⚡ Hyper Shot — Blender has no native concept of shot states, so I built one

Hey everyone,

I come from an editing / directing background, so I was surprised that Blender has many powerful building blocks, but no real concept of a shot as a saved production unit. Managing multiple camera angles, lighting setups, material or visibility variations often meant manually switching settings back and forth - or duplicating .blend files for each shot.

That felt strange to me. So I started building my own shot state system for Blender.

The result is Hyper Shot.

Product page: https://superhivemarket.com/products/hyper-shot-state-manager--batch-render-addon

Hyper Shot lets you save scene states as Shots, switch in one click, and batch render.

Each Shot can store:

  • Camera
  • Frame range
  • Output path
  • Render settings
  • Object visibility
  • Material overrides
  • Transform overrides
  • Shot Status

I’d be curious to hear how other Blender users manage this kind of workflow. Do you usually use separate .blend files, scenes, view layers, or your own custom setup?

Gif 2 - Stills - Blender Artists

9 Likes

I use scenes. They are very flexible and easy to set up for the work I do.

9 Likes

Hello and welcome to blenderartists !
What you did looks cool !

I work mainly in animation ( series, feature films) and generally the goal is to have multiple .blend per shots.
Things can vary, you can have one .blend per shot, per department ( light, FX, anim) per version. So people can work on different step on different shots in parallel then everything is put together at render time.

What I’ve seen too which is pretty clever is to work in sequence for the layout stage ( putting camera, character, props, set according to the storyboard) so one sequence is within one .blend using camera markers. Then it’s split in one shot per file for animation.

Obviously studios relies on custom addons to manage that and connect different tools.

It’s super challenging to make something native in blender that can adapt to many workflow especially given different industries have different needs. Even within the same industry workflows can vary given the team size, the software stack and the quality/budget of their projects.

Currently BF is developing the ability to work within a “project” so you can set a project folder that contains assets ( models, shots…) and share some variables and probably other cool things . Which is something that maybe is generic enough so it can be used by many. But I think it’s the point of blender to be simple enough and not enforce any workflow. So if you want to do all your movie within the same file, you can…
However, in blender you have all the needed tools ( python) to tailor it to your workflow. Which is also how it works in say Maya or Nuke.

If you’re interested to see different way of organizing shots and projects I did a video introducing pipeline tools that was build in a former company I worked for here : A VSE based pipeline for animated TV series

Have fun !

6 Likes

Separate blend files for each scene, sometimes for each shot.

Not just because the camera or light needs to change, because those variables are relatively simple to deal with. It’s all the rig animations from character to character, shot to shot, scene to scene.

In general, render and compositing settings themselves do not change (other than the end frame count.)

4 Likes

Very interesting concept! It actually reminds me a bit of add-ons like RenderSet or EasyStates.

In your opinion, what would you say those existing tools are currently missing?
Do you have a documentation or wiki to look into the features?

On a side note, I’m actually working on a stage management system myself. It aims to replicate the Takes System from Cinema4D—it’s not exactly the same, but it’s very similar, and in a few areas, it’s significantly more powerful.

More details on that coming soon! :winking_face_with_tongue:

Blenders “scenes” can handle all of that, imo.
Or am I missing something?

3 Likes

Currently, Blender handles certain aspects of shot setup well on an individual basis:

  • Scenes can independently manage specific property settings.
  • View Layers successfully handle individual object visibility and rendering states within the Outliner.

However, the biggest bottleneck in production is the lack of automated management for these systems. When defining complex Takes or Shots, we need a unified way to automate and manage not just properties and visibility, but many other pipeline factors simultaneously. A native, robust “Take System” (similar to C4D Takes System) would bridge this gap.

From what I see C4Ds Take system is:

  • Render Layers
  • Material Replacement
  • Change Camera Angles
  • Animation Variations

All of these can be done with Blenders Scenes. What exactly are you missing?

1 Like

Scenes and Shots solve fundamentally different tasks.

A Blender Scene is a high-level data container. It is useful for organizing different versions of a project, render layers, or completely different parts of production. But a Scene is not a shot-state system.

A Shot, in the production sense, is a specific camera angle, frame range, visibility / render setup, and often object transforms or material adjustments - all inside the same working scene.

The goal is not to duplicate the whole scene. The goal is to save and restore a precise production state of the same scene.

This is where Blender Scenes become limited.

:one: Linked Scenes are too linked

Blender’s Linked Copy option creates a new scene that links to the collections from the original scene. That means the objects are still the same objects. So if you change object visibility / transforms, or other object-level properties in one linked scene, those changes also affect the other linked scenes.

For shot work, this is a serious limitation.

Imagine an animated dialogue scene with three shots:

  1. Wide shot
  2. Close-up of Character A
  3. Close-up of Character B

You may want all shots to share the same rigs, characters, animation data and environment. But each shot may also need its own object visibility setup or object transform / material adjustments.

With linked scenes, that does not work cleanly. The shared objects remain shared. Hide an object in one linked scene, and it disappears in the others. Move an object in one linked scene, and it moves in the others.

This makes linked scenes unsuitable as independent shot states.

:two: Full Copy scenes are too duplicated

The other option is Full Copy. This creates a separate copy of the scene, which can give you more independence. But now you have the opposite problem: instead of one scene with multiple shot states, you are managing several duplicated scenes.

That creates production overhead: duplicated scene structure, and the risk of updating animation, rigs, lighting, or assets in one scene but forgetting another.

For a few simple variations, this can be acceptable. But for a real workflow with 20-30 shots, it quickly becomes messy.

Scenes are either too connected or too duplicated.

And this happens because a Scene and a Shot are fundamentally different things. They exist on different levels of production hierarchy.

:three: Summary

A Scene is a container. A Shot is a state inside that container.

A Scene is too big of a unit to represent a single camera angle or renderable moment.

A Scene asks: “What world or setup am I working in?”

A Shot asks: “How should this exact scene look and render for this specific shot?”

Scenes also do not solve batch shot rendering.

And because Scenes were not designed as a shot-management system, their UI is not comfortable for managing many shots either.

That is why Hyper Shot was designed. It gives artists the missing middle ground: One scene. Many controlled shot states.

1 Like

I think this is where you are fundamentally mistaken.
There is no reason to keep linked scenes completely linked.
In fact a “linked” scene is acutally not linked at all. It is a normal scene. The only thing that is linked are the collections within the “linked” scene when you create it. But you can unlink or add new collections as you please without affecting the other “linked scene”. You can also link collections from completely other scenes at any time.

If you need a different camera you simply unlink your camera collection from the scene and create a new one.
Same for lighting.

For object variants you simply create a linked duplicate of your Geo collection and then give your objects a different material (link it to object not to data).

Similarily for animations. Just replace the action data block and keep all other datablocks the same.

Object visibility is even easier. You place the objects that need to be visible in one shot but not in the other in a collection and then just Exclude it.

Scenes are actually quite powerful and can be scaled to be more complex in combination with linked collections from other files, geo nodes and shader node attributes. But for everything I see listed in your addon I don’t think that is even required.

The batch rendering is nice, though. The only way to Batch render in vanilla Blender is to render via scene strips in VSE and that is a rather convoluted workflow. Sadly using a third party addon is the better way for that imo.

3 Likes

Unlink, replace, hide, unlink, replace, unlink, hide, unlink, replace …

How is all of that a preferred solution to just duplicating the whole .blend file, and moving forward with whatever that scene needs to do?

2 Likes

If you duplicate the blend file you lose the links between your objects.
This makes it more difficult to change things for example.

What could be one click in a single file is now opening 13 different files and applying the change in the exact same way as you did in file 1.
Not only does it take longer but is also prone to mistakes.

2 Likes

How would the links be lost? It’s a copied file. The file copy isn’t identical to the original file?

A scene in your film will consist of several shots, right?
Most elements of these shots will be pretty much the same. Same geometry, similar lighting, many animations will be the same.

So, if you have all your shots in the same .blend file, one shot per Blender Scene, you can reuse a lot of your datablocks. The geometry is shared, materials are shared, some lighting is shared and so on.

If your client wants to change the red ball in your shots to a blue ball it is trivial to change, right?
But if you have all your shots split up into different blend files changing the red ball into a blue ball is not so trivial anymore.
The balls in each shot are longer “linked”. They are no longer the same thing. Blender does not know that the ball in one blend file is the same thing as the ball in your other files.

Now, granted, a simple material change is still not that problematic. But the more complex the change requtest the more problemetic it will be if you have to do it in multiple files.

1 Like

Thanks Lumpengnom. You’re right Blender is flexible enough to do all of this natively. But there’s a huge difference between “technically possible” and “production-efficient.”

Everything you described can work fine for 2–3 variations. But in a pipeline with more shots (I usually work with 20–30) this manual setup would become a management nightmare: sorting objects into collections by visibility, linking, unlinking, action swaps, etc. At that point, I would basically become a database manager and go insane before finishing the project. The add-on simply remembers all of this automatically.

And that’s not even mentioning shot statuses, filters, and one of my favorite features - Groups, which let you connect multiple shots together.

Like many tools, it adds an abstraction layer on top of Blender’s existing systems - one that I personally can’t imagine working without anymore.

2 Likes

But crucially (as mentioned earlier), the animation will not be the same.

So I have 12 different shots in a room with 2 characters interacting. I can dupe it to 12 scenes, but now when working with each scene I have to unlink animation data assignment, assign another one, work on the (hopefully) final.

Go to next scene, do allll of that again. If I need to move some props around because they’re in the way of the camera, redo it too. All of that ripples into the other 11 scene files. So it’s just a constant “ruining” of what I’ve just done in scene 7, when i move on to 8.

I’m sorry, I’m not saying the workflow doesn’t work for you or others. But when I’ve tried it - i was seriously left with the impression of “Oh dear god, how was this possibly agreed on as the way this feature should work?”

2 Likes

No, 20 to 30 shots is pretty much what I use the setup discribe above all the time. It is efficient and performant.

Can you elaborate on the group feature?

When discussing this it’s important to consider the type of project people are working on because otherwise it’s easy to be lost in pointless discussions.

I think you and Hyper tend to favor working everything in the same .blend file. And you seem to be doing a lot of variation on objects and materials. This looks to me like a typical “product viz” workflow where you work mostly alone and the client is prone to ask many different changes in a way things would be harder to manage if each changes meant a different file.

However, in an animated movie workflow this makes way less sense. Since people need to work on multiple shots in parallel, different shots in the same .blend isn’t an option. The production is more structured with different departments different steps, there are much more shots to work with too.
This makes changes a bit simpler to manage and while sometime you might end up needing to go through many shots to propagate changes, in practice this is more the exception than the norm.
People are also more aware of the budget so there is a whole team dedicated to see if some changes can be afforded so bigger production can allow more time consuming changes and scene management !

3 Likes

Yes, it takes longer to setup. But so does the setup with the addon. But you gain in places mentioned in my last post.

Yes, that is correct. Product viz, product films, advertisments that kind of stuff.

How does this work? I assume there are specialized people for character animations, enviornmental animations, VFX and stuff like that who then hand it off to the next artist in the pipeline.
But in the end there must be some guy or guys who put it all together to create the shot. Can you elabortate on why it does not make sense for this last guy to have multiple shots in the same file?

I believe you of course but I am interested in why.

1 Like