USD for Filmmakers & VFX Artists – When It’s a Game-Changer and When It’s Not
Universal Scene Description (USD) is one of the biggest buzzwords in VFX and 3D pipelines right now. Several of you have asked me about it, or mentioned that you’re looking to adopt it.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with it, it’s a way of managing assets and scenes across different software packages. Originally developed by Pixar, it promises a future of seamless collaboration, powerful asset management, and efficiency across different software. But does it live up to the hype, especially for smaller teams and indie creators?
Think of USD Like a Boxed Assembly Line
USD is like packing all your modeling, texturing, and shaders into a neatly sealed box, which is your USD file. Once it’s boxed up, accessing individual pieces becomes more difficult. For large studios, this works great because they operate like a car manufacturing pipeline—each part is created perfectly before being passed along. However, if you’re working alone or in a small team, you need flexibility, often going back and forth between stages. This is where USD struggles.
A large VFX studio operates in a similar way to a manufacturing pipeline. Each department does its assigned task, and passes that onto the next department, starting with concept pre-viz, and finishing with compositing. Going backwards in the pipeline can be very expensive, so everything is made to exacting standards from day one, and USD allows you to wrap that up and send it to the next department in a very clean way. That produces reliable results, but there’s a lot of money that never makes it to the screen (if you want a real life parallel – who cares how expensive your underwear is if you never take your trousers off?)
There’s also no standardised way of implementing USD. Software packages often claim to support it, but they’re still leaving you to figure out the integration yourself, which can be very different from place to place. Pixar essentially gave us some great lego bricks and said “there you go, build something nice with those”. My VFX studio invested thousands over a period of months into developing a USD pipeline, in large VFX studios that number is more likely to be hundreds of thousands over a period of years.
Why USD Can Be Great
Non-Destructive Workflow – Layered data means you can make changes without breaking everything. USD allows different elements of a scene (geometry, shading, animation) to be stored in separate layers. These layers can be modified independently without affecting the original data.
Example:
- A modeller creates a base character model.
- A texture artist applies materials in a separate layer.
- An animator adds rigging and movement in another layer.
Each change exists on its own layer, meaning you can edit or replace elements without breaking the entire asset.
- Parallel Workflows – Because USD files are modular, multiple artists can work on different aspects of a scene simultaneously—modeling, texturing, lighting—without stepping on each other’s toes. This can be a life saver on large projects
- Cross-Software Compatibility – USD allows you to move assets across Blender, Unreal, Houdini, and more without painful conversions. At least in theory (something as complex as a rig is always going to be difficult to transfer, and still outside the scope of USD)
Why USD Might Be Overkill for Small Teams
- Complex Setup – Implementing USD properly requires a pipeline rethink, and for many small teams, the time investment outweighs the benefits.
- Overhead in Simple Projects – If you’re not working with massive datasets or multiple departments, the advantages shrink.
- Not a Magic Fix – USD won’t suddenly make projects faster or better; it’s a tool that requires strategy. My finding was that our productivity dropped by about 20-30% when we switched to USD, because it’s quite a different way of working.
Final Verdict: In theory, USD is great, and will probably eventually be the obvious choice for all VFX pipelines. It’s just not right now. Software vendors have poor integration and little motivation to rectify that, since that could benefit their competitors.
Unless you’re working on large-scale productions with a well-defined pipeline, USD is more trouble than it’s worth. The learning curve, technical overhead, and rigid structure can slow down smaller teams instead of helping them. For now, stick with more adaptable workflows and adopt USD only if your projects truly demand it.
I asked the artist in charge of facilitating USD in my company his take on it, and he summarized in a single sentence:
“If we never use USD again I won’t miss it”
I’m inclined to agree. To answer the question that I set in the title – USD is both the future of VFX and is overhyped!
Working in an industry of fast-moving technology, there’s always something new to be hyped, and often with good reason. Pixar aren’t stupid, they made it to help VFX artists deliver! USD has helped some studios a lot. But when you’re working by yourself or as part of a small team, focusing on the fundamentals of film and VFX delivery will get you results much faster than chasing the latest crazes, whatever that craze might be.
What’s your take on USD? Have you found it to be a game-changer or just an overhyped buzzword?