Planning:
Blog demonstrates a full contribution to the group through diary entries and demonstrates an understanding of techniques invovled, while there is significant evidence of thorough planning available in the work; there appears to be a detailed shooting schedule, storyboard, typography and analysis, musical choices all in place. Much improved from earlier tasks.
Construction:
This film, remarkably, has improved since its inital conception; there are a variety of camera angles included following extensive reshooting, but the continuity of these reshot sections is not always fluid as issues effecting sound manipulation plague the work. Narrative is well conveyed however, and there is an attempt to build tension as the opening progresses. Video editing and framing is at times good, with the final fatal blow working effectively at the end of the piece. Some choices remain questionable, including the decision to begin the piece with the most exciting moment only to work back from it, while sound- particularly in speech, is of inconsistent volume which mars the viewing experience. Overall, the final piece is clumsy and unpolished and doesn't neccessarily fit the brief; there is no obvious next part of the film to be continued, though there are signs of understanding of the appopriate techniques to engage an audience.
Evaluation:
Answers generally are quite well detailed and considered, though technologies employed are not particularly innovative. Student has considered reflectively the answers, comparing her product to the existing market - which was good- and responds well to the challenges set out from her prelim task.
Response
I believe that this time we planned our time wisely after everything falling apart the first time after we didn't plan or stick to the little plan we had. We made a story board, and then a shooting schedule that we made to fit in time with our frees as well as media lessons. Before we did our planning we researched into thrillers so that we had a clear understanding of the task.
I think having the chance to re-shoot some parts really helped us in making our film, our first outcome wasn't very good, we didn't have many different angles or any build in tension, through reshooting we took this into account and took our opportunity to try out different angles and techniques of building tension. We also decided to experiment a bit until we felt like we got it right.
Overall, I think that despite the final product not working out as well as it could, I still think that we worked better a team and put a lot of effort into our product compared to last time. I think that we took into consideration what went wrong the time before and used this to make sure we didn't make the same mistakes again.
Blog demonstrates a full contribution to the group through diary entries and demonstrates an understanding of techniques invovled, while there is significant evidence of thorough planning available in the work; there appears to be a detailed shooting schedule, storyboard, typography and analysis, musical choices all in place. Much improved from earlier tasks.
Construction:
This film, remarkably, has improved since its inital conception; there are a variety of camera angles included following extensive reshooting, but the continuity of these reshot sections is not always fluid as issues effecting sound manipulation plague the work. Narrative is well conveyed however, and there is an attempt to build tension as the opening progresses. Video editing and framing is at times good, with the final fatal blow working effectively at the end of the piece. Some choices remain questionable, including the decision to begin the piece with the most exciting moment only to work back from it, while sound- particularly in speech, is of inconsistent volume which mars the viewing experience. Overall, the final piece is clumsy and unpolished and doesn't neccessarily fit the brief; there is no obvious next part of the film to be continued, though there are signs of understanding of the appopriate techniques to engage an audience.
Evaluation:
Answers generally are quite well detailed and considered, though technologies employed are not particularly innovative. Student has considered reflectively the answers, comparing her product to the existing market - which was good- and responds well to the challenges set out from her prelim task.
Response
I believe that this time we planned our time wisely after everything falling apart the first time after we didn't plan or stick to the little plan we had. We made a story board, and then a shooting schedule that we made to fit in time with our frees as well as media lessons. Before we did our planning we researched into thrillers so that we had a clear understanding of the task.
I think having the chance to re-shoot some parts really helped us in making our film, our first outcome wasn't very good, we didn't have many different angles or any build in tension, through reshooting we took this into account and took our opportunity to try out different angles and techniques of building tension. We also decided to experiment a bit until we felt like we got it right.
Overall, I think that despite the final product not working out as well as it could, I still think that we worked better a team and put a lot of effort into our product compared to last time. I think that we took into consideration what went wrong the time before and used this to make sure we didn't make the same mistakes again.