The document evaluates two student works - a music video and a CD digipak. For the music video, it provides positive feedback, noting its effective use of color, passion, framing, transitions, genre changes, lip syncing, and variety of shots. It indicates the music video received a score of 37/40 or a level 4. For the CD digipak, it criticizes the lack of consistent color scheme, excessive filters and colors, similarity of shots, plain black CD, and excessive writing on the back cover, implying it was ineffective.

1. Michael Ivan
Assignment14:Evaluatingstudentwork
Thismusicvideoiseffectivebecause:
 Vibrantuse of coloursto representthe feelingsanddifferenttypesof genresthatthey
convey.
 Evidentpassionforthe musicvideo.
 The framingis verygoodas it alwayskeepsthe artistsinthe middle of the frame.
 Theyuse appropriate transitionsasif youwaschangingthe channel onTV you wouldsee the
static.
 Great use of mise enscene astheyhave to change genresandalsochange mise enscene to
match that genre whichtheydidwell.
 Theylipsyncingwasverygoodand in time withthe soundsandeditingof the musicvideo.
 Many varietyof shotswere usedto keepthe audience entertained.
I believethisgota 37/40 whichis a level 4(excellent).
StudentAncillaries:
I thinkthisdigipakiseffective because:
 It has the same colourscheme throughoutthe whole digipakwhichmakesthe digipaklook
professionalandregulated.
 The artist isshownon the frontof the coverto show who createdthe song.
 The amount of wordsusedare veryminimal makingitsimpleandeasyforeveryone tosee
and read.
 The name of the artist andname of the albumis clearand bigtherefore everyonecansee it
clearly.

2. Michael Ivan
Assignment14:Evaluatingstudentwork
I thinkthisancillaryis ineffective because:
 No consistentcolourscheme throughout.
 Too manydifferentfiltersandcolours.
 The shots of the womanall lookverysimilar.
 The CD isverybasicand justplainblack.
 The cover on the back has toomuch writingonit.