Shows are getting more visual, audiences are more demanding, and technology is moving fast. Things that felt unusual 5–10 years ago, real-time graphics, camera tracking, LED ecosystems, and virtual production, are now part of the standard toolkit.
Today, we had a chance to speak with Ihor Chupryna, a stage director and stage designer at WePlay Studios. Ihor has developed and delivered stage environments across major event formats, from esports tournaments like WePlay AniMajor, to large-scale TV productions such as the National Selection for Eurovision 2026, and virtual production projects like the VTuber Awards. We asked him to share his view on what modern stage design really requires today, how AI is changing the process, and how virtual stages and virtual production should be treated.
Q: You’re both a stage designer and a stage director. What’s the difference between them in your work? What falls under your responsibility?
I use both titles because in my work, they’re closely connected. As a stage designer, I’m responsible for the visual side, so I create the first vision of the future event space.
I’m often the starting point of a project: when a client brief comes in, my job is to get to the core goal of the event and translate it into a clear visual direction. That shows up in the references, the style, the color palette, and the key design choices. And every choice has a reason: why we go with this direction and how it supports the idea of the event.
As a stage director, my focus is more on the engineering of the performance and the system as a whole. I make sure the scenography fits the production limits, doesn’t break the camera logic, stays functional, and that all departments work as one system, including lighting, camera, graphics, sound, content, and mechanics.
My responsibility is to ensure the concept is not only beautiful, but buildable and readable in live conditions, so the final result comes together as one complete product.
Q: What’s the most common client request you get today? How do you turn it into a workable stage concept?
Sometimes clients are inspired by a recent event or a demo of a specific technical solution and say, “This is exactly what we need.” That’s how inspiration works. The problem starts when we build the entire event around a tool. The logic should be the other way around: tools should serve the performance, not the performance serve the tools.
Right now, for example, virtual production is gaining momentum quickly, so many clients naturally focus on it. In that situation, my job isn’t to “convince” the client whether they need it or not. My job is to get to the core goal of the event and then choose the solution that will actually work.
So I start with the frame: is this TV, live, or hybrid? What’s the runtime? How many segments? Will there be a live audience? Then I define what the stage must do: where the focus should go, how performers enter and move, how it reads on camera, and what we can realistically deliver within the timeline and budget.
Only after that do I turn the concept into a system: space, lighting, content, camera, mechanics, and virtual elements. Sometimes that system includes the tools the client mentioned at the start, and sometimes it includes different ones that fit the event better. Because the goal isn’t to “use a technology.” The goal is to deliver a real stage solution that works on camera, in production, and for the audience.
Q: Since you mentioned virtual production, how do you approach designing virtual stages? Is it different from designing a physical stage?
I approach a virtual stage the same way I approach a physical one: as a real space that has to work for the performance and for the camera. The tools are different, but the rules don’t change. You still need clear scale, depth, perspective, and lighting logic. Otherwise, the world feels fake.
In the VTuber Awards case I designed an underwater world. That’s more than a blue background. It’s how light and air behave, how depth reads, how perspective works, how movement feels. If you don’t build those rules in, the audience won’t believe.
The main difference is that virtual gives you more freedom in size and environments, but it also adds strict real-time limits. In a physical stage, you fight gravity and materials; in virtual production you fight rendering load and live stability. So I keep the live pipeline in mind from the start, especially what is safe to run in real time.
For example, during preparation for the VTuber Awards, we learned that transparent elements, like bubbles, are heavy to render in real time. So instead of pushing bubbles and risking issues in the livestream, we replaced that idea with a different object that still fit the underwater world, kept the same feeling, and was much easier for the system to render reliably.
Q: What is the most common myth about virtual production you want to kill forever?
There are two myths I hear all the time. The first is that virtual production is just a 3D background you can add later. The second is that “it’s virtual, so anything is possible.”
In reality, virtual production has more rules, not fewer. If you ignore camera logic, scale, and lighting behavior, the world breaks. And if you ignore real-time limits, you create a beautiful idea that becomes a technical risk in live broadcast. Virtual production isn’t decoration, it’s scenography, just built with different materials. And it has to be designed as part of the show from day one.
Q: AI is everywhere right now. How do you feel about using AI in stage design?
I’ll be very honest: I see very clear places where AI can help, if the task is described precisely. For example, I can quickly visualize a reference to show client during conversation. It can speed up communication, especially at the early stage when you need to align on mood and atmosphere.
But AI won’t replace stage designers. And in the hands of someone who doesn’t understand production, AI can actually create more problems. It can generate a reference that looks impressive but is physically impossible to build or too risky to run in live production. And then the client starts from the wrong expectation: “If the picture exists, we can build it.”
So for me, AI is useful as a tool for presentation and early exploration, but the real work is still the same: translating an idea into a space that functions on camera, fits the budget and timeline, and can actually be delivered in the real world.
Q: If you could leave one principle for a young designer that saves years, what would it be?
Think like an engineer, not just an artist. A stage must work as a mechanism: on camera, on schedule, within budget, and in real space. You also need to understand the basics of how each production team works, like lighting, camera, content, and technical crew. So you can design a stage where everyone can do their job without fighting the setup.
Software matters, of course. But software won’t save you if you don’t understand how everything connects into a working live result. Modern stage design rewards the person who can build a working world, one that holds up under live pressure, protects the concept within real production limits, and still captures the audience. That event-first, system-first mindset is the cornerstone of strong stage design today.
Thank you for your answers.
Thank you for inviting me.
