the
Style
Match
Written by working filmmakers,
edited under their name.
Why this
document
exists.
Most filmmakers don't lose their style on a single wedding. They lose it across forty of them. One inconsistent grade, one off-tempo cut, one editor who didn't understand why the highlights were rolled off that way. By the time the season closes, the work no longer reads as theirs, and the inquiries that used to arrive pre-qualified start asking what their style actually is.
The Style Match exists for that exact problem. It's a structured way to articulate the choices you've been making intuitively for years, so they survive the handoff to anyone editing on your behalf, including us.
Wedit is a post-production studio for working wedding filmmakers in the US and France. We grade and edit under your name, in your voice, at your tempo. This document is how we learn it.
You'll move through eight categories. Each one asks a single diagnostic question, rates you on a 1 to 5 scale, and then opens into a short brief your assigned editor will work from. Treat it as a working document. Most filmmakers complete it across two or three sittings, and revisit it at the end of every season.
The total
matters less
than the shape.
Most working filmmakers come in with two or three categories at a 4 or 5 and the rest sitting lower. That asymmetry is the point of doing this exercise.
- 1Still figuring it out.
- 2I have instincts but I couldn't write them down.
- 3I know what I want when I see it.
- 4I can articulate it to a collaborator.
- 5It's codified. Anyone editing under my name could match it.
visual signature.
Color philosophy, contrast bias, skin tone target, highlight handling, grain, halation, the node tree someone could lift and reproduce.
If a colorist sat down with your last three films, would they extract the same node tree, or would they find three different approaches?
Consistency at the node level is what separates a signature from a tendency. A LUT can travel; intent can't, unless you've written it down. After a thousand grades, the single most overlooked variable I see is black point. Most filmmakers never define it, their editors guess, and the work drifts a stop in either direction across a season.
- aSkin tone target (warm push, neutral, desaturated; Lab values if you have them)
- bHighlight handling (rolled off at what threshold, soft halation yes or no, intensity)
- cBlack point philosophy (lifted milky, true black, crushed)
- dContrast bias (filmic S-curve, linear, custom)
- eGrain and halation specifics (plugin, intensity, layered or baked into master)
- fLUT or custom node tree (attach .drx, or describe the stack in order)
rhythm & pacing.
Cut density, breath moments, opening tempo, build pattern, the transitions you sign your name with and the ones you refuse.
How long do you let a moment breathe before you cut, and does that answer change between your highlight and your feature?
Cut density is the most reliable fingerprint an editor leaves. Match the wrong tempo and the film stops feeling like yours, even when every other element is correct.
- aAverage cut length (highlight versus feature)
- bOpening tempo (slow build, cold open, montage)
- cBuild pattern (linear escalation, valleys, sustained climb)
- dBreath moments (where they live, how often, how long)
- eSignature transitions, and the ones you refuse
music identity.
The three filters you set first, the libraries you trust, the cues you'd reject before the first chorus.
When you brief a music sup or open Musicbed, what are the three filters you set first?
Music drives every other timing decision in the film. An editor cutting to the wrong song family will produce a film that's technically clean and emotionally wrong, and that's the version that ends up on the client's hard drive.
- aPreferred libraries (Musicbed, Soundstripe, Artlist, Marmoset, custom licensing)
- bGenre lean (cinematic indie, orchestral, electronic, folk, ambient)
- cBPM range, both for the body of the film and for opening cues
- dVocal versus instrumental bias
- eSongs per film (one-track, two-track, multi-cue)
- fSpecific composers or tracks you keep returning to
narrative architecture.
Story arc, chapter structure, the way vows and speeches are treated, the architecture that holds the film up when the music is muted.
If we removed all your music and audio, would the picture cut still tell the story?
A film that depends on music to sequence is a film that breaks the moment we change tracks. Architecture is what survives that.
- aStory arc (chronological, thematic, non-linear)
- bChapter structure (titled chapters, seamless, act-based)
- cVow treatment (full audio, layered with B-roll, intercut with reactions)
- dSpeech treatment (preserve length, aggressive trim, single beat)
- eVoiceover usage (yes, no, sometimes; if so, recorded how)
- fTitle and on-screen text treatment (typeface, position, animation philosophy)
sound design.
Natural sound philosophy, dialogue clarity, music ducking, the layers a casual viewer never names but always feels.
On your last film, how many audio tracks were active under the music bed?
Sound is where most outsourced cuts collapse. Music plus dialogue plus a single ambient layer reads as edited. Six layers reads as directed. The difference is invisible to the client and obvious to you.
- aNatural sound philosophy (heavy layering, selective, minimal)
- bDialogue clarity target (broadcast clean, textured, room-tone preserved)
- cMusic ducking approach (sidechain, manual rides, static mix)
- dAmbient texture (always present, scene-specific, never)
- eSFX library (Boom, native captures, custom)
- fFinal mix loudness target (LUFS integrated)
deliverable anatomy.
Lengths, aspect ratios, codecs, end cards, the platform structure, every spec the editor should never have to ask about twice.
Define your deliverable schedule by length, aspect ratio, and codec without checking your client agreement.
Editors waste hours guessing at delivery specs. Codifying this once means every project starts from the same baseline, and your social cuts stop arriving as afterthoughts.
- aHighlight length range
- bFeature length range
- cSocial cuts (60s, 30s, 15s, vertical)
- dAspect ratios across deliverables (16:9, 2.39:1, 9:16, 4:5)
- eCodec and master specs (ProRes 422 HQ, 4444, DNxHR, H.264 web)
- fEnd card treatment (logo, name and date, black, custom)
- gDelivery platform structure (Frame.io folders, Vimeo Showcase, hard drive)
reference library.
The films from your own catalog that define you. The external benchmarks. The work you respect but refuse to be confused with.
Name three films from your own catalog that, if I match them, I've matched you. Then name three external references you study.
Reference is faster than instruction. Show us what right looks like and we calibrate from there.
- aThree to five hero films from your own catalog (Vimeo links, plus what each one teaches)
- bTwo to three external inspirations (filmmaker, specific film, what specifically you draw from)
- cOne to two anti-references (work you respect but explicitly do not want to be confused with)
hard no's.
The most useful page in the document. Every editor has defaults. Your job is to disable the wrong ones before they fire.
What are the moves that, if you saw them in your delivery, would make you ask for a recut without finishing the watch?
This is the most useful field in the document. Every editor has defaults. Your job is to disable the wrong ones before they fire.
- aVisual moves you refuse (specific transitions, looks, trends)
- bAudio moves you refuse (cues, ducking patterns, SFX)
- cPacing moves you refuse (cut-density spikes, fake builds, ramps)
- dStructural moves you refuse (chapter cards, VO, on-screen text)
- eWedding-specific clichés you've moved past
Add your
eight ratings.
Read the shape,
not the total.
Codified system.
Your style is portable. It survives a handoff. Wedit's job on your account is preservation: keeping the system intact across volume, across editors, across seasons. We work fastest with filmmakers in this band because there's nothing for us to invent.
Working signature, soft edges.
Your top of funnel reads as yours. The inconsistencies show up under the hood, usually in sound design, sometimes in pacing across deliverables. Wedit's job is to tighten the parts of the system you haven't written down yet, and to enforce the parts you have.
Identifiable but not yet protected.
You know what your work looks like. An editor wouldn't, without you in the room. This is the most common band, and it's the one where partnering with a post studio either accelerates the codification of your style or accelerates its dilution. The Style Match itself is the first step of the former.
Still defining the system.
You're earlier in the curve, and that's not a problem. Wedit has built this exact document with filmmakers in your position before. Your job for the next twelve months is to make decisions, not to default to them. Ours is to ask the questions that turn instincts into rules.
Send the
completed document
back to us.
A 30-minute style call.
With Rami, founder and lead colorist. We walk through your responses, ask the questions the form didn't, and surface the gaps. No pitch on this call.
A test grade on your footage.
We grade 60 to 90 seconds of your work to spec, return the project file as a Resolve .drp, and you compare against your own master. If we miss, we tell you what we'd need to hit it next time.
The Match becomes the brief.
If we onboard, this completed Style Match becomes the working brief for every editor and colorist assigned to your account. It lives in a private workspace shared between you and us, and gets revisited every season.
When you're
ready.
The editable Style Match lives in a private template. Email us and we'll send you a copy, set up the call, and grade a clip from your footage. No form, no funnel.
[email protected]