Planning CGI for a product range: variants, dependencies and deliverables

Short answer. Product count does not equal model count, scene count or delivered video count. Connect each SKU to its geometry, appearance and required presentation first. Count edits, formats and languages separately. Apply exclusions before treating every possible combination as a production requirement.

This guide helps a buyer commission a digital series with a clear scope. Instead of assuming that the team will simply change the colour, it produces a map of what genuinely repeats and what requires an independent decision. For the broader production format, see the 3D packshot service.

1. Separate four planning units

A SKU identifies a marketed item. A geometry base describes a shape that several items may share. A scene defines a particular presentation. An output version is a file with a specified edit, language and format.

These units are connected but not interchangeable. Several items may use one body while having different finishes. One item may appear in several scenes. A scene may feed different edits. Calling all of them video variants makes the total difficult to interpret.

Maintain separate lists with stable identifiers. This can be a simple spreadsheet. The important point is that a product code does not substitute for a model code, and an export filename is not the only record of its contents.

2. Start with a confirmed assortment

Ask the product owner to list the items actually participating in the launch. Mark prospective, discontinued and optional variants separately. They may inform discussion without quietly becoming production requirements.

For each item, record its name, distinguishing features and confirming source. If one department calls a finish grey and another calls it graphite, determine whether they mean the same item. Similar names can describe different surfaces; different names can describe one product.

Date the assortment list. This identifies the state used for planning. A later addition becomes an explicit change rather than an unexplained mismatch between the table and expectations.

3. Classify differences by their cause

Useful categories include shape, finish, graphics, included components and action. A colour change may refer to a different surface treatment or additional part, not merely a colour value.

Record observable differences. Dark version is insufficient if it also has another finish and lid. A better description says same body shape, matte finish, different front graphic and unchanged lid.

The buyer does not need to decide which production operations will be identical. The buyer supplies accurate product differences; the production team assesses reuse against those differences.

4. A sample product matrix

The following hypothetical range contains six desktop devices. Its numbers illustrate scope arithmetic, not a price estimate or customer result.

A1. Geometry: G-A, low body. Finish: M1, light matte. Visible difference: Panel A. Required view: Overall view.

A2. Geometry: G-A. Finish: M2, dark matte. Visible difference: Panel A. Required view: Overall view.

A3. Geometry: G-A. Finish: M3, metallic. Visible difference: Panel A. Required view: Overall and detail.

B1. Geometry: G-B, tall body. Finish: M1. Visible difference: Panel B. Required view: Overall view.

B2. Geometry: G-B. Finish: M2. Visible difference: Panel B. Required view: Overall view.

B3. Geometry: G-B. Finish: M3. Visible difference: Panel B plus extra button. Required view: Overall and detail.

The table suggests two base shapes, but B3 contains a geometry exception. Give it a configuration such as G-B3 or explicitly retain it as an assembly variant. A shared naming family does not make all B items geometrically identical.

The purpose is to discover exceptions before multiplying the range. After clarification, the matrix becomes a shared basis for discussing repeatability.

5. Count required combinations, not every theoretical combination

Two shapes and three finishes produce six pairs if every pair exists. In another assortment, the tall device may not be sold in metallic finish. That sixth combination is not automatically a production task.

List valid pairs first, then attach required scenes. If only metallic items need a detail shot, do not multiply that scene across every SKU by default.

The same method supports future expansion. Reserve a potential pair if useful, but label it prospective. Preparing for a possible variant and delivering its finished content are different scope decisions.

6. Count product views separately from outputs

Give all six example items an overall view. The two metallic items also need a detail. That produces eight required product presentations: six overall views and two details.

Eight presentations do not necessarily mean eight entirely independent setups. Some choices may repeat, while B3 needs an exception check. The table states the viewing requirement; the production assessment explains how to realise it.

Now define delivery: one main edit per item, in two formats and two languages. The complete set is 6 × 2 × 2 = 24 files. Those files are not 24 independent scenes and should not be explained by the same multiplier in a proposal.

7. Apply explicit delivery exclusions

Suppose A3 and B3 do not need vertical English versions. Remove those two specific files, leaving 22 individual outputs.

Add a range film in two formats and one language. That adds two files, giving 24 again. The total matches the original multiplication, but the content is different. A number without its membership cannot describe the scope.

Individual versions. Calculation: 6 items × 2 formats × 2 languages. Files: 24.

Exclusions. Calculation: No vertical English for A3 or B3. Files: −2.

Range film. Calculation: 2 formats × 1 language. Files: +2.

Total. Calculation: Explicit required combinations. Files: 24.

This calculation contains no price or automatic savings claim. It establishes a common requirement against which suppliers can discuss production.

8. Distinguish product language from message language

A localised advertising edit may change titles while retaining physical product marking. Identify the layer being localised. Otherwise, language count may hide additional product configurations.

If different markets sell devices with different panels, connect those SKUs to their own graphic or component in the product matrix. An EN code in a video filename does not describe that distinction.

Detailed artwork preparation is a separate task. Here, record the approved source identifier and dependent items rather than duplicating the whole design package.

9. Choose samples that expose different risks

The first sample need not be the most popular item. If it is also the simplest, its approval may reveal little about a difficult finish, taller body or additional button.

For this range, the team could consider A1 for the baseline composition, A3 for another material and B3 for the geometry exception. This is a proposed selection for the example, not a universal required number of tests.

Give every sample a question. Does the overall composition work for A1? Does A3 communicate the intended surface? Does B3 fit the frame while showing its extra feature? The sample stage then has a purpose beyond producing similar attractive images.

10. Build the dependency chain

Record product → configuration → scene → edit → output. Give each node an identifier and each connection a purpose.

A3 uses G-A and M3, appears in an overall and a detail view, then feeds its individual edit and the range edit. A change to M3 potentially affects A3, B3 if it uses the same approved material, and their appearances in shared scenes.

The map answers which results need inspection after a change. It does not assert that every dependency requires the same production operation. The supplier identifies the actual consequences.

11. Distinguish a shared setup from a shared successful result

A camera or lighting idea may suit several items. Identical settings do not establish an equally effective result. A taller body may exceed the composition, while another finish may appear differently in the environment.

Separate proposed common approach from checked on this variant. Before review, reuse is a hypothesis. After review, there is evidence for that particular scene and item.

If an exception is needed, record its reason: G-B3 uses a higher camera position to show the extra button. This preserves the series logic without forcing an unsuitable arrangement merely for consistency.

12. Treat a group view as its own scene

A range film is not necessarily a simple assembly of individual presentations. Products shown together require decisions about order, relative size, visible names and each variant's role.

In the example, the group should communicate two body forms and three finishes. If the foreground device conceals B3's only distinctive button, the comparison may fail. That is a group-composition problem absent from the individual shot.

Decide whether all six appear at once. Showing families sequentially may be more useful. The choice affects the scene and should not remain hidden inside the label range film.

13. Handle assortment changes during production

A new item may add only one finish, or it may require another shape and independent presentation. Compare it with the matrix and identify new dependency nodes.

If A4 uses G-A but introduces M4, the shared shape does not settle appearance. If B4 has another screen, the difference is more than a caption. Assess the actual feature rather than the item's sequence number.

For a removed SKU, find every appearance: individual film, group view, title describing the number of variants and final line-up. Deleting one output may leave the discontinued item elsewhere in the campaign.

14. A worked change-impact example

Suppose B3's additional button changes after approval. Update configuration G-B3, then flag its overall view, detail view and group appearances where that button is visible.

Next identify edits using those scenes and their output list. A short version without the changed region receives its own finding. Its SKU name alone cannot establish whether it is affected.

The result is an action list: prepare the revised component, update relevant scenes and inspect dependent edits. Schedule and commercial discussions gain a concrete basis without assuming either a complete rebuild or a negligible change.

15. Reduce scope through named decisions

If the package is too large, remove specific combinations. Drop an optional language output, remove a nonessential detail presentation or combine related messages into one range edit. Check each decision against the audience's task.

Do not remove the only scene communicating a product distinction solely to reduce scene count. The files could remain different in name while no longer explaining the assortment.

Mark mandatory, desirable and future scope. Assess the mandatory set first, then additions. This supports comparison without disappearing rows or unspoken expectations.

16. Make a compact record for each output

The record need not repeat the full matrix. For an individual file, identify the SKU, scenes, message language, format, approved configuration and intended use.

For example: A3 main edit, wide format, English titles, G-A plus M3, overall and detail views, original product marking retained. Someone receiving the file later can understand what it represents.

For the range film, list included SKUs and their order. This helps when the assortment changes while older assets remain in a shared folder.

17. Errors the matrix can expose early

All finishes are described as one colour replacement. Establish whether only colour differs or whether surface character, transparency or components differ too.

Languages are multiplied across every item without exceptions. Confirm real market and channel needs. An unnecessary combination does not become useful because it is easy to count.

The range film is hidden among individual outputs. Give it its own scene or editing task. Its requirements may extend beyond placing finished clips in sequence.

A source change is not connected to deliverables. Follow dependencies through to final files so the update does not stop at a control image.

Only the simplest item has been reviewed. Choose samples representing genuinely different concerns. Baseline geometry approval cannot resolve every series question.

18. Run a focused matrix meeting

Review exceptions rather than reading every cell aloud. Which products differ unexpectedly? Which combinations are unnecessary? Which sources remain unconfirmed? Where is a common approach still only proposed?

The product owner confirms assortment and distinctions. Marketing confirms versions and the group scene's purpose. The supplier explains the proposed separation of shared and independent work. The coordinator records unresolved dependencies.

The result is a defined list for assessment. If one answer is delayed, identify what can proceed independently. This is more precise than declaring the whole range ready or stopped.

19. Read proposals against the matrix

Ask suppliers to show reused foundations, exceptions requiring preparation and included output files. Their proposal should map to the requirement.

Compare content rather than just video count. One supplier may include a distinct range edit; another may mean only a sequence of similar product views. The same file count can conceal different results.

A shared model does not prove a fixed saving. It creates an opportunity to discuss reuse. Any benefit depends on the actual work and agreed outputs.

20. Check the calculation backwards

Start with each delivery row and trace it to product, scenes and confirmed differences. If a file cannot be traced, there may be a hidden requirement or an invalid combination.

Then reverse the question: does every mandatory message have a planned presentation? If viewers must compare body heights but individual scenes use different relative framing, six films do not automatically support comparison. A deliberate shared view or another explanatory device may be needed.

Check exclusions too. Removing vertical English A3 and B3 files does not remove an English range film unless that is separately decided. An exclusion belongs to its specified block.

Ask another participant to reproduce the final count without spoken explanation. If the totals differ, find the ambiguous row. This checks the brief's clarity without requiring production-software expertise.

21. Record what remains reusable for another launch

If the range will expand, record approved foundations and tested limitations. The common composition may be confirmed for G-A while the tall body uses a separate camera arrangement. That is more useful than promising identical handling for all future products.

State the information needed for a new item: shape, finish, graphics and required presentation. Existing decisions need not all be collected again, but every new SKU should have its own row.

Also establish which source assets are available for later work under the agreed handover. Possession of a finished film does not demonstrate access to an editable model. Discuss continuation against the assets actually retained by the parties.

The resulting addition process is straightforward: describe the difference, inspect dependencies, select scenes and recalculate delivery. It supports decisions even when future products are not fully defined.

22. Prepare a range-specific request

For CGI product video, supply the SKU list, difference matrix and mandatory scenes. Add the output table with formats, languages and exclusions.

For a campaign built around individual controlled presentations, discuss the 3D packshot service. The production choice should follow the required views rather than the size of a theoretical combination table.

Attach your calculation and uncertain combinations to the brief. The first discussion can then answer three practical questions: what repeats, what changes and which specific materials must be delivered.

Related planning guides

CAD and 3D handover for a product film. What to send a production team before quoting a CGI product film: model versions, dimensions, materials, artwork and the scenes the files must support.

AI, CGI and 3D: choosing the production method