The Checks We Run on Footage Before Any Edit Begins
A look at the practical tools and routines we use to review authorised recordings for permissions, sound quality and coverage, so the edit starts on solid ground.
Marcus Bell · · 6 minutes to read
Why the review comes before the first cut
Every module in the course starts with the same habit: watch before you cut. In the Reading Source Footage module we ask learners to spend a full session with a recording and an empty timeline, adding nothing to it. The aim is to find out what the material can actually support. A recording that looks promising in a thumbnail can turn out to have a muffled speaker, a camera that drifted off the stage, or a long stretch with nothing usable.
Marcus Bell, who leads the editing side of the course, has seen the same pattern across conference and concert recaps. Editors who skip the review tend to discover problems late, when a promised highlight depends on a clip whose audio cannot be saved. Reviewing first costs an hour or two and spares you rework.
This article covers the tools and methods we rely on for that review, not the full module. Think of it as the working kit behind the habit.
A permissions sheet kept beside the footage
The first tool is not software at all. It is a single-page permissions sheet that sits next to the recording files. It records who supplied the footage, what they said it may be used for, and whether any speakers or performers have limits on how their words or image appear. Learners fill it in before they open the editing program.
We use this sheet because permission questions are easy to forget once an edit is underway and the clips begin to feel like your own. A recording is only a source when someone has authorised its use, and the sheet makes that visible. If a clip has no clear answer, it goes into a separate hold folder rather than the main project.
The labelled sample projects in the course come with a completed sheet, so beginners see what a finished one looks like and can copy the layout for their own recordings.
- Who supplied the recording
- What use was agreed
- Any limits on speakers or performers
- Clips on hold until the answer is clear
Listening with headphones and a simple log
Audio is the second thing we check, and we do it with closed headphones rather than laptop speakers. Room echo, wind on a microphone, a hum from a stage light and clipped peaks all hide on small speakers. Learners play each recording from start to finish and note every point where speech becomes hard to follow.
The log is a plain table with a time, a short note and a rating of usable, usable with repair, or unusable. It takes patience, but it pays off when you reach clip selection. You already know which spoken moments you can safely build around and which ones would force you to lean on captions to carry the meaning.
We also ask learners to note the loudest and quietest speakers, since levelling them later is easier when you know the gap in advance.
Mapping coverage with a shot list
Coverage is the question of what the cameras actually saw. We use a shot list, again a simple table, that records each angle, how long it runs and what it shows: the stage, the audience, a close view of a speaker, a wide room view. Learners mark gaps, such as a keynote with only one camera position or a performance where the crowd was never filmed.
Knowing the gaps changes how you plan. If a recap needs audience reactions and there are none, you can decide early to focus on the speakers instead of hunting through hours of footage for a shot that does not exist.
The list also helps with pacing later. An event with several angles can be cut with more variety, while a single wide shot calls for tighter trimming and careful use of on-screen text to keep the viewer engaged.
- Angle and what it shows
- Start and end time of each take
- Gaps in coverage
- Moments worth returning to
Keeping speakers in context while you review
One method deserves its own mention: marking context while you watch. When a speaker says something that sounds like a strong quote, we ask learners to note what came just before and just after it. A sentence that sounds like praise might be the opening of a criticism, and a bold claim might be a question the speaker went on to answer.
This note travels with the clip into the selection stage. It reminds the editor that a trim must not change what the person meant. Respecting the source is one of the course values, and it begins here, in the logging, not at the cutting stage when time pressure makes shortcuts tempting.
Daniel Ortiz, who runs the feedback rounds, often points to missing context notes when he explains why a learner's first edit feels slightly off.
Organising files so the edit stays calm
The last piece of the kit is file organisation. We suggest three folders per project: originals that are never touched, working copies, and exports. Original files stay exactly as received, so you can always return to the source if a trim goes wrong or a question arises about what was said.
Clear file names matter too. We use the event, the camera angle and the take number, so a log entry like a time and a name leads straight to the right file. It sounds dull, yet it removes a surprising amount of friction when you begin to assemble clips.
By the end of the module, learners have a reviewed, logged and organised set of footage, ready for the clip selection work that follows.
None of these tools is complicated, and that is deliberate. A permissions sheet, a pair of headphones, a listening log, a shot list and a tidy folder structure are enough to keep an edit honest and efficient. They also give you something concrete to bring to feedback rounds, since your instructor can see exactly what you knew about the footage when you made each choice. Start with the review, and the later stages of editing become noticeably easier.