PRELIMINARY EVALUATION SHEETQuality of Summary My honest evaluation- what

was done well and what was not of good standard? Try to cite specific example and moments from your video

Strategies put forward to make sure a high quality is maintained.

Quality of holding a shot steady

Between 0:41 and 0:50 seconds the camera is not steady, however when the police officer walks in the door and sits down the camera is more steady as it was resting on a surface.

We could use a tripod to put the camera in when filming still frames, as this would hold the camera steady and increase the quality of the shots.

Quality of the framing shots Framing shot of suspect between 0:36 and 0:41 seconds is not of a good standard as he is too much on the left side of the screen, meaning one of his arms is cut out of the frame and he is not centered. The framing shot of the police officer after this is also not centered. At the beginning when the officer walks in the camera is too low and the officer’s head is cut out of the frame slightly.

Again, for improving the framing shots a tripod would be useful as we could position it in exactly the right place in order to get a good framing shot, with the actors in the centre of the frame.

Quality of shooting material appropriate to the task set- i.e. the content of your film pre and post editing was consistent with the exam directives

Overall, the quality of our shooting material was good, we had the right content and it was consistent with the exam directives, however some of our shots were not steady or didn’t frame the actors properly. We included reverse shots, between 0:27 and 0:58 seconds, as well as including someone walking through the door and across the room, we also stuck to the 180 degree wall rule.

When improving our reverse shots if we had cut the clips more closely we could have had less space between the reverse shots so that they’d be less delayed, however I think we did this quite well even though it could still be improved.

Quality of selecting mise-en-scène including colour, figure, lighting, objects and setting;

Our mise-en-scene was well thought out, the suspect was wearing typical clothes expected of a suspect and the officer also had appropriate clothing. All the props were included, the

When more time is allowed for our film we can ensure that our mise-en-scene is improved, we will have costumes that are more appropriate, props, lighting and setting that will suit our

exhibit bag with the sweet in, and the wanted poster were both prepared beforehand. The lighting was natural and so this fitted in well with the situation, as the interview would have been done in the day. Our setting was also appropriate as it resembled an office or interview room, only there were a lot of objects in there that we didn’t want included in our frames so had to move or hide behind a screen.

film idea well and increase the effect. Although, I think our mise-en-scene was quite good yet of course could be improved further to make the film more authentic to an audience.

Quality of editing so that meaning is apparent to the viewer

Our editing was quite well done, we managed to cut the clips so that there was less time between the reverse shots, and we also overlapped two shots so that they flowed better. This improves continuity and makes it easier for the viewer to understand the content.

Our editing could have been taken a lot further if more time was allowed, we could have made the film smoother and flow better, with more overlapping shots and fading from the title at the beginning into the film etc. However, I do think we did quite a good job overall on the editing, within the time limit.

Quality of using sound with images and editing appropriately for the task set;

The quality of sound was mostly good, it was slightly static at times and not completely clear, however it worked well with the images and editing and was appropriate. The dialogue could have been clearer at times, for example between 0:51 and 0:55 seconds the speech is quite fast and therefore not as clear as it could be, but overall the sound is fine and clear.

The quality of sound could reach a higher standard if speech was clearer and louder, and to make sure no sound of movement behind the camera or static sound is included in the shots.

Quality of positioning and movements of actors

Our positioning was good mostly, he actors were positioned well apart from the angle of the camera meaning that sometimes they were not centered or fully framed in the shot. The movement of actors was also quite good; it was

Our actors could have made their movements smoother and look less rehearsed but more natural. The positioning can be improved by this as well but also by the angle of the camera which will enhance the appearance of the shots and how the

mostly clear and helped a viewer to gather an idea of what was going on in the clip. However sometimes the movement could have been smoother, for example when the actors move the exhibit bag across the table between 0:32 and 0:36 seconds, their movements are not very smooth.

characters appear in them.

Quality of group planning, meeting targets, organization

As a group we worked well together and were organised, we planned well meaning we knew what to do when it came to filming and editing. We completed the task together and met the deadlines.

To improve this, we could have allocated specific roles, so as to make sure all the jobs got done on time. This would save time and mean planning would be done properly.

Group dynamics i.e. how did your group work together

Our group worked on most tasks together, we all contributed to the script and editing, but two of us acted and two filmed. Everyone in the group contributed equally, and well with each other.

I think allocating group roles will improve our group dynamics, however our group worked very well together and didn’t have any problems with communication or planning.

Other points of evaluation (e.g. equipment related etc)

The main equipment problem was that the camera movement was jerky at times due to having no tripod or much stability for it. This also led to the actors not being within the frames properly. The setting also needs to be improved, as the amount of unwanted objects in the room made it hard for us to not catch them within the shots.

To improve these problems we could use a tripod in some shots where the camera does not need to move, for example a medium close up of an actor. We could also ensure that our setting contains nothing that we wouldn’t want in the shots, or at least that there was an easy way of not including them in a shot.