Media Presentation


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Media Presentation

  1. 1. MediaPresentationScott BarrassAdam BennettJan Labro
  2. 2. Sam Terry’s Research andPlanning His research was simple basic, yet he knew how to analyse media context. He only commented on one thing about both media products – so he didn’t look into them in detail. His Planning again is simple; it just shows the ancillary plans but not the actual main task. There is a bit of an improvement to research music distribution companies, he researched in more depth to which bands are within the company We gave him 12/20 marks.
  3. 3. Ancillary Task 1 The name of the album doesn’t have any background to it. It seems random. However it’s good to have little comments that state what he did so we could tell the differences from the previous album prototype The image inside the album is an improvement, however the dark green background does not match the image on the opposite side as it has brighter colours We gave this task 5/10 marks.
  4. 4. Ancillary Task 2 The photo for the poster again isn’t the best as there are lighting issues such as the guy in the middle seems as though he is more in the shadow of an object over the other band members making him seem darker than the others which makes him seem like he isn’t as important to the band as others are The poster has a lot of features in it, but they don’t go in depth in why they changed things. We gave this task 7/10
  5. 5. Main Task We thought the construction of the main task was good. He posted things in order of what they did. The update feeds are useful as it tells us the steps they took to complete the task and any issues that arise during their production. We marked this 30/40
  6. 6. Evaluation The context within the evaluation are really good, they seem to answer the questions well. The “My Contribution” post seems out of place, we think he should put more details and explain more in this section to expand on it as it is too simple. He is lacking the multimedia of this section as he only has normal blog posts, SlideShare and video streams of him. He needs to add more in such as Prezi and PowerPoint We awarded him 15/20 marks
  7. 7. Amy Crow’s Research andPlanning She went in depth into different horror movie posters and magazine covers. She made an effective questionnaire and produced the results. She took a lot of pictures of locations she could use for her own product. We gave her 13/20 marks.
  8. 8. Ancillary Task 1 She only analysed 1 magazine cover in little depth. When analysing the production companies, she only stated what the companies were and what films they produced. Nothing about the actual company itself. Her front cover did look good, but she didn’t explain how she got to the final product in depth. She talked about bad photography that was taken in little depth. She didn’t talk about anything that she didn’t like about the magazine itself, everything seemed to be right the first time she did it. We marked this 3/10
  9. 9. Ancillary Task 2 All she did for the flat plan was take 2 pictures of how she wanted her posters to look. She didn’t annotate the images. For the fonts she took screenshots of different fonts she could use for her poster. She didn’t go in depth. Her poster itself was very basic and she didn’t talk to it in-depth at all. We gave this task 2/10
  10. 10. Main Task She created a time plan which would have been helpful for her group. She took a screen shot of Google maps of possible locations, she didn’t take pictures of the actual locations. She took a screenshot of her ipod for weather conditions for the day of filming. She contacted paramount studios to see if she could use the sound track. She analysed the paranormal activity 3 trailer in small depth. The final product itself was alright. We gave this task 27/40
  11. 11. Evaluation The evaluation in a whole was the best part of the entire project. She went in depth and tried to answer all of the questions in detail. We gave this part of the task 16/20
  12. 12. Natalie Wood’s Research andPlanning Her research was quite minimal for the posters and magazines Few trailers researched She annotated a few media products but not in much detail Questionnaires carried out where not affective as they ask the audience what they feel are the conventions of horror movie posters instead of doing more indepth research herself. More evidence of location research is needed We gave it 13/20 marks.
  13. 13. Ancillary Task 1 It seems like a lot of effort went into 2 designs on the font and hardly any for the others A lot of the fonts don’t seem very professional They also do not look like they would be horror titles. The magazine does not look very authentic We marked this task 5/10
  14. 14. Ancillary Task 2 The image is pretty good as it very vague and makes the audience wonder who the black figure is. The finished design is very bare. Seems to grab audience’s attention. We awarded her 6/10
  15. 15. Main Task Shows little of what they are doing Little information about when and how things were carried out Blog seems to be in no order Hard to identify between different tasks We gave her 23/40 marks
  16. 16. Evaluation Questionnaires are okay Different multimedia used She has used a few methods of audience research We gave it 14/20