EVALUATION:

With our live studio shoot complete, we were able to see that some elements were executed better
than others. Whilst some were completed to a good standard, others were not as impressive. This
document will be discussing both sides to the finished product.
CAMERA ANGLES:
Unlike with our location recording, we did not use establishing shots to tell the audience where they
were. Whilst this would not be required to the same degree, it could be beneficial to introduce the
piece with a panning shot around the studio before it zooms into the host and interviewee and is
switched to a two shot. This would help introduce a degree of familiarity and-if appropriate props
were littered about the room to set the scene-suggest what the subject matter was, and the topic of the
day.
To ensure that both speakers were covered, we set up a two shot. This directly faced Ruairidh and
myself and provided us with the necessary footage of us both talking. We decided to use this position
as it would convey the idea of us being confident around one another whilst clarifying who was who,
and what role we had; were the audience to only see each one of us individually, they may sense
tension as those involved are not shown to be directly interacting. Likewise, they may struggle with
relating to those onscreen as they are continually be depicted as separate entities. In terms of the level
of zoom, we slightly altered the rule of thirds; as we would be putting images/videos over the green
screen in the back, we felt that it would be beneficial to leave a little extra space so that the viewer
could focus on the people, and the backdrop. We did not add so much that the onlookers would be
constantly distracted. Ultimately, this was the best starting point for the interview; the audience is
instantly being shown both parties and is able to get a handle on the set; thy know where the sofas are,
and can see the background footage playing.
One of the angles used seems to be a
combination of a number of shots; there are
elements of a two shot, mid shot and over the
shoulder shot in how the camera is directed
over my aforementioned appendage. This was
a unique take on the style that we were looking
for and gave us a new perspective. Despite
this, I feel that it would be more impactful if it
were used in conjunction with a conventional
shot of the only the interviewer from the upper
torso and above as we would have a direct,
obvious focal point. Additionally, I would minimise the gap over the head so that our gaze does not
drift or defer from the speaker. This would not only concentrate where we are looking, but increase
the professionalism of its appearance; on commissioned pieces seen on the television, we do not see
such large expanses of nothingness. This will also prevent the background from drawing the attention
away the host. Furthermore, it would let us see his facial expressions, resulting in a deeper
comprehension of what he is saying, how he feels about the previous response and what he is asking
now. In turn, this would make the piece seem more personal as it creates the feeling of being stood
directly in front of the person, almost as if they are stood in the same room.
The camera filming myself adopted the typical angle of recording from just below the shoulders, up.
Whilst this ensures that the audience focuses on the speaker as opposed to elsewhere, the issue of

excess space presents itself once more. This ruins an otherwise perfect shot. By spending more time
adjusting the zoom and positioning the tripods we could have combatted this problem before it
happened, instead of working out a solution in post-production. For example, by moving the
apparatus further away and introducing an increased level of zoom, we could suitably fit the subjects
into the frame, without having to contend with so much unneeded, and problematic, emptiness.
Despite this, because we are closer to the speaker than in its counterpart angle, we can see how I feel
about the questions/what I am talking about (i.e. excitement), whilst baring witness to the
consideration that goes into providing an answer; it is not appropriate to say just anything, so a reply
that is viewer-friendly, without excessive jargon, and gives the required information is imperative.
As mentioned previously, tripods formed an integral part of our equipment. When setting up the
cameras for the individual shots, we were forced to manoeuvre these so that they were not being
recorded by the opposite camcorder. Consequently, we needed to experiment with the angle at which
they were positioned; i.e. one had to be further back the set than the other. Ironically, however,
although we had more space here than on our Rugby Club shoot, we did not seem to utilise it as
efficiently. I feel that the restrictions formerly imposed upon us made us think more creatively about
how we used the location and made the most of what we had. As the studio seemingly had everything
that was required, I believe that we became somewhat complacent. They also enabled us to have a
steady shot which did not wobble or move like it would if we held it freehand. In the future, we
should ensure that the camera does not have any of the ceiling in the frame and is totally level-we
need to look at the spirit levels fixed to some of the tripods.
We recorded all of the footage simultaneously, meaning that in post-production we would only have to
align the video with the audio, and remove the angles that we did not want to use at that moment.
Additionally, it ensured that we had all areas covered, at all times, so that any potential action was
covered, and we did not have to concern ourselves with stopping and starting certain cameras just to
attain/change the angle. By using a clapper to indicate to the crew to begin recording, editing was
made far easier; we could look at the audio wavelengths and cut along the point where the noise was
emitted as a means of giving all three shots the same starting point. This also saved time when
matching the footage with the sound.
On our next shoot, we will bring higher-quality cameras with us, as the resolution on those we used
was alarmingly poor. This meant that the appearance of the angles was sacrificed; the aesthetic is key
in attracting, and maintaining, an audience. Certain shots are worse than others, like the one focusing
on the interviewer, which does not help in creating a seamless piece which flows from one scene to
another. In other words, it is bad for continuity.
SOUND QUALITY:
The quality of our audio was good. The speakers are audible and can be clearly heard. To ensure that
this was the case, we made certain that the interviewer, and interviewee, spoke up and did not mumble
their words. To further secure the capturing of the sound, we used the camera closest to them to not
only record the footage, but tape the audio. This reduced the distance between the cast and the crew,
meaning that everything was more likely to be picked up.
As we were inside, we did not have to take into consideration the potential for other noises to cancel
out the speaker; unlike with filming on location, we did not have to contend with aeroplanes, cars or
lawnmowers. This, inevitably, took a great weight of our shoulders as it meant we could solely focus
on creating effective angles and making the host and the interviewee as convincing as possible.
Were we to do this again, I would use a dedicated microphone/recorder to reduce the tinny quality it
possesses. This is the single element which lets down this section. Was the audio to be amplified or
backed up on another device, when put together, the piece would not only seem more natural, but
better composed; the varying aspects would not seem separate, but a single, continuous product.

Similarly, this would act as a safety net as it is live should one of the cast speak too quietly; we will
definitely have their remarks, if not on the camera, on the additional equipment.
LIGHTING:
As our set was internal, we were not reliant on natural lighting to illuminate our scene. This was a
welcome difference. Being in a studio, we could turn the lights on and off to a point where we were
happy with how bright it was. This gave us the ultimate level of control, and meant that there could be
no excuse for any mistakes like if it was too dark, for example.
We were fortunate that it did not take much experimentation before finding a combination that was
suitable for our needs. In this circumstance, we did not use the specialist studio lights, due in part to
our uncertainty in how to operate them. Perhaps resultant of our haste to film the piece, and have time
to rectify any issues, we merely used the ordinary overhead lights. To ensure that it was appropriate,
we looked at the screens on the cameras; the equipment may record the scene differently to how we
are seeing it without looking through this apparatus.
When we record in here next time, I feel that it would be beneficial to use the overhead studio lights
as a way of targeting the beam at who is speaking. This would dull the surrounding areas so that,
whilst they and the backdrop are still visible, it is the person talking who is highlighted and clearly
defined as being the centre of attention, and the place to focus our attention.
LOCATION:
Being in a studio posed many benefits. Primarily, we did not have to carry heavy equipment to the site
of the recording, and on our arrival, could extend the tripods to their full height without being
restricted by rows of chairs or the like. This, in turn, made it easier to find the correct position for the
cameras and their stands as there was nothing to intercept them. Additionally, a multitude of other
apparatus was already present, such as lighting, which would make the set up and control of the
situation easier.
As noted earlier, I feel that it was this vast amount of room that inhibited our ability to make the shots
as they could be; because the pressure was absent, and we did not have to extensively ponder how to
compensate for what the location was lacking, I strongly believe that we felt as though we would not
have to consider as much as last time. If we were to do this again, we would spend more time placing
the tripods and cameras.
Being in the studio, we were granted the use of the green screen. This gave us the opportunity to
introduce a new dimension to our show; unlike on the last shoot where we had to use the background
we were in front of, here, we could alter it to whatever we wanted that was in relation to the topic
being discussed. This would make the set more appealing to the viewers, and far more interesting than
a piece of plain green fabric.
In the future, careful consideration should be given to the layout of the studio and how best we could
utilise the facilities, such as the specialist lights and so on. This would mean that our skills and
ability to create a good, live show would be more apparent and we could better demonstrate our
proficiency in using the equipment. Furthermore, understanding the format of the room would aid in
our spatial awareness, hence improving our placement of equipment.
Aside from this, one problem we had was relating to the subject matter; whilst we had prepared to
discuss Call of Duty, some confusion arose with the questions and the interviewer, meaning that the
topic was changed. Whilst this was unexpected, I feel that we dealt with the troubles well and were
able to improvise our responses so that the answers were still effective, addressed what was being
asked and seemed as natural as possible.