The document summarizes the differences between the filmmaker's preliminary task and their final opening sequence. For the preliminary task, they only considered basic camera angles and there was little planning. For the final sequence, they planned more thoroughly, considering elements like lighting, sound, continuity, shot types, and editing. This led to a more professional and higher quality final product compared to the initial task.

2.  Whilst my preliminary task was good, considering I had no
previous knowledge of using a camera and camera angles, it
did look unprofessional, and there was little consideration for
anything other than the camera angles.
 We addressed these issues by planning our opening
sequence well, accounting for any possible problems, and
using a wider variety of micro elements; such as
consideration for the misce-en-scene and sound, aswell as
using props and costumes to our advantage.

3.  When filming our preliminary task, we were aware of only three
shots; The 180 degree rule, match on action and shot reverse
shot. Subsequently, the variation throughout the sequence was
limited.
 During the filming of our final opening sequence, we were had
gained knowledge of an extensive variety of shots, thus creating
a much more professional looking, varied sequence.
 The tripod’s job however, did not change much, it was simply
used to stabilise and angle the camera.

4.  The quality of the camera we used and the wider knowledge
made it much easier to produce an opening sequence of a
good standard, as is evident below. The camera used for the
preliminary sequence (right) was not HD and this deeply
affected the quality.

5.  We filmed our preliminary task during the day, with good
natural lighting, henceforth, this was not a concern, nor was it
greatly considered throughout filming.
 On the other hand, whilst filming our final opening
sequence, we initially had planned to film at night.
However, due to the lack of natural, or professional, artificial
outdoor lighting, this did not work, as the camera only picked
up on what we shone a torch directly at. As a consequent of
this, we had to film during the day, whereby the natural
lighting gave us a sufficient amount for the camera to pick
up on. A filter was later put over the top to make the outdoor
scene look darker.

6.  As the preliminary task was filmed over a mere thirty
minutes, continuity in costumes, location and props was not
an issue
 During our opening sequence however, there were some
slight continuity errors, the majority of which are minor and
would go unnoticed by and audience.
 For example; the bag Maria carries in the outdoor scenes, is
not the same bag that she picks up in the indoor scenes.
 These minor errors do slightly compromise the quality and
professionalism of the overall sequence, but they’re not
major, noticeable errors

7.  Like camera angles, during the creation of the preliminary
visual, we were aware of very few types of sound, and I feel
that this is reflected in the task, as opposed to the final
piece, where there is a lot more consideration, and various
types of sound.
 The only sound in the preliminary task was the dialogue, with
the exception of any unintentional ambient sound that the
camera microphone may have picked up on.
 In the final opening sequence however, there are examples
of diagetic soundtracks, placed over the
action, asynchronous sound effects, such as the twig
snapping, and a sound bridge, from the establishing shot of
the house, to the action inside.

8.  Overall I would say that it is much harder to film a
two minute opening sequence, than an eighteen
second video clip, due to the fact there is more
planning and consideration for the micro elements
necessary; when filming the preliminary task, we
really only had to consider camera
angles, whereas in the opening sequence, the
misce-en-scene, sound, editing, and camera
angles had to be accounted for.