Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Claude Opus 5.5 feels like the first model to have truly solved video animation. We one-shotted this promo video for Dub.co using Opus 5.5 High via Cursor and it worked remarkably well 🤯 h/t Pedro Ladeira for the 🔥 vid

Steven Tey

59,154 subscribers

32,449 views • 1 day ago •via X (Twitter)

Arts Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Introducing Claude Opus 5.5, the first model in our new Claude 5.5 family. It performs at the level of Claude Fable 5.1 for most tasks, and costs 40% less to run than Opus 5.

Introducing Claude Opus 5.5, the first model in our new Claude 5.5 family. It performs at the level of Claude Fable 5.1 for most tasks, and costs 40% less to run than Opus 5.

Claude

26,826,068 views • 4 days ago

Claude Opus 5 just made the best Remotion video I have ever seen. Perfect transitions. Music timing locked to the frame. Branding nailed without me asking. Fable 5 held this crown for months. Opus 5 took it in one prompt. Opus 5 significantly outperforms Fable 5 at marketing videos, and it is not close. Watch this and remember Opus 5 made it.

Claude Opus 5 just made the best Remotion video I have ever seen. Perfect transitions. Music timing locked to the frame. Branding nailed without me asking. Fable 5 held this crown for months. Opus 5 took it in one prompt. Opus 5 significantly outperforms Fable 5 at marketing videos, and it is not close. Watch this and remember Opus 5 made it.

BridgeMind

188,558 views • 2 months ago

we compared Gemini 3.1 Pro, Opus 4.7, and GPT 5.5 to Kimi K2.6, Xiaomi Mimo v2.5, and Qwen 3.6 Max in average, closed source are faster. GPT 5.5 and Opus 4.7 the fastest. Kimi K2.6 comes after. It keeps up thanks to its native INT4 quantization. MiMo took the longest, but the refinement and aesthetic only ranks after Gemini 3.1. as if a mini Gemini. Its slow cuz it's trained for long-horizon agentic work. Claude Opus 4.7 is blooming in a very different style, probably because Anthropic trains for taste, not just accuracy.

we compared Gemini 3.1 Pro, Opus 4.7, and GPT 5.5 to Kimi K2.6, Xiaomi Mimo v2.5, and Qwen 3.6 Max in average, closed source are faster. GPT 5.5 and Opus 4.7 the fastest. Kimi K2.6 comes after. It keeps up thanks to its native INT4 quantization. MiMo took the longest, but the refinement and aesthetic only ranks after Gemini 3.1. as if a mini Gemini. Its slow cuz it's trained for long-horizon agentic work. Claude Opus 4.7 is blooming in a very different style, probably because Anthropic trains for taste, not just accuracy.

GMI Cloud

39,221 views • 4 months ago

Salute to the Qwen team 🫡 We tested Qwen 3.7-Max, Gemini 3.5 Flash, GPT-5.5, and Claude Opus 4.7. The biggest shock came from Qwen. In less than a month (3.6 Max dropped April 20), Qwen went from the worst multimodal output on our sakura tree test, barely keeping up with Gemini, GPT, and Claude , to matching Gemini 3.5 Flash frame for frame on this soccer test, and outperforming GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7. It rendered a perfectly proportioned soccer player and the most lifelike ball in the entire test. Remarkable spatial reasoning. Also: Gemini 3.5 Flash is now faster than GPT-5.5, which used to be the fastest in our past tests.

Salute to the Qwen team 🫡 We tested Qwen 3.7-Max, Gemini 3.5 Flash, GPT-5.5, and Claude Opus 4.7. The biggest shock came from Qwen. In less than a month (3.6 Max dropped April 20), Qwen went from the worst multimodal output on our sakura tree test, barely keeping up with Gemini, GPT, and Claude , to matching Gemini 3.5 Flash frame for frame on this soccer test, and outperforming GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7. It rendered a perfectly proportioned soccer player and the most lifelike ball in the entire test. Remarkable spatial reasoning. Also: Gemini 3.5 Flash is now faster than GPT-5.5, which used to be the fastest in our past tests.

GMI Cloud

75,785 views • 4 months ago

I just one shotted this Flappy $DOG game using Codex 5.5 Extra High 🤯 Because of $DOG's CC0 license we are uniquely positioned to leverage AI to spread $DOG It's important that the $DOG Army becomes fluent with AI

I just one shotted this Flappy $DOG game using Codex 5.5 Extra High 🤯 Because of $DOG's CC0 license we are uniquely positioned to leverage AI to spread $DOG It's important that the $DOG Army becomes fluent with AI

Leonidas 🧡 $DOG

17,052 views • 5 months ago

This is insane! 🤯 Just built a new skill in Claude Code using Opus 4.5. The skill uses Gemini 3 Pro (via API) for designing web pages. Look at what it generated from one simple prompt.

This is insane! 🤯 Just built a new skill in Claude Code using Opus 4.5. The skill uses Gemini 3 Pro (via API) for designing web pages. Look at what it generated from one simple prompt.

elvis

152,981 views • 10 months ago

BREAKING: Anthropic just dropped Opus 4.8—and it is a MONSTER We've been testing for about a week Every 📧 and our verdict is they could've just called it Opus 5, it's that good. Here's our vibe check: - Beats GPT-5.5 on Senior Engineer bench. On our toughest benchmark Opus 4.8 scores a 63—a hair higher than GPT-5.5's score of 62, and a full 30 points higher than Opus 4.7. It tackled a ground-up rewrite of a production codebase, and actually built something that works. HOWEVER: Coding performance varied a lot at different reasoning levels. We recommend using it on xhigh for best results. - Incredibly good writer. Opus 4.8 scored a 79.6 on our writing benchmark—measuring models on real-world writing tasks we do all of the time like essay writing, promo email writing, and more. It beats GPT-5.5 by 6 points. It produces well-written prose with fewer "AI-isms". It's also very good at writing in your voice given the right context. HOWEVER: Writing performance also varied with reasoning levels. Medium reasoning had higher incidence of AI-isms—we found best results with high. - Beast at knowledge work. Opus 4.8 is very good at general knowledge work tasks like report creation, research and more. It produced the best PowerPoint one-shot we've ever seen on our deck generation benchmark. - Emotionally intelligent, willing to question the frame. I've also found it to be quite good at talking through psychological or interpersonal issues. It has a high EQ, and it's also good at not glazing and helping to expand your perspective. Its thought process feels extremely rich and dynamic. THE BAD: These days a model is only as good as its harness, and Codex is still a far superior harness to the Claude Desktop app. This has kept me using Codex + GPT-5.5 as my daily driver, but I am flipping back and forth a lot more between Codex and Claude. Anthropic is back baby! Read the rest on Every 📧:

BREAKING: Anthropic just dropped Opus 4.8—and it is a MONSTER We've been testing for about a week Every 📧 and our verdict is they could've just called it Opus 5, it's that good. Here's our vibe check: - Beats GPT-5.5 on Senior Engineer bench. On our toughest benchmark Opus 4.8 scores a 63—a hair higher than GPT-5.5's score of 62, and a full 30 points higher than Opus 4.7. It tackled a ground-up rewrite of a production codebase, and actually built something that works. HOWEVER: Coding performance varied a lot at different reasoning levels. We recommend using it on xhigh for best results. - Incredibly good writer. Opus 4.8 scored a 79.6 on our writing benchmark—measuring models on real-world writing tasks we do all of the time like essay writing, promo email writing, and more. It beats GPT-5.5 by 6 points. It produces well-written prose with fewer "AI-isms". It's also very good at writing in your voice given the right context. HOWEVER: Writing performance also varied with reasoning levels. Medium reasoning had higher incidence of AI-isms—we found best results with high. - Beast at knowledge work. Opus 4.8 is very good at general knowledge work tasks like report creation, research and more. It produced the best PowerPoint one-shot we've ever seen on our deck generation benchmark. - Emotionally intelligent, willing to question the frame. I've also found it to be quite good at talking through psychological or interpersonal issues. It has a high EQ, and it's also good at not glazing and helping to expand your perspective. Its thought process feels extremely rich and dynamic. THE BAD: These days a model is only as good as its harness, and Codex is still a far superior harness to the Claude Desktop app. This has kept me using Codex + GPT-5.5 as my daily driver, but I am flipping back and forth a lot more between Codex and Claude. Anthropic is back baby! Read the rest on Every 📧:

Dan Shipper

354,673 views • 4 months ago

New Claude Sonnet 5 performs at GPT 5.5 level 6x cheaper! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics crash demos Prompts: - A car crashes into a brick wall - A wrecking ball destroys a house - A catapult throws a rock at a castle wall Outputs: Sonnet 5: 15,047 tokens, $0.15 Opus 4.8: 23,063 tokens, $0.58 Sonnet 4.6: 25,824 tokens, $0.39 GPT 5.5: 31,152 tokens, $0.94 Sonnet 5 did as well as Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 on all three tests. In the wrecking ball test, it beat Opus 4.8. The cable moves smoothly and every hit connects. In the catapult test, it beat GPT 5.5. The rock always lands inside the wall. Sonnet 5 still needs better detail and graphics. But it used fewer tokens than every other model

New Claude Sonnet 5 performs at GPT 5.5 level 6x cheaper! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics crash demos Prompts: - A car crashes into a brick wall - A wrecking ball destroys a house - A catapult throws a rock at a castle wall Outputs: Sonnet 5: 15,047 tokens, $0.15 Opus 4.8: 23,063 tokens, $0.58 Sonnet 4.6: 25,824 tokens, $0.39 GPT 5.5: 31,152 tokens, $0.94 Sonnet 5 did as well as Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 on all three tests. In the wrecking ball test, it beat Opus 4.8. The cable moves smoothly and every hit connects. In the catapult test, it beat GPT 5.5. The rock always lands inside the wall. Sonnet 5 still needs better detail and graphics. But it used fewer tokens than every other model

atomic.chat

729,349 views • 2 months ago

Claude Fable 5 and Opus 5 are #1 when it comes to UI. GPT 5.6 Sol and Grok 4.6 don't come anywhere close to the design capabilities that Claude models have. Even though Fable 5 and Opus 5 are slow and expensive I keep finding myself reaching for them for design. This hero section was made with Fable 5 and Opus 5.

Claude Fable 5 and Opus 5 are #1 when it comes to UI. GPT 5.6 Sol and Grok 4.6 don't come anywhere close to the design capabilities that Claude models have. Even though Fable 5 and Opus 5 are slow and expensive I keep finding myself reaching for them for design. This hero section was made with Fable 5 and Opus 5.

BridgeMind

58,743 views • 1 month ago

LongCat performed Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 level on real physics tasks for $0! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics Prompts: - A cannon demolishing a brick wall - A bowling ball knocking down the pins - A tornado that sucks in random objects Outputs: LongCat: 18,015 tokens, $0.00 Opus 4.8: 18,872 tokens, $0.48 GPT 5.5: 32,588 tokens, $0.98 GLM 5.2: 31,062 tokens, $0.09 On the physics LongCat came out ahead of Opus 4.8 and GLM 5.2 - cleaner collisions, nothing clipping or falling through. On detail and rendering it matched GPT 5.5, the best looking of the four. Getting this quality for free is wild!

LongCat performed Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 level on real physics tasks for $0! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics Prompts: - A cannon demolishing a brick wall - A bowling ball knocking down the pins - A tornado that sucks in random objects Outputs: LongCat: 18,015 tokens, $0.00 Opus 4.8: 18,872 tokens, $0.48 GPT 5.5: 32,588 tokens, $0.98 GLM 5.2: 31,062 tokens, $0.09 On the physics LongCat came out ahead of Opus 4.8 and GLM 5.2 - cleaner collisions, nothing clipping or falling through. On detail and rendering it matched GPT 5.5, the best looking of the four. Getting this quality for free is wild!

atomic.chat

105,523 views • 2 months ago

$35 OF FREE CLAUDE OPUS 5 CREDITS FOR A WEEK, NO CARD ANYWHERE • the credit > Sign up with Google and the trial activates on its own, nothing to claim manually: > Opus 5 sits alongside Opus 4.8, Sonnet 4.6 and Haiku on the same key. > The window runs a week from activation. • wiring it up > base url: > model id: claude-opus-5 > In OpenCode Desktop hit Ctrl+, and add a custom provider with the id aerolink. > The same key drops into Codex, Cursor and Claude Code with nothing else changed. One key, not locked to one client -> every tool that takes a custom OpenAI-compatible endpoint reads it the same way. It routes through a third-party proxy rather than an official Anthropic channel, so keep client work off it ↓

$35 OF FREE CLAUDE OPUS 5 CREDITS FOR A WEEK, NO CARD ANYWHERE • the credit > Sign up with Google and the trial activates on its own, nothing to claim manually: > Opus 5 sits alongside Opus 4.8, Sonnet 4.6 and Haiku on the same key. > The window runs a week from activation. • wiring it up > base url: > model id: claude-opus-5 > In OpenCode Desktop hit Ctrl+, and add a custom provider with the id aerolink. > The same key drops into Codex, Cursor and Claude Code with nothing else changed. One key, not locked to one client -> every tool that takes a custom OpenAI-compatible endpoint reads it the same way. It routes through a third-party proxy rather than an official Anthropic channel, so keep client work off it ↓

slash1s

21,080 views • 1 month ago

You don’t have to use one model (or one provider!) for everything. With Workshop, you can combine frontier and local models in the same workflow. For example: Opus can be the main agent, and delegate specific tasks to Gemma 4 via subagents. Better quality where it matters. Better privacy, speed, and cost where it counts. One workflow, best model for each task.

You don’t have to use one model (or one provider!) for everything. With Workshop, you can combine frontier and local models in the same workflow. For example: Opus can be the main agent, and delegate specific tasks to Gemma 4 via subagents. Better quality where it matters. Better privacy, speed, and cost where it counts. One workflow, best model for each task.

Workshop AI

962,487 views • 5 months ago

Grok 4.5 is sitting at #2 on the FrontierSWE leaderboard. Above Claude Opus 4.8. Above GPT-5.5. So yes, the coding model conversation just got a little more crowded at the top. Strong performance is one thing. Doing it with serious speed, better token efficiency, and lower cost is where it gets annoying for everyone else. Builders love a smart model. SpaceXAI Grok X Freeze / Writer: Annette, Designer: Janné

Grok 4.5 is sitting at #2 on the FrontierSWE leaderboard. Above Claude Opus 4.8. Above GPT-5.5. So yes, the coding model conversation just got a little more crowded at the top. Strong performance is one thing. Doing it with serious speed, better token efficiency, and lower cost is where it gets annoying for everyone else. Builders love a smart model. SpaceXAI Grok X Freeze / Writer: Annette, Designer: Janné

Mario Nawfal

44,365 views • 2 months ago

everyone's sharing motion graphic videos that Opus 5.5 made, and it's genuinely insane everyone says they created it with "one prompt", but my one prompt video looked mid so i went through a bunch of these videos to see how they were actually made, and found the workflow that works here's how to generate pro level motion graphic videos w/ opus: 1. get reference videos to direct from -> pick 1-2 videos whose style you want and tell opus to match them. naming a style works way better than describing one without a reference, opus falls back to its default look: centered text, gradient background, everything fading in that's why so many of these videos look the same. a reference gives it the pacing, the type and the transitions to copy 2. install HyperFrames or Remotion so opus can build the video both let opus write every scene as code and render it straight to mp4. no video editor without one, opus can only describe a video or hand you a rough html page you have to screen record with it, every frame is exact, and when you ask for a change it edits one line and re-renders instead of starting over 3. install 21st for high quality components in the video real buttons, cards and UI components made by design engineers, instead of whatever opus invents on the spot without it, opus draws your product UI from scratch and it looks off. wrong spacing, placeholder boxes, fake-looking buttons anyone who's used good software can feel it in a second, and the whole video reads as cheap 4. steps 1-3 were context + setup. now dump all of it into opus your brand (logo, colors, fonts), screenshots of your real product, the reference video, and a quick braindump of how you see the video then ask for 3 storyboard variants without this, opus guesses your colors, your font and what your product even does. the video could be for any startup with it, it could only be yours. and 3 variants means you pick a direction instead of fixing the first idea it had 5. pick the storyboard you like ask for one still frame per scene before anything moves. fixing a storyboard is way cheaper than fixing a render without this step, you only find out scene 4 is wrong after the whole thing is animated, and every fix means re-rendering. a still frame takes seconds to change 6. let claude cook then give notes like a director: "slow every zoom to 0.7x", "hard cut here", "push in on the button" without notes, the first render is usually 80% there, and that last 20% is what makes it look pro. vague notes like "make it better" get random changes. camera words get exactly the change you want everyone has the same model. the context you give it is what makes it look pro let it cooookk

Rexan Wong

452,203 views • 1 day ago

Codex cooked for 12 hours 19 minutes last night using a /goal 🎉 It added: - Stopwatch (count up) - Clock (with seconds) - Pomodoro - Tabata - Autocomplete Everything worked except the UI interactions around auto-complete (Codex GPT-5.5 is still not great at UI, but even Claude Opus 4.8 Ultracode struggled here). Overall, I'm really happy with the results. These are features that I've wanted for a while, and getting them close to release is awesome.

Codex cooked for 12 hours 19 minutes last night using a /goal 🎉 It added: - Stopwatch (count up) - Clock (with seconds) - Pomodoro - Tabata - Autocomplete Everything worked except the UI interactions around auto-complete (Codex GPT-5.5 is still not great at UI, but even Claude Opus 4.8 Ultracode struggled here). Overall, I'm really happy with the results. These are features that I've wanted for a while, and getting them close to release is awesome.

Paul Solt

48,887 views • 2 months ago

ANTHROPIC JUST DROPPED THE OFFICIAL GUIDE TO PROMPTING OPUS 5 This is the most important prompting guide for anyone using Claude. Bookmark this before you forget. Most people still prompt Opus 5 like older models. That's the mistake. > give the complete task upfront — don't drip-feed instructions. > explicitly ask for shorter responses if you want them. > use low/medium effort by default. increase effort only when needed. > let it finish the entire feature instead of asking for partial implementations. > use subagents intentionally for large codebases, not every task. Opus 5 is at its best when you stop micromanaging it and let it own the work. Read it before writing your next prompt. Claude → Opus 5 → Agentic Execution → Production-Ready Output → Money

ANTHROPIC JUST DROPPED THE OFFICIAL GUIDE TO PROMPTING OPUS 5 This is the most important prompting guide for anyone using Claude. Bookmark this before you forget. Most people still prompt Opus 5 like older models. That's the mistake. > give the complete task upfront — don't drip-feed instructions. > explicitly ask for shorter responses if you want them. > use low/medium effort by default. increase effort only when needed. > let it finish the entire feature instead of asking for partial implementations. > use subagents intentionally for large codebases, not every task. Opus 5 is at its best when you stop micromanaging it and let it own the work. Read it before writing your next prompt. Claude → Opus 5 → Agentic Execution → Production-Ready Output → Money

Rahul

407,371 views • 2 months ago

This UI was one-shotted using a video as the prompt. It captures interactions, full flows, and animations — stuff that is typically painful to prompt for. Looking for early adopters to try our new Video → UI feature 👀

This UI was one-shotted using a video as the prompt. It captures interactions, full flows, and animations — stuff that is typically painful to prompt for. Looking for early adopters to try our new Video → UI feature 👀

Teddy Ni

30,819 views • 9 months ago

claude design is my all time favorite anthropic drop this year, even more than opus 4.7 its actually really really good at design and the "handoff to claude code" makes it basically copy/paste ui to the actual working product claude design made the entire ui for merl (full video on merl soon)

claude design is my all time favorite anthropic drop this year, even more than opus 4.7 its actually really really good at design and the "handoff to claude code" makes it basically copy/paste ui to the actual working product claude design made the entire ui for merl (full video on merl soon)

ashen

369,100 views • 5 months ago

HERMES AGENT NOW RUNS CLAUDE OPUS 5. NEAR FABLE 5 INTELLIGENCE. HALF THE PRICE. SELF-VERIFIES ITS OWN WORK. AVAILABLE TODAY VIA NOUS PORTAL (20% OFF ALL MODELS). Anthropic shipped Opus 5 on July 24, 2026. same $5/$25 per million tokens as Opus 4.8. but the benchmarks tell a different story. WHAT CHANGED FROM OPUS 4.8: FrontierBench v0.1: Opus 5: 43.3%. Opus 4.8: 18.7%. 2.3x jump on the same test. ARC-AGI-3: Opus 5: 30.2%. 3x better than the next closest model. beat Fable 5 on 8 out of 13 benchmarks. at half the cost ($5/$25 vs $10/$50). same price as Opus 4.8. twice the intelligence. no reason to stay on 4.8. THE SPECS: model ID: claude-opus-5 context: 1M tokens (default and maximum) max output: 128K tokens thinking: on by default effort toggle: low / medium / high per request fast mode: $10/$50, 2.5x faster knowledge cutoff: May 2026 minimum cacheable prompt: 512 tokens (was 1,024) SELF-VERIFICATION (the biggest change): Opus 5 checks its own work automatically. Anthropic says: delete your verification prompts. "include a final verification step" now causes OVER-verification because the model already does it. for Hermes /goal tasks this is a direct upgrade. the judge checks evidence. the model also checks evidence. double layer of verification without extra tokens. EFFORT TOGGLE: low: fast, cheap, routine work. medium: balanced, daily tasks. high: full reasoning, complex problems. set per request. not a global switch. matches Hermes /reasoning command: /reasoning low (routine) /reasoning high (complex) Opus 5 effort toggle + Hermes reasoning control = precise cost management per turn. WHERE OPUS 5 FITS IN HERMES: DAILY DRIVER (replaces Opus 4.8): same price. 2.3x better benchmarks. set as your main model: Desktop app / Dashboard: Models → claude-opus-5 CHIEF OF STAFF: synthesis across multiple agents. reads Kanban, prioritizes, routes tasks. self-verification catches routing errors before they cascade. COMPLEX CODING: SOTA on agentic coding benchmarks. FrontierBench 43.3% = best public model for coding. set as coder profile model. /GOAL TASKS: self-verification + completion contracts = the model proves its work AND double-checks the proof. long-horizon goals finish correctly more often. MoA AGGREGATOR: strongest synthesis model at $5/$25. pair with GPT-5.6 and Grok 4.5 as references. Opus 5 aggregates. best quality at mid-range price. presets: max-quality: reference_models: - provider: openai-codex model: gpt-5.6-sol - provider: xai model: grok-4.5 aggregator: provider: anthropic model: claude-opus-5 COMPUTER USE: near-Fable 5 quality for browser automation. at half the token cost per session. computer_use tasks burn lots of vision tokens. Opus 5 halves that bill vs Fable 5. WHAT TO KEEP OPUS 5 AWAY FROM: cron monitoring: too expensive. use DeepSeek or no_agent mode. sub-agent grunt work: use GPT-5.6 Luna ($1/$6) or DeepSeek. auxiliary tasks: use Gemini Flash. routine web extraction: use a cheap model. Opus 5 is for the turns where quality compounds. planning, synthesis, verification, complex reasoning. budget models handle everything else. NOUS PORTAL: 20% OFF ALL MODELS Nous Portal currently runs a 20% discount on all models including Opus 5. $5/$25 official → $4/$20 through Nous Portal. the cheapest way to run Opus 5 right now. hermes setup --portal select claude-opus-5 as your model. discount applies automatically. Opus 5 replaces Opus 4.8 everywhere. same price. better at everything. no tradeoff. straight upgrade. hermes update /model claude-opus-5

YanXbt

16,744 views • 2 months ago

👀 Since GLM-5.3-Flash supports vision... We gave the models a koi pond image as a reference and asked them to recreate it as an animation. Claude Opus 5, GLM-5.3-Flash, and Kimi K3 all followed the instruction really well, and the water movement they created is awesome too. Which one do you think did it best? 👇

👀 Since GLM-5.3-Flash supports vision... We gave the models a koi pond image as a reference and asked them to recreate it as an animation. Claude Opus 5, GLM-5.3-Flash, and Kimi K3 all followed the instruction really well, and the water movement they created is awesome too. Which one do you think did it best? 👇

TypingMind

69,985 views • 29 days ago