Evaluation
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.
