[justusm]

Hey! I'm pasting a slightly modified comment from our previous Show HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40646741), where I explained this in detail:

Revideo is different to Remotion.dev in a couple of ways: First, we use generator functions to describe the flow of animations - every yield within the generator function corresponds to a frame in the video. As a result, our API is very imperative (animations described at the start of the function appear in the start of the video, animations described at the end appear at the end). Remotion's React-based approach is rather declarative - it gives you a frame number and lets you describe what your video should look like as a function of the frame number. Personally, we find our "procedural" API a bit more intuitive and easier to write than the declarative approach, but we might obviously be biased here.

Secondly, we render to the HTML canvas instead of the DOM. Both have advantages and disadvantages: Rendering to the DOM lets you define animations using CSS, which most programmers are already familiar with. On the other hand, an advantage of using the HTML canvas is that it should allow you to render entirely in the browser rather than using server-side rendering, as you can simply capture the current canvas using canvas.toBlob(). We have not yet implemented this for Revideo, but people in our Discord server have made good progress towards it. Also, capturing the frame for videos is a bit faster than screenshotting it (as Remotion does), so our rendering speeds are faster than Remotion's.

Thirdly, we're MIT licensed while Remotion is not FOSS (if your company has more than three employees, you need to purchase a company license to use Remotion). This was one of our original motivations to build our own video editing framework while we were building video products.