A workflow makes the material. A scene is the thing someone opens.
Same engine, same graph — you choose what comes out. The difference isn't how long it lasts. It's who it's for.
Who opens the output?
That's the whole test. If you or your team open it and then place it somewhere, it's a workflow. If your audience opens it and does something, it's a scene.
Workflow
It runs, it finishes, and it hands you files. Every ratio, every locale, every cut — material your team takes and places across channels.
- Output
- Assets — stills, video, renders, variant sets
- Who opens it
- You and your team, then you place it
- Interactive
- No. It's a batch that completes
- Ships as
- Files
Scene
Not material at all — the thing itself. A page someone browses, a configurator they play with, an installation they walk up to.
- Output
- An interactive experience
- Who opens it
- Your audience, and they use it
- Interactive
- Yes. A person does something
- Ships as
- A URL, an embed, an installation
They're different kinds of thing, not different lengths.
It would be easy to describe a scene as a file that keeps going. That's the wrong mental model, and it leads to the wrong decisions.
Not this
"A workflow gives you assets, and a scene gives you assets that last longer." That makes a scene sound like a deliverable with better shelf-life — and it isn't. Duration is not the variable.
This
A workflow produces material for you. A scene is the experience for them. One is an input to your next step; the other is the destination. They answer different questions, so they're worth different money.
Both come out of the same graph.
Every tool in this space does the first one. What nooodles adds is that the second is available from the same setup — the same product model, the same brand system, the same table of markets.
You start with the workflow, because that's the job you have today
Campaign assets, product variants, social cutdowns. Files your team needs this week. nooodles does that job in the shape you'd expect.
The scene is already most of the way built
The graph that generated the assets already contains the product, the type, the colour system and the data. Making the page or the configurator isn't a second project — it's a second output.
They can't drift apart
When the campaign and its destination come from one source, changing the hero product changes both. No reconciling a landing page against a set of assets that moved on without it.
Which means you can sell something you couldn't before
An interactive destination is a different line item from a folder of files. Same setup, more of the brief.
One product launch, both modes.
One product, six colourways, nine markets. Here's what each mode does with it.
As a workflow
An operator picks colourways and markets and hits generate. Out comes every asset the campaign needs — each ratio, each still, each cut, localised and currency-correct. Your team places them across channels.
- Result
- The campaign's material
As a scene
The same graph already holds the landing page — real semantic HTML, with the 3D product as an element inside the document. So the same generate also produces the live pages: one per colourway per market, each counting down to its own local launch.
- Result
- The thing the campaign points at
Change the hero colourway once, and the assets and the live pages are both right. That's not a workflow that lasts longer — it's a second kind of output the first one was always able to produce.
Which one do I need?
My deliverable is a set of files a media team will traffic.
Workflow. Build the template, expose the parts that vary, and let whoever runs the campaign generate the set. You'll get the escalation for free later if you ever want the destination too.
The client is asking for a microsite, configurator or interactive piece.
Scene. It ships as a URL you can send, embed, or put on a screen on site — and the same graph will also emit the flat assets the campaign around it needs.
It's an installation — a wall, a kiosk, something physical.
Scene. Input is a first-class part of the graph, and the visitor's phone can be a second output of the same setup, sharing state with the wall.
I don't know yet — the brief is still moving.
Start with the workflow. It's the smaller commitment and it's the job you can already describe. The scene stays available from the same graph if the brief grows.
Is a scene harder to build than a workflow?
It's more decisions, not more difficulty — you're designing an experience rather than a set of outputs, so you think about interaction and state. The engine is the same, and the WEB family means you're authoring a real page rather than reimplementing one.
Try it with the job in front of you.
Free to start, nothing to install. Build the workflow you need this week and see how close the scene already is.
Working with a team?
Tell us where to reach you and we'll set up a walkthrough.
No spam. A real reply from a human.