Looking back at your preliminary task, what do you feel you have learnt in the progression from it to the full product?
On the whole, our Main Task was much stronger than our preliminary. Not only was our narrative more sophisticated, our use of editing was superior and our improved knowledge of camera work is evident.
Most notable is setting, in the preliminary we just used a generic setting of a hall:
But in our main task we took care and effort to find and use an array of appropriate settings:
This helped establish our narrative, and made our video and its events more believable.
Both our preliminary and main task use camera movement, however there is a lot more room for more movement in our main task, so to compensate we used ken burns several times to enhance static shots.
However, in our preliminary we only used it once.
On top of this, we used handheld filming in our main task to achieve a shaky cam effect, whereas most shots of our preliminary; whilst containing movement, were filmed using a tripod.
This meant, for our main task, our shots felt less static and subsequently engaged the audience more. However, in our preliminary we utilised camera movement much better than we did in our main task, where many shots could have benefited from movement. For example:
We improved our framing from our preliminary, below Arnold is framed to look tiny compared to the apparently giant Marcus. In the next shot, they both appear the same size, this discontinuity distracts the audience from the media product, decreasing audience pleasure.
In our main task we improved upon our camera, here our some examples of our much improved framing:
In the 4th picture above, we used a loose frame to isolate the victim, and a very low camera angle to create a watching predatory effect; making the victim appear weak and vulnerable.
One major improvement we made from preliminary to main task was our narrative construction. In our preliminary, the entire story is a dweeb attempting to purchase drugs from a dealer, however for our main task, the story revolves around an elusive serial killer and a stumped detective. The relevance of the characters in our main task is much more sophisticated, and there is a lot more potential to develop each character, unlike with our preliminary.
One shot in particular is used to establish our protagonist in the main task was shot 15, where it lingers on the detective for a few seconds in a stressed position, the audience are given time to infer his distress; developing the character.
The audience infer he is stressed, that he cares for his work and that his helpless, isolated and alone.
We have a shot in our preliminary that also tries to do this:
But this shot just establishes the character as a tough thug, instead of developing a depth or emotional connection to the character.
Our use of colour correction developed substantially from our preliminary. Aside from light/exposure correction, we used the tool once to make the antagonist look cold and cruel:
The blue tint gave it a cold, hard feel, emphasising the bitter anger of the character and foreshadowing his upcoming violent action.
Whereas, in our main task, we used it effectively for almost every shot. We used it as a tool to construct our narrative further, shot’s featuring the murderer were tinted a disturbing green and shots featuring the detective were tinted an eerie orange. The unsettling nature of the colours reflected on how the detective and murderer are the same person, reflecting on his disturbed mind. In a sense, the different colours represented the different ‘identities’ but by having the same unsettling feel, we created a link; whilst hinting at the damaged mental health of the detective/murderer.
In conclusion, we have progressed from our preliminary by employing our ability to construct a more sophisticated narrative, making use of a wider variety of editing tools and effects and a greater knowledge of camerawork.