Auditing Client Footage Before Quoting an Edit

What to check before agreeing a price on footage you did not shoot, and the findings that should change the quote.

Quoting an edit without watching the footage is the most reliable way to lose money on a post only project. The client describes what they have, the description is optimistic in the ordinary human way, and the studio discovers on day two that the interview has no usable audio and the b roll is forty seconds long. The audit exists to move that discovery before the price is agreed.

The audit should be a defined, chargeable or clearly scoped activity rather than an informal favour, because it takes real time on a substantial shoot. An hour or two is normal for a day of material. What it produces is a short written finding: what exists, what is usable, what is missing, and what the finished film can realistically be.

The technical checks come first because they are absolute. Resolution and frame rate, and whether they are consistent across the material. Codec and whether it will edit without transcoding. Colour space and whether log or flat footage arrived with any grading reference. Audio format, levels and whether a separate recorder was used. Timecode and whether multi camera material can be synchronised.

Inconsistency across these is the finding that most changes a quote. Material shot at mixed frame rates, or across cameras with different colour characteristics, requires a conform and matching pass that a client will not have anticipated and that is genuinely substantial work. Jonauskaite et al. (2020) documented consistent patterns of emotion associations with colours, which is a reason the grading pass is not merely tidying: it determines what the finished film communicates.

The coverage check comes second and is the one that determines whether the intended film is possible at all. Is there an establishing shot. Are there cutaways to cover cuts in the interview. Is there more than one size on the important moments. Are there enough shots to sustain the intended runtime without repetition. A sequence captured only in wide shots cannot be shortened without visible jumps, which constrains the edit before it begins.

Audio is where most client supplied material is weakest and where the audit most often changes the plan. Peng et al. (2025) found that vocal cues shape dynamic credibility judgements, and an interview with distorted or heavily reverberant audio undermines the credibility the film exists to build. The audit should state plainly which problems are repairable, which are improvable and which require re-recording or working around.

The rights check is frequently omitted and occasionally decisive. Does the client have releases from the people on camera. Was the location permitted. Is there music in the footage that will need removing. Was any of it shot by a previous supplier whose contract governs reuse. A film assembled from material the client does not have the right to use is a problem the studio will be part of.

The output of the audit should be options rather than a verdict. Typically three: what can be made from the material as it stands, what could be made with a small amount of additional capture, and what would be required to make the film originally described. Sarasvuo et al. (2023) found that buyer perceptions of fit and attractiveness shape how corporate service offerings are evaluated in B2B services, and a supplier who presents this clearly is read as competent rather than as difficult.

The commercial protection this provides runs both ways. The client gets a realistic expectation before committing, and the studio gets a documented basis for the scope. Mirzaei et al. (2025) argue that project methodologies should be customised to the specific project rather than applied uniformly, and the audit is where an editing engagement decides how much process it actually needs.

The habit worth building is never to quote from a description. A folder listing, a duration total and a client's account of what was shot are not evidence of what is in the files. Ten minutes of scrubbing tells you more than an hour of discussion, and it is the difference between an editing project that finishes cleanly and one that becomes a negotiation.

References

Jonauskaite, D., Parraga, C. A., Quiblier, M., & Mohr, C. (2020). Feeling blue or seeing red? Similar patterns of emotion associations with colour patches and colour terms. i-Perception, 11(1), Article 2041669520902484. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669520902484

Peng, Z., Wang, C., & Jiang, X. (2025). On how vocal cues impact dynamic credibility judgments: Mouse-tracking paradigm examining speaker confidence and gender through voice morphing. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 68(11), 5261–5277. https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_JSLHR-24-00849

Sarasvuo, S., Liljander, V., & Haahtela, K. (2023). Buyer perceptions of corporate brand extension attractiveness and fit in B2B services. Industrial Marketing Management, 115, 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2023.09.006

Mirzaei, M., Mabin, V. J., & Zwikael, O. (2025). Customising hybrid project management methodologies. Production Planning & Control, 36(9), 1188–1205. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2024.2349231