Two versions are correct:

Was ist auf dem Video? (That's my preferred version)
Was ist auf dem Video drauf? (Works too and I guess people actually use it a lot)

Was ist auf dem Video darauf --- incorrect!

Thank you, Jackston, for your response but I just want to clarify for my own understanding: So, it is not incorrect to say "Was ist auf dem Video drauf?" Can anyone explain when this would be used as opposed to the other version?

It is not quite uncorrect, but colloquial. "Auf... drauf" describes kind of a local relation, another answer to "was ist auf dem Video drauf" could be "ein Stapel Bücher" (which is placed on the video, but not filmed on the videotape).

Tigger, I want to continue your beancounting:

auf...drauf as a location relation? That's what I also thought first. But then:
Was ist auf dem Teller?
Was ist auf dem Teller drauf?
Here both is related to locational aspects.
However, could it mabybe be something like an "abbreviasion" or reduced verb in the sense of:
Was ist auf dem Video drauf(gespielt)? --> Was ist auf das Video draufgespielt worden?
Just a guess. Maybe somebody else knows more.

Good point, samsun! But as I said it's colloquial - never try to explain dialects logically! :)

As far as I can see, "Was ist auf dem Teller drauf?" and "Was ist auf dem Teller?" are synonymous; the only difference is that the first one is informal and the second one the only acceptable in written formal language.

"auf ... drauf" is not an "abbrevation" for anything, "Was ist auf dem Video draufgespielt" is blatently ungrammatical.

@tigger: The claim that any form of language is more "logical" than another is just complete bullshit.

"Was ist auf dem Video draufgespielt" is blatently ungrammatical.
Who claimed this to be grammatical?
Read more carefully and watch your language!

Danke für die Zurechtweisung, ThomasJ, du musst wohl von deinem Uni-Elfenbeinturm aus noch ein bisschen das Internet und die Bedeutung der Zeichen lernen. Schon mal was von sogenannten Smileys gehört?

@coward:

It seemed like samsun was under the impression that "Was ist auf dem Video drauf" was an abbrevation for "Was ist auf dem Video draufgespielt". As a native speaker of German, I can safely say that this is not the case, since the former sentence is not German. God knows what your problem with that is.

tigger's claim was just outrageous. It's perfectly justified for it to be called bullshit.

@tigger:
Smileys rechtfertigen nicht jeden Blödsinn. Wenn die Smileys andeuten sollen, dass Deine Aussage nichts zu bedeuten hat, warum schreibst Du dann überhaupt etwas; wenn sie einen Witz anzeigen sollen (merke: Nur schlechte Witze haben eine Kennzeichnung nötig), kann ich mir nicht vorstellen, dass jemand darüber lachen könnte. Und Du wirst jawohl nicht ernsthaft behaupten wollen, dass Deine Bemerkung ironisch gemeint gewesen sei (hier gilt übrigens das gleiche wie oben, man braucht normalerweise keine Kennzeichnung für Ironie, es sei denn, es wird wirklich nicht deutlich, ob die Aussage nun ironisch gemeint war oder nicht).

Just to make that clear:

<<'Was ist auf dem Video draufgespielt" is blatently ungrammatical.
Of course, this sentence ist not grammatically correcht, which I never claimed though. The origin was to be
<< "Was ist auf das Video draufgespielt worden?"
Then this would be transferred to *Was ist auf dem Video draufgespielt
and this again reduced to Was ist auf dem Video drauf.

Sorry for not having made this clear.

> tigger's claim was just outrageous

You seem to have a lot of RAGE inside of you that you find tigger's casual remark outrageous.

> It's perfectly justified for it to be called bullshit.

Justified by whom? You? God? The brothers Grimm?

Why not take a deep breath first, then say: I can't agree with tigger.

Na da ist ja heute jemand mit dem ganz falschen Fuß aufgestanden.
Thanks, Anja :), don't mind.
Anyway, we all agree that Marika's sentence is colloquial and grammatically incorrect.

@Samsun: Sorry, but I don't buy this theory. I don't know the etymology of "drauf" (and the idea that it was somehow derived from the current standard language is somewhat strange to begin with) but it's just unlikely that it is a contraction of "drauf"+Verb. Of course, this is nothing personal as some people try to make it seem.

@Anja: I don't say "I can't agree with tigger" because that would make it seem like his position is somehow a valid opionion. It is not, and in fact, there should be no need to discuss this issue at all. Dialects are not inferior languages. Period.

@tigger: Of course, Marika's sentence is perfectly grammatical colloquial German.

@ThomasJ - people who swear when making a point are usually teenagers. It is rude to say that people are talking bullshit. Very rude. If you say that, people will not take you seriously.

@coward: If you want to accuse be of being a troll, say it right into my face.

Ich bin drauf und dran zu glauben, dass ihr heute nicht gut drauf seid! :-)

I never stated that I see dialects as some kind of inferior language. If Thomas twists my words and insults me in this way, he is a troll and therefore not to be feeded.

ich denke eher 'namenlos' ist ein Troll, der gerade von Thomas gefüttert wird.
Also beendet doch einfach die Diskussion an dem Punkt :-)

back to the topic...

i d say people above may be right, but you can see it also as a double(d) indication of location:

usually in german:

was ist auf dem video? [or]
was ist darauf?

it is definitely coll. to combine both ("was ist auf dem video drauf?") and - maybe as in french "c'est quoi, ca?" - it could be described as a post-noun/noun-related emphasis or something.