Evalutation

Evaluation of ‘Live’ Show

On Wednesday 9th December of the year 2009, we began recording the actual live show we had been preparing for 6 weeks prior. The project itself went well, everyone at first was a bit awkward on how we were to do things, but with a little bit of teaching, we managed to pull ourselves together and create something really good.
During the making of the project my responsibility and job was Post Production Producer for the Internet round, but that soon spread out, into being in charge of the VT insert material for all rounds and the final edit for the show after it was recorded. The job I had to do was finding the material we were to use in our round, then convert it onto Final Cut Pro, and finally edit it so it can be used for the show, being burnt to DVD. I found the clips we were going to use in relatively short time, and using a program on Kate’s computer we managed to convert them to the right file.
After sorting that out, I then had to send all my work to one file, which would contain all the tracks used for the show. At this point I took control of the shows editing, and spent most of my time on the computer, using programs like Final Cut Pro, and DVD Pro, which I had gotten used and was able to work on with efficiency. At times I would help with the creating of the set, gluing some pictures on, and lifting a few things, but nothing serious as I had a back problem that prevented me from doing extraneous work.
In terms of how good my contribution to the project, I feel that is important, and I had done very well. Sure had I not done the editing work someone else would have done it, but I feel that I learn things quickly, and because of this I can reach a high standard of work at a fast speed. Without my efforts, in the editing suite, we would not have had a DVD with our insert material sorted, nor would we have had the Final edit completed and finished. My good work elements, was that if I was given a deadline, say of 3 hours, I would work as hard as I could to get it done in 2 hours, but seeing as I am not fully used to the programs, and there are something I will not learn until later on in the year, I end finishing at the last minute. Things which I could improve on, is my punctuality, and being more assertive in getting people to the computer so they can tell me how exactly they wanted thing done. As most of the time I was so engrossed in the work I assumed things and did it to how I would expect them to be done.
From this project I learnt many things, how to work the Vision and Audio Mixer’s, sound level optimal for speech, camera angles and ‘searching for shots’. Most of these practical skills I didn’t find much difficulty in grasping, given a short and quick tutorial about how to work the equipment, given time I picked it all up fast. However no one was really given a good long length of time on one particular job or usage of equipment that means those who are slower, and take more time to get used to something, never had a real chance to get their heads around it. The things I learnt in terms of Theory are mainly based around how lighting should be conducted, how the system actually works, and the terminology of the Studio. This helped because as the weeks progressed Peter began using it more and more, to get us into the feeling of being in an actual studio, thus efficiency was increased as everyone knew what he was talking about.
The overall technical quality of the show was brilliant in my opinion; everything was of near professional standard and worked smoothly. The VT inserts, and image of the panel on screen came out clearly, and people could understand them if they saw it. However one slight hiccup, in terms of 2 clips from the Directors fault, which were based on the pixelated questions. On both of those questions the contestants did not get to see the pixelated faces as they were cut too soon, thus meaning the contestants had no clue about who was missing. However both the groups being very famous, they were able to tell who was missing. The sound quality was good, however it was recorded at too low a level, meaning it topped out at a low -24dB this meant that everything was too quite, and had to be boosted up much louder. This isn’t just the sound operator’s mistake, but also the talent and host as I was in the same room as the operators for the first half, and heard them distinctly tell the panel to speak louder. The host however took this a bit too literately, and most likely to nerves, his voice jumped from really loud to really quiet in small gaps of time. This was rectified when I began editing the final version, and had to boost the sound up 12 dB, just to be able to hear the talents speech, and then had to suddenly drop the sound by 8dB when the host suddenly shouted. Overall though, it was a good production, plus it was everyone’s first time doing something like this, so mistakes are expected to be seen.
Our use of Cinematography was well done, having 4 cameras, 2 as ‘pole’ which had the ability to move around more feely, and get right up to the talent, and 2 ‘fixed’ cameras, which one was used as safety and the other included shots of the audience and host, thus giving the set depth. The shots that came out were really nicely done, with plenty of breathing space in some, but others were a bit tight. Our set and the Mise-en-Scene used in the show fitted it perfectly, as we are based on media, having the flats covered in media related articles, such as internet, newspapers, a TV, which we put and actual one in the gap so the audience can see the inserts, even the desk had a picture of the ‘Hulk’ a comic book character which has spread upon multiple media platforms. The show was also meant to be relaxed and amusing, and with the talent and host wearing semi-formal outfits I feel they achieved this feeling.
In the final piece, I think everyone’s ideas really did come through, I did think about the TV showing through the flats, and was happy that others shared the same thought. Things we could improve upon, is maybe more ‘outside of the box’ thinking, because when we did try it, some really good ideas came out, however we never used them. We seemed to have played it safe and stuck to the rigid formula without trying to expand it anymore.
The audience seemed to have enjoyed the show, sitting as one of the members in the second half; I thought it went rather well. Even when I talked to them about the mistakes, they said they hardly ever noticed them at all. They were talking truthfully as I asked them to, and didn’t care if they hated it, since the more they hate it, the more I can write for my blog and evaluation, thus giving me a better grade. Alas this was not the case and they seemed like it was perfect. As I have said many times before, only the fact that the sound level was recorded to quietly and the 2 muck ups in terms of VT insert material went wrong. Other then that, everything else went fine, and it was mainly all due to lack of experience and nerves. So the remedy for improving is simple enough, just get more practice done on it. In comparison to real Live TV shows, I feel we have stuck tightly to their cores, and didn’t really try to flesh it out and give it, a true individual nature. Research materials for all were things like Never Mind the Buzzcocks, or Have I Got News For You? Mainly comedy panel shows, which we made sure we didn’t try and copy. In the sense that thinking we can be hilarious, may suit us, but not others thus making it a horrible experience. Allowing a couple of laughs through is fine, but not to expect stand up talent.
My conclusion on this is that it went well overall; we had some problems and had some great moments, all natural. If I had the chance to re do this project, I would give people roles earlier on in the process so they get more practice at their job.