P4
Learners objectively evaluate the 5-minute original TV programme segment, including:
a) Production Process
We had two main shooting days in total, one was for recording the footage of the Cinema exterior and the second was the interview with George and B-roll of the Projection Room. There weren't any reshoots but we were informed by George that we could not use the footage of the Cinema exterior or of any logo/branding of the cinema as its identity had to stay anonymous. Once on site, we set a rough schedule with George to record the interview and b-roll to make sure that we got all of the footage we needed in time. The process was smooth overall. The only thing I would do differently is to increase the input level on the microphone in order to get better quality audio.
b) Decisions Made
As the mode of the documentary was a mixture of poetic and observational, we chose to film the Projection Room and George going through duties he usually would but with more cinematic compositions. Some of the techniques within this were utilising the Rule of thirds and the lighting available within the projection room. During the interview, we had a two light setup, a Keylight with a reflector to fill the shadowed side of George's face and a background light set to blue to make George stand out from the background and so bring the audience's attention to him. We also had a two camera setup in order to have multiple angles of George talking to cut between and keep the audience's attention further.
During editing, I found a music track that fit the mood and style of the documentary, slightly sad and reminiscent, and then edited all of the clips to the beat of it. This helps to create a connection between the visuals and music and so round out the documentary. It also influences and enhances the audiences emotional response and connection to the film.
c) Revisions Made
The main change was to scrap the segments with the archived footage as vox pops as we felt they would distract from George's perspective and insight which was developed enough to stand alone as the focus of the documentary.
During the interview, we did not completely stick to the script and allowed George to bring up other subjects into more detail which resulted in recording footage we hadn't planned in order to provide a visual representation. One example is the footage of streaming sites and watching films at home which we filmed after the interview to enforce what George was saying about the difference in experience with watching a film at the cinema and at home.
The storyboard does not match shot for shot as it was just meant as a basic idea because we did not know what direction we would be led in once meeting and filming George. There are multiple shots with roughly the same premise, i.e. the projector shots, but with a different execution as we could gather a lot more coverage once on location and had a clearer understanding of the layout.
d) Technical Qualities
Technically, a lot of the shots within the projection room were underexposed as there was not a lot of light available to use and increasing the ISO would decrease the quality of the footage, however, I think that the low light creates an aesthetic that fits with the tone which is quite moody and dark.
We had two microphones recording the audio for George's interview as insurance. After editing the recordings in Audition to remove noise, increase volume, and EQ George's voice, I stacked the recordings from both inputs, the LAV Mic and the directional Mic, in order to have a balance between them as the directional Mic also record some of the room ambience while the LAV was purely George's voice.
The pacing of the documentary is also balanced and follows a pattern of showing George talking and then cutting to b-roll that visualises what he is saying in order to enforce it in the audience's mind and to make the documentary more interesting visually. Everything is cut to the music to enhance the emotion and connection between the visuals and audio.
e) Aesthetic Qualities
The aesthetic of the documentary is overall quite moody and cinematic. These qualities are expressed through the low-lighting in shots, poetic editing to emotional music in order to create a response in the audience, framing using the rule of thirds, as well as the perspective expresses by George which is the film projection is dying out.
When colour grading, I changed the temperature of the shots to a more blue tone because that colour is connoted with sadness and coldness which helps to visually convey a cold atmosphere that emphasises the depressing nature of the subject and so allows the audience to empathise with George and the issue at hand.
f ) Proposed Scheduling Time
The documentary will be premiered at the BFI Future Film Festival in February of 2020. The festival is targeted towards young filmmakers and film enthusiasts which is our main audience as we want to educate young people about the decline in analog film projection and those that have a love for film are the most likely to be susceptible to wanting to learn more about its history and current situation.
After the premiere, the documentary will be released onto YouTube and Vimeo on the 5th of March 2020 as those are the most popular platforms for sharing videos online and so will likely generate the most viewership.
g) Areas for Improvement Within the Production
One improvement I would make is with regards to the interview. While George provided a lot of insight and perspective, having another Projectionist's voice, one with a lot more experience and who has been working in projection for a longer amount of time, would really benefit the content of the interview as they would have a deeper insight over a larger period and so could cover the change from film to digital in more depth than George who has briefly worked with film in comparison.
Technically, if able, I would use a higher quality of equipment for sound and lighting for the interview as we only had access to the bare essentials. A brighter, more powerful, light with a softbox would allow a softer look to the interview. Also, having a third light for Fill instead of using a reflector would mean we could lighten the shadowed areas of George's face further.
Sound-wise, a higher quality microphone would produce a cleaner and more well-rounded sound and would mean we would not have to rely on a LAV Mic which can create an odd effect to audio due to its unusual positioning on the chest, a place we do not hear other people talking from
In regards to cameras, I would use lenses with a lower aperture in order to have a shallow depth of field which would bring more attention to George as he is speaking.
a) Production Process
We had two main shooting days in total, one was for recording the footage of the Cinema exterior and the second was the interview with George and B-roll of the Projection Room. There weren't any reshoots but we were informed by George that we could not use the footage of the Cinema exterior or of any logo/branding of the cinema as its identity had to stay anonymous. Once on site, we set a rough schedule with George to record the interview and b-roll to make sure that we got all of the footage we needed in time. The process was smooth overall. The only thing I would do differently is to increase the input level on the microphone in order to get better quality audio.
As the mode of the documentary was a mixture of poetic and observational, we chose to film the Projection Room and George going through duties he usually would but with more cinematic compositions. Some of the techniques within this were utilising the Rule of thirds and the lighting available within the projection room. During the interview, we had a two light setup, a Keylight with a reflector to fill the shadowed side of George's face and a background light set to blue to make George stand out from the background and so bring the audience's attention to him. We also had a two camera setup in order to have multiple angles of George talking to cut between and keep the audience's attention further.
During editing, I found a music track that fit the mood and style of the documentary, slightly sad and reminiscent, and then edited all of the clips to the beat of it. This helps to create a connection between the visuals and music and so round out the documentary. It also influences and enhances the audiences emotional response and connection to the film.
c) Revisions Made
The main change was to scrap the segments with the archived footage as vox pops as we felt they would distract from George's perspective and insight which was developed enough to stand alone as the focus of the documentary.
During the interview, we did not completely stick to the script and allowed George to bring up other subjects into more detail which resulted in recording footage we hadn't planned in order to provide a visual representation. One example is the footage of streaming sites and watching films at home which we filmed after the interview to enforce what George was saying about the difference in experience with watching a film at the cinema and at home.
The storyboard does not match shot for shot as it was just meant as a basic idea because we did not know what direction we would be led in once meeting and filming George. There are multiple shots with roughly the same premise, i.e. the projector shots, but with a different execution as we could gather a lot more coverage once on location and had a clearer understanding of the layout.
d) Technical Qualities
Technically, a lot of the shots within the projection room were underexposed as there was not a lot of light available to use and increasing the ISO would decrease the quality of the footage, however, I think that the low light creates an aesthetic that fits with the tone which is quite moody and dark.
We had two microphones recording the audio for George's interview as insurance. After editing the recordings in Audition to remove noise, increase volume, and EQ George's voice, I stacked the recordings from both inputs, the LAV Mic and the directional Mic, in order to have a balance between them as the directional Mic also record some of the room ambience while the LAV was purely George's voice.
The pacing of the documentary is also balanced and follows a pattern of showing George talking and then cutting to b-roll that visualises what he is saying in order to enforce it in the audience's mind and to make the documentary more interesting visually. Everything is cut to the music to enhance the emotion and connection between the visuals and audio.
e) Aesthetic Qualities
The aesthetic of the documentary is overall quite moody and cinematic. These qualities are expressed through the low-lighting in shots, poetic editing to emotional music in order to create a response in the audience, framing using the rule of thirds, as well as the perspective expresses by George which is the film projection is dying out.
When colour grading, I changed the temperature of the shots to a more blue tone because that colour is connoted with sadness and coldness which helps to visually convey a cold atmosphere that emphasises the depressing nature of the subject and so allows the audience to empathise with George and the issue at hand.
The documentary will be premiered at the BFI Future Film Festival in February of 2020. The festival is targeted towards young filmmakers and film enthusiasts which is our main audience as we want to educate young people about the decline in analog film projection and those that have a love for film are the most likely to be susceptible to wanting to learn more about its history and current situation.
After the premiere, the documentary will be released onto YouTube and Vimeo on the 5th of March 2020 as those are the most popular platforms for sharing videos online and so will likely generate the most viewership.
g) Areas for Improvement Within the Production
One improvement I would make is with regards to the interview. While George provided a lot of insight and perspective, having another Projectionist's voice, one with a lot more experience and who has been working in projection for a longer amount of time, would really benefit the content of the interview as they would have a deeper insight over a larger period and so could cover the change from film to digital in more depth than George who has briefly worked with film in comparison.
Technically, if able, I would use a higher quality of equipment for sound and lighting for the interview as we only had access to the bare essentials. A brighter, more powerful, light with a softbox would allow a softer look to the interview. Also, having a third light for Fill instead of using a reflector would mean we could lighten the shadowed areas of George's face further.
Sound-wise, a higher quality microphone would produce a cleaner and more well-rounded sound and would mean we would not have to rely on a LAV Mic which can create an odd effect to audio due to its unusual positioning on the chest, a place we do not hear other people talking from
In regards to cameras, I would use lenses with a lower aperture in order to have a shallow depth of field which would bring more attention to George as he is speaking.
Comments
Post a Comment