1. Quality Summary 7. Looking back to your preliminary task, what do
you feel that you have learnt in the progression from
it to the full product?
Quality of holding a shot In our preliminary task, we did not use a tripod so this
steady meant the cameras were not stable enough. As a
result of this, to improve the steadiness of hands
when holding the camera we placed upon a stack
of books, though the shot was not as steady as we
would have endeared. In contrast, the quality of our
holding shot was much better compared to that of
our preliminary task because we had a tripod
meaning camera steadiness was ensured, as well as
developing personal skills in terms of different
camera techniques. For example, learning the
tracking shot, to help establish the main character,
Horatio, and as to where he is going, why he is
going there, and what he is going to do when he is
there. However, a much better example that relates
to using the tripod for camera steadiness would be
the tilting shot, as the tripod can move up and
down.
Quality of the framing shots In our premliminary task, the quality of our framing
shots were in general pretty sound, nevertheless,
during the editing process, we encountered a major
problem. This major problem was that t he two
characters’ heads were cut off, and this was in
large due to the fact that we had no tripod to use,
so, as I said before, we used a stack of books to
improve the frame of our shots. Therefore, Jemima’s
head was cut off during the scene, and my face
was not exactly in the middle, meaning the rule of
thirds was non-apparent. Despite these struggles,
we were able to improve greatly come the final
product as we had a tripod to use, thus improving
the quality of our framing.
Quality of shooting In our preliminary task, we were required to show a
material appropriate to the character walking through a door, a conversation
task set- i.e. the content of with a suspect, and the eventual guilt exposed by
your film pre and post the suspect himself. In our final product, we were
editing was consistent with required to follow the codes and conventions of our

2. the exam directives specific genre- a psychological thriller. In the
preliminary task we were not told, nor did we intend
to research any other similar preliminary tasks, we
just wrote a script, and continued from there.
However, in our final product we watch six different
psychological thriller movies, to help us understand
the conventions of the genre. Overall, our final
product was appropriate to our exam directive.
Quality of selecting mise- Even in the preliminary task we found that the
en-scène including colour, quality of our mis-en scene was pretty sound, and
figure, lighting, objects and this carried onto the final product. We never really
setting; had any major problems with the colour, figure,
lighting, objects and setting, and they were all, most
importantly, appropriate to our specific genre.
Quality of editing so that Although we did not have a lot of time to work
meaning is apparent to the within our preliminary task, our editing was apparent
viewer to the viewers. I think everyone knew what the plot
was about so we did not encounter any serious
issues. In our final product, our editing was even
more apparent to the viewers as we had
researched all the codes and conventions of a
psychological thriller. In addition, the quality of the
editing was great as we had much more time to
tinker with any areas that were negative and
transformed them into positive areas for the viewer
to debate.
Quality of using sound with Unfortunately, and as I mentioned earlier, due to
images and editing the lack of time on our side, we did not include
appropriately for the task sound in our preliminary task, therefore it did not
set; match with our images. The same thing could be
said about the editing although it was not as bad.
Despite this problem, we progresses through to our
final product, and the sound did match the images
you witness in the film. Furthermore, the editing was
very effective because it was appropriate for the
task set. This included the camera angles, shots, the
positioning and movement of the character etc.

3. Quality of positioning and In our preliminary task, the quality of the positioning
movements of actors and movement of the actors were in general good.
However, we had to cancel the last scene, as I was
always out of position, and I delayed my
movement. This combined with the fact that I was
continuously laughing and smirking. In our final
product we did not experience any issues that were
of the same magnitude compared to that of the
preliminary task. Ever since the preliminary task, I
had promised myself not to laugh or smirk
continuously in the final product as it could have a
major impact on my group mates’ marks and
grades. Therefore, I did not laugh inappropriately.
Quality of group planning, The quality of the group planning from the
meeting targets, preliminary task right through to the final product
organization was good and efficient. We were all punctual in
meeting our targets, despite having so little time to
work with during the preliminary task. As ever, our
organization was excellent, we all have different
strengths, and ploughed on through our positive
areas to combine and deliver a top class final
product, in my opinion.
Group dynamics i.e. how The group dynamics and teamwork were very
did your group work good, especially as 3 of the 4 of us had worked
together together to make a min-film in September, which
turned out to be very good. Since then, we decided
to work together for the final product. Even when
Jemima joined, there was not much of a problem,
as we all knew her very well, and knew that she
would be fully devoted to obtain a high grade. We
all have a god work ethos, combined with good
teamwork and friendship which are the foundations
upon good group dynamics.
Other points of evaluation
(e.g. equipment related
etc)