james millard evaluation

8/7/2019 James Millard Evaluation

1/33

In what ways does your media product use, develop or challenge

forms and conventions of real media products?In this section of the evaluation I will be comparing our documentary with real media

products (namely Hillsborough, the Documentary, Panorama: Are The Net Police

Coming For You? and 9/11: The Falling Man) thereby explaining the ways in which we

have followed or challenged their codes and conventions, why we chose to do this and

if I am pleased with the resultant effects.

During the research and planning stage of our project we each analyzed one

documentary. I personally chose to research Panorama: Are The Net Police Coming

For You? because I thought we could potentially be investigating the issues regarding

copyright infringement and illegal downloading, of music in particular, on YouTube in

our documentary. So deconstructing this product would give us more insight into the

codes and conventions of this particular genre as well as how to apply them to our

product. Furthermore, after conducting some target audience research it would seem

that our documentary has a very similar audience to that of this product, as opposed to

Hillsborough, the Documentary and 9/11: The Falling Man which have fairly different

audiences (not to mention tones as they both deal with rather tragic events) compared

to that of our product. Taking this into account, if we were to appeal effectively to our

target audience we should have followed this documentarys codes and conventions

very closely, or at least more so than those of the other two documentaries. This is why

I will mainly compare our documentary with the forms and conventions of Panorama

and occasionally refer to those of 9/11 and Hillsborough.

The introduction to Panorama contains various clips from the entire documentary,

mostly from the interviews with professionals within the music industry (i.e. peoplerelevant to the subject of the documentary), as well as background footage of people

using computers and even accessing YouTube while information regarding the Digital

Economy is narrated to the audience by Jeremy Vine (BBC Radio2 show host) via the

voice-over. In my opinion this created a sense of professionalism and suggested that

the documentary will be informative and educational. Additionally, from the analysis of

our target audience research we discovered that 65% prefer the documentaries they

view to be balanced, exploratory pieces. Therefore, we wished to replicate this opening

sequence in our documentary so to create a similar feel suggesting our product will be

unbiased and investigative. I think we have achieved this fairly successfully and I was

pleased with the result overall, however there are ways in which we have and have not

followed the forms and conventions suggested by this particular opening sequence.

For example, Panorama begins by introducing the shows narrator, Jeremy Vine,

whereas we have launched straight into clips from the rest of the documentary.


2/33

We chose to do this quite simply because we didnt have the option to introduce our

narrator, as we decided not to present our documentary in this way. This could be

considered to be challenging a form of documentaries in comparison with Panorama in

particular. However, according to Tom and Brads research, the Hillsborough and 9/11

documentaries both do not have an on-screen narrator and begin with a fade-in to

interviews or background footage accompanied by a voice over, respectively.

The slow pace of the fade-in is most likely used to suggest the sombre subject of these

documentaries. This is why we chose not to use a fade-in at all and instead straight cutright to the interview clips, so that it is cohesive with the fast-pace of the remainder of

our documentarys opening sequence, thereby adhering to the forms of all three

documentaries simultaneously i.e. the editing of Panorama and the content of 9/11

and Hillsborough.

Alternatively, we have obeyed a form suggested in Panorama by then utilizing a

combination of background footage accompanied by a voice over and clips from

interviews (shown above) in our introduction (shown below).

However, we have also challenged this form in a way because the combinations are

rather different. While Panorama uses background footage accompanied by a voice

over followed by interview clips that are relevant to what has just been said (in a

repeating fashion), we have simply grouped the interview clips at the very beginning

and followed them up with background footage accompanied by a voice over, so the

orders are almost opposing. We chose to do this because, while Panorama makes the

subject of the documentary clear from the offset, we wanted to have some ambiguity


3/33

in the opening with regard to our documentarys subject so as to make the viewer

curious, grabbing their attention and thereby drawing the audience in. The interview

clips we chose were more ambiguous than the background footage that accompanied

the voice over so it made sense to us to use the clips first, followed by the voice over

and background footage (as they are slightly more suggestive of the subject) that

would then culminate in the reveal of the title sequence animation, in which the

subject becomes apparent. Thereby creating a kind of crescendo of information

leading up to the title of the documentary, which I think worked quite well. Perhaps we

could have made the voice over slightly less vague about the subject so that the lead-

up to the title was more gradual. Though this may have ruined our intentions for the

introduction to be almost suspenseful, so overall I am very pleased with the result.

The other forms suggested by Panorama that we have used in our introduction are:

Fast-paced editing utilizing mostly straight cuts between interview clips andbackground footage of very short shot duration. This code is not reinforced by 9/11 or

Hillsborough as they both use fade in/out transitions between shots of fairly longduration. However, this is most likely used to connote the tone of the documentaries as

they both deal with tragic events. This is why we have applied a faster, more up-beat

tempo to our documentarys editing because it has a much more light-hearted tone,

like Panorama, which works well in my opinion. In this case, I would say that there is a

common form amongst all three documentaries that we followed, in that we have

utilized a style of editing that is relevant to the tone of the documentarys subject.

Low volume, non-diegetic soundtrack throughout, including the title sequence. Thisparticular form is supported by 9/11 and Hillsborough, which we have followed

completely. Our backing track display on Final Cut Express is shown below.

A title not accompanying clips from professional interviews as this is not theirformal interview section and if anything the clips we used werent long enough.


4/33

The short title sequence animation I created seems to challenge conventions of TV

documentaries as all three documentaries we researched have either no title included

in the show or just a simple label rather than an animation. But we decided to include

one in our documentary because it seemed appropriate considering the technological

nature and theme of the product, which is also why I positioned the text in a way that

looks as though it is appearing on the screen of the Apple Mac desktop computer. I

think it was definitely suitable for the documentary and worked very successfully.

However, having said that, Panorama does utilize animations as well as other

computerised/digital-style effects in the rest of the documentary (shown below) to

depict information regarding digital fraud, thus making them relevant to the

information they are portraying and indeed the entire documentary.

This is ironic considering we have not used any other animations in our documentary

but this is mainly because they would have taken too long to produce. However, we

have followed this code of using animations that are appropriate to the subject of our

product (as mentioned above).

Moving on from the introduction, the main convention of documentaries used in

Panorama is interviews with specialists in the music industry, such as Feargal Sharkey

(Chief Executive of UK Music) and Louis Walsh, as well as artists like Roy Stride

(Scouting For Girls) and Sway (shown above), regarding the impact of illegal

downloading on the music industry. We have utilized this convention in our

documentary by interviewing professionals that are relevant to its topic (the pros and

cons of YouTube) such as Apple Mac Technician, Richard Jones and Computer

Engineer, Alex Webb. We have not challenged this convention because, according toour research, interviews are our target audiences third favourite feature of

documentaries, and frankly specialist perspectives are necessary in an investigative

and educational documentary.


5/33

However, from our documentary research I have discovered that there are several

codes in relation to the convention of using professional interviews. Some of which we

have adhered to and others we have not. For instance, in Panorama the specialists like

Feargal Sharkey are interviewed in a setting with a very professional misc-en-scene

while dressed in formal attire. Whereas the artists like Roy Stride, while also

interviewed in a professional setting such as their place of work (the interview with

Sway is conducted in a music studio for example), are dressed in their casual, everydayclothing (shown above). During my research I suggested that this could imply a

difference in status between the specialists and artists. We have also, quite

incidentally, followed this form in our documentary because while Nick Waring is

dressed in a formal suit and shirt, Elliot Ford is dressed in his casual everyday attire. As

Nick is a teacher and Elliot is a student I think this is quite suitable for representing the

difference in status.

The other codes within the use of professional interviews are:

The setting is always relevant to the interviewees profession and therefore thetheme of the documentary as well (because the interviewees capacity is relevant tothe theme, as aforementioned). Hillsborough supports this code of misc-en-scene as

the historian is interviewed in front of a bookcase and computer. Our documentary

adheres to this because Nick Waring (Media Studies Teacher) is interviewed in a media

room at our college, the interview with Richard Jones (Apple Mac Technician) takes

place in the Mac Suite of our colleges Art & Design department, Alex Webb

(Computer Engineer) is surrounded by computers and laptops during his interview and

Elliot Ford (YouTube Fanatic) is interviewed with this YouTube channel displayed on

the TV behind him. Not only that, but in every interview there is a screen on which a

YouTube page is displayed. We chose to do this because it creates a visual associationwith the documentarys theme regardless of what particular issue is being discussed.

This is evident in the still images taken from our documentary that are shown on the

next page as well as above.


6/33

All interviews are accompanied by a title that is usually displayed in the bottom left-hand corner, stating their name and profession. However, 9/11 displays titles in the

bottom right-hand corner and Hillsborough even includes framing squares and small

animations with their titles (shown below).

So I would say that we have developed this form in our documentary because we have

utilized titles to introduce all of our specialists by stating their name and profession,

but we have not always placed them in the bottom left-hand corner. For example,

Richard Jones interview is accompanied by a title in the bottom right-hand corner,

which we chose to do because if we had placed the title in the bottom left-hand corner

it would not have been visible against the largely light-coloured background. But, if

anything, we have adhered to the codes suggested by Panorama and 9/11 by using

simple text and not including any animations or framing squares, as it wasnt

necessary to lift them off the background. Furthermore, we have used a fade in/out

transition on our titles as Panorama and 9/11 have (shown below).

Interviewees never look directly into the camera while talking. This form isreinforced by 9/11 and Hillsborough. Therefore, I would say that we have challenged

this particular code because most of our specialists actually look into the camera more

often than not (examples shown at the top of the page). This was not intentional on our

part, in fact while interviewing them we stood away from the camera so as to try and

make them look at us while talking, but they couldnt seem to resist looking at the

camera. So while it was not our intention to challenge this form, it is the end result,

though I dont think it is detrimental because it engages the viewer.


7/33

Medium Shot/Medium Close-up Shot on interviewee. This code is also supported by9/11 and Hillsborough and we have followed this form almost to the letter, the only

exception being the interview with Alex Webb (shown above). Which I dont think works

well because it makes Alex appear as though he is hunched over and there is even a

corner of his bed sheet in frame, which is perhaps not appropriate. This is something

we admittedly overlooked and in hindsight we should have enlarged the frame while

editing so as to exclude the sheets and Alexs legs. However, if we had done this, most

of his hand gestures would also not be visible and therefore his body language wouldhave been rather stunted and not very expressive at all.

Vox Pops are also included in Panorama, in an unconventional form though, as there

are no random interviews conducted in public areas. Instead, a normal everyday

family, as well as a group of students that live together, are filmed and informally

interviewed about their views on illegal downloading. They are conducted in an

intimate setting, like the familys home, so as to make the vox pops more relatable.

This is rather unconventional as well though these segments still express normal,

everyday peoples opinions so they are technically vox pops. Another unconventional

feature of these vox pops is the inclusion of titles with the interviews.

Vox pops are conducted rather unconventionally in 9/11 and Hillsborough as wellbecause the interviews are also pre-organised and include titles. However, this could be

considered necessary in the context of these documentaries because the people being

interviewed must be connected to the respective events and the titles convey this.


8/33

Regardless, we have not followed this form, but we have adhered to the traditional

convention by interviewing randomly chosen people around our college, rather than

conducting pre-orchestrated vox pops, thereby truly representing the voice of the

people. We have also not included titles with our vox pops. I think this worked very

well because it honestly expresses normal, everyday peoples opinions as we intended,

which is the whole point of vox pops. We could have conducted our vox pops in a more

widely recognisable/familiar public area, like Solihull Town Centre, in order to make

the views of the people we interviewed relatable to a wider range of people, but I think

the setting of our college works well in making their views relatable to our target

audience of 16-25 year olds.

Finally, other forms and conventions of TV documentaries suggested by Tom and

Brads analysis of 9/11 and Hillsborough are:


9/33

No interviewee speaks for longer than 7 seconds while still being shown on camera(background footage is overlaid) and lots of backup clips and still images (9/11), as

well as cuts to and from images (Hillsborough). This form is supported by Panorama

and we have absolutely followed this convention by overlaying our interviews with cut-

aways to/accompanying the voice over with relevant background footage (examples

shown above). We chose to do this because it seemed prudent to reinforce what is

being said with visual evidence.

Fades are used in appropriate places (9/11) and Fade out from each interviewee(Hillsborough). This is not supported by Panorama as fades are not used at all but itdoes utilize various styles of transition editing as well as straight cuts. So we have

developed this particular code by making use of straight cuts between interviews, so as

to maintain the fast-pace style of continuity editing, as well as utilizing fades in

appropriate places. For example, in places where we removed a portion of footage that

we did not wish to use and a glitch between the remaining pieces of footage was

visible, we had to overlay background footage or place a very short fade transition at

this point so as to retain the continuity of the editing, which I think has worked very

effectively and the feedback we have received shows that our audience concurs.

Background footage overlaying several edited pieces of footage (above)

Very short fade transition between edited pieces of footage (above)


10/33


11/33

What have you learned from your audience feedback?In this section of my evaluation I will summarise my findings from the detailed

audience feedback we carried out and comment on my response to this feedback in

terms of it did it surprise me or was it what I expected, and why? The feedback

questionnaire was answered almost entirely by media studies students, during a focus

group at our college, so there should be no misinterpretation of any of the questions

leading to misleading feedback. This also means that we will have obtained the mostinformed feedback possible regarding questions of a technical nature.

The pie chart (above) illustrates that 100% of the feedback I have obtained from the

feedback questionnaire will represent the views of people aged 16-25. As this is theage bracket of our documentarys target audience the feedback received will prove

useful when determining how successful our media products are.

The above pie chart shows that I obtained the following feedback from an exactlyequal number of males and females. As our target audience research showed that our

documentary should appeal equally to both genders this makes the results obtained

from this questionnaire extremely prudent when evaluating our media products.


12/33

This pie chart illustrates that the results obtained from the feedback questionnaire will

mostly represent the views of people of White British ethnicity, 50% in fact. As they arethe target audience of our media products, and mostly white people are portrayed in

our documentary, their views are invaluable in evaluating the products effectiveness.

The pie chart (above) shows that 90% of the results obtained from this questionnairewill illustrate the views of people of social class B-C2. Consequently, as this social class

bracket is our documentarys main target audience, the following findings will prove

very useful when determining how successful our media products are.

The purpose of the last four questions was specifically to identify the demographic

profile of whose views are reflected by the feedback received via this questionnaire. So

to summarise the conclusions I have made from the results for each of the previous

questions, the demographic profile of those who answered the questionnaire are:

White British males and/or females, 16-25 years old, of B-C2 social class.

Therefore, as the demographic profile of those who answered the questionnaire is

exactly the same as our documentarys target audience, the feedback received will be

as pertinent and relevant as we could have possibly obtained.


13/33

The purpose of the following three-part question was to ascertain whether the intended

target audience of our documentary could be easily identified or not. If so, this would

show that we have pitched our documentary successfully.

The pie chart (above) illustrates that 85% of people think that the age of our

documentarys target audience is 16-18 year olds, while 70% believe our target

audience to be people of 19-25 years of age and only 20% think our documentary is

aimed at 12-15 year olds, and no one believes our documentary is aimed at anyone

older than 25. So, as the age of our target audience is 16-25 year olds particularly (or

younger people in more generalised terms), we have definitely pitched our

documentary successfully in terms of age.

The above pie chart shows that 100% of people think that the gender of our target

audience is males, as opposed to 80% believing our documentary is aimed at females.

While not everyone thinks our documentary is aimed at females as well as males, this

does show that 80% think it is aimed at both. So considering that there may be some

gender bias regarding males being more interested in a technologically themed

documentary, we have also pitched our media product effectively in terms of gender.


14/33

This pie chart illustrates that up to 90% of people think that the social class of our

documentarys target audience is C1, while 70% believe our target audience to bepeople of C2 social class and 60% think they are of B social class. So 60-90% of

people believe our target audiences social class matches that of our documentarys

intended target audience (B-C2). Whereas only 20-25% of people think that our target

audiences social class is also/or A or D. Therefore, we have pitched our documentary

successfully in terms of social class as well.

Overall, the feedback received from these three questions did not surprise me because

I believed we had pitched the documentary effectively and the questionnaire was

answered almost entirely by media studies students, so if anyone would be able to

easily identify our intended target audience it would be them. Also, because of this, if

we had pitched the documentary unsuccessfully this would have been reflected in

these results. So I think they are very reliable in showing that our intended target

audience is easily indentified, hence the documentary was pitched very effectively.

The pie chart (above) shows that most people (60%) thought that the quality of our

documentarys sound levels are good, while 30% believe theyre of professional

quality and the remaining 10% thought that the quality was average.


15/33

However no one believed that theyre of poor or amateur quality. So this would

suggest that we have mixed the sound levels of our documentary fairly effectively,

though perhaps not as well as we could have. This was not unexpected either as

several pieces of footage that we used in our documentary had fairly constant, loud

background noise that partially drowned out the useful audio so we had to compensate

for this by elevating the sound levels so that the useful audio could still be heard

regardless of the background noise. We could have used other footage instead but we

believed what was being said in these pieces was essential to our documentary. So

taking that into consideration, a general rating of good/professional for the quality of

our sound levels is very satisfactory.

Displaying the results for question 7 (Do you believe interviewees were relevant to the

documentarys subject?) in the form of a pie chart would be redundant because

everyone, 100% of people, answered Yes. This is exactly the response I expected,

because the professionals we interviewed were unquestionably relevant to the

documentarys subject, but it is still a pleasing response.

The above pie chart illustrates that 75% of people would rate the quality of our

documentarys editing as professional, while the other 25% believe the editing is of

good quality, and no one rated it as average, poor or amateur. Such positive

feedback did surprise me because we generally only used fade in/out transitions.

The purpose of the following two questions was to determine whether or not our

documentarys intended style and purpose is apparent to our target audience.

However, question 10 was a trick question of sorts because we actually intended our

documentary to be all four of the options offered; or rather we intended it to be

informative and educational while hoping that it would also be entertaining and

thought-provoking (as explained in our TV listings magazine article). Although, if our

target audience believes our documentary possesses all of the aforementioned

qualities to some degree we will have successfully achieved all of our aims in themaking of our media product. I wouldnt necessarily expect this response but I would

be surprised if most people didnt think the documentary had at least two of the four

qualities given as options.


16/33

This pie chart shows that almost everyone, 90% of people, think that the genre of our

documentary is Informative, while the other 10% of people believe that it is either aDocu-soap or Direct Cinema genre documentary. Based on this feedback, the

intended style of our media product is definitely apparent to an audience. I was very

surprised that even one person thought our documentary was of the Docu-soap genre,

but at least no one believed it was a Drama documentary. Whereas thinking our

documentary is of the Direct Cinema genre is more understandable. However, I did

expect most, if not all, people to identify it as informative, and I am pleased that they

have because it suggests that we have effectively stylised our documentary.

The pie chart (above) illustrates that absolutely everyone believes the purpose of our

documentary is to inform, while 55% think its purpose is also to be entertaining and

35% believe the documentary is educational as well. Whereas only 20% think that our

documentary is also intended to be thought-provoking. So, as with question 9, I am

very pleased with the feedback we received from this question because it shows that

we have succeeded in achieving our primary aim of creating an informative and

educational documentary as well as fulfilling our hopes that it would also be

entertaining and thought-provoking!


17/33


18/33

This pie chart illustrates that 50% of people think that the audio in our documentary

was applied ineffectively to some degree. I say to some degree because according tothe feedback received from the previous question, 65% of people believe that we used

Sound effectively. Therefore, 15% of people must think that we have utilized sound

successfully in places, and unsuccessfully in others. Whereas only 15% believed

Camera and Misc-en-scene were applied ineffectively and no one thought Editing

was utilized unsuccessfully in any way. However, in conjunction with the feedback

received from question 12, this means that roughly 20% of people thought that

Camera, Editing and Misc-en-scene were utilized neither effectively nor ineffectively.

This is assuming no one considered Camera or Misc-en-scene to be features that

have been applied successfully in places and unsuccessfully in others, like Sound.

I find the response regarding the Sound component of our documentary quite

interesting, because it almost confirms that the reason I suggested for why most

people only rated the sound levels as good in question 6 (i.e. the background noise in

some pieces of footage was too loud) is most likely correct. Moreover, after analysing

the feedback received from the previous question, our target audiences views on the

Camera, Misc-en-scene and Editing components of our documentary are not

surprising whatsoever. It simply further reiterates their opinion that we have used

Editing especially to a high standard, in such a way that appeals to our target

audience very successfully.

Question 14 (Do you believe the documentary lived up to the idea suggested by the

title?) is yet another that does not require a pie chart to illustrate the feedback

generated by it, as yet again everyone answered Yes. I included this question in the

questionnaire, firstly because I was unsure if the title (YouTube: Viral or Valuable?)

would even convey a message of is YouTube good or bad? to our target audience as

we had intended, and secondly because I was also curious to see if our audience

believed we had effectively explored the pros and cons of YouTube in our documentary.

The resounding response clearly shows that we have successfully produced anunbiased, investigative documentary in response to their desire for a balanced,

exploratory piece. Honestly this surprised me because I was expecting at least a few

unsure responses, mostly due to a possible lack of clarity in the title.


19/33

The pie chart (above) shows that 80% of our target audience thinks that our

documentary is of professional quality overall and the remaining 20% believe it is of agood quality. So according to these results 4 out of 5 people would say our

documentary is of a professional standard, which is extremely pleasing feedback.

However, the next three questions, 16-18, do not require pie charts to illustrate our

audiences responses because everyone answered Yes to all three. So from the

feedback generated by these questions it is apparent that our target audience thinks

my article design has a layout that they would expect to see in a professional

magazine, utilizes colours relevant to the articles subject and makes use of suitable

still images from our documentary. I expected this response because I am confident in

the deliberate choices I made while designing the magazine article, such as using a

limited red, black and white colour scheme to connote the YouTube logo.

The above pie chart illustrates that 70% of people think that the article promotes the

documentary very well while the other 30% believe the article promotes it well.

Therefore no one would say it promotes the documentary poorly or very poorly. Once

again, I expected positive feedback from this question but not necessarily this positive

because I was not sure of how well the article promoted the documentary.


20/33

The pie chart (above) shows that 80% of our target audience thinks that the article is of

professional quality overall and the remaining 20% believe it is of a good quality. Soaccording to the feedback received from this question 4 out of 5 people would say the

magazine article is of a professional standard, which again is very pleasing feedback.

The pie chart (above) shows that most people (65%) thought that the quality of ourradio trailers sound levels are good, while 25% believe theyre of average quality

and only 10% thought that the quality was professional. However no one believed that

theyre of poor or amateur quality. So this would suggest that we have mixed the

sound levels of our documentary fairly well, though not as well as we could have. I did

not think that the sound levels were mixed as well in our radio trailer as in our

documentary so this was the response I expected. However, I would not have been

surprised if the feedback was more negative so this was still fairly satisfactory.

Displaying the results for question 22 (Are the clips taken from the documentary used

effectively?) in the form of a pie chart would be redundant because everyone, 100% of

people, answered Yes. I did not expect this response though it did not surprise me

either because I thought we had utilized the audio clips in our trailer fairly effectively.


21/33

The above pie chart illustrates that most people (3 out of 5) think that the radio trailer

promotes the documentary well while 25% believe the documentary is promoted verywell by the radio trailer. However, 10% of people think the radio trailer promotes the

documentary neither well nor poorly, and only one person thought that the radio

trailer promoted the documentary poorly.

This pie chart shows that the majority of our target audience (65%) believe the radio

trailer is of a good quality overall and 30% of people each thinks that the quality of

the radio trailer is professional or average. Whereas the remaining 5% of our target

audience believes the radio trailer is of a poor quality. This is not surprising as I do not

think our radio trailer is of as high a standard as our documentary and article, still the

fact that most people considered it to be of a good quality was a pleasant surprise.


22/33

Finally, the pie chart (above) illustrates that 20% of our target audience believes that

our project is a complete success (10 out of 10)! Almost everyone (95%) thinks that ithas a success rating of 8 on a scale of 1-10. Whereas only one person (5%), most likely

the 5% that believed our radio trailer to be of poor quality, thought that it is any less

successful than that and even they believed our project to be deserving of a success

rating of 6 overall. This is very impressive feedback. Although, taking our audiences

response to the entire questionnaire into consideration it is not entirely surprising.


23/33


24/33

As for our radio trailer, it would be aired on Capital FM that, according to our research

into Radio Stations, fits in with our target audience. Furthermore, the background

music Tom has created would appeal to the type of audience who listens to Capital

FM, thereby appealing to our intended target audience as well apparently. However,

these are mostly unsubstantiated claims so I could not honestly say that our radio

trailer appeals effectively to our target audience based solely upon this. Personally, I

think that the up-beat tempo of the backing track would appeal to a similar age group

as that of our audience and the voice-overs informal manner of speaking e.g. Dont

miss it! might attract and audience of similar social class as ours, but the over-

saturation of male voices (at a ratio of 5:1 against female voices) would most likely

appeal more to a male audience. So in conclusion I would say that our products target

the same audience fairly effectively, though not completely successfully.

With regard to how well our documentary is promoted, I think the magazine article is

more effective than the radio trailer and our audience feedback reinforces my opinion.

This is because, as aforementioned, the articles red, black and white colour scheme

and the san-serif typeface are connotative of the YouTube logo and indeed the style ofthe websites design, thereby effectively representing the central focus of the

documentary. Additionally, through the interview section of the article we were able to

describe every facet of our documentary including the inspiration behind it, our aims

and motivations during its creation as well as specific features, all without giving away

much at all regarding the actual content of the documentary. So it effectively grabs the

readers attention without spoiling the documentary itself, thereby perking their

curiosity and inviting them to watch while supplying them with all the information they

need to then find and view the documentary. Whereas the radio trailer, while it does

supply the listener with the necessary details for finding the show, it is ambiguousregarding its premise and even its subject because YouTube isnt even mentioned until

19 seconds from the beginning and the only specific comment relayed via the voice

over being we expose the secrets of YouTube, which isnt even strictly true.

Even though our products target the same audience and promote the documentary

fairly effectively, I dont think we have been successful in creating a clear brand

identity for our products at all. This is because our documentary is aired on Channel 4

while our magazine article is published in The Radio Times, which is a client of BBC

Television and published by BBC Magazines so this is definitely not appropriate

branding for our documentary. However, Channel 4 is not associated with any radio

stations so Capital FM is as good a choice as any for the advertisement of our product,in fact it is the most appropriate considering its supposed appeal with our target

audience, but it still doesnt particularly create an absolutely clearbrand identity.


25/33

If we had chosen to air our documentary on BBC1 with an article in The Radio Times

and an advertisement on BBC Radio 2 we would have succeeded in creating an

extremely clear brand identity for our products. Taking this into consideration, at bestwe have only partially succeeded in branding our products effectively.


26/33

How did you use media technologies in the research and planning,

construction and evaluation stages?In this section of my evaluation I will reflect on the production process by describing all

of the different technologies I used throughout and how useful I found them to be.

First and foremost, the only two computer systems I have utilized during the production

process is a Dell Vostro 1500 laptop, my personal laptop (shown left above), and the

Apple Mac Core Duo iMac 2.0gHz desktop computer with a 20-inch flatpanel monitor,

my computer of choice while at college (shown right above). While the Dell laptop

carries out instructions at a much slower rate than the Apple Mac it proved very useful

in the development of the title sequence animation, though altogether I found the UI

(user interface) of the Apple Mac to be much smoother than of the Dell and not as

clunky or rigid. Since the very beginning of the process I have used the Internet

Explorer(when using the Dell laptop) and Safari(when using the Apple Mac computer)

browser software programs to procure information, conduct research and regularly

update our blog. Once again, the Mac-based tool was much more user-friendly mainly

because of its fluidity. For example, it enabled for simple transference of text from a

document or data from a spreadsheet onto the compose post interface of the blog, just

by highlighting the desired text and using the drag-and-drop method. Whereas

Internet Explorerdid not allow for this simple method of transferring information

because of the Windows Vista OS (operating system) being far more rigid. Due to this, I

also experienced problems with formatting posts on the blog when using the Dell, such

as it not responding to the addition of gaps between lines of text, automatically adding

spaces at the beginning of a post and even refusing to embed videos in the post.Additionally, I also used the command-shift-3/4 function of the Apple Mac to capture

all the print screens that I used in this evaluation, yet another area in which the Mac

outdoes the Dell because the cmd-shift-4 function allows for the capture of a

designated area of the screen. Therefore, I would say that I used the Apple Mac

desktop computer to its full extent and it definitely was more useful than the Dell

laptop in the production process, especially as most of the software programs I utilized

were only accessible on the Mac. But before I list all these programs and discuss the

way that I used them in my project I will first discuss the other hardware I have used.


27/33

The photograph (above) shows most of the hardware I used, including the Apple Mac

computer as well as the Canon HD20 camera, Audio Technica AT8015 Condenser

Microphone and Vinten Pro5 tripod that we used to capture all of our footage.

In addition to this I utilized the Epson Perfection V30

scanner (left) for scanning handwritten documents so

that they could then be added to the blog as a JPEG

file. This proved to be very useful because it meant that

I did not have to re-write all of the rough notes that I

had made on paper throughout the project. Through

the Epson Scan software interface I was able to modifythe dpi (dots per inch) i.e. resolution of the images,

rather than just conducting an auto scan so I have

used it to a fairly high extent.

The main part of the production process for which I utilized Adobe Photoshop (CS3 and

CS4 editions) was the creation of the title sequence animation, and heres how:


28/33

Firstly, I used the 'Polygonal Lasso Tool' to cut out the YouTube Logo from an image I

found on the web using a Google Search and laid this over the photograph of the

AppleMac computer we took during filming. However, due to the white background of

the original image, this process left a white trim remaining around the logo, the

corners in particular. This lead to the next step:


29/33

Secondly, I used the 'Eraser Tool' with a small brush diameter, low opacity and low

hardness to lightly airbrush the remaining white trim from the edges of the logo so as

to attribute it a polished, professional aesthetic. Adding the text was as simple as

adding text and I used the transform controls to position them as shown above.

Finally, I opened the 'Animation' window from the 'Window' toolbar, then created anindividual frame for each step of the animation and allocated each of them a time

period corresponding to how long the voice-over will take to say each word, so the

animation should mirror the voice-over perfectly, thereby completing our title

sequence's animation. I even annotated these screen prints and converted them into

JPEG files (images) for use on our blog using Photoshop. Finally, I also used Photoshop

to adjust the image size of stills taken from our documentary for use in this evaluation.

So I have definitely made the most of this particular software program and found it to

be very useful in all.

We used Final Cut Express for a number of processes during the construction of our

documentary such as logging and transferring of footage, editing of footage on the

timeline via the various tools and toolbar-accessible options as well as adding text via

the Viewer: Slug screen and exporting the finished piece as a QuickTime Movie file.Overall I found Final Express to be an extremely useful program that did not over-

complicate procedures and was not irritating or confusing to use in any way, and I

think we utilized it to its very full extent.


30/33

The entire Final Cut Express user interface in its standard format is shown above. It

can be seen from this print screen that our logged footage was displayed in the

browser section (top left) for easy access. These could then be viewed in the Viewer:

Slug (top middle) section so as to make sure that the intended piece of footage is

selected. From there it was a simple case of using the drag and drop method to add

them to the timeline section. The footage could then be easily edited using the variety

of tools. The razor blade tool was very useful when we wanted to trim some more

unwanted footage from our logged footage. The link selection tool allowed us to

separate the visual from the audio of a particular clip so we could then get rid of either

one or the other. This was a crucial element in the construction of our documentarybecause it allowed us to do away with unwanted audio that was attached to useful

background visual footage and vice versa for the voice-over clips. It also ensured that

when we moved a particular piece of footage the visual and audio remained synced,

which was very helpful for the adjustment and positioning of interview footage.

Another tool that was helpful for this particular task was the snapping tool, which

snapped the end of a moved piece of footage to the corresponding end of the closest

stationary piece of footage when it came in close proximity, resulting in no blank or

empty space between footage.

Another feature of the Viewer: Slug screen that was very useful was the text tab

which allowed us to create the titles for our interviews and adjust the text in terms of

its typeface and size, orientation i.e. positioning, as well as rotation.

Furthermore, the canvas screen enabled us to view our documentary, as it would be

when converted into a QuickTime movie file as well as allowing us to zoom particular

pieces of footage to solve problems such as the microphone being in the frame. This

was also crucial as it allowed us to frame our shots effectively.

Finally, from the drop-down modify menu of the toolbar we were able to speed up

certain clips and the drop-down effects menu from the toolbar enabled us to add

video transitions, mainly fade in/out dissolves, to our clips. Hence, Final Cut Express

was definitely a pivotal program in our documentarys construction.


31/33

From the print screen of the Log and Transfer window (above), it is apparent that

logging our footage was a simple case of selected the raw, unedited piece of footage

that we wished to log from, viewing it an using the hotkeys I and O to select the

parameters of the desired footage, then clicking Add To Queue.

I used Adobe InDesign (CS3 Edition) for the creation of our TV listings magazine article

exclusively. Overall I felt that InDesign was a rather rigid program to be honest despite

being very useful in our articles production. The entire user interface is shown below.


32/33

I did not need to utilize many of InDesigns specific features, as all I need to do was

manipulate text and add stills from our documentary. However, the process of

framing the stills was very helpful because it allowed me to exclude unwanted

sections of the still taken from Richard Jones interview (bottom right) and the fit to

image proportionally option was useful in not excluding any of the two smaller stills.

Additionally, the text wrapping tool was very useful for positioning the grab-quote and

stills effectively and the option of auto-collumated text boxes was extremely useful for

helping me to easily obey the rule of thirds convention of magazines.

Personally, I did not use the GarageBand software program much at all because Tom

and Brad produced the radio trailer (using GarageBand) while I created the magazine

article using InDesign. The entire user interface is shown below.

However, I did conduct a small amount of editing of the radio trailer near the

conclusion of the project and I found that the method of editing the clips taken from

our documentary was seemingly over-complicated. For example, the pieces of footage

could only be cut down/split by dragging over the precise piece of audio you wished to

remove/keep from the Enhance Audio Track section at the bottom of the interface,

without being able to adjust the parameters of the selection before the actual cutting

took place. This caused a lot of unnecessary hassle. However, the program was useful

in that each audio lip could be placed on a separate track from the others, which

allowed us to adjust the sound levels of each clip independently. This is unlike Final Cut

Express where only three tracks were available each for footage and audio. So I

wouldnt say that I have utilized GarageBand to its full extent due to the fact that I only

conducted a small amount of editing.


33/33

I utilized both the Windows Vista OS-compatible (2003) version, while using my

personal Dell laptop, and the Mac OS X-compatible version, when working on the Apple

Mac desktop computers at college, of the Microsoft Word software program. I used this

program for a variety of purposes, such as this evaluation (most significantly), typing

the target audience research and audience feedback questionnaires as well as typing

the article script so it could then be transferred into InDesign. Microsoft Word is unique

in that it is the only program for which I prefer using the Windows Vista OS-compatible

version because I find the Mac OS X-compatible version to be far more obstructive

when trying to alter simple facets of the document, such as having to go to the toolbar

and open up a separate window to simply change the font or make it italic. So I prefer

to begin producing a document on my Dell laptop then transfer it to a Mac, then edit

the document in compatibility mode.

Unlike Microsoft Word, I have only used the Mac OS X-compatible version of the

Microsoft Excel program. This is because I wished to use the charts toolbar option

(shown above) to create the pie charts for my target audience research and audience

feedback, which is much easier to use than the Chart Wizard of the Windows Vista

OS-compatible version of Microsoft Excel. Furthermore, the pie charts produced by this

version are far more sleek and impressive, especially as they offer the option to

produce an angled pie chart. In fact the whole selection of possible charts is muchmore extensive, so this program definitely proved useful in the research and planning

and evaluation stages of my project. Although, I suppose I could have used the

program to a greater extent by trying out various chart options other than pie charts.

james millard evaluation

Documents