Post 5 – Completed Product & Evaluation

The project overall lacked the desire to finish the project to a high standard. This is evident in some scenes which obtain various mistakes that range from poor script/dialogue to unwanted background occurrences. Most of which was unfixable in post production.

Direction:

I believe that the direction of the project had room for improvement as general crew management lacked the necessary communication to fully understand our roles. This may seem odd as we had weeks on end to prepare for this moment. However, being out in the field seemed like we were fending for our own roles with no sign of leadership or management. Communication developed over time throughout the days, as we started to build relationships in the group and understand other members roles as well as our own. Direction beforehand was excellently managed as pre production documents were always completed to the set timescale, and all other documents such as shot list were sent to the cinematographer. However, on set direction and sound direction were not to the highest of standards. This therefore resulted in confusion from all members and loss of our objective. Overall, I believe that the direction had a fall within the first day of production due to lack of leadership and responsibility, but regained it towards the end of production.

An example of poor direction and communication lies in the acting. This is as the script was not completed and most of the acting in the scenes relied on character improvisation. For example, the first talking scene we see contains obvious signs of scripted acting due to the lack of acting skill. However, in following scenes, we can see the improvised lines in the acting, as there are many stutters and hesitations in the script. This could’ve been fixed with better preparation beforehand, as well as the responsibility of having more takes to give the editor choice and leeway during post production. Next time I would prefer the director and other crew members including me to be less lazy over the shots we film and amount of takes we do.

Another moment that displays bad communication is 00:51-00:54 as a woman clearly walks in the background. This wasn’t intended as the general theme of the project was to appear lost deep in the unknown rather than close to civilisation. If the communication between crew members, especially the director and cinematographer, this problem would’ve been easy to spot and the shot would have been recreated in a matter of minutes. Repeating this scenario, I would attempt as the editor to review and skim the footage on set, rather than having the first impression after leaving the set. This would prevent other problems such as visible props and microphones.

An example of good directing as well as cinematography is how there was a lot of coverage to assist the subsequent editing. This leaves a vast array of shots for the editor to use and cover up parts of missing film or empty spots during the storyline. Many of these are establishing shots to use between clips to support background music or the general flow of the piece. Some of these are also extreme close ups to show the reactions of the characters as well as their emotions during the unseen parts of the film. This shows developed communication over the two days of production as well as the directors leadership skills.

Cinematography:

The attitude as well as the innovation and improvisation of the cinematographer was outstanding. This was proved in the general appearance of all the shots, as well as the amount of shots. The shots were generally stable and managed to capture the required guidelines for specific shots, for example if the director required a medium close up, the cinematographer would align the shots perfectly. Only one shot was not correct in set guidelines as the heads were slightly cropped out of the shot. The cinematographer however, made the large mistake of not printing the pre production documents before leaving to the set in the Peak District. This made the whole situation rather difficult as we only had the script and shot list. Other documents were not available or at hand to use for advice during production. Communication was also at a higher level due to the cinematographer having a good morale that spread across the group. This aided communication a lot and I believe helped our group complete the project with plenty of spare time.

One problem we had with cinematography was most to all of the shots were over exposed. This was not to the fault of the cinematographer however, as all of the shots were perfectly balanced with all the settings of the camera. This was even approved and confirmed by a member of staff. The problem was however, in the camera. The screen of the camera displayed a lower exposure than the actual exported footage. This problem had no possible way of being avoided, unless a rough cut was completed on set, which we did not have the time for. This was therefore fixed in post production.

Another problem that occurred was that some shots weren’t as stable as possible due to our group not having possession of the Ronin steady camera. This lead to two of the moving camera shots and tracking shots to be unstable. This problem could have been fixed by being more prepared earlier in pre production or planning. This means we could have booked out this set piece of equipment to ensure the stability of these shots before requiring stabilisation during post production, which proved tiring for the editor. This is also a fault in the lack of preparation for multiple crew members.

Overall, the general management of the camera, as well as improvised and individually thought shots, made the editors life much easier. I believe that the cinematographer did an excellent job in his vital role and provided well for the production as a whole throughout prior research and actual execution on the day. He also proved reliable even over his long distance journey to college.

Sound:

The sound design did prove difficult as much of the recording was in open windy areas, forests with crunching footsteps, and loud streams to block out. This is apparent whilst watching the footage near the stream. However, I believe the sound designer overall did a good job with preparation, out of college work to gain ambience sounds and getting all of the recordings to match the footage. The sound mixing was also done well and was synced to the footage in perfect timing. However, there was a lapse in concentration and communication that often led to the sound not being ready to record after the director calls out commands, this leads to lack of sound quality due to rushing during filming.

One problem with the sound was the wind. This is evident in the scene at 00:50 – 01:10 as we can clearly hear the cuts between dialogue and script. This is due to high wind levels in clips without speech recordings. The strength of the wind makes it clear to hear the difference between the two clips. This could have been fixed by using correct technique of blocking the wind as well as not splitting between ambience and speech to leave a smoother transition between both. This was a lack of communication in my part, as I understood how to improve the recordings as well as techniques in post production, however I solely concentrated on my work rather than assisting in the project as a whole.

Another problem that was caused by the surroundings was the nearby stream that we decided to record by. This may have been a poor choice as it did majorly drop the sound quality. This lapse in judgement was also due to lack of preparation with documents such as the shot list and location recce. This could have also been researched by the sound mixer as to how they can block out unwanted ambience with different techniques. I believe if I did this again I would also research ways to bock out these sounds myself in order to instruct and teach the sound mixer how to improve the sound whilst recording.

An example of great improvisation in post production sound mixing is the use of sound effects such as the punch effect at 02:32 and the glitch sound effect at 03:08. Both of these examples show knowledge of how to improve a clip through sound. Doing this without directors orders shows good signs of independence and knowledge of the role.

Editing:

The editing was a tough task as the specific rough cut to final cut guideline was not followed. This is as I believed that the protocol would slow down the production as well as diminish the quality of the special effects. I decided to create the projects clips with the most effects before creating a rough cut. This was to not only improve the quality of the effected clips, but also make the rough cut make sense, as the clips on their own do not suit to the story. For example, the eye effect required to be created prior to the rough cut as it shows the character looking down upon the other characters. This would not be evident and would lead to confusion in the rough cut. However, the problem that arouse from this method was that one of the time consuming clips to create, didn’t fit the storyline. This not also wasted time, but made the ending more rough and less of a smooth transition. This also meant I didn’t have time to create the final effect, as I had wasted many sessions on a specific disintegration effect.

One problem in the editing is the mistake of a woman in the background. This slightly affects the theme of the story as well as the quality of editing. This certain clips make the whole scene look bad as the dialogue states that the characters are lost, when in reality there is a woman not far from them. If I repeated this project I believe I would have made a better attempt at removing this mistake.

A good quality piece to portray editing skill is the introduction. This is where many of the specially affected clips lie, as well as the use of the soundtrack to support the scenes and text near the end of the introduction. This for me was a chance to display my editing as a first impression to entice the audience rather than bore them with dialogue. This was the most time consuming part of the post production as a whole, as well as the most draining. If I repeated this process I do believe I wouldn’t change my method as it worked with only minor flaws. I would also strive to come in on my own accord to complete extra clips that could be used to improve the project, as well as assisting others when I can, as this was a team made film.

Overall:

I believe that the project lacked effort which is visible in the quality of the production. We did expect this low budget project to appear low budget, however we should’ve strived to achieve more. This could have either been better prepared or better executed. I am however happy with how the project turned out, as well as the effort put in by every crew member. There would be a lot of things I change, but I believe that it is a solid start to my filmmaking career as well as a memento to look back on and I will learn from my mistakes.