We
used a range of different technologies for an outcome of our media products
some of these including Photoshop, Final Cut, Blogger and the recording
equipment.
Some
of the technology we used to aid our media coursework was certain program that
we used to undergo certain were specified to certain operations. These
programmes were mainly Final Cut and Photoshop that helped us to achieve our
final products. As we were in a duo, we decided that we both excel in different
areas, thus making one an editor of the music video, and the other created the
ancillary texts. This worked well as then we shared the workload; this way we
both had an even share of final products to create in the given time.
Final
Cut in the programme in which we put all of the different shots together, this
is a professional programme that allowed us to cut, crop, render, lengthen and
slow the footage down to achieve a convincing music video.
The
camera equipment was a lot better than what we had experienced in previous
video’s we’ve made throughout media studies. This was due to the fact that for
the filming of this video we used Canon E0s550D, these were much better that what we’d used prior to this
music video. This did give our music video a better quality even when transferring
them from one platform to the next. We didn’t have any trouble booking out and
lending the cameras from the college, as up until physically filming we were
organised and did manage to get our names written on the loan list, we were
that organised a one point, we managed to book out two of the Canon cameras so
that we could get the same footage but from a different angle.
Our
media product challenged some aspects of a real media product; some of the
shots that we’d chosen to show certain pieces of the narrative could have been
better explained within the video. There are certain parts of our narrative
where the audience/viewers could become confused, and this wouldn’t happen in a
professional music video. We don’t think that it was lack of planning or
preparation, it was the fact that some of the shots didn’t show any real
meaning and some of the shots that we’d chosen to record could have been
more effective. We should have noticed this from our storyboard that some of
our shots were going to hold no meaning and changed them immediately. Having
said that, on the first recording sessions with only the performers, we didn’t
take the storyboard to the location of the filming, so we therefore guessed and
experimented, having done this, it wasn’t bad and upon reflection we did come
out with some good footage.
We
didn’t end up filming spontaneously as our actors had other commitments with
other lessons etc. However we did manage to film on several occasions, to get
different outcomes every time, some good, some not so good. Not all of the
filming went to waste as we did still use pieces from each all of the material
we got. When watching the final product, the audience could probably see the
difference in timings from light, to costumes and the props we had at a given
time. At one stage, the light was there
and for other times it wasn’t. However, this wasn’t all bad thing, as it did
make sense to have more light in the performance footage, as opposed to the
darker sides of the narrative. So in the
end, it did work well, and it wouldn’t have confused the audience. In the final
product, it was nice to get a contrast in light. In a few of the recording
sessions we had, our guitarist didn’t bring the main prop, the guitar. This
didn’t matter all that much and it didn’t affect our footage we got that day as
we had already done most of the main filming with Doug in the prior week, so
not much focus on the guitarist was necessary on this day. As for the costumes,
these didn’t’ t change that much from one shot to the next, it’s not
noticeable. This is because we filming both of the different sides of the music
video on different occasions, recording the performance first and then the
narrative afterwards. We still needed our musicians for the narrative recording
session, as we made them be in the frames most of the time, with having them on
the other side of the tree.
We
did publish a ‘final music video’ post, however with re-watching the video we
noticed that it didn’t include as much narrative than we’d like. This made us
change the name of the video and making in a third rough cut. We ended up
changing pieces of this music video, so that the audience would understand more
of what’s happening and therefore changing some of the narrative around. Doing
this did result in us having a better narrative and video on a whole. We
thought that the performance side of this music video was good, as we used a
number of techniques that made the performance what it is today. Not that we
had a lack of performance footage, but we should have been more adventurous and
got a lot more recording done, so we then didn’t have to use some of the same
footage twice.
Some of the footage that we’d gotten from one
occasion, was a good quality clip, however when filming all of the other
narrative and performance, we began to film in a different orientation. Thus
making this once clip different to the rest, when this clip was edited in, it
changed the overall look of the music video. People began to notice this change
in position, and it had to be changed. We tried to do this without re-filming
as this wouldn’t have been time effective, so we therefore had to try our best
to blend it in with the rest of the footage so that it wasn’t as noticeable.
We are going to show this evaluation in video/voiceover format, so we can then use an application called ScreenR to record on screen. This is so that we can demonstrate certain processes that we have used in the creation of our auxiliary texts, like the Advert and the digipak. Using this facility is most likely going to be used for question 2.