1. Quality Summary 7. Looking back to your preliminary task, what do
you feel that you have learnt in the progression from
it to the full product?
Quality of holding a shot In our preliminary task, we found it difficult when
steady attempting to keep the camera steady. In order to
stop the camera from shaking, we were forced to
position it on top of items, which consequently
compromised the quality of the camera angle.
Therefore, when forced to hold the camera by
hand, the shot was not steady, making the footage
seem less professional.
From this, we have learned that it is important to
have an adjustable tripod to hand when filming, as
it enables you to position your camera at a variety
of heights and angles to achieve the desired shot
whilst allowing the shot to remain steady, making it
look more professional and authentic.
Due to this learning process, our final film was able
to boast a variety of shots whilst maintaining s
steady camera throughout.
Quality of the framing shots From the preliminary task, we learnt that it is
important to film each shot multiple times in order to
be able to choose the most appropriate clip to
enhance the quality of the finished product.
For example, we realised that the quality of the
framing shots was poor, as often the characters
wouldn’t be positioned correctly, with their heads or
other objects of importance just out of shot. By
filming each scene multiple times in our film, we
were able to decide which shots we thought were
most fitting and edit them together to create a
more professional finished product than our
preliminary film.
Quality of shooting material Our film consists of a range of camera angles and
appropriate to the task set- techniques, suiting the genre as well as making it
i.e. the content of your film more technically advanced and professional
pre and post editing was looking.
consistent with the exam
directives Whilst filming and editing, we made sure we were
constantly referencing our work to the exam
directives in order to make our final footage as
appropriate to the task as possible.

2. Quality of selecting mise- During the prel task, we had very little time to
en-scène including colour, decide how we wanted to present our film with the
figure, lighting, objects and use of mise en scene such as colour, figure, lighting,
setting; objects and setting. Consequently, our preliminary
task looked very rushed and poor quality.
For our final film, we had a lot more time to decide
between us how to best present our film with the use
of mise en scene. We were able to organize a
range of props, such as a baby pram and we had
time to browse through a variety of locations.
We dressed our actors in the stereotypical fashions
of the characters they were playing, making the
footage more professional and easier to understand
to the audience. We had learned from doing this in
our preliminary task that it greatly enhances the
quality of a finished film.
Quality of editing so that Both films were edited well, making the meaning of
meaning is apparent to the the film easily apparent to the viewer. However, in
viewer the final film we were able to spend more time on
the editing enabling us to work with a more
complex concept while making it just as easy to
understand. We accomplished this with the inclusion
of motifs that the audience would understand, such
as the teenage hooded boys on the council estate
with dogs, helping to establish the kind of area that
the main character lived in.
Quality of using sound with In our preliminary task, there was very little editing in
images and editing regards to using images with audio, we simply
appropriately for the task filmed the scene and used the same audio from the
set; footage.
However, in our final film, we used a mixture of
footage from different scenes and then recorded
an audio monologue, which was played over the
footage. This helped us in making the film look more
professional as well as aiding the audience in
understanding the plot in the opening two minutes
of the film.
This also added a layer of non-diegetic audio to the
film on top of the diegetic sound from the original
footage.
Quality of positioning and Our preliminary task contained very little movement.
movements of actors Although we included the required passing of an
object, the two characters sat down at a table,

3. making the footage very simple and dull.
In our film, we followed the main character on a
journey from his area of residence to a pub, passing
people on the way as well as moving trains. This
made the finished product more realistic and
interesting to the audience.
Quality of group planning, Our final film was very well organised. We created a
meeting targets, timetable, showing when the members of our group
organization were free to come together to film and edit. By
doing this, we were able to film and edit our film
before our final deadline, giving us more time to
perfect it and collect audience feedback.
This is very different to the way we filmed our
preliminary task, in which we finished filming in a day
and had finished editing in the following week.
When comparing the two, it is clear that the quality
of our final film is much better than our preliminary
task due to our good organisation and the hours we
put in.
Group dynamics i.e. how Our group regularly met up at set times, on location,
did your group work when each member was free. Our group worked
together very well together on both tasks, and each member
was assigned a role in the group, such as organiser
or script-writer. This extra organisation allowed us to
work efficiently together enhancing the final
product in our films.
Other points of evaluation We were able to collect all of the props we initially
(e.g. equipment related needed, such as a baby’s pram for the opening
etc) two minutes of our film, adding to our mise en scene
to make the plot easier to understand.