XO3D Studio · Guide
How to Review CGI Work.
What to look for at each production stage, so your feedback is useful, your revisions are purposeful, and the final output is what you actually need.
The studio behind this guide
Who you would be reviewing with
XO3D is a director-led product CGI studio, and the stages below are the ones we actually run: storyboard or animatic, then look-development frames, then the included review rounds, three on stills and four on anything including video. Worth understanding before you commission anyone, because the review structure is where most of the risk in a CGI project is either handled early or missed entirely.
How XO3D compares to the other five supplier modelsMost client feedback on CGI is either too vague ("it doesn't feel quite right") or too granular ("can we move that highlight 3% to the left"). Both create problems. Vague feedback generates multiple rounds of approximated revisions. Over-specific feedback on details that aren't visible in the final delivery wastes production time on changes that won't be seen.
This guide describes what each production stage is designed to resolve, and therefore what feedback is useful and what isn't at each stage. Getting this right protects your budget and produces better work.
Review map
Before any review, five steps.
- Agree which version you are looking at, and who makes the decision on it.
- Name what this stage is meant to settle, and leave the rest for later.
- Write each note against a frame, timecode or reference, not from memory.
- Collect everyone's notes into one list, and settle conflicts before they go to the studio.
- Record what is approved, what is still open and what needs clarifying.
The order of stages differs between projects, so treat this as a checklist rather than a fixed sequence. See the production process, or understand the animatic.
Stage-by-stage review guide
What to focus on, and what to ignore, at each stage.
Storyboard Review
- What it resolves
- Shot selection, narrative structure, which features of the product are shown and in what order, overall creative direction of the film.
- What to look for
- Does this shot sequence tell the right story? Are all the important product features shown? Is the order of reveals logical? Does the structure serve the film's intended purpose (launch, technical explanation, investor pitch)?
- What not to focus on
- Exact lighting, material quality, camera movement smoothness, none of these are present at storyboard stage. The storyboard is a structural document.
Material Test Review
- What it resolves
- Whether the material reconstruction matches the physical product's surface behaviour under light, the specific alloy, finish, texture, and reflectance properties.
- What to look for
- Compare the render against the physical product or reference images. Does the surface behave correctly in light? Does the finish match the specification? Is the colour temperature accurate?
- What not to focus on
- Camera angle, composition, or background, these are not the subject of a material test. Focus entirely on surface quality.
Animatic Review
- What it resolves
- Exact camera choreography, timing, edit rhythm, product movement sequence, and structural relationship between image and sound.
- What to look for
- Watch it at full speed three times. Does the film feel like it has the right energy? Are reveals well-timed? Is any shot too short to read? Does mechanism movement match the correct operational sequence?
- What not to focus on
- Visual quality, the animatic intentionally uses rough geometry and no lighting. Evaluating material or render quality here is evaluating the wrong thing.
Final Render Review
- What it resolves
- Overall visual quality, grading, integration of all elements, camera, material, lighting, composition, into the finished piece.
- What to look for
- Does this meet the visual standard set in pre-production? Does the grade feel right? Are there any surface artefacts, rendering errors, or inconsistencies in the materials?
- How to give good feedback
- Reference specific frames by timecode (XO3D uses Frame.io for timestamped annotation). Describe what you see rather than prescribing the technical fix, "the highlight on the chassis edge feels too bright at 0:12" is better than "reduce the specular intensity by 20%".
Decisions by stage
What each review decides, and who confirms it.
An illustrative order. Some projects review geometry, movement and appearance at different points, and the stages for yours are agreed at the start. A final image does not confirm engineering accuracy; that comes from your approved source data. To prepare the material and lighting review, review material and lighting decisions.
| Stage | What to decide | Reference | Who confirms | Open questions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Storyboard | The story, which features appear, and in what order | The brief and its key messages | The creative owner | Features still being decided; claims not yet approved |
| Greycard or animatic | Geometry, movement, camera and framing, in each required aspect ratio | The CAD revision, mechanism references and the storyboard | The creative owner, plus a product or engineering reviewer where parts move | Movement the source does not show; formats not yet confirmed |
| Look development | Materials and lighting, judged against the references | Physical samples, finish specifications and approved photography | Whoever owns the finish, usually product or brand | Finishes with no sample; colour values not yet fixed |
| Final | The finished result, and that every earlier note is closed | The approved stages and the open-notes list | The decision owner named at the start | Anything outside the agreed scope |
Lighting plan
Where the camera and lights sit.
A top-down plan of the camera and lights for the Bluestork ergonomic mouse hero shot, beside the frame it lights.
FAQ
Common questions, answered.
What does XO3D check in a greycard animation?
How many people should be involved in reviewing CGI?
What's the best way to submit feedback?
Check the last round of feedback as well as the new image
Connor describes a material still that needed another internal pass because strong lighting hid the casing texture and a metal part needed roughness. The review also caught an outstanding gap correction and an engraving that had already been marked for removal.
That is why a useful review has two passes: judge the image in front of you, then reconcile it with the previous comments. A better-looking frame does not prove that every requested correction has been made.
- Check whether lighting reveals the specified texture and finish.
- Match each earlier comment to the exact part or frame it concerns.
- Confirm whether each item is resolved, still open or needs clarification.
- Approve the material still before committing the sequence to final rendering.
For a still, the XO3D Labs Image Marker can help place a note on the relevant area. Name the reference and describe what looks wrong; a marker does not itself confirm that the correction is complete.
From a production discussion, edited for clarity.
Second pass
Reconcile the last round before approving.
A more attractive image does not by itself show that an earlier correction has been made. Put each previous note beside the new evidence and mark a decision. The rows below use the kinds of note in the material-still review above. Before you approve, check the exact product revision, the shot and the aspect ratio the approval covers.
| Previous note | Current evidence | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| The casing texture should read | Is the texture visible in the new still, under the new lighting? | Resolved, still open, or needs clarification |
| A metal part needs roughness | Does the part now break up the light the way the reference does? | Resolved, still open, or needs clarification |
| A gap needs correcting | Is the gap closed, on the product revision being approved? | Resolved, still open, or needs clarification |
| An engraving was marked for removal | Is it gone from every frame it appeared in? | Resolved, still open, or needs clarification |
Note template
A note the studio can act on.
Copy this pattern for each note. It says what you see and what it should match, and leaves the fix to the artist. A note on its own is not an approval: approval belongs to a named version.
Project and version: Frame or timecode: What I see: Reference or approved specification: Decision needed: Owner: Status: open / resolved / needs clarification
Project and version: kettle film, version 3 Frame or timecode: 0:12 What I see: the steel body reads warmer than the supplied finish photograph Reference or approved specification: finish photograph 02 in the brief Decision needed: match the reference, or keep the warmer look for this shot? Owner: brand lead Status: open
To place notes on a still, mark up a still. To set up the whole round, structure a review.
Past production insight from
Jack Robertson
Former Mid-Level Artist, XO3D
Review the cut together, not only each shot
Jack's basic checks on any animation: does the product look good, is there flickering or any strange artefact, do reflections or lighting look wrong, are the colours consistent between shots, and is the part motion smooth, with no jittery movement or odd animation curves.
Then the product-specific questions. Does the product truly represent how it looks in real life? Do the hinges work, and do they open to the same degree the real product allows?
Some problems only appear once shots by different artists are cut together. On one film Jack had added an orange light to match other shots in the sequence. Seen in the full edit, his orange read too yellow, so he went back and made it a redder orange. Watch the assembled cut before signing off individual shots.
From a production discussion while Jack worked at XO3D, edited for clarity. XO3D's named expert on this subject is Thomas Howcroft, Founder and Creative Director.
Your next project
Review the right decision at each stage.
Check form and operation before judging polish. Confirm camera and timing at animatic stage, then assess materials and lighting against references. Consolidated feedback makes the next revision actionable.
A route to consider
Technical CGI
An explanation of a product or mechanism built from approved source information, with technical review before finishing.
Bring these three things.
- Who reviews technical detail?
- Which decisions are being approved now?
- How will conflicting feedback be resolved?
Start with an outline. We review the product, intended outputs and timing before agreeing the production scope.