http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGP5U3ThWo4&feature=player_embedded
Evaluation
For our Prelim we worked in small groups to produce a short documentary on mobile phones. To analyse the entire production and the final outcome we discussed what went right and what went wrong. Throughout the task we used various equipment and technology. Such included a video camera to film the entire thing, a small clip on microphone was attempted to be used to amplify the interview sound, Adobe Premiere Pro CS5 to do all of the editing. Editing stages involved adding cut aways, selecting the right backing track sound, altering the volume of the interviews so they weren’t drowned out and added a title page to give the credits and the name of the documentary.
What went right?
- Finding multiple people to interview so we could get different reactions to the questions. This gave variation to the documentary, making it less boring to watch.
- We placed the camera in the correct place when filming the interview. The interviewer was not in the shot and the interviewee was, they also looked like they were looking at someone rather than looking like they were looking at a wall.
- The lighting during the filming was sufficient as we closed off any light sources that were directed into the camera. An example of this was when we filmed a cut away against the window and we shut the blinds.
- Our backing track was carefully chosen and matched the pace of the visual elements of the video. The song is popular and will hopefully make the documentary more interesting.
What went wrong?
- Interviewee was talking too quietly and we struggled to turn up the volume on it during the editing stages. The background sound was overpowering in comparison so we had to reduce this when the interviewee was talking.
- Initially we didn’t film enough cut aways so it made the editing stages difficult as we had to fill in shot transactions with images of phones, this got repetitive.
- We didn’t film the interviews against a relevant background so the mise en scene looks misplaced and spontaneous. This was down to laziness within the group and the lack of motivation during this stage because the questions had to be asked constantly.
- The microphone wasn’t working so we couldn’t increase the volume of the interviewee which was later a problem when editing.
What can be improved?
- We could have increased the number of interviews. This can be improved at any point in the documentary production stages because you can add it in at any point during the editing stages. This would be better because you can ensure that you don’t have too many interviews which will overrule the entire interview. Filming them during the editing stages can give you time to establish where you want them within the documentary.
- We could have selected a better destination for the interview so the background was more relevant. This would make the documentary slightly more interesting as the viewers would have something to look at whilst the interview is taking place. This can be done by either using a blue screen which can later be transformed into a relevant background during editing stages or simply by placing the interview in the foreground of a relevant background image such as a poster or in a phone shop.
- We could have found and used a working microphone to increase the volume of the interviewees. This can be done by next time putting in the effort to find a working one or borrowing one of another group.
- We could have filmed more cut aways to fill in the gaps successfully between each of the interviews in the final outcome. Next time we could improve this by planning the documentary more thoroughly and sketching out how we would like it.
- The interviewee could be facing the camera a bit more because they look like they are looking too far away from the camera; this gives an effect where they don’t look like they are talking to the viewers. This can be changed easily by simply changing the direction the interviewees are facing.
No comments:
Post a Comment