A rough 3D render is an unusually useful kind of instruction. It can specify camera position, silhouette, depth relationships and composition without requiring the scene to have finished materials.
The Blender diffusion experiment shared by its author points toward an appealing workflow: use a conventional scene to arrange the image, then let a generative model develop its appearance. The attraction is control over the parts that are difficult to describe precisely in a text prompt.
Suppose the target is a narrow street with a bicycle near the camera. Text can describe the idea, but small changes in the output may relocate the bicycle or alter the viewpoint. A simple scene can put the bicycle's mass where it belongs and establish the perspective. Even crude boxes can communicate an arrangement effectively.
The diffusion stage then introduces a tradeoff. Allow little change and the result may remain close to the rough input, including its limitations. Allow more change and the model has room to create interesting detail, but also room to reinterpret the structure. An attractive result can drift away from the composition that motivated the setup.
One frame is the easy agreement
Animation makes the problem sharper. A camera move produces a series of related renders. If each frame is transformed independently, a brick, a window or a decorative pattern may change between frames. The underlying 3D object remains stable while its generated appearance does not.
Keeping a random seed fixed does not by itself solve this. The input changes as the camera moves, and the process is not automatically obligated to preserve the same visual identity on the same surface. Temporal consistency needs its own mechanism or a workflow that limits where inconsistency can appear.
For still concept work, that limitation can be acceptable. The 3D scene supplies a composition that can be revised, and the generator supplies alternative appearances. A person can choose an image and continue editing it. The workflow is useful without claiming to produce a finished animated asset.
For production animation, I would ask which decisions need to remain stable. The shape of a product, the placement of a logo and the identity of a face are not details that can be casually regenerated. They may need to remain outside the generative pass or be restored through a separate compositing step.
There is also value in saving the rough scene. It is a record of controllable decisions, while the selected output is a record of one interpretation. Keeping both preserves the controllable composition alongside the selected image.
I like this direction because it joins two different strengths. Scene construction is explicit about arrangement. Diffusion is effective at proposing appearance. The productive workflow is the one that gives each a clear responsibility and notices when the generated detail starts to undermine the structure.