Export an H.264 MP4 at 1080p for review rounds and keep the high-bitrate master for delivery - because the review file and the delivery file are two different products. The review file exists to be judged quickly by humans on any device; the master exists to survive broadcast, platforms, and archive. Uploading the master as your review file does not buy fidelity the review link preserves - it buys slower uploads, stuttering playback, and rounds that stall.
Review export vs delivery master
| Purpose | Codec / container | Resolution | Typical bitrate | Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Client review rounds | H.264 in MP4 | 1080p (4K only for look-critical rounds) | 10-20 Mbps for 1080p | AAC, stereo, consistent level |
| Delivery master | ProRes 422 HQ / DNxHR (per platform spec) | Native (1080p/4K per spec) | Hundreds of Mbps - spec-driven | Per spec: stereo or stems |
| Archive | Master codec, cold storage | Native | Master bitrate | Stems + mix |
Bitrates above are typical working values, not gospel - the right number is the lowest that shows no compression artifacts on the content you actually made (high-motion footage needs more than interview heads). The deeper bitrate mythology is worth a read if you deliver to broadcast: the classic is Frame.io's Video Bitrates and Export Myths - we are review-side here, and review-side the rule is simple: good enough to judge, small enough to move.
Codec: why H.264, and when H.265 bites
H.264 in an MP4 container is the review standard for one reason: it decodes everywhere - every browser, every phone, every corporate laptop with its IT-locked codec set. H.265/HEVC gives smaller files at the same quality but breaks on a meaningful slice of reviewer machines - older hardware, some Linux setups, some in-browser players - and a reviewer who clicks a black screen gives you a zero-feedback round. ProRes and DNxHR belong to the master, not the review: they are edit-and-finish codecs, ten times the size for zero benefit to someone watching a cut on a phone. If your review platform transcodes for playback - Frooty generates playback variants so reviewers stream smoothly (1080p on the Free plan, original resolution on Studio) - the review export can stay lean regardless.
Resolution: 1080p is the review default
Reviewers judge structure, pacing, performance, and motion at 1080p without losing anything the feedback needs. Exceptions worth the upload weight: look-dev rounds (color, detail, texture judgment on a 4K deliverable), finishing QA rounds (the final technical pass), and anything the client will crop. Everything else climbs to 4K only to slow the round down. The proxy-vs-original tradeoff underneath this is unpacked in what is proxy workflow.
Audio, captions, and frame rate
- Audio: consistent loudness across the cut, no clipping, stereo AAC. A review export with broken or wildly uneven audio collects audio complaints that drown out the notes the round was for. Loudness targets differ per platform; for review, consistency matters more than hitting a specific LUFS number.
- Captions: burn them in for review rounds of social deliverables (reviewers need to see how they read on the frame) and keep clean + sidecar versions for delivery. The caption workflow - generate, correct, approve - is part of the loop; the review-side QA discipline is in the video review checklist.
- Frame rate: keep the edit's native frame rate. Conforming a 25fps cut to 29.97 for a review export invents judder that will get blamed on the edit.
Filename and version discipline
The export is the artifact the whole round references, so name it like it matters: client_project_v3_review_1080p.mp4 beats final_FINAL_edit2.mp4 in every way that counts six weeks later. Upload each round as a new version of the same video - not a new video - so comments stack with history and side-by-side compare shows what changed. Both disciplines are detailed in how to organize video project files and the video versioning guide.
Getting it there without the stall
A 20-minute 1080p review export runs a few hundred megabytes to a couple of gigabytes - small enough for chunked resumable upload to swallow without ceremony, and small enough that "re-upload after a fix" never becomes the excuse a round dies on. Then the link layer does the rest: watermark, download controls, expiry - the mechanics are in what is a video review link. The NLE-specific versions of this whole loop live in Premiere Pro, After Effects, DaVinci Resolve, and Final Cut Pro guides.
FAQ
Should I export ProRes for client review?
No - ProRes is a master/edit codec; for review it is ten times the upload weight with zero judgment benefit for the reviewer. Keep ProRes (or DNxHR) for the delivery master, export H.264 MP4 for review rounds, and let playback-side transcoding handle smooth streaming.
MP4 or MOV for review links?
MP4 - the container plays natively in every browser, while MOV containers sometimes carry codecs browsers will not decode. The codec matters more than the container: H.264 inside MP4 is the combination that decodes everywhere.
Why is my review video upload so slow?
Almost always bitrate and resolution on the export. A 4K master export at broadcast bitrate can be 20-50x the weight of a 1080p review export; uploading it wastes the round for no feedback benefit. Export for review at 1080p H.264, keep the master for delivery.
Do I need 4K review exports for 4K deliverables?
Only for look-critical rounds - color, texture, fine detail. Structure, pacing, and performance rounds judge identically at 1080p, and most review platforms stream 1080p smoothly on any connection while 4K stutters. On Frooty, original-resolution playback is a Studio-plan feature; the Free tier plays 1080p.