Raw visual footage is reviewed and edited

[Mori]

What part of speech is visual and what does visual footage mean in the following sentence?

Raw visual footage is reviewed and edited, photographs are loaded into a computer and saved, journalists spend time finishing their stories.

Source: Mindset for IELTS Level 2, page 54

To my understanding, it's a noun and visual footage means part of a visual, i.e. a movie/picture. Here's two more similar phrases: film/video footage (= part of a film/video). Is it correct?

 

[jutfrank]

It's an adjective.

Yes, 'raw visual footage' relates to pictures, not just sounds.

 

[Mori]

Yes, 'raw visual footage' relates to pictures, not just sounds.

That means they only review and edit part of a film that you can see — the parts that you hear remain unedited, right?

 

[jutfrank]

The camera crews go out on location to film, then they go back to the newsroom to review and edit the footage. Consumers see only the edited footage, of course.

 

[Mori]

The camera crews go out on location to film, then they go back to the newsroom to review and edit the footage. Consumers see only the edited footage, of course.

It's certainly crystal clear to you as a native speaker, but I still have difficulty understanding the meaning of visual footage. Here's what I see when I look up the words in the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary:

• visual: of or connected with seeing or sight
• footage: part of a film showing a particular event

What does the word visual do in this phrase? It seems to be redundant. Can't we simply remove it in this context?

 

[jutfrank]

The word visual is distinguishing video from audio. In other words, visual footage is footage consisting of pictures, not just sounds.

I'm guessing that you think that 'footage' can only refer to video, which is confusing you. Is that right?

 

[Mori]

I'm guessing that you think that 'footage' can only refer to video, which is confusing you. Is that right?

No, not really: audio and video together.

The word visual is distinguishing video from audio. In other words, visual footage is footage consisting of pictures, not just sounds.

The footage has audio and video, but they just edit the video (pictures). Is it OK now?

 

[jutfrank]

No, you're still misunderstanding this. If they're going to use video, then they'll edit the video accordingly. If they want to include the audio that goes along with the video, then they'll edit the audio too. It's also possible that a journalist can make use of material that is only audio, say, if they work in radio.

Imagine you're a journalist covering a war as part of a TV crew. You'll go out into the field and shoot lots of footage, most likely with a sound guy too. Then you'll go back to the newsroom and work out which bits of the video and/or audio you want to show. You don't have to include any audio if you don't want to but typically you would in TV news media. If you work in radio news media, then you obviously won't need to shoot any video at all.

 

[Mori]

No, you're still misunderstanding this. If they're going to use video, then they'll edit the video accordingly. If they want to include the audio that goes along with the video, then they'll edit the audio too.

That's my point: the journalist simply edits the raw footage, which includes both audio and video. But the text in my original post says he/she edits the visual footage. And that's why I find it redundant.

 

[Mori]

Uh-oh! I think I got it: The footage mentioned here is just a series of pictures — no audio at all.