2. • In my theory work I have already talked about the characteristics and styles of factual productions that I have used in my project. I said that “In terms of my
own factual production I find that I have worked to some of the expectations and conventions of factual productions. For example the representations lecture
talks about how some things in the Media are constructed and that not everything is 100% truthful and accurate. Even though I wanted my video to be as
accurate as possible as its main purpose was to inform I found myself constructing certain elements of it in order to create drama. This was during the opening
sequence of my film which I wanted to show Apollo 11 on the launch pad counting down to lift off. However the archival footage of the lift off was actually of
Apollo 8 that I had muted and added the Apollo 11 launch commentary on. My reason for doing this was primarily due to the fact that the footage of Apollo 8
was better in my opinion than footage I could find of Apollo 11. Also it was very unlikely that anyone would be able to tell the difference. I also added stock
sound effects of a rocket blasting off in order to increase the atmosphere of the video. I then also managed to create false drama by adding in stock footage of
NASA mission controllers working at there desks which due to the way it was cut in with the music made it seem like they were working the launch when in fact
they were not and the footage was taken out of context. This could be considered taking “Creative Liberties”.
• I have also used other conventions such as the use of graphics and captions to show statistics and information throughout my video. I used it specifically when I
said important names for certain objects in my video as having what I was saying appearing in text beside me was a good way of emphasizing its importance. I
also heavily relied on info graphics and animation in what I would consider the middle segment of my video when I was showing statistics about NASA. The
reason I did this is because some people tend to process numerical information slower then they do textual information. Therefore since I was showing
numerical statistics having the numbers appear on screen appear at the same time as me reading them out seamed like a good idea as it not only emphasized
what I am talking about but makes it clearer to understand. I believed I have explored the relevant background context of my topic. I was aware before I
started that this would be an important thing for me to do as without providing exposition to the viewer they might not understand what I am talking about
and why. I started by telling the viewer how long it has been since humans set foot on the moon then a explained what NASA has been doing since then (space
shuttle) as well as the problems they face. Doing this then gave me a good opener to introduce and talk about NASA’s future plans for space travel which is the
main topic of my video. Providing the viewer with this background information allowed me to further explain and justify why NASA has these plans. I also
believe that providing context is important for the expository style of documentary that I have chosen to go with as that style relies on conventions like
illustrative visuals, graphics and “voice of god” narration soundtrack which was partly done in my production. Without context these elements would not make
sense to the viewer as they would have no idea why they were being told this information as it would just appear to be useless fact.”
Characteristics and Styles
3. Also in my theory I compared some of the stylistic decisions documentary with a full feature length one “Right from the start I can see that both my
documentary and this professional one have used very similar stylistic decisions. In fact both my documentary and the professional one have used the same
public domain footage from NASA of the Orion spacecraft. Other similar decisions are the use of archival footage of the Saturn V rocket followed by the Space
Shuttle then the Russian Soyuz. This is interesting as it appears both myself and the producers of this professional piece wanted to provide a brief visual history
of space travel. The difference is I am talking about the footage in that context whereas the professional documentary is talking about the thrust and energy
each of those rockets produce. Despite this is still works to provide that contextual history as they are showing these rockets in order from oldest to newest.
Another similar but different stylistic as well as technical decision is the use of a narration soundtrack. In my production I appear to be presenting on screen
which also doubles as a voice over track once footage appears above me to illustrate my points. I didn’t intend to originally do this however I deemed it
necessary as I found that some footage ended up obstructed by my body if it was being displayed on the green screen behind me.
On the professional production the presenting method is not used at all and the narration is just a voice over. I think looking back I would also have gone down
this route as overlaying footage makes the whole idea of using a green screen redundant in the first place. One thing that is different entirely is the specific
topic of the documentary and the type of information. Whilst they are both about the future of spaceflight. The professional one talks more about a specific
type of engineering that is crucial to the future of space travel. Specifically how we will use plasma energy as a form of propulsion for spacecraft. This contrast
to mine which focuses on the future of human space travel as well as NASA’s goals following the end of the Space Shuttle program in 2011. I then go onto talk
about the issues and problems that are facing NASA and what they are trying to do to overcome these things. Because of the way these topics are presented
my video could purely be considered an expository documentary compared to the professional one which could be considered expository with elements of
other styles such as participatory.”
Comparison to professional products:
NASA TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srNOU7VcKD8
Plasma Energy: The future of Space Travel –Real Space
4. Comparison to professional products: This week at NASA
My product: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPLuK-N4aQE
Professional Product, This Week at NASA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi2PCuGSllo
It’s interesting to me to compare these two products as they are very similar and yet very different. This week at NASA is a video series produced by NASA that talks about what the agency
has been up to over the past week. For a start the two products are of similar lengths. My video ends at 5 minutes whereas the professional piece ands at 3 minutes and 49 seconds. As a
result one of the main differences in the two is that the NASA one feels more rushed as they have got to get across lots of information in such a short amount of time. One major criticism I
would have is that it doesn’t feel much like a journalistic report that you would see in the news. In actual fact it just feels like a newsreader reading the headlines which leaves the viewer
ready for more in depth information once they headlines are over only to be surprised and disappointed when that information doesn’t come. This is something I wanted to avoid when
creating my piece as I wanted to tie up all the loose ends so that it feels like a complete journalistic report. This is helped by the fact that I don’t have to discuss multiple topics I am just
focusing on the one. I also have more time which allows my video to be more evenly paced.
Technically I would say they are similar due to there use of footage with a voice over narration however this is how they also differ. I say this because the professional one uses a voice over
narration throughout the entire video which in my opinion works really well as it doesn’t have that issue like mine does in that it feels like there is a redundant element to the production. I
think this is how mine would have turned out if I had decided to scrap the green screen all together and go straight to voice over narration.
Aesthetically they are similar in that they both incorporate CGI footage and archive footage into the production as its primary form of visual content. Like mine it shows animations of
spacecraft in space as well as archive footage albeit more modern of engineers and NASA employees working. I think people will find this in many other similar productions as it is likely the
most relevant type of footage for the topic and for the purpose of the video. Overall I would say the purpose of these two videos are the same. They are both designed to inform those about
what is going on at NASA however the way they choose to go about doing that is different. The official NASA one is very quick and snappy and only highlights the key information that the
audience needs to know. If the audience wishes to find out more information then they are left up to them to do there own research. Mine however decides to provided focus and key
information on one topic which therefore gives the audience a much more in depth journalistic report.
5. Comparison to professional products: NASA’s Human isolation experiment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3nLAF6pH1QMy product: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPLuK-N4aQE
I would defiantly say that both these documentary's are expository as they are both trying to inform people about something. The professional one informs people about NASA’s
experiments on whether humans will be able to survive the journey to Mars wares mine talks about the future of space exploration and NASA’s plans to put humans on Mars. I would say
they are similar technically in that they both focus on one specific topic rather then a brief overview of many topics. As previously stated this is a really good form of journalism as it allows
the reader to take in the specifics of a topic unlike the official NASA one which often leaves the viewer wanting more information. Whilst this could be a good thing as it supposedly keeps
your viewer coming back for more. The way it is done in NASA TV can often leave viewers feeling annoyed that these topic aren’t being covered in more detail and as a result they may
search for other sources of information.
Aesthetically they also differ as instead of using stock and archive footage like mine does they seem to have filmed all the footage specifically for this video as you see shots of the
experiment taking place. This differs to mine which has primarily used archive and stock footage as a visual reference as I obviously didn’t have access to NASA’s facilities. There were some
similarities however as not all the visual referencing was done via the use of purpose filmed footage. Some of it was stock CGI animation similar to what I used. The video also had a voice
over narration like NASA TV which is something I tried to recreate in mine however I had originally intended to use a green screen which didn’t go to plan meaning it ended up looking like
a redundant element to the production.
I do however find the Narrators voice on the Isolation Experiment video less annoying then the one from NASA TV which I think says a lot about tone and they way things are presented.
Whilst this could also be to do with the accent, the narrator on the Isolation Experiment one seems more genuine and comfortable in front of a microphone. It feels natural, like he is really
telling the viewer in person. This differs greatly to the NASA video which in my opinion it is obvious the narrator is reading from a script. This may be because he is trying to advertise
NASA’s activities to me. This makes me feel slightly distrustful as this is obviously a propaganda piece for NASA. Also advertisers don’t have a good reputation for always being genuine and
I feel like the NASA narrator would be much more suited to selling cars then presenting a factual video.
6. Strengths
I think one of the biggest strengths of my video is the script itself and how the journalism is presented to the audience. When I wrote it I wanted it to be clear and concise as well as to flow
really well on screen. I searched online and found a structure which I based my video around. This structure said that I need to “Introduce my topic, narrow in my area of interest, state the
problems and issues, zero in on my thesis and conclude”. I found this guideline really helpful as then I could then write my script using this structure as a baseline which allowed my to
create a piece of solid journalism that translated across well on screen. This allowed me to also keep my piece at just the right length to keep the audience interested throughout by making
sure that I didn’t stay talking about one topic for too long.
Something that I also thought came across really well was the use of archive footage of mission controllers and an Apollo launch that I had recut in a certain way as well as adding a musical
track to the video. My reasoning for doing this was that I wanted to create drama and tension to draw my viewers in by making the opening of my documentary look like something out of a
movie. This is a similar technique to some types of documentaries as they often use cinematic reconstructions of events to create drama. The difference being here that my production
used real footage mashed together to make the real event seem more dramatic and exciting.
One final strength that I would like to mention would be the on screen graphics that I used in the middle segment of my video in order to illustrate the problems that NASA are having. Seen
as photoshop and animation isn’t my strong point I am pleasantly surprised by how some of them turned out. I think the most effective part is when I talk about NASA’s declining budget
and since the 60s as to illustrate my point I animated a red line going down the screen on top of a graph. I think it is this sort of subtle thing that can have the biggest impact as when
people see this it will hopefully perhaps on a subconscious level, re enforce my point.
7. Weaknesses
I would say that perhaps the biggest weakness of my production was the use of the green screen and how I utilized it in my production. My original intention was to have footage
overlaid on it with me presenting in the foreground. The issue with this turned out to be that my body would end up obscuring the main parts of the footage. I now realize that because
it was on a green screen I could have moved the layer with me on so it was offset from the center however I didn’t think to do that at the time. I eventually decided to overlay some of
the more important footage entirely so that the presentation became more of a voice over. This then unfortunately meant that every time I switched back to the green screen It was
made redundant and it was likely that the audience would question why I used it.
I think if I were to do a project like this again I would either use the green screen properly to its full potential or just leave it out entirely and record a voice over piece to a microphone.
This would have the added benefit of being higher quality then having to deal with the audio from the shotgun mic attached to the camera in the studio. In my opinion the acoustics
would also likely be better if I was in a more enclosed room unlike the studio which is big enough to create a minor echo in some instances.
One big technical issue we had was that I did have a lapel microphone which in my opinion would have made my audio recording a lot better as I would have been closer to the
microphone rather then nearly two meters away from it like I was when we used the shotgun mic. However once we connected up to the camera we couldn’t get it to detect the
microphone therefore making it useless. Another issue I had was that I had forgotten that I should have wore an unbranded shirt if I was going to be on camera. Since this was just a
college project I could get away with it but if it was an actual TV documentary that was to air I am aware that I couldn’t be seen to endorse any brand and that wearing that shirt was a
bad idea.
I did consider blurring it out but then I realized that I didn’t need to as you couldn’t make out what the logo actually was. This is defiantly something to keep in mind when I next do a
project in which I will appear on camera. The final issue I had was to do with my chroma keying. I struggled to get the color grading on my face and body 100 percent correct. This meant
that there was a minor green tint to my face and my body in some places. It isn’t very noticeable but it is something I defiantly would have liked to have been able to correct.
8. Organizational & Time
management
In my opinion my time management for this project was very good as I found that by working to a schedule I was able to make sure I had all my tasks completed on time. One thing that did
help me is that I did many takes when filming should some prove unusable. This allowed me to not have to go back and do retakes even though I did have time set aside.
I think the topic of my documentary also significantly helped my time management as I was very interested and passionate about it. This helped my motivation significantly especially
during my research tasks. The reason this was helpful is because I often find the research part to be tedious sometimes especially when it comes to doing thing like collecting survey results.
I also find that collecting information and keeping a bibliography can often be tedious as well as difficult however because of my deep interest in this topic I found it significantly easier to
do this time.
I think in terms of project organisation and logistics this has been one of my most successful projects to date. I say this because I took many of my past experiences over the last year of
doing college projects and applied them to this one. This allowed me to avoid many delays and technical hitches that otherwise would have delayed production. One of the biggest
examples of this is early planning. I didn’t wait until I was doing my pre production planning documents to do things like book out equipment and the studio as well as get people to
commit to working with me. I did my best to get all of this sorted as soon as I could. The reason for this is because I found that waiting to the last minute often means that people have
often promised to help others which as a result leaves them with little time to help me as well as do there own projects. This is one primary reason why I wanted to be ahead of the
game.
Another thing I did is book my equipment out early as well as for slightly longer then I needed to. Whilst this could be considered selfish by some I would consider it essential
contingency planning. The reason I say this is because I have in the past found out that I needed extra time to shoot or I needed to go back and do reshoots only to find I am unable to
due to lack of equipment/studio availability. This was most prevalent in my year one FMP were the lighting in some scenes was too dark and I needed to go back and do reshoots.
Unfortunately I wasn’t able to do this and so I had to substitute some scenes by filming additional content at home with my own camera which isn’t as good as the college ones. This did
create some sort of inconsistency in the way some of the footage looked however through the use of clever editing I was able to maintain continuity. Whilst I was able to solve this
problem for my FMP I didn’t want to be in this situation again and so I decided to make sure I had a backup option should I need it. Because of the safety net of having extra time I felt
that this project was also less rushed and as a result this meant that the footage that was shot showed this. This meant that I didn’t actually need to go back and do reshoots and as a
result I was able to relinquish the studio and equipment to others early.
9. Aesthetic/ Technical Aspects &
audience Appeal
The aesthetics are in my opinion one of the most important parts of a video piece as they can make or brake it. This is why I focused on them a lot throughout this video. I think one of the
best aesthetic aspects in my video is the use of archive footage to show of the past which is often blurry and low quality as they didn’t have very good camera quality back in those days. I
like how this contrasts visually with the sleek CGI animation I used when I talked about the future and NASA’s plans. I liked this as this means that my production is visually linked with the
stereotypes of how people think of the past and the future.
One technical aspect is that I really wanted my footage to have some sort of meaning or to tell some sort of story. I believe I achieved this when doing the ending credits to my video. The
reason I say this is because each piece of footage used was used in that order deliberately. For example in the background of the credits you see an Saturn V Apollo rocket taking off then
followed by shots of the astronaut inside the capsule as well as surface shots of the moon. Following this you have the iconic shot of the Space Shuttle’s main engines igniting then the
shuttle lifting of. You then see a shot of the shuttle rotating in Earth orbit as it builds the International Space Station. The next shot is one of the completed Space Station orbiting the
Earth. This is footage is shown in this order as it is supposed to represent a brief history of the US Space Program. The next shot is one of the Orion Capsule leaving Earth which is
supposed to represent the possible future. This is supposed to make the audience question weather NASA will be successful in getting Orion of the ground in order to send Astronauts
into deep space. The final shot is the iconic one of Neil Armstrong's first steps on the moon with his iconic quote “That’s one small step for man, One giant leap for Mankind”. This is
supposed to leave the audience with a profound sense of wonder about space travel as well as questing when that next giant leap will be.
Some of the technical elements that I wasn’t too pleased about were the facts that in some places in my video there were noticeable jump cuts. Whilst this could be more of an aesthetic
aspect I would say it is also technical as yes whilst it can be quiet visually jarring which can effect the viewers immersion, there is primarily a technical reason for these jump cuts. The
jump cuts are there because I kept either stuttering or having to correct myself. Unfortunately I couldn’t come up with a way to solve this in these particular instances as I couldn’t find
any suitable footage to overlay at these parts. Another factor was that I believed it would make the redundant green screen even more noticeable as if I had overlaid footage then there
would be even less time between the last time I overlaid footage meaning I would only appear on screen for only a second or two.
I will say however that sometimes the redundant green screen wasn’t all that bad as it added the effect of emphasis in some areas especially when I was coming to the end of my point
and I needed to conclude what I was saying as that was almost a visual cue that would emphasise my final point to the audience making them more likely to remember it.
10. Concept to Creation &
Research
I think my research for this product was really good. The reason why I say this is because I didn’t actually have to do much research about the space program because I knew so much about
it already. Most of the information I present in my factual project was stuff I already knew as for a long time I have been interested in the space program. Most of my research consisted of
the things I needed to know about producing a factual production. As a result I looked at things such as different types and styles of documentary's as well as existing products that were
similar to what I wanted to produce. I looked at the differences between expository, observational, participatory, reflexive, poetic and performative documentaries and then came to a
conclusion on which one was best suited for the type of factual production I wanted to produce. This then allowed me to progress on to looking at different structures of documentaries and
how I could use this to create a successful factual piece. These research turned out to be very valuable information that significantly helped the process of creation as I was able to decipher
what footage worked and what didn’t in certain places. I believe that this allowed me to create something that closely followed the characteristics of successful documentary's which would
in turn make mine successful in that it would be a solid piece of journalism that could keep the viewer interested.
I did do some research about my specific topic in order to brush up on my history and to make sure that my facts were indeed correct. One thing I did look at was other peoples opinions and
general knowledge on the subject of space travel. I found out from this that there wasn’t much of a public interest in space travel any more as it had almost become a routine thing that
America had done for the best part of 40 years. Another thing was that since the 90s space travel has been primarily focused on doing scientific research onboard the international space
station. Something which doesn’t appeal to the general public. Some even believe that it was a waste of money as they didn’t fully understand its benefits. I then realised that today it would
be too late to get people interested in this as NASA is fazing out its current programs in hopes of returning astronauts to explore space beyond earth orbit. I then realised that my video
should focus on that and how NASA planned to achieve this. I realised that this would be a good way to try and get the general public interested in space again which is why I decided to do
my video on this topic. Obviously since this was just a college project I don’t realistically expect it rejuvenate millions of peoples interest in space however that is the core concept for my
production.
I think if I were to try and improve my research it would defiantly be to do some pseudo research on things such as NASA’s Orion program. The reason I would do this is because I already
knew about it and its finer technical details. However I do admit that in the real world my knowledge would have to have the research to back it up in order to be taken seriously. I think if I
was able to have a longer running time in my video I would likely incorporate this research and reference my sources on camera in order to increase peoples believe in that what I am saying
has actual merit.
