> Photoshop-, After Effects-, and Blender-class video tools

Look, you can’t just write this. When you say something like this, you set the bar extremely high, and open yourself up to (totally fair!) criticism if Photoshop or After Effects gurus point out entire classes of use cases you aren’t handling.

If you want people to talk about what your tool is good at, you need to stop inviting comparisons to titans like this. It will take you a long long time to build something as fully featured as them, and there is plenty of room for agent-focused tools that aren’t at that immense product scale.

"But I didn't write it" is usually the defense. Just following the sat nav honest officer!

I meant as it's engine includes features from those but you're right, I will use a better wording.

I wish this advice was more commonly heeded. Overselling and under delivering just builds negative sentiment.

Info-dense, completely unreadable README.md file. Only the line "No Puppeteer, no Chromium IPC, no `page.screenshot()`" actually allowed me to figure out what this is about: creating video demos of your website (and probably other software as well) with an AI agent, rather than going through the conventional video-editing process.

It's cool that so many people are building useful tools with LLMs, but for the love of ones and zeroes, people! PLEASE write your README by hand, instead of handing it off to the LLM with no human involvement! You know how unreadable LLM prose is! Why do you make that the first thing people see when they see your repo?

I mean, I'd even be happy(-ish) with a README that starts out "Apologies for the LLM text below, but this is still in heavy development, and I haven't gotten around to writing a proper README yet. In the meantime, though, here's something the LLM slapped together which is at least better than nothing."

Stick that in front of your wall of LLM text, and I'd at least have confidence that some day you're going to come back and make the README readable.

Please, at least provide a human-understandable TL;DR... That could even be your prompt for generating the wall of text no-one reads.

I doubt the "author" even read that README

sorry everyone is being mean to you

If somebody thinks "this product is flawed in this specific way" is being mean to them, that person might not be well-suited as a programmer.

If somebody thinks "this product is flawed in this specific way" is a bug report and an indicator of something to be fixed (assuming the bug report is valid, some bug reports aren't), then that person has the hacker ethos and will produce good products.

There are a couple comments that do fit the "being mean" framing, yes. But most of the comments here are along the lines of "here's a flaw in the product which would make it better if it was fixed". For example, my own comment pointing out the unreadability of the LLM-generated README: I pointed out a flaw and how to fix it. (I also made a point of mentioning that it seemed like a useful tool. I didn't spend too long on that point, because the bug report ("make your README human-readable, please") was the main point of my comment). But if someone were to take a comment like mine, pointing out a flaw and suggesting a way to fix it, as "being mean", then I would kindly suggest that that person find a different job than software engineering. Because every time the compiler says "Syntax Error", it's pointing out a flaw in your code. Any person who can't handle flaws in their work being pointed out, can't handle this job.

Please not here. There are 20 vibe-coded "99% photoshop" projects posted every hour. It's a meme on r/vibecoding .

IMO we need less "photoshop and blender for AI", more `rails new my_proj` for video.

I have a project like this: it setups up a scaffolding: scripts, audio tracks, hot-reloading authoring UI, TTS/STT, sfx, music, shared-styles, beats, video composing, time-control for deterministic rendering, etc. Then you can use any web-technology to render (webGPU, Lottie, shadcn, SVG, whatever).

https://github.com/scosman/videowright

Gitframes seems like a confusing name, trying to piggyback off git popularity, while being unrelated.

The banner even suggests that this is a git-related project. https://github.com/gatewai-dev/gitframes/blob/main/assets/br...

I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that it's literally trademarked and the owner has some thoughts on exactly what's happening here: https://git-scm.com/about/trademark

Thanks for the warning. gitframes is now renamed to framefields.

Feels like AI hit a key point in these last releases where their ability to edit videos jumped significantly.

Someone at work recorded a demo of a new feature using Claude + https://github.com/veedstudio/open-edit

It was pretty slick and he said he only did two passes on it. Not sure what it means for Adobe, but hopefully it lights a fire under them.

Yes, I agree. Especially Opus-5.5 is incredible. I even used "medium" thinking for the example videos and it spent about ~25 minutes to create.

Means nothing to editors who are editing for a specific effect/market. Current GUI tools are fine.

I've been doing little informational videos with Opus 5.5 [1]. The jump in capability floored me the first time I saw it in action. Clearly something happened in this last generation. That particular video took it about 45 minutes and I think it spent less than a $1 on OpenRouter for the voice over / sound.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijFFpMpS8W0

So much is about the tools, imo. The "Upping my P(Doom)" video is all p5.js. That's also going to be radically more token efficient!

https://github.com/JohnHeibel/PDoomVideo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j-hR4fJywU

The readme is too busy, but the video showcase is impressive [0].

I agree the framing is too arrogant though, about replacing blender etc, except if it's delegating the computing to those, because it is very complicated.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6IQNrhJJek

I am clearly not the target audience, but as a hobbyist that has used da vinci resolve at points i understand basically nothing of what the software actually is supposed to do

basically it is a toolkit for agents (or developers) to create and render media using code. it's video editing where you describe the video instead of clicking or dragging stuff.

I suppose the ability for a strong coding-focused LLM to create the "video code" needed to produce a video is the selling point here. It's a good idea, but my naive thought is that it will be more work and more expensive to use this tool/process if you have strict requirements and opinions about the result.

I'm basing this on my experience with vibe coding; asking an LLM to regurgitate code which compiles and does something is easy, but having it produce a meaningful project with changing/evolving requirements along the way, which follows an idea you are trying to describe carefully but evidently not well enough, is significantly harder and error prone [1].

At this point in my project I'm not sure if using Claude as the only way to implement changes was actually faster or better, vs. implementing it myself where an LLM only assists with functions and overall guidance. I feel that up to half of what Claude spends its tokens on at this point is fixing old code whenever it needs to work on the core functionality in some areas of my project.

[1] CoBirb hobby project: https://github.com/HeckerBirb/CoBirb/

Yes, agents are not precise as humans especially in media generation (for now) although it helps non-professionals to create videos that is at least usable for some.

Also, interesting project!

Thank you! :) Getting "Flock Mode" to function the way I wanted it to has been a bit of a challenge. I'm trying to design a tool that I basically don't have the hardware to fully utilize yet - which means my tests are (negatively) influenced by the weaker models I'm able to use. I tried using Qwen3.8 but since most of it runs in CPU/RAM on my PC, the full benchmark (that Claude has figured it wants to run to compare progress) was estimated to take 15 hours or more.

...and WoW: Forever Beta just released... :) :)

Did you show this to like one human before you shared it with the world? It would have saved you a lot of grief

I wonder what it would make of the transcript of "Flying Logos", Homer and Associate's demo reel shown at SIGGRAPH 1989 Electronic Theater.

The year before, the committee decided demos were a no go. Peter Conn wrote Flying Logos to sneak their demo reel into the film show by turning it into a story: a client calls Flying Logos, Inc. to visualize a logo, technical vs. anticipated, imagination vs. possibility. It worked!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hIOfEiy4lc

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36751574

>Coco Conn and Paul Rother wrote this up about what they did with FORTH at HOMER & Assoc, who made some really classic music videos including Atomic Dog, and hired Charles Moore himself! Here's what Coco Conn posted about it, and some discussion and links about it that I'm including with her permission: [...]

>First shown at the 1989 Siggraph Electronic Theater to a rave response, this 3 minute humourous film went on to win several top computer graphic awards that same year including Niccograph of Japan.

>Coco: This was a show favorite at the SIGGRAPH film show that year. The year before the conference committee decided that showing demos wasn't the way to go anymore. Peter wrote Flying Logos as a way to sneak our demo reel into the show by turning it into a story. It worked and we made it into the film show.

>Don: I truly believe that in some other alternate dimension, there is a Flying Logo Heaven where the souls of dead flying logos go, where they dramatically promenade and swoop and spin around each other in pomp and pageantry to bombastic theme music. It would make a great screen saver, at least! Somewhere the Sun Logo and the SGI Logo are still dancing together.

Definitely using it for my next promo-site which is for event that comes in one month. People be blown. Also I wonder what was used for the audio synthesis, if author reads.

here's my last work that need quite a lot of work to get where it is, but I know what I do also:

bsf.hmsu.org

works on mobile as old as iphone12

Please remove git from your project's name. By your logic, every software project that uses git could have git in its name.

Is it me ( and my eyesight ) or is the text a bit fuzzy in their example videos?

I think YouTube just defaults to a lower resolution (was like 360p in auto when I opened it) maybe because it's mostly text (cause I noticed that too), but you can change it to be 1080p on the settings cog on the video.

Is it just me or the launch video sample (aside from needing an epileptic warning), is just not very good.

Why does it keep saying "in the browser," but then there's no way to see these running in the browser?

Wouldn't that be trivially easy to do?

really nice to see this! whoever builds the creative software suite with agents as first class citizens will probably win

Oh, brilliant. I can cut video with a single click and rearrange clips by dragging and dropping, but now I will have to install npm (and all of the vulnerabilities) to dick around with LLMs via a bunch of APIs.

Oh, brilliant. I can do source control by just sending .diff file via email to my colleges...

No but to be serious, I don't know how well this works but it CLEARLY targets people who want motion graphic animation / keyframe stuff, that you normally would do with AE. If you just want to cut a few clips it's not even targeting you. No reason to get all upset about it.