The three terms get used interchangeably in briefs and tool marketing, but they name three different jobs: video proofing is structured sign-off tracking across artifacts, video review is creative iteration on the work itself, and approval is the recorded decision that ends a round. Teams that blur them tend to get iteration without a decision - or a decision with no record of what was actually approved.
What video proofing means
Proofing comes from print: a "proof" is a near-final copy checked before the full run. In creative work software, online proofing (as we defined in what is online proofing) means structured review of any artifact - video, PDF, image, web page - with tracked decisions, versions, and an audit trail. The emphasis is process: who has seen it, who has signed off, what stage it's in. Proofing tools shine when many reviewers must formally clear many artifacts, which is why agencies and regulated teams use the term constantly.
What video review means
Review is the creative loop: someone watches the cut, reacts at the exact moment something feels wrong, and the editor responds with a new version. The emphasis is the work, not the workflow - frame-accurate comments, drawings on the image, version stacks, side-by-side comparisons. Review is where quality actually gets made; a review link is the mechanism that keeps those notes on the video instead of scattered across chat.
What approval means
Approval is the gate: a named person records that a specific version is accepted and the round ends. It sounds trivial and rarely is - "approval" that lives in a Slack message or a verbal ok is why rounds reopen. A real approval is versioned (that cut, not the idea of the cut), attributed (that person, by name), and retrievable (you can show it during the scope conversation three months later). Our approval workflow guide covers how to structure the chain.
| Proofing | Review | Approval | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core question | Has everyone formally signed off? | Does the work work? | Who accepted which version? |
| Participants | All required stakeholders | Creative team + clients | Named decision owners |
| Output | Stage status, audit trail | Notes, annotations, new versions | A recorded decision per version |
| Fails when | Nobody is required to respond | Notes land off the video | It lives in a chat message |
How the three chain in one workflow
A healthy pipeline runs them in order, repeatedly: proofing establishes who must respond and what stage the deliverable is in; review generates the notes that make the next version better; approval closes the round with a recorded decision - then the cycle repeats on the next version, or stops. Teams feel the difference most in round three: without the proofing layer, nobody knows who still owes notes; without the review layer, notes are vague; without the approval layer, the round never formally ends and "small tweaks" leak in indefinitely.
One platform can carry all three - the stages are roles of the same mechanics: controlled links, timecoded feedback, per-version sign-off. What matters is that your team names the stages explicitly, because the terms in your contract ("two rounds of review, written approval per round") should map to what your tooling records. When they don't, see how many revision rounds to promise before you sign it.
The one-sentence version
Proofing is the process layer (who signs off, in what order), review is the craft layer (making the cut better at the frame), and approval is the legal layer (the recorded yes). Tools that only do one of the three will leak work into the other two - usually into your inbox.
FAQ
Is "online proofing" just another word for video review?
No. Online proofing is broader and more process-oriented: multi-format artifacts, structured stages, tracked sign-offs, audit trails. Video review is deeper on one format: frame-accurate notes, drawings, versions. Video-first teams usually need review depth more than proofing breadth.
Can a tool do all three stages?
Yes - proofing stages, frame-accurate review, and recorded per-version approvals are one mechanical system. Dedicated proofing suites (Ziflow, Filestage) lead with the process layer; video-native tools (Frooty, Frame.io) lead with the review layer and record approvals per version.
Which stage should we formalize first?
Approval. It's the cheapest to formalize - a recorded decision on a specific version - and it fixes the most expensive failure, rounds that never end. Review mechanics usually exist already; the recorded gate usually doesn't.
Where does "sign-off" fit?
Sign-off is the act inside approval: the named person marks their stage complete. A proofing workflow collects multiple sign-offs; an approval usually references them - "legal signed off on v4, therefore v4 is approved."