Data Recovery Case File · Second Fixes & Trade Handoffs · Which Object Was Assessed

A Second Opinion When You Were Told There Is Nothing

Her enquiry described a careful sequence of troubleshooting and one verdict that may have been given about the wrong thing. An SD card used in a DSLR: "I copied multiple video files from the card, and when on my laptop none of them opened, which normally they would. Tried converting the file type from MOV to MP4 and it failed, which suggests to me the video files have been damaged too. When putting the card back into my DSLR it has asked me to format the card again, which I haven't done. I have taken the card and a USB with the files I copied over to a data recovery place and was told there was no data on..." Her own diagnosis is sound. But there is a question worth asking before accepting that verdict — which of the two objects she handed over was actually examined, because the answer changes everything.

The decode: why the copies are broken, and which object matters

Why the copied files will not open: the mechanism this archive returns to often, and her own testing confirmed it. When a copy is made from a card with regions that will not read, the operation does not always fail cleanly — files are written out at the correct length with the unreadable parts padded, so they arrive with the right names, sizes and dates and are internally incomplete. Video is particularly unforgiving of this, because a container with missing or invented data in the middle cannot be parsed.

Why her conversion test was genuinely useful: she tried converting the format and it failed, and drew the right conclusion. A file that merely had a codec problem would convert; a file that is structurally incomplete cannot be, because the converter has to read the whole thing to rewrite it. Her failed conversion is a clean confirmation that the copies are damaged rather than merely awkward — which is a better piece of diagnosis than most enquiries contain.

The question about the verdict: she handed over two objects — the card and a USB drive holding the copies. If the assessment examined the USB drive and reported no recoverable data on it, that is entirely plausible and also uninformative: those copies are known to be broken, the missing content was never read, and nothing can extract from them something that is not there. It says nothing whatsoever about the card, which is the object that actually holds the footage. So the reasonable next step is not to argue with the verdict but to establish what it was about. If the card itself was properly imaged and found empty, that is a different and more serious answer.

Why the card is very likely fine: the camera is still asking to format it, which means the card is being recognised, powered and read at device level — it is present and answering, with a filing structure the camera cannot parse. Combined with copies that came off at the right sizes, the picture is of a card whose content is physically there and whose reads are failing in places. That is worked by imaging under timeout control with the weak regions revisited patiently, which is precisely what an ordinary copy cannot do.

What she must keep doing: declining the format. She has already refused it twice, which is the single most valuable thing she has done.

On the bench

The card was treated as the object that mattered and imaged write-blocked behind the DeepSpar USB Stabilizer 10Gb with per-sector timeouts enforced — the healthy expanse captured first at full speed, and the regions that had defeated her copy revisited on their own patient passes, where repeated reads recovered sectors an ordinary copy had written off in milliseconds. The video was rebuilt from sectors genuinely read rather than from padding, and every clip validated by playing it end to end. The USB copies were triaged separately and at no cost, to identify the minority that were intact.

The outcome

The card imaged under timeout control, the footage rebuilt from recovered sectors and validated by playback. Free assessment, one fixed written figure including VAT; where a chip has to be removed, 50% of parts and labour is payable upfront with the balance only on success — otherwise no recovery, no fee. The decode, for anyone told there is no data: establish which object was examined, because copies made from a failing card are known to be incomplete and a verdict about them says nothing about the card itself; a failed format conversion is a good confirmation that files are structurally damaged rather than merely awkward; a camera still asking to format the card proves the card is present, powered and answering; and sectors that defeat an ordinary copy frequently yield to patient repeated reads under timeout control. Keep declining the format.

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.