Monday, 28 May 2012



My group for the 30-minute show consisted of Josh, me, Abid, Andrew, Rebecca, Joe Luke, Nabeel, Ezra and Imogen. We all had to come up with a VT of our desired topic to be back timed for the 30-minute show. Individually we edited our own work, which gives everyone the chance to gain experience in editing instead of dedicating one person to edit them all, this also puts less pressure on just one person to edit them all. We had a director role, vision mixer, sound technician, three cameramen, floor manager and two presenter roles. We chose the roles as professionally, most reliable and to each persons strengths, as some preferred to do certain roles over others. I think this was a very effective and reasonable way to choose roles, as this works to everyone’s gains, everyone had a say in what they wanted to do and made the workplace a more friendly and positive atmosphere. The only downfall of choosing roles this way was if two people wanted to do a one-person role, although we didn’t come across this problem.

Each group had to use a live edited VT that had been edited on the day as part of the assignment. Our group assigned this role to Josh as he felt comfortable with editing and was essentially the most experienced editor on our team, therefore it was realistic for him to edit the VT on the day, we chose a clip from the Champions league final between Chelsea vs. Bayern Munich, Josh edited this on the day and used it in the live show near the sports section. This wasn’t the best VT we could have chosen due to it not being a VT but more of a filler whilst the sports presenter was speaking. Although we knew throughout the day that this edited clip wasn’t a good example of live editing, we didn’t do anything about it. We later found out that Luke had a VT that he edited on the day but was too late to put in the live show.

Communication between each member during the live show was a problem, due to not every member of our group not having a headset. Some members didn’t need the headset for example, the sound technician and the vision mixer. Although we faced this problem, I believe the communication between director, vision mixer, cameramen and floor manager was one of the best aspects of our show. We knew what we had to do and we didn’t have any problems with communication.

The live show has to be 30 minutes no less, this was another problem both groups faced incase the show was short, the presenter and director would have to find some way of extending the show to last 30 minutes. In this aspect, we had this problem but weren’t running short, we was on course to run over. We was on out last VT with one minute left, and only had 45 seconds left. We decided quickly to cut the ending of the VT so we wouldn’t run over 30 minutes by too much, our final show lasted 30 minutes and 4 seconds. I think we did a good job and solved the problem we faced fairly quickly although it didn’t help the show run smoothly.

Each group had the same amount of rehearsal days, this was to help us estimate at how long the live show will come up to and give us feedback of weather we need to cut any out of put more in, but we didn’t take full advantage of rehearsals which was a big mistake. We could have had three or four rehearsals and have had the live show ready and perfect where as we didn’t really have a proper rehearsal. This made the live show more of a hit or miss chance on the final day.

Overall, our show was slightly over 30 minutes, but with the problems we faced I believe we worked fairly well with the likes of everyone’s lower third matching up, and communication being at a top level within the group. The main part we could have improved was the rehearsals, if we had taken advantage of the rehearsals, we could have had sorted out most of the other problems with more practice.

No comments:

Post a Comment