Introduction

Sending large video files reliably and securely is one of the most recurring operational problems production teams face. Slow uploads, broken links, ambiguous approvals, and repeated re-encodes all add time and cost to every project.

Below we outline seven proven methods to share large video files with clients, explain when to use each, highlight tradeoffs, and provide a recommended workflow that balances speed, fidelity, and auditability.

We also identify the common review pain points each method addresses, and include practical tips to reduce friction and protect your masters.

1. Proxy-based review platforms (fast feedback, low bandwidth needs)

What it is: upload lightweight proxy files to a dedicated review platform so clients can watch, comment, and approve without downloading full masters.

When to use it: client review and iterative signoff, especially when reviewers are remote or bandwidth limited.

Pros:

• Frame-accurate comments and timestamped feedback.

• No need for clients to download large files.

• Built-in approval records and version comparisons.

Cons:

• Requires a review platform subscription, and sometimes a proxy generation step.

Examples: Frame.io, Wipster, Filestage. For teams that want review plus project context, a production management platform such as Kreatli offers proxy playback integrated with project-level approvals, templates, and file-exchange views. See our Producer’s Playbook for a practical proxy workflow.

Best practice: Always upload a proxy optimized for web playback, and ensure the review platform preserves the mapping to the master file for final delivery.

2. Cloud storage shared links (simplicity and wide adoption)

What it is: store files in cloud drives and share permissioned links.

When to use it: secure delivery of high-resolution files to clients who can download on their schedules.

Pros:

• Familiar UX for clients, integrates with desktop sync.

• Access controls and expiry links on most services.

Cons:

• Storage limits and bandwidth throttles on free tiers.

• No native frame-accurate review features.

Examples: Google Drive, Dropbox, Microsoft OneDrive. For archival masters combine cloud storage with a review platform or project layer such as Kreatli so approvals and delivery receipts are tracked inside the project.

Best practice: Use password protection and link expiry, include a checksum and a short README with codec and expected filename, and store masters in a structured archive folder.

3. Large-file transfer services (fast transfers, purpose-built)

What it is: one-off transfer services optimized for large file delivery, often with resumable transfers and higher throughput.

When to use it: sending masters that exceed cloud drive limits, or when you need a fast, reliable push without long-term storage.

Pros:

• High upload and download speeds, resumable transfers.

• Simple UX for recipients, usually no account required.

Cons:

• Retention windows are often limited on free tiers, and large transfers may carry per-transfer fees.

Examples: WeTransfer, MASV. Use these services for single-occasion master delivery, and always pair with an approval record in your review system or production platform.

Best practice: When sending masters, provide a validated delivery checklist to the client: expected file name, codec, duration, and where to store the file on receipt.

4. Managed FTP / SFTP or private cloud (secure, controlled delivery)

What it is: a managed server or private cloud endpoint that supports secure FTP/SFTP transfers.

When to use it: enterprise clients who require encryption at rest and transfer, or when corporate policy forbids public cloud links.

Pros:

• Strong security controls and access management.

• Good for long-term archival and controlled distribution.

Cons:

• Requires IT involvement, setup time, and occasional troubleshooting for non-technical clients.

Best practice: Automate receipts and delivery notifications, supply an MD5/SHA checksum for file integrity checks, and document the exact transfer path for the client.

5. Review plus delivery in a single production platform (auditability and orchestration)

What it is: use a production management platform that combines review pages, file exchange views, templates, and approval states inside project context.

When to use it: teams that want a single source of truth for briefs, proxies, feedback, and final delivery.

Pros:

• Keeps approvals, asset versions, and delivery history inside the project.

• Reduces manual reconciliation and prevents version drift.

• Supports templates and repeatable delivery gates.

Cons:

• Requires adoption and configuration, but saves time long term.

Recommendation: We built Kreatli to unify proxy review, project orchestration, and delivery gates so teams reduce tool sprawl and preserve audit trails for every approval and file exchange. See our comparison guides for practical implementation ideas.

6. Peer-to-peer transfer tools (fast, direct, less central storage)

What it is: P2P file transfer tools that stream files directly between sender and recipient, minimizing server bandwidth.

When to use it: ad hoc transfers between two parties with good network connectivity, and when you want to avoid central storage.

Pros:

• Can be faster than routed transfers, useful for very large files.

• No long-term server storage required.

Cons:

• Requires both sides online at the same time, less suited for multiple reviewers, and limited tracking features.

Best practice: Use P2P for emergency or rapid master handoffs, and follow up with a stored copy in cloud or archive.

7. Watermarked review copies and authenticated previews (protect IP while enabling feedback)

What it is: deliver watermarked proxies or PDFs for client review to discourage unauthorized redistribution.

When to use it: early-stage review copies, sensitive brands, or external stakeholder reviews where IP protection is critical.

Pros:

• Deters casual leaks, and watermarking can include time and reviewer metadata.

• Preserves high-quality masters while allowing stakeholder access.

Cons:

• May annoy some reviewers, but usually acceptable for sensitive assets.

Best practice: Embed dynamic watermarks that include reviewer email and timestamp, and provide a clear route to approved, non-watermarked delivery after signoff.

Recommended end-to-end workflow (reduce rework and preserve masters)

1. Produce a high-resolution master and archive it to secure cloud storage or private archive.

2. Generate a proxy optimized for web review, create a review session on a proxy-friendly platform or in a production platform such as Kreatli, and invite stakeholders.

3. Collect timestamped feedback and iterate on edits. Keep version history and approval receipts inside the project.

4. After approval, deliver final masters via a controlled channel: SFTP for enterprise, MASV or WeTransfer for one-off deliveries, or a verified cloud transfer for archived delivery.

5. Update the project record with delivery receipts, checksums, and final file locations.

Checklist and best practices

• Use consistent filenames and versioning conventions.

• Provide codecs, expected durations, and checksums in the delivery note.

• Use expiry links and password protection for sensitive deliveries.

• Watermark review copies for external stakeholders when needed.

• Keep approvals and links inside your project record to avoid reconciliation later.

Conclusion

There is no single universally optimal method to share large video files. The right choice depends on the review phase, client technical capacity, security requirements, and whether you need auditability.

For fast iterative feedback use proxy review platforms.

For secure master delivery use managed transfers or private cloud.

For operational clarity and fewer manual steps, a production management platform such as Kreatli unifies review, approvals, and delivery inside the project so you can measure improvements in review velocity and version clarity.