Comparison
WATT-IF vs FilmBuilder: start with the real room or the full production plan?
Both tools help crews think before shoot day. The useful difference is where each workflow starts, not a fake winner badge.
FilmBuilder’s public positioning: “Build the shot before you roll.”
| Question | WATT-IF | FilmBuilder |
|---|---|---|
| Starting point | Supported LiDAR capture of the actual location. | Browser-based production-planning workflow. |
| Best fit | Testing a lighting conversation against the room the crew will use. | Planning the shot and wider pre-production workflow before the roll. |
| Handoff | Lighting-plan context and supported crew-facing exports. | Production-planning materials built in its browser workflow. |
WATT-IF does not claim that a scan replaces a crew, a physical meter, or a full production plan. It gives a DP or gaffer a faster way to make the room-specific lighting discussion concrete.
FAQ
Is WATT-IF a replacement for FilmBuilder?
No. They begin from different assumptions. WATT-IF is mobile-first lighting planning grounded in a supported capture. FilmBuilder is a browser-based production-planning workflow.
When should a crew choose WATT-IF?
When a supported capture of the actual room is the starting point for a lighting plan before shoot day.
When should a crew choose FilmBuilder?
When the wider production-planning workflow matters more than starting from a captured room.