Video-based methods makeup a promising instrument for studying food practices and eating behaviours. Using video as an ethnographic tool allows to question the “invisible” and sensorial elements of everyday life (Pink and Mackley, 2012). It allows for precise observations of interactions, routines, micro-expressions and everyday gestures and senses (Lahlou, 2017; Pink, 2010), with an opening for participatory research (Pink and Mackley, 2012). In this paper we review our experience using video for research in food sociology to synthesise insights on possible matches between video-based research tools and research objectives. Taking a critical “methodographic” (Endaltseva and Jerak-Zuiderent, 2021; Lippert and Mewes, 2021) approach to three case studies, we review the benefits and drawbacks of video-based methods in food studies, analysing how certain tools and instruments may influence research questions and outcomes. We specifically highlight precautions and ethical questions arising when adhering to video-based methods. Our first case study is a PhD project in sociology, which interrogates emotions related to food industrialisation. To analyse eaters’ emotions, the research started by conducting semi-structured interviews and participatory meal observations at home, without filming. A few weeks later, participants would be invited for a filmed observation session at the experimental restaurant “Ovalie” – at the Jean Jaurès University in Toulouse. During this session, the participants would cook and eat a meal similar to the one prepared for the initial observation at home. This process would be captured by the cameras installed into the platform. After this filmed session, a focus group would be conducted, based on video clips extracted from the meal. The second case study is a doctoral thesis in sociology of care. The aim of this study is to describe interactions between a person who can not eat independently and requires assistance to perform the gesture of bringing the food to the mouth (as part of neurological diseases) and a caregiver (either a relative or a professional). The research focuses on the strategies designed during a meal by both parties to make it sucessful. The methodology has two phases. The first starts with a video-recorded meal, followed by an interview with the two members of the dyad (the caregiver and the care receiver). This may take place at the hospital or at home. Fifteen days later, a second interview would be conducted with the dyad, based on selected video extracts from the recorded-meal, using the technique of self-confrontation (Bonnemain, 2019). This interview could be conducted either at home or by videoconference. Finally, our last case study is a post-doctoral research on salting practices. The study has two phases: video-mediated observations at home and observation at the experimental Ovalie platform. To facilitate the observation at home, the researcher would use a portable video-camera, starting with an invitation for interlocutors to make a video-tour of their kitchen and comment it as if it were a reality TV show first, specifically paying attention to where is salt in their kitchen – visible and hidden in products. The researcher would then participate in meal preparation and consumption, moving the camera from a tripod, to their hand to film details, to elsewhere. A camera here becomes an active observation participant. After, interlocutors would be assembled in groups (pre-existing and randomly formed) and be invited to cook and eat together at the Ovalie platform – these meals would be filmed by hidden video-cameras and analysed later through a thematic analysis. By cross-analysing our three case studies, we come up with clusters of what kind of research knowledge our different approaches to video produce, similar to Pink and Mackley’s (2012) biography of method approach. We then draw a number of conclusions about using video in the study of food practices and eating behaviours. First, video-based methods afford observing specific aspects of behaviours, like routine gestures, emotions or interaction strategies, which leads to rich data. Second, they can render visible invisible and neglected gestures, which are indispensable for understanding and appreciating everyday food work. Third, videos can serve as an intermediary place, a limbo zone between the embodied practices and reflexivity, allowing interlocutors to be active participants in research agenda. However, some precautions need to be taken when using such methods: nurturing trust, combining image with an interview, minimising “staging tendencies” when filming everyday interactions for better sociological interpretation. We also discuss the place of experimental platforms in video based research methodologies, especially their ethical issues. Experimental platforms are expensive and energy-consuming; however, they provide unique rich data in food research (Poulain and Lorman, 2022). We propose that experimental platforms could be rethought as a place were science and society can meet.