This document provides a preliminary evaluation of a group's video project. It evaluates several aspects of the video's quality, including the steadiness of shots, framing, appropriate content, mise-en-scene, editing, actor positioning and movement, group planning, and dynamics. The evaluation identifies both strengths, such as including reverse shots and good natural lighting, as well as weaknesses, like unsteady hand-held shots, over-complicating the video with too many reverse shots, and a lack of planning that led to role confusion. Strategies are suggested for improvement in the actual task, such as using a tripod, focusing on mise-en-scene, and better defining roles and responsibilities.

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 generally are In the real task, we will be
steady quite steady, but you can tell using a tripod unless we
that they are hand held. decide to use a point of view
shot.
Quality of the framing shots
Quality of shooting material The content of our We slightly over complicated
appropriate to the task set- preliminary task was quite it and tried to use too many
i.e. the content of your film good, we included reverse reverse shots which weren’t
pre and post editing was shots well and also some needed.
consistent with the exam mid shots.
directives
Quality of selecting mise-en- We didn’t think too much In the real task, a lot of
scène including colour, figure, about the mise en scene of thought will go into mise-en-
lighting, objects and setting; our characters. Our scene scene and into what we
was set behind a window, decide to do with the lighting
which gave some quite good and setting as our setting
natural lighting. clearly wasn’t a GPs office.
Quality of editing so that The editing was done to a Now that we know exactly
meaning is apparent to the minimal level- the filming how the filming should be
viewer was done all wrong so this done- there should be less
meant a lot more work was problems in the editing of the
put into the editing which s
shouldn’t have been.
Quality of using sound with
images and editing
appropriately for the task set;
Quality of positioning and Our actors mostly In order to capture our genre
movements of actors improvised their movement- we will have to have better
it was to our advantage that scripted movement for the
they did this quite well. actors to abide by to aid our
genres conventions.
Quality of group planning, We ended up all switching People should now
meeting targets, organization roles and what we were ll understand what their role
supposed to be doing which means they should be doing.
wasn’t good. We had And they should be able to do
unsuccessful editing and it well meaning that these
filming which meant others mistakes aren’t repeated
had to do a bit more work. during the real task.
Group dynamics i.e. how did Our group came together In the real task we shouldn’t

2. your group work together well in the end when we have any problems because
were approaching deadlines we get on as a group-
but prior to this we weren’t however, everyone should be
working so well as everyone more certain of their jobs
allowed themselves to be from the off allowing less
distracted by others. room for mistake.
Other points of evaluation
( e.g. equipment related etc)