2. Quality of Summary My honest evaluation- Strategies put forward to
what was done well and make sure a high quality is
what was not of good maintained.
standard? Try to cite
specific example and
moments from your video
Quality of holding a shot Very good, camera kept steady. Kept camera propped at the correct
steady Eg. During the conversation as angle on a steady object.
the camera switched between the
two characters.
Quality of the framing Very good, camera and zoom Positioning and movement of
shots positioned to portray the camera evaluated before and after
atmosphere of the film. each shot.
Eg, medium shot for most of the
conversation and then close-up
shots of reactions mid-
conversation.
Quality of shooting material Very good. Included an entrance Used a checklist of what needed to
appropriate to the task set- through a door, varied camera be put in the film, and made sure
angles and shots, the passing of we covered all areas.
i.e. the content of your film evidence between the characters.
pre and post editing was No continuity errors and shots well
consistent with directives edited and put together.
Quality of selecting mise- Good. Props used well (such as Positioned props beforehand to
en-scène including colour, positioning of tables/chairs and make the quality of the film as good
the evidence passed), well lit as possible. Chose a well lit room
figure, lighting, objects and area. However, no use of proper that met our requirements for the
setting; costumes to enhance the film’s film.
quality.
Quality of editing so that Good. Interviewer walks in and Made a storyboard which would
meaning is apparent to the displays authority over demonstrate the plot fully and used
interviewee. Plot quickly it as a guideline whilst filming.
viewer established through dialogue.
Quality of using sound with OK. No extra sounds inputted to Checked final product to check
images and editing enhance the final product. sound quality.
However, sound quality was
appropriately for the task checked and we made sure
set; voices were clear in the film.
Quality of positioning and Good. Interviewee shown sat at Set up props and positioning of the
movements of actors the beginning fidgeting to show room/actors beforehand and
nervousness, and interviewer evaluated after filming to make sure
walks in through the door and it portrayed what we wanted it to in
shows authority by quickly the final film.
questioning the person opposite.
Quality of group planning, Very good. We met all goals we
meeting targets, set ourselves at the beginning of
the project. However, no extra
organization sound was added post-production
to enhance the effect of the film
on the audience.
Group dynamics i.e. how Very well. All team members
worked well together and helped Each given a task to follow before
did your group work filming and brought together our
in the writing and editing to form
together the final product. ideas to form the final product.
