FrameForge sells optical accuracy but not a visible price or roadmap

The picture

FrameForge Studio, sold by Innoventive Software under the tagline 'the only software designed to fix it in prep', is built around a claim of optical fidelity rather than panel drawing. Its own toolset page calls it an 'optically accurate virtual film studio'. It ships in Core and Pro editions with Expansion Packs listed at $99 each on the Core Edition page, which also describes 'FrameForge Core subscriptions or purchases' - a recurring and a one-time path side by side. None of this is dated: the marketing site carries no version number or changelog, only '© 2024-25 Innoventive Software', as retrieved 16 September 2026.

What the documents show

The vendor's optical-accuracy claim is not accompanied by a specification - no focal-length range, sensor size, or depth-of-field model appears. A competitor gives a second data point: M Studio's own previs software comparison lists FrameForge at '$249-$1,499' and classifies it as '3D with camera lens models' for a 'previs specialist'. That is a rival's reported estimate, not a figure FrameForge publishes itself - the two documents do not corroborate each other on price.

What it is allowed to decide

FrameForge's own material supports at most a claim to Optical authority - the camera models real lens behaviour - but that claim is unspecified on the pages checked, so it is asserted rather than demonstrated. The site does not establish Dimensional authority (no stated method for real-world scale) or Auditability (no visible version history). This material can support a class 2 creative-approval use - trusting the camera behaviour for blocking discussions - but not a class 5 technical-execution claim without a supervisor checking the lens math against the real camera package.

The disclosure label

A disclosure travelling with a FrameForge-generated frame on 16 September 2026 would read: this is a previs frame from FrameForge Studio, decision class 2 (creative approval), holding an asserted Optical authority - the vendor states the camera is lens-accurate - but not a demonstrated Auditability, since the site publishes no version number the frame can be tied to. A previs supervisor citing the tool is the plausible party asserting that label, since only someone using the software against a known lens package could confirm the claim.

• Has anyone checked FrameForge's virtual lens values against the physical lens package planned for the shoot?
• Which edition and version generated this frame, and can that be reconstructed later?
• Is the quoted price current, and from the vendor directly or a competitor's comparison page?

None of this makes the optical claim false; it makes it unverified by material a reader can check without buying the software. That gap is itself the fact worth recording, and exactly what a disclosure label exists to flag rather than resolve.