So here it is, the final product! This is...LITTERally Rubbish. Take a look and see what you think:
Audience Feedback:
Once the documentary had been played through to the audience, they made notes and then it was time to watch it again. This time round, they would shout stop at different points in the film to discuss the positives or improvements that could be made in order for this documentary to be of a better quality in some aspects.
This is the video with the feedback from the audience with their opinions on different aspects of the documentary we created:
Key Points of Feedback Video:
0:07- Establishing shot a little too long. Good smooth pan on the establishing shot.
0:40- Litter shown isn't exactly horrific. The bag wasn't really in focus like it should have been.
1:32-The person being interviewed couldn't be heard very well. Issues with wind when recording the sound. Name and titles needed a different text format (Name of each person then their surname as they're married. As well as the spelling of BARBARA...but we won't go there).
3:22- Selected focus not necessary on a specific duck. Could have been everything in focus.
3:57- Unnecessary camera movement.
4:14- Nice close up shot of tango can (other drinks are available). Sharp focus on the can.
4:33- Good focus shot where by the attention is drawn to the litter picker with a sharp outline of him.
5:16- Representation incorrect. The litter picker doesn't really look like a litter picker, more of a convict. Not got the correct props for a litter picker.
6:02- Bottle and litter not in focus. focus too far back missing all the litter.
6:28- Too windy to capture a shot of someone dropping litter.
7:00- Nice shot at the end of someone dropping litter with a good voice over to end it.
7:06- Good choice of title, very "Punny".
Evaluation of Planning:
The planning stages for the documentary were remotely successful in that we planned out the type of documentary we wanted to do and what was going to be included such as the interviews. This allowed us to plan for locations and give ourselves enough time to capture and edit the footage. We also wrote out a basic script of the narration and what would be where in our documentary such as B-roll and interviews etc.
However I think we could have planned a little more detail within what we would be doing. For example it would have allowed us to be a little more organised if we had stated the kind of B-roll we wanted so that we could have ticked off what we had collected and added any extra if necessary. This would have probably given us a little more B-roll to chose from but more about that in the camera work.
Other than that I think the planning stage was successful in that we knew what we were doing when and where we just needed a more detailed plan on the specific B-roll footage we would be collecting.
Evaluation of Camera Work and Shooting Time:
The shooting session we had was successful too in that we managed our time, giving ourselves a specific amount of time to film so that we didn't over judge the time that we had to film and collect our footage. The fact that we had outlined the sort of things we wanted within our documentary allowed us to get successful locations to record our interviews. Making use of the manual focus I felt was successful as we captured, in most of the shots, the footage that we needed and what we wanted to be our main focus such as the interviews. Also the pan shot for the establishing shot was successful in that we got a nice smooth pan. By getting along pan too, it allowed us to have a longer choice in which section was the best to use to open our documentary. By recording the sound separately enabled us to get a crisper sound from the shots and the people being interviewed. If we had used the camera audio it wouldn't have been half as clear as that on the external sound recording kit.
There were some problems in that some of us were so focused and excited about the wildlife (the ducks) that focus was lost on the actual task of collecting litter footage and so much of the footage is of ducks rather than litter. Some of these shots were done hand held and so weren't as clear meaning in many cases they were just discarded of as there was nothing useful about them. Another problem that occurred was the fact that it was really windy, meaning when we were recording the sound, you could hear the wind in the background or even over powering the people speaking. The only way we could have solved this was to either change location or use lapel mics which attach to the clothing of the person being interviewed making the wind less noticeable and in some cases no existent. Also many of the shots collected were out of focus which wasn't picked up on due to the small LCD screen we had to look at. It would have been better if we attached the camera to an external monitor in order for us to have a clearer picture of what we were capturing. Another way in which or shots could have been improved is that if we turned off manual focus and allowed the camera to auto focus or even allow all the picture to be in shot as sometimes it wasn't necessary to focus on specifics and let the whole shot be in focus.
The shooting and camera work was moderately successful but in order to improve it I think we need to practise a little more with the DSLR cameras and experiment with what we can do in order to make our shots more successful.
Evaluation of Editing:
This part of the documentary was the most successful. I think that the actual editing of the documentary was successful. The clips flow from one to another and the jump shots were a big success. They had something to do with the person being interviewed as well as the audio being clear and continuing over the top of the on screen action. Another success was the titles, They were clear and were relevant to the documentary as well as making use of a really bad but funny pun. The choice of text font was also successful, ensuring that the audience clearly understood the pun within the title clearly. Also I think that the choice of music was complementary to the on screen action in that it had a sense of intrigue yet it allowed the documentary to get across its serious message about the litter problems. The editing was also good in the way that when someone begun to speak or was the main focus of that particular shot, the music was dipped enough for them to be heard. Others say it wasn't but we felt it was low enough to hear the person being interviewed but loud enough to be heard in the background. I think the match on action shot of someone dropping litter was successful too as it matched and was clear to the audience what was going on. It was difficult to capture this shot due to the wind but I feel it was as successful as it could have been with it matching correctly.
If anything were to be changed, I think we could have shortened the establishing shot to prevent it from becoming boring to the audience. However we did need it this length to allow the narration to fit into the first part of the documentary. Also the title of each person needed to be checked and the layout changed and the spellings corrected so that names are clear. (mr and mrs *insert name*).
Overall Documentary Evaluation:
Positives:
We got across the message about litter clearly though the narration and shots collected and shown on screen. I think that the establishing shot at the beginning was a success in the way that the pan was smooth and captured Chasewater and its wildlife in a single shot. It also showed the positive aspect of the location causing empathy towards the habitat when they see the negative aspects regarding litter.
Some of the focus pulls were successful in that they were clear and showed the image that we wanted. The Tango can for instance (Other drinks are available), the image was sharp and crisp to the eye, clearly showing the litter that can be found and singling out specific litter that is commonly dropped.
The lower third titles were also well placed in the way that you can clearly see them and they state the information that a typical documentary title would include. Also the titles at the end of the documentary were successful in that they make use of the topic and are interesting to look at for the audience.
The music used plays a big part within the documentary, ensuring that there is always something that can be heard throughout even when no one is speaking. The music had this air of mystery within it as well as representing the seriousness of the subject in some places. This is the typical sort of music you would find on documentaries such as Educating Yorkshire or Life. Both two different types of documentary (One is about education and school life, the other about animals and the wild) but they both follow the same style of music and documentary features for than matter.
Negatives:
In some cases the focus pull shots were out and weren't focusing on the objects we needed them to meaning it as missing the point of the shot. Also in some places the manual focus shots weren't necessary so we should have had all objects in focus or allowed auto focus to do it for us.
Some of the focus pull shots such as the one of the swan and ducks was a bit jumpy and not as smooth as it should have been making it look amateur and as if we made do with the shots rather than being selective about our shots. This was also due to the limitations we had with us having very few different shots. Most of our footage made us look like we had a duck or bird fetish with all the shots of birds. This meant that we didn't have a variety of shots and limited us to what we could use as our B-roll. That or the shots were blurred or jumpy meaning we couldn't use them.
The costume used for the litter picker wasn't really as realistic as we thought it was going to be and so it made the section for the litter picker a little unrealistic and comical as he looked like a convict rather than a local innocent litter picker. Also we didn't have the props that we needed in order to make the convict, I mean litter picker look as if he was useful rather than an unreliable convict doing community service at his local wildlife attraction.
Some of the sound can be a little unclear due to the wind in the background. This wasn't something that we could overcome with the equipment we had. we needed lapel mics for the interviews rather than an external sound recorder as it would have been closer to the person being interviewed, capturing their voice rather than the wind overpowering them.
Improvements:
- Add in credits so that the audience know who directed/created/edited the documentary
- Practise with the manual focus
- Make less use of the manual focus and try using auto focus and full focus.
- Collect a variety of shots rather than similar subject ones
- Create a realistic representation of the characters so that they look the part (props included)
- Shorten the establishing shot
Group evaluation:
I feel that the group worked successfully in that we all allowed each other to try out different roles and see which one we were best at as well as going out of our comfort zones to try new thing. sometimes we couldn't do the thing we wanted to do and so we needed to try out new roles within the group to widen our role expertise within a production team.
We each had to rate ourselves on different and the others in the group on different aspects of working in a production team. The highlighted bars are our groups ratings:
As you can see we are virtually at the same level. I think we worked well as a production team sharing similar strengths and weaknesses in that we all need to work on our camera work but we all have a similar high level of participation within the group. All in all a successful practise with the new cameras and editing software!
Now after this task, its time to see who we will be working with for the main product, then to decide on a film we will create as our final short film.
