defined wrong. Great cinematography and great technical understanding are treated as separate disciplines. They're not separate, they're inseparable.
When an editor doesn't understand your product, the revision cycle becomes a tutoring session. Your engineers spend hours explaining what a Dockerfile is. Your PM manages feedback rounds that should never have existed. Your content calendar slips. And the developer audience watching the final video can tell something is off, even if they can't explain why.
Hire the engineers first. Teach them video second.
We didn't hire videographers and train them in technical products. We hired people with programming backgrounds and trained them in production. The sequence matters. Someone who has used Kubernetes, read API documentation, and debugged a CI pipeline approaches a technical brief differently than someone who just learned what those words mean.
The result isn't just fewer revision rounds. It's a fundamentally different production process. One where accuracy is built in, not checked for at the end.
Every project starts with documentation review and, where possible, repository access. The editor understands the product at the code level before the first word of script is written.
A separate internal development team reviews every code snippet, terminal command, and architecture diagram before you see the draft. Errors are caught at the production stage, not the revision stage.
If a technical inaccuracy reaches you, your next video is free. The guarantee isn't generous, it's structurally safe to offer because the process makes it nearly impossible to violate. 200+ videos. Zero invocations.
We hired engineers who wanted to make videos. Not videographers who needed to learn code.
The distinction sounds subtle. In practice it's the difference between an editor who asks "what's a container registry?" and one who already knows and flags when your Dockerfile example won't actually work in the environment you're describing.
Not "understand tech concepts." Read, run, and verify actual production code. That's the baseline requirement, not a differentiator. Every editor, every script writer, every motion designer on this team has cleared it.
We've edited content in every major domain developer tools companies operate in. When a new client comes in, the onboarding is calibration, not education. We already know the domain. We're learning the product.
On the Growth plan and above, there's no account manager between you and the person making your video. Direct communication means faster context transfer, fewer misunderstandings, and no phone-tag with someone who wasn't in the last call.
Starting from the problem has kept us honest. We didn't build this because we loved video. We built it because technically wrong content was making technically excellent products look bad and nobody in the market was fixing it structurally. The only way to fix it structurally is to hire differently.
Marko Živić · Founder & CEO, Lumaris Studio✓ All 14 code blocks: syntax valid
✓ All commands: exit code 0
✓ 3/3 diagrams: architecturally accurate
⚠ 1 endpoint path updated in latest release
↳ Auto-corrected: /v2/review → /v3/review
✓ Draft cleared for client delivery
// Client never saw the API path issue.
The process that makes the guarantee possible.
The technical accuracy guarantee isn't a marketing claim. It's the output of a validation layer that runs on every single deliverable, not on request, not on complex projects, on everything. Here is what it actually looks like in production.
Before any draft reaches the client, it has passed through a separate internal review process. A development team member, someone not involved in the edit itself goes through every technical element and verifies it against the client's actual stack and documentation.
200+ videos. Zero technical inaccuracies delivered to a client. The process works because it runs every time, not because we got lucky.
The numbers behind the work.
Every number below is from real client work. None are projections.
The team behind your videos.
Marko spent a decade writing production code before picking up a camera. That decade isn't backstory, it's the product. Every system Lumaris has built: the validation pipeline, the briefing process, the guarantee, the hiring criteria is a direct output of watching technical video production fail from the inside of the companies it was supposed to serve.
He leads every client relationship at the Foundation tier and oversees technical validation across all plans. When a client's codebase lands in the intake form, Marko reads it. Not because he has to, but because it's how the first brief gets right without a briefing call.
Ljubica owns the creative output. Every visual system Lumaris produces, the motion design language, the way technical diagrams are animated, the pacing of a product demo against a code walkthrough runs through her. Technical accuracy and visual quality are not in tension in her work. They're the same standard.
The creative direction at Lumaris is built on a single principle: a technically wrong visual is a bad visual, regardless of how polished it looks. Ljubica's background in visual communication combined with deep exposure to technical content means she reads a brief for accuracy before she reads it for aesthetics.
Ready to work with a team that already understands your product?
No pitch deck. A direct conversation about your content needs and whether we're the right fit.