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 We improved markedly in holding a shot steady. In
steady the preliminary task, we used very simple shots, yet
they still turned out very jerky. In our final film, we
used a wider array of shots, including panning and
long shots and they were all filmed very smoothly.
However, in the panning shot, the camera moved
rather fast at one point, which wasn’t as we
intended.
Quality of the framing shots Out framing in the evaluation wasn’t good in
comparison to our final piece. We had many
background noises and features we didn’t intend
on having. However, in the final piece, we had no
extra noises and we edited certain scenes to make
them of a high quality. One example of that was
the shot of the two separate people walking behind
the green bars – one of the shots was filmed further
back, but by editing the shots, the audience will see
that both shots were filmed the same distance
apart, which is a much better technique. The main
character was also fully in the shot when we did
long shots, instead of having any of his head cut,
which some shots proved to do, but ultimately we
didn’t use that footage.
Quality of shooting I think our attention-to-detail greatly improved in the
material appropriate to the final piece. In the preliminary task, we maybe didn’t
task set- i.e. the content of give the audience a great impression of what the
your film pre and post film was about, but in the final piece, our use of
editing was consistent with cigarettes to show substance abuse, costume to
the exam directives show gangs and props such as a buggy to show a
single mother, all helped the audience understand
what the film was about.
Quality of selecting mise- I believe that mise-en-scene was possibly the
en-scène including colour, greatest improvement from the preliminary to the
figure, lighting, objects and final piece. In the preliminary, we had to use a
setting; classroom to try and re-inact a police interview.
However, in the real video, we used a council
estate, which is a convention followed by many
films in the genre. Lighting was dark (filmed on a
cloudy day) to, again, follow conventions. We also
had a teenager who seemed to be a young mother
in the shots, to again give the audience a feel of
the film and the estate. This was the case in filming
the two youths that looked like gang members.

2. Quality of editing so that The preliminary was filmed chronologically so that
meaning is apparent to the the audience could understand what was going on.
viewer However, at the beginning of it they might not have
known that it was a police film. In the final piece, we
added a monologue so that the audience could
find out about the main character and what the
film is about.
Quality of using sound with Sound in the preliminary wasn’t good as there was
images and editing muffling and background noise. In the final piece,
appropriately for the task the music was good, however, the monologue was
set; abit muffled, due to a lack of good recording
facilities. However, it is still clear enough to hear, but
I would’ve preferred it to be clearer.
Quality of positioning and Positioning was good in the preliminary task, but was
movements of actors rather simple. In the final piece, we had to try to re-
inact a CCTV camera with our own camera, but in
the preliminary task, out hardest task was to try and
film two feet together, which is a simpler task, so out
grasp upon different camera techniques has
improved. Actors movements was very good, the
main character was very straight in his posture when
walking, and when he passed the single mother,
you could sense his imposing frame upon other
people from the tracking shot, with the single
mother being a lot shorter than him.
Quality of group planning, The group worked well together in the final piece. I
meeting targets, think we were abit lackadaisical in the preliminary
organization task, as it wasn’t being marked. But for the final film
we all pulled together, and if one person wasn’t
performing well enough, we would help them or tell
them that they need to improve, and that helped
make the film better. We met all our targets, filmed
when scheduled and had all the right equipment
when needed.
Group dynamics i.e. how I believe we worked well together. We all had some
did your group work conflicts in some editing parts, but on the whole we
together had similar ideas and were happy to branch out
from what individual ideas were. We took criticism
constructively and all worked hard for one another.
Other points of evaluation To record the monologue, we had to use the built-in
(e.g. equipment related microphones in the Mac’s, and as they aren’t of the
etc) highest quality, it came out muffled. I believe that
we should’ve used a microphone to try and make it
clearer, but other than that, I believe that the
equipment was all used well and when required.