The document provides a preliminary evaluation of a video project. It evaluates various technical and creative aspects of the video's quality, such as the steadiness of shots, framing, storytelling, setting, editing, sound, actor positioning and group dynamics. Suggestions are made for how to improve aspects like using a tripod for steadier shots, improving lighting, taking more shots to allow for better editing, and communicating more as a group. The evaluator provides candid feedback on what was done well and areas that could be strengthened, with the goal of maintaining a high quality of work.

1. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION SHEET
Quality of Summary My honest evaluation- what Strategies put forward to
was done well and what was make sure a high quality is
not of good standard? Try to maintained.
cite specific example and
moments from your video
Quality of holding a shot steady The quality of the holding of We could use a tripod to
a shot I felt was quite good make it a lot better as this
and allowed a clear view of would help keep the shot
the conversation but some steady and almost give it a
of the shots where the smooth look.
character is on the move
could be a lot better.
Quality of the framing shots The quality of the framing of We could try and keep a lot
the shots was the opposite more continuity in terms of
of the holding of the shots the shots and make sure they
with the on the move shots a stay the same and of the
lot better with the close ups same quality.
changing.
Quality of shooting material The material its self was Allow for a much better story
appropriate to the task set- i.e. consistent with what the line and add some more
the content of your film pre and examiner had asked for but shots in and vary them if
post editing was consistent with the quality of the story could nessecary.
the exam directives be improved.
Quality of selecting mise-en- I feel that the setting was Use a setting that is better lit
scène including colour, figure, poor and basic and this led or possibly outdoors. Or we
lighting, objects and setting; to possible problems with could have brought in lights
the lighting and it being not to help with the situation by
dark but darker. adding more additional
lighting.
Quality of editing so that The editing on the whole Improved on the amount of
meaning is apparent to the was quite good and allowed shots taken and length of
viewer the viewer to follow the some shots so that it gave us
action easily as it allowed more manuvarability with the
good real life changes. editing.
Quality of using sound with The sound was not much of
images and editing a problem as it was all
appropriately for the task set; relitivley real life sounds and

2. background noise.
Quality of positioning and They where generally good We could have made the
movements of actors especially the male seating positions better so we
character and his moving gave a wider angled shot of
roles. the actors.
Quality of group planning, The planning was good in We could have been more
meeting targets, organization the terms that we got what organized so that we got it
we needed done and it done over a wider period of
worked. time and had the chance to
get better shots and look at
them more.
Group dynamics i.e. how did We worked well together We could have
your group work together and managed to get all the communicated a lot more and
work done. made that a lot better/easier/
Other points of evaluation We could have used a lot
( e.g. equipment related etc) more techniques to provide
a variety of shots and
options.s