How to generate videos with Wan 2.5
Wan 2.5 is the follow-up to the 2.2 image-to-video model, and most of what you already know still applies: you feed it a still image and a short motion prompt, and it animates the scene. If you have used 2.2, you can drive 2.5 on day one. What matters is knowing where the two differ, so you spend your renders on the settings that moved rather than re-learning the ones that didn't.
This guide assumes you can already run a Wan I2V workflow. If you can't yet, start with our Wan 2.2 walkthrough for the full setup, then come back here for what the newer version changes.
What changed, and whether you should care
The headline improvements in 2.5 are steadier motion over the length of a clip and better handling of fine detail — faces, hands, fabric — that older versions tended to smear once things started moving. If your 2.2 renders looked great on frame one and fell apart by second four, that is the exact problem 2.5 targets.
The trade is compute. The gains come from a heavier model, so a 2.5 render costs you more time or GPU memory than the same clip on 2.2. For a quick throwaway loop, 2.2 is often still the right tool. For anything you plan to keep, 2.5 usually earns its cost.
One thing that did not change: the model still reads your image as the scene and your prompt as the motion. Every prompt habit from 2.2 carries over unchanged.
Step-by-step
The workflow is the same as 2.2. The differences are in the settings table below.
- 1
Load the Wan 2.5 I2V model
Point your tool at the 2.5 image-to-video checkpoint rather than 2.2. Everything downstream of the model choice — image input, prompt, output — works the same way.
- 2
Prepare your source image
Same rules as before: one clear subject, sharp, cropped to your target aspect ratio. 2.5 is better at preserving fine detail, but it cannot invent detail that isn't in a soft source image. Sharp in, sharp out.
- 3
Write the motion prompt
Describe only the movement, in present-progressive verbs. 2.5 follows motion prompts slightly more literally than 2.2, so if a prompt gave you too much motion on 2.2, tone it down here rather than up.
- 4
Set length, steps, and guidance from the table
Use the baseline values below. The main change is that 2.5 holds up better on longer clips, so you can push length a little further before drift sets in — but the sweet spot is still short.
- 5
Generate and compare against your 2.2 result
If you are migrating a clip that worked on 2.2, run it on 2.5 with the same seed first. That isolates the model as the only variable and shows you exactly what the upgrade bought you before you start re-tuning.
Recommended settings (baseline)
These are 2.5 defaults. Where a value differs meaningfully from 2.2, it is noted.
| Workflow | Image-to-video (I2V), Wan 2.5 checkpoint |
|---|---|
| Resolution | Same supported sizes as 2.2; keep dimensions on the model's required multiple |
| Clip length | ~5-8 seconds; 2.5 tolerates the upper end better than 2.2, but drift still grows with length |
| Steps | Slightly fewer steps reach the same cleanliness as 2.2, because the model is stronger per step — start moderate and lower if it looks clean early |
| Guidance / CFG | Moderate; 2.5 follows prompts more literally, so ease off if motion comes out exaggerated |
| Seed | Fixed while tuning; keep the same seed when comparing 2.5 against a 2.2 render |
When 2.2 is still the better choice
Fast iteration. If you are exploring twenty ideas to find one worth keeping, the lighter 2.2 model lets you burn through drafts faster and cheaper. Switch to 2.5 only for the one you commit to.
Limited hardware. If 2.5 pushes your GPU into swapping or out-of-memory errors, a clean 2.2 render beats a 2.5 render that never finishes. Match the model to the machine you actually have.
Common problems and fixes
Motion feels stiff or too literal: 2.5 follows prompts closely, so an over-specified prompt reads as a checklist. Loosen the wording and let the model interpret.
Render is far slower than 2.2: expected — the model is heavier. Lower steps first, then resolution, before assuming something is misconfigured.
No visible improvement over 2.2: your source image or clip is short enough that 2.2 already handled it well. 2.5's edge shows most on detail-heavy subjects and longer clips.
Where 2.5 sits in the lineup
Think of it as the middle rung. Wan 2.2 is the light, cheap, silent workhorse for volume; 2.5 is the quality step up for clips you keep. Above both sits Wan 2.7, which adds native audio and much longer clips (up to around fifteen seconds) in a single pass — at a higher cost. If you find yourself wishing 2.5 could carry sound or run longer, that is the signal to look at 2.7.