Legal & Ethical

Libel

The video obviously was not to show BADC in a dereogatory way, portraying, as it should, both the college and Skillset event in a positive light. We invited Barking College students to view the edit before finalising it, so as to ensure that they were happy with how their college was shown on-screen. Once they had seen it, prior to the competition screening, we showed it to some of BADC's officials who were given the opportunity to accept or reject the video. They had no quarrels with how their campus was shown and thus it was allowed to be entered into the competition.

Ethical

The video had to be honest, yet balance the client's own needs of 'elaborated truth' per say.

...

All interviewees were not fed any lines to say; their responses to questions were honest and genuine. It was also made clear to them that, if they didn't want to, they didn't have to provide an answer to a question.

Legal

We were unable to print permission forms, but we ensured that all interviewees were happy being interviewed on camera before filming them. It was also made clear to them the purpose of the video and where it potentially could be screened and shared. If they felt uncomfortable being interviewed, they were under no obligation to do so. Each place we filmed, we obtained permission from the relevant challenge leader, as well as noted any restrictions (for example, a particular area we were unable to access as it would obstruct the activities) and any participants who didn't wish to be captured on camera.

Radio Adverts

The above tracks were produced and edited by Alice-Anne Bull.



The above track was scripted by Alice-Anne Bull, and edited by myself on Adobe Audition 3.0

The scripts are below in numerical order:

Scripts by Alice-Anne Bull

D/601/6672 – 3.1: Initial Pitch

I intend to concentrate on an ever-growing cult, which in the past few years seems to have particularly grown in its following, namely 'cosplaying,' whereby people who view animated shows, comic and manga books etc begin to collect merchandise relating to those they favourite, and, more importantly for this project, costumes so they that can go out to conventions dressed as their favourite characters, assuming as they do the persona of the character.

I aim to show how some cosplayers will go to any length to accurately recreate the costumes they covet to inhibit what could be seen as a second identity, sometimes spending a three or four digit sum on an individual item.

A/601/8784 LO 4.1 & 4.2: Evaluation

The project was a very strenuous task, and exceedingly complicated in relation to other clients I have worked with. Not enough information was provided before the event took place in relation to the setup and layout of the event and activities. Therefore, almost no planning could be done prior to setting out to film the video. Originally, the first contact relating to Skillset 2014 had referred to it as a 'Bricklaying Competition,' which would have been a completely different requirement and result.

What also hindered planning was the lack of a brief. Until the event day, we were working off of very little criteria to form even a basic plan. Being given the final brief on the day of filming meant we were working almost blind and forming a plan as we went along, which we were picked up on and advised against doing. The Skillset event was first and foremost a competition for participants, who won prizes such as Apprenticeships in the field they contended in. This, however, made it near impossible to get any interviews as all the dedicated contestants were busy focusing on the challenge at hand, not wishing to waste any precious time. The few interviews we were able to record were not particularly strong, nor did they edit well as is event from the video. Interviews with sponsors, on the other hand, are slightly stronger as they had time available to talk.

Skillset opened at 10am, running until approximately 4.30pm. However, a previously unmentioned task of filming the opening ceremony was brought forth, which, despite being told it would last no longer that 45 minutes, took 2 hours out of the day, and upon finishing at midday, we found that almost all contestants had gone on lunch break, leaving the competition rooms empty. This further reduced the time we had available to film material for the video, and when the event recommenced around 1pm, we had begun to panic and filmed whatever we could get close to in the hope of obtaining decent footage to play with post-production.

Much of the footage went straight in the bin, be it due to poor sound, picture or camerawork. The project was scrapped several times as we genuinely felt that there was no scope for a decent video. Thankfully, after several re-reviews of the project on the whole and the footage captured, we were able to edit a video of sorts, albeit far from the standard we would normally expect to achieve. The fact that we won the competition, however, is a major confidence boost, as we genuinely thought it would be disregarded (the video was completed just 2 hours before the screening took place!)

If the chance arose to repeat this project, and if it were accepted, then a lot more planning and finding out of information relevant to the event and video brief would take place, which hopefully would result in a video of better quality.

Throughout the project I have learnt the challenges of working to a client's brief, and the challenge of working for a client on the whole. I've developed my skills as a director also, this usually being my secondary role on a project. It has been an interesting experience having to think about the whole project from a director's angle.

In terms of the video, I'm far from proud of the final thing, but given the setbacks encountered, I am content. As mentioned previously, there are alterations to be made which could improve it somewhat. Changing the font used, as well as adding the names of the interviewees and relevant cutaways would be the starting point. Overall, I'm pleased with what Luke, as editor, was able to achieve.

A/601/8784 LO 2.1 & 2.2

My Role

Director

Location

Barking & Dagenham College

Crew

Timothy Willcox - Camera operation

Luke Joyce - Editor

Alice-Anne Bull - Sound

Owen Hayward - Director

Equipment

Sony PMW100 Camera (x2)

Boom pole

Shotgun microphone (x2)

Handheld microphone

XLR Cables (x2)

Tripod (x2)

Battery Packs (x6)

Microphone stand

Tie clip microphone

Health & Safety

During the 'opening ceremony,' a microphone was placed at the front of the room for the presenter to speak into. This was linked to a stationary camera at the back of the room by an XLR, which had to cross audience seating access. The cable was taped down with black and yellow electrical tape. Seats were adjusted slightly so that the cable passed under them, as apposed to between them.

Using the shotgun microphone during the day meant it had to be permanently connected with an XLR. The cables are lengthy, and thus form a trip hazard. The boom operator held a short coil of cable, whilst a third person held onto the rest, and took charge of watching for any trip hazards whilst the camera and boom operators were moving around.

Places that involved sharp objects were avoided unless absolutely necessary, when two spare hands (namely Luke and myself) watched for the hazards and kept the team and equipment away from the hazard objects.

L/601/8773 LO 4.2 + A/601/8784 LO 3.2: Refinements

The video was shown, amongst others, at a screening at BADC. Whilst it is far from perfect, it received a lot of praise for its camerawork and editing.

The following are refinements that were suggested to improve it further:

• Font choice - a more professional font and text package should be used.
• Interviewees - the names of anyone being interviewed should be present on-screen when they first appear, along with their position, so that viewers know their relevance to the video and subject.
• Cutaways - some cutaways didn't relate to what an interviewee was describing / referring to, which would need correcting if to be used as a promotional piece.
• Topic - whilst the whole video was praised for meeting the majority of the set criteria, the theme switched part-way through the video from the Skillset event to focusing on Apprenticeships.

Nevertheless, the competition to which the video was made for, ultimately won out over the other entries.

A/601/8784 LO 1.1: Promotional Videos

The above is a promotional video for Manchester University shot by the company 'Seveer Media' to promote Uni Life at the campus.

The video features no voiceover, instead being a full montage set to a calm, relaxing Acoustic track showing off students at ease around the campus, and capturing some of the quirky features of the architecture (for example the nth floor link between two buildings at 01:02.)

Capturing the buses in the background of shots also, be it intentionally or otherwise, emphasises the close transport links that the University has, thus making it an easy place to get if you stay off-campus. For those staying in accommodation on-campus, the footage also shows the exterior of what appears to be student accommodation buildings next to the main campus.

Various shots also capture and contrast parts of the campus that are either older and more characteristic, or more modern and sleek-looking in their structure, combining the best of both worlds and thus showing that there is something for everyone at the campus. The brown / orange tint to the colour adds to the Autumnal effect, taking away some of the harshness of the natural world.

As a promotional video, it works in portraying the campus as a calm and relaxing place, but not for advertising the University on the whole, given that it doesn't show the features the campus contains, courses on offer e.t.c. It is purely a piece to show how relaxed a place the University of Manchester can be.

The above video is a promotional spot for a promotional video-making company, 'Online Video Production Company,' made in a slightly unusual format. Whilst most Promotional spots feature multiple interviews and examples of work / services offered by a company, OVPC's piece attempts to win a contract from the viewer by informing them of the perks of online presence. Supported by facts and figures on-screen, the promotional video is majoritarily one take with a representative of the company delivering facts about how online video can help build a name for a brand wishing to get off the ground.

The writing for the spoken word is not particularly strong; the seemingly-constant repetition of the word 'video' grows rapidly annoying (it used 9 times in the first 40 seconds of speech) and could turn some viewers away quickly. The presenter makes a few stumbles whilst delivering her information (notably at 01:24), which doesn't show the production company off in the best light, as you would expect them to have filmed a re-take and edited this in. As the spot swaps between camera angles, this cut could easily have been masked.

Nevertheless, the body of what is being said is convincing and would certainly provoke thought in a viewer who had not previously considered commissioning  a promotional video. It, like the Seveer promo with the University above, does not sell the product it is telling you about. There is no showcase of what the company can do, if you exclude the after Effects used for the text briefly at the start and end, so you are left not quite certain what these people can achieve for you.