Versions and approval
Compare two versions of a video
so the client approves a cut, not a file name.
Two cuts of the same film can sit in one player, either as a slide wipe you drag across the frame or stacked one above the other. The approval is then recorded against the version the client was watching, by name, which is the part a folder of exports has never been able to do.
Video hosting for filmmakers · 5 GB free · Paid plans from USD 9/month
Updated September 2026
The failure this replaces
A folder of exports
is not a version history.
The file is called v3_final_FINAL2.mp4. It sits in a shared folder next to v3_final.mp4 and v2_grade_fix.mp4, and the client has downloaded two of the three at different times. That folder is where most approval disputes are born, and none of them are anyone’s fault.
Three specific things go missing, and each one costs an afternoon later.
The first is which cut the client actually watched. A download has no memory. Once the file is on their machine it plays from their disk, so nothing on your side records that they opened the older export by mistake, watched it twice, and formed an opinion about a problem you fixed a week ago. You find out when the note arrives and does not match the cut you are looking at.
The second is the comparison itself. When a client says the new grade feels heavier in the interview, they are comparing from memory, or they are doing it the hard way: two player windows, two scrub positions that drift apart within seconds, and two different decoders on their machine. The comparison that decides the job is being done in the worst possible conditions.
The third is the approval. An email that says the cut looks great names no version, carries no link to a specific file, and is worthless the day someone asks why the wrong export went to air. It is a sentence, not a record. It also does not expire when the client changes their mind in the next message, which is how a job ends up with an approval on file and an open note contradicting it.
The test
How it works here
One film carries several versions,
and the approval is attached to one of them.
The unit is the film, not the file. Cuts stack underneath it, the link never changes, and the decision is recorded against a named version rather than against the film as a whole. That is the whole mechanism, and everything below is a consequence of it.
Versions stack on one film
V2 and V3 live under the same film, behind the same share link. The earlier cut stays playable and keeps its own notes, so the second round does not inherit the first round's list. Nothing is renamed and nothing is re-sent.
Two of them compare side by side
Pick two versions and the room shows them together, either as a slide wipe with a handle you drag across the frame, or stacked one above the other. Both cuts are in one player rather than in two windows, which is what makes a difference in a grade or a trim visible rather than remembered.
Approval is per version, by name
The approval is stored against the specific version, with the name of the person who gave it. Six months later the question is which cut was signed off, and the answer is a stored decision rather than a thread you have to reconstruct.
The film reads as one of three states
Reviewing, changes requested, or approved. One line tells you where the job actually stands, which is the thing a producer wants and the thing a folder of exports can never show.
The sequence
Two cuts,
one link, one recorded decision.
Stack the new cut as a version
Upload V3 against the film that already holds V2 rather than exporting a new file with a new name. The link the client has keeps working, so there is no second email and no chance of them opening the wrong one. Nothing about the earlier cut is discarded.
Open the two versions together
Select the two cuts you want judged and pick the layout. A slide wipe puts a draggable handle over a single frame and is the right shape for a reframe, a title placement or a trim on the same shot. Stacked puts one cut above the other and is the right shape for a pacing question, where the two are not meant to line up frame for frame.
Let the note land on a version
Comments are stored against the film with a timecode in seconds, and they belong to the cut they were written against. A note on V2 does not resurface as an open note on V3. Reviewers can draw on the frame, and the drawing is saved with the note.
Read the approval, not the reply
When the client approves, the decision is written against that version with their name on it. The film's state moves to approved. What you deliver from that point is a cut you can name, and the record naming it does not live in anybody's inbox.
The two workflows
A folder of exports,
versions inside one film.
Nothing in the left column is unprofessional. It is what almost every studio starts with, and it works until the second round. The rows below are the four places it stops working.
Behaviour of the review room here, verified in product code on 8 September 2026. The left column describes the workflow this replaces rather than a named product. The review room, versions and per-version approval are available on every plan, including the free Starter plan.
Why the record is worth trusting
A new note on an approved cut
revokes that approval.
This is the rule that makes the rest of it mean anything, and it is the one worth understanding before you rely on the feature.
An approval that cannot be withdrawn is a timestamp, not a decision. In a real job the client says yes on Thursday and remembers the lower third on Friday, and in a thread those two messages sit next to each other with equal weight. Somebody then has to decide which one is current, usually by scrolling.
Here the second message settles it automatically. Posting a new note against a version that was approved removes that approval and moves the film back to changes requested. The consequence is the useful part: an approval on this system always refers to a cut that nobody has objected to since. You are not reading a record of what someone once said, you are reading the current state of the film.
It also means an approval is cheap to give and cheap to take back, which is what you want from a client who is nervous about signing off. They are not committing to a file forever. They are marking one version as good as of now, and the system will tell you the moment that stops being true.
What to do with the closed round
Where this is the wrong tool
A wipe is an impression,
and some jobs do not need versions at all.
Say this plainly, because a comparison feature is easy to oversell. A slide wipe across the same frame is the wrong instrument for judging two grades if what you need is measurement. It tells you that one side is warmer. It does not tell you by how much, in what part of the tone curve, or whether the difference survives a different display. The client is also looking at their own uncalibrated screen in their own room. If the question is technical rather than editorial, settle it on a scope in your grading application and use the room to show the client the result, not to make the decision.
The stacked layout has a matching limit. It is good for pacing and structure, where the two cuts are not meant to be frame-aligned, and it is poor for anything requiring your eye to stay in one place. Pick the layout to match the question, and if the question is neither of those, one cut on screen and a timecoded note is usually a faster answer than any comparison.
And if the job has one version, none of this apparatus is worth setting up. A single cut, one link, and a timecoded note is the entire workflow, and adding a version stack to it only gives you more state to keep tidy. Versions earn their place from the second round onwards, when there is genuinely more than one candidate for the word approved and somebody outside the edit has to choose between them.
The other honest limit is codec rather than workflow. Browser-decodable codecs stream here, so H.264, HEVC and AV1 versions compare in the player, while ProRes 422, ProRes 4444 and DNxHR are hosted for the client to download rather than streamed. If both of your candidate cuts are ProRes masters, export browser-friendly versions of each before you ask a client to wipe between them.
Questions
Frequently asked
How do I show a client two versions of the same video at once?
Stack both cuts as versions of one film, then open the comparison with two of them selected. The room draws them either as a slide wipe, where a handle you drag across the frame reveals one cut on the left of the line and the other on the right, or stacked, with one above the other. Both are inside the same link the client already has, so nothing new is sent and nothing is downloaded.
Does the client need an account or software to compare versions?
No. The share link is itself the authentication: possession of the link grants review rights on that one film. There is no signup, no invitation to accept and no player to install, and a reviewer never consumes a seat. Seats are a separate mechanism that reviewers never touch.
How do I know which version was approved?
Because the approval is stored against a version rather than in a message. Each version carries its own approval, with the name of the person who gave it, and the film's overall state reads as one of three things: reviewing, changes requested, or approved. The answer to which cut was signed off is a record you can open, not a memory.
What happens if the client approves a cut and then asks for one more change?
Posting a new note on an approved cut revokes that approval. The film goes back to changes requested and the version is no longer marked approved. This is deliberate: an approval that survives an objection is worse than no approval, because it reads as settled while somebody is still waiting on a fix.
Do the old versions stay playable after I upload a new one?
Yes. Adding a version leaves the earlier cut in place with its own notes and its own approval state, which is what makes the comparison possible at all. Replacing a film is a different operation: the link, the id, the view count, every embed and the player and review settings survive, but only the media changes. Use versions for anything under review.
Can I take the link back once the job is over?
A share link can be revoked, and expiry is checked on every load, so a link that has been withdrawn or has passed its date stops opening the room. The approval record stays where it is.
Put V2 and V3 in the same player
Stack a second version on a film you already shared, let the client wipe between the two, and read back which version they approved and when. Versions, comparison and per-version approval are on every plan, the free one included.