Data Recovery Case File · Formatted & Logical Faults · An Honest Answer
The Formats Were Not the Problem — the Backups Were
His enquiry asks a direct question and deserves a direct answer. A 1TB portable drive holding a small video, on which he "started doing a backup all night, got 200GB on it, and did a quick format and started to do the backup again. Twice quick format was done and the backup run. So what are the chances of getting the video back?" The chances are poor, and the reason is not the formatting — it is the four hundred gigabytes of backup data written afterwards.
| Media | 1TB portable hard drive — original video content of approximately 200MB; two quick format operations performed; two backup cycles of approximately 200GB each written subsequently |
| Reported situation | Drive holding approximately 200MB of video content · backup operation performed writing approximately 200GB · quick format performed · backup operation repeated · quick format performed again · backup operation performed a third time · original video content required |
| Fault class | Extensive overwriting following repeated bulk writes — original content substantially displaced; residual fragments the only realistic prospect |
| Equipment used | Written extent measured against capacity before any figure was given · imaged write-blocked · signature carving across unwritten regions only · partial fragment assessment per file · position stated honestly before any charge |
The decode: the distinction he is missing, and the arithmetic
What a quick format does: writes a fresh empty index and marks the space as available. It does not visit the data, which is why so much of this archive is about recovering from exactly that. Had he formatted the drive twice and stopped, the video would almost certainly still be there.
What a backup does: writes real data into the space the format marked as available — and it writes it from the beginning, because that is where the free space starts. That is the operation that destroys content, and it is the one nobody thinks of as destructive, because a backup feels like something that protects data rather than removes it.
So the arithmetic, plainly: a 200MB video on a 1TB drive occupied a very small region near the start. Roughly 200GB was then written from that same starting point. That alone very likely covered it. The cycle was then repeated twice more. Three passes of bulk writing across the first fifth of the drive is a great deal of writing over a small target.
Why the formats made it worse indirectly: each quick format reset the free-space map to empty, so each subsequent backup began writing from the start of the drive again rather than continuing after the previous one. Without the formats, the second and third backups would have gone into fresh space and left the earliest region alone. The formatting is what made the three passes land on top of each other.
What is nevertheless worth doing, and it costs nothing: establishing how much of the drive was actually written. Backup software does not always write contiguously, and where the video sat may or may not have been reached. A free assessment measures the written extent against capacity and gives a real answer rather than a guess.
What might still return: fragments. Where part of a video file survives between written regions, carving can sometimes recover a portion — a section that plays, or a segment that can be repaired into something watchable. That is a realistic hope and not a likely one, and it should be described as such rather than sold.
Why saying this plainly matters: because the honest answer to his question is not encouraging, and he asked it directly. A free assessment that concludes "probably not" is worth more than a quotation.
On the bench
The written extent was measured against capacity before any figure was given — a quick format writing an empty index without visiting data, while a backup writes real content into the space the format marked available, beginning from the start of the drive. Repeated formats reset the free-space map so each subsequent backup began at the same point rather than continuing beyond the last. The drive was imaged write-blocked, with signature carving across unwritten regions only, partial fragment assessment per file, and the position stated honestly before any charge.
The outcome
The written extent measured before any figure, carving confined to unwritten regions and the position stated before any charge. Free assessment, and no charge where recovery is not realistically possible. The decode: the formats were not what cost you. A quick format writes an empty index and leaves the data alone. A backup writes real content into that space, starting from the beginning of the drive — and because each format reset the free-space map, all three backups began at the same point and landed on top of each other.
Data written over more than once
Get the written extent measured before assuming either way — it costs nothing and gives a real answer rather than a guess. The important distinction is that a quick format doesn't destroy anything: it writes an empty index and marks space as available, which is why so much is recoverable after one. What destroys data is writing real content into that space, and a backup does exactly that, starting from the beginning of the drive because that's where the free space begins. Formatting between backups makes it worse indirectly, since each format resets the free-space map so the next backup starts at the same place rather than continuing beyond the last. Fragments sometimes survive between written regions.
Get the extent measured — call Guildford Data Recovery on 01483 901310; free assessment, written extent measured against capacity, and an honest position stated before any charge.
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.