Data Recovery Case File · Trust, Practice & Honest Limits · Four Devices, Four Answers
Each Device Has to Be Assessed Separately, and Two of Them Are Nearly Hopeless
Her enquiry describes footage that may exist in four places and has been treated badly in all of them. Wedding videos said to have been on a hard drive that has since had new content added, and three camera cards which "were deleted and formatted several times" since the day. The four devices are in quite different conditions, and the honest answer differs for each — which is more useful than a single yes or no.
| Media | One hard drive with content possibly deleted and further material written since, and three camera memory cards deleted and reformatted repeatedly — footage from a single event approximately ten months previously |
| Reported situation | Event footage recorded on three cameras · footage reported as held on a hard drive · footage no longer locatable on that drive · further content added to the drive since · three cards returned to the owner · cards deleted and formatted on several occasions since the event · approximately ten months elapsed · recovery sought from any source |
| Fault class | Deletion followed by substantial reuse across multiple devices — recoverability governed by extent of subsequent writing rather than by the deletion itself; prospects differing by device |
| Equipment used | Each device assessed independently with prospects stated separately · all devices removed from use before assessment · imaged write-blocked before any scanning · signature carving targeted to the recording formats across unallocated regions · realistic position stated before any commitment |
The decode: what each device can and cannot be expected to yield
Why deletion alone would not be the problem: deleting a file removes the entry describing it and marks its space as available. The content stays where it was written until something else is written over it — which is why deleted footage is often recoverable.
Why the words that matter here are what came after: new content added to the drive, and cards formatted several times and used again. Overwriting is what ends a recovery, and both of those describe overwriting.
Taking the hard drive first, and it is the better prospect: content was deleted and further material added. How much was added determines how much of the original space has been reused — and on a large drive with modest additions, most of the earlier content may remain.
Why video is favourable within that: footage occupies long continuous runs and carries recognisable openings. A clip beyond the reach of what was written since recovers whole, so results tend to be complete clips rather than damaged ones.
Why the drive should be assessed before the cards: it is the only device where the material was placed deliberately for keeping. It is also the largest, which means the most room for content to have survived.
Turning to the cards, and this is where the answer is poor: a format clears the index rather than the content, so one format would have been survivable. Several formats with shooting in between is a different matter — each subsequent session writes from the front of the card onwards, over whatever was there.
Why the earliest footage is the most exposed: cameras fill cards sequentially from the beginning. The event footage occupied the front of each card, which is exactly where every later session begins — the worst possible overlap.
What that means honestly: substantial recovery from the cards is unlikely. Fragments may survive in regions later sessions did not reach, and that is the realistic expectation rather than a pessimistic one.
Why the ten months matters less than it seems: elapsed time does nothing on its own. What harms recoverability is use, not age — a card sitting untouched for ten months would be in the same condition as on the day.
What should happen now, for all four: every device out of service immediately, and each imaged before anything is scanned. The assessment establishes what survives on each rather than predicting it, and the drive is where to look first.
On the bench
Each device was assessed independently with prospects stated separately — deletion removing the describing entry and marking space available while content remains until overwritten, so subsequent writing rather than deletion governs recoverability. Further material added to a large drive may leave most earlier content intact, whereas cameras filling cards sequentially from the beginning place event footage exactly where every later session starts. Carving was targeted to the recording formats across unallocated regions.
The outcome
Each device assessed independently, all removed from use, and carving targeted across unallocated regions. Free assessment, one fixed written figure including VAT; where content has been deleted or overwritten, the figure is payable upfront. The decode, given plainly: the hard drive is the real prospect, because deletion leaves content in place and only what was written since displaces it. The cards are unlikely to yield much, since cameras fill from the front and every later session began there.
When footage may exist on several devices
Take every one of them out of service now, and have each assessed separately rather than as one job — the prospects differ enormously between them. A hard drive where content was deleted and some new material added is usually the best chance, since deletion leaves content in place and only what was written afterwards displaces it. Camera cards that have been formatted and reused repeatedly are the poorest, because cameras fill sequentially from the front, so the original footage sits exactly where every later session begins. Elapsed time isn't the enemy; use is.
Take them all out of use — call Manchester Data Recovery on 0161 871 0788; each device assessed independently with prospects stated separately, imaged before any scanning, realistic position given before commitment.
Request a quote online →
Our case files are drawn from genuine enquiries received by our laboratory over the past ten years, anonymised to protect client confidentiality. Each one describes the diagnostic and recovery procedure our engineers apply to that fault, using the equipment listed.