Preliminary task evaluation.

 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION SHEET

Quality of Summary	My honest evaluation- what was done well and what was not of good standard? Try to cite specific example and moments from your video	Strategies put forward to make sure a high quality is maintained.
Quality of holding a shot steady	Many of the shots were held accurately especially when one of the characters were walking, however the match cut was sometimes not held to perfection.	This could have been improved through the strategy of using a tripod or possibly the person sitting down and possibly feeling more comfortable with the surroundings when filming.
Quality of the framing shots	For the task we only used a few camera shots from a match cut to a long shot to a mid shot. They worked really well in the production of our task.	In the future if we had to go back to film and improve the task I would possibly use items like extreme close-up to portray more of the emotions of the actors used possibly resulting in the audience being drawn in more to the scenario.
Quality of shooting material appropriate to the task set- i.e. the content of your film pre and post editing was consistent with the exam directives	In some ways we did change our ideas of planning throughout the process of the task, due to the group having a set of different opinions.	The process of organization would of helped us in the factor of wasting less time, and planning would of enabled us to have more flow to our task.
Quality of selecting mise-en-scène including colour, figure, lighting, objects and setting;	The use of mise – en – scene in terms of criticisms was quite basic also relating back to us not having enough time we used the mise en scene of a table and chairs to show a setting of a social meeting.	We could of used different strategies of mise en scene to create a more calmer and smooth environment relating to a social meeting. At times it was slightly more serious then relaxed.
Quality of editing so that meaning is apparent to the viewer	We added our own special parts of editing to our task even though we didn’t have to. The editing was sharp and precisely done and took the shortest amount of time.	The editing was good yes, but the use of setting could of worked more in collaboration to help achieve a much more stricter form of editing.
Quality of using sound with images and editing appropriately for the task set;	The dialogue between the characters was in sync at all times and had a god flow to it. The sound was useful to the task.	We could of used more sound to portray and relate back to the scenario. Possibly having background noise to convey a social setting.
Quality of positioning and movements of actors	The quality of positioning and the movements of the actors was almost all on-point.	To improve it we could of used a variety of shots and made sure the actors knew their positions on a more accurate basis.
Quality of group planning, meeting targets, organization	The organization of our group was good at times but we struggled in certain areas.	To improve our organization as a group we need to have more discussion time and have a set plan set out in order to produce strong work in the time given.
Group dynamics i.e. how did your group work together	We worked together really well, and the dynamics of the group were good, however we all lacked concentration in certain areas.	To improve the dynamics of the group I think that we all had to work in sync with each other more than we are already, and the strict form of concentration has to improve.
Other points of evaluation ( e.g. equipment related etc)	Over all even though we had a short amount of time we were still able to produce an effective piece of work to put towards our course work points.	I think just simple items could of improved our work even more, things like commitment and organization were the two main things I think we needed in order for us to produce an even stronger piece of work. The preliminary task taught us how quickly time can run away so we have to use if effectively.