The document provides an evaluation of the quality of various elements of a student film project. It notes that the shots were held steadily due to using a tripod. While some shots effectively captured character emotions, others did not. The dialogue and camera techniques portrayed the film's genre well. However, the mise-en-scene quality was poor as the location was not suitable. The editing was good except for some sudden cuts. Sound was not used appropriately. Character positioning was satisfactory in some shots but not others. The group planned well and met deadlines due to shared free periods. They worked efficiently as a unit to finish the film to a high standard quickly.

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 The shots were held very Continue to use a tripod
steady steady as a tripod was used when filming.
which made it very easy to
keep the camera still.
Quality of the framing shots All of the shots were framed Make sure that the characters
to a satisfactory standard, are positioned in the shot
some of the shots did not appropriately.
capture the emotions of the
characters, but a lot of them
were quite effective in doing
so.
Quality of shooting material I believe that we portrayed Concentrate on shooting the
appropriate to the task set- our ideas for the film well film in the way that will
i.e. the content of your film through the dialogue and the portray the conventions of the
pre and post editing was way the film was shot genre well.
consistent with the exam through camera techniques
directives
Quality of selecting mise-en- The quality of selecting Organize a location that is
scène including colour, figure, mise-en-scene was poor in suitable for our genre e.g. for
lighting, objects and setting; my opinion. The location a horror, set it in a remote
was used because it was location.
accessible to us. The group
did not focus fully on
selecting mise-en-scene,
which is easily seen on the
finished piece.
Quality of editing so that The editing was good Take more time on editing to
meaning is apparent to the overall, especially the point make sure that the shots cut
viewer where the will is being from one to the other cleanly
exchanged, however some in order to make the film flow.
of the cuts changed too
suddenly.
Quality of using sound with Sound was not focused on Take the time to find
images and editing in this piece, which resulted appropriate music/sounds for
appropriately for the task set; in there being no music in the genre of our film.
the background of the film.
Quality of positioning and I believe that the quality of Make sure that the characters
movements of actors the positioning of the are positioned in the shot
characters was satisfactory appropriately.
as in some shots, the
characters were well
positioned in the shot, but in
others, the character’s body/
face was cut off

2. Quality of group planning, The group itself was put Continue to work as a group
meeting targets, organization together very well as all the quickly and efficiently in order
members of the group have to meet deadlines and
the same free periods, this complete our tasks to a high
allows us to have as much standard.
time as possible to work on
our media projects. We met
our target for the film as we
finished it before the
deadline date.
My group worked together Continue to work hard and
very well, the filming did not allocate specific jobs to
Group dynamics i.e. how did take very much time people so that the group
your group work together because everybody in the works as a unit.
group did their job to a high
standard and I believe that
the film was finished to a
high standard in a small
amount of time.
Other points of evaluation
( e.g. equipment related etc)