In the prelim task, the student filmed a scene with two actors in dialogue. They exhibited match-on actions when a door shut and a book was placed on a table. The lighting could have been improved to give the match-on actions a more cohesive feel. There were also lighting differences between shots of the two actors that broke continuity. The student kept to the 180 degree rule when filming each actor's lines separately for easier shooting and effective shot-reverse-shot dialogue. However, some continuity errors occurred, such as an actor's position changing between shots and an unexpected extra face appearing briefly in a door frame.

1. Prelim Task Evaluation
In the prelim task the first of the three techniques to be exhibited was the match-on
action in the shutting of the door, as well as the book being put down on the table. I think
both were achieved well, but the lighting could have been a little more thought out, since
the lighting on the outside of the classroomis notably more sepia-tinged than inside the
classroom, which has a natural bright light from the windows. This could have been colour-
corrected to give the match-on action more of a flowing feel.
The lighting problem was repeated in the fact that the two sides of the dialogue had
different lighting, i.e. when the camera is on Dan it is slightly darker than when the camera
is on Andy. This is possibly to do with the exposure on the camera, although more likely to
simply be the positioning in relation to glare from the window. I thought originally that this
may not be noticeable but it was mentioned in the feedback for the video.
I completely kept to the 180 degree rule throughout the video, filming each of the
two people’s dialogue in one go from each angle, since this made it a much easier shoot and
made the 180 degree rule almost impossible to break. Additionally, shooting the two actor’s
dialogue separately but each in one go meant that the shot-reverse shot would be more
effective, since they would be constantly looking at the other person consistently and the
camera position for each side of the conversation would never change.
There are one or two continuity errors present, such as in a later shot in the video
when Dan is supposed to be leaning forward but the camera is on Andy and you cannot see
Dan. This is an even bigger problem in that there are other shots on Andy which have Dan
leaning forward in them so the continuity is broken. As well as this, there is one shot of
Andy lasting only a couple of seconds in which a face (Matt Raybould’s, to be precise) is
seen at the door which was not there in the last shot. This could have been prevented had I
noticed whilst filming that line. This was pointed out in the feedback as well.