In the broadest terms of the brief the product fit in terms of the specification. It is within ten seconds of ten minutes and could be part of a magazine programme, maybe not a very good one but a magazine programme none the less. It has its faults as always but I�ll take it from the start of the piece.
The mini title sequence is fairly aesthetically pleasing, with several elements working together reasonably well. The black frame acts as quite a nice boarder but it�s main purpose was it�s requirement to cover up the window that surrounds the original shot. A couple of pens are still visible, but these are poking in rather than anything else and hardly noticeable for the time it�s on. With the title fading in and out giving it time to read it, being clear and coherent. The music fits well with the piece and fades out in time. It�s also recorded on a different channel to the footsteps, allowing a brief moment of overlap. However perhaps we faded out the music a bit too soon as creepy music is more interesting than the clobbering of someone walking down the stairs. All in all this is much, much better than the first attempt that was just a caption on a black background.
The introduction�s OK. Perhaps the sound levels could have done with being raised. The unevenness of sound levels will probably be a theme throughout this evaluation as they are all over the place. I�ve learnt to look at the levels on the actual recording video a lot more, monitoring the output. We�ll get there someday, but it wasn�t quite right this time.
To the first reconstruction sequence. It�s quite well put together. The voice over is at a reasonably comparative level compared to some of the other ones that appear later on.
There�s a bit of clicking towards the start of it, before he looks up. This could have been eliminated as it�s on channel one and the voice over and music are on channel two. I think the shot of Neil opening the door and looking around works well. It�s probably my favourite shot in the piece with the weird angles and his expression of whacked out ghostness. I like the way the music fits in with him opening the door and there is a moment of silence when he looks around. This was my idea and Stacey seemed to approve of it. If Neil had gazed directly at the camera we might have started the heartbeat noise at this point, fear and panic gripping him, but he doesn�t do this so the door closing is the natural place for it to follow. At the moment I think the sequence is OK. The cut to the pretty close shot of his feet going down the stairs may look perhaps a little strange not being in the middle of the flight but this fairly important from a continuity point of view. It didn�t look at all right in the middle of the stairs as he�s going at a completely different pace. We had to wait for him to slow down before inserting this, meaning this had to go at the bottom of the stairs. I don�t think the music fades out quite in time. It hit the outpoint protecting the first part of the interview.
I quite like the way the interview starts, with an answer and not a question. �It was....scary� is quite a good hook line and keeps the intrigue going for a moment or two. The sound quality of the interview was really bad so we had to make the most of it. It may not be the best sound in the history of soundwaves or the best sight man has ever cast his eyes upon, no Oscars are coming our way - it�s just a sync sound interview. This was required by the brief and it pretty standard format. I think we could have benefited from a series of relevant cutaways to help hold the audiences interest for longer. It�s impossible for me to be impartial as to how long the audience would remain interested in the subject as I�ve seen it that many times in the edit suite. What is certain in my view is the unnecessary a gap before the question �have you got any personal explanation for the cause of this?� in which Stace seems to bite her tongue or something. There�s also a distracting piece of camera movement at the start of one of the answers. This could have been covered over by an insert of his hands or something.
The interview ends with him walking down the stairs. I quite like the idea behind this as I feel it kind of ends the first section of the piece well and links it back to the start. I like the soundbyte aswell and it was wise to put it on a separate channel from the footsteps but I remember, again, the levels being wrong. It�s nice to end it off on a slightly humorous note.
The second section of the piece. The composure of the shot is good enough. An element of establishing a new setting with the sign at the start, tilt down etc. My main criticism of it may be that we could have experimented in cutting out some of the low frequency traffic noise.
Reconstruction 2. I suspect the sound of the voice over may be a little off again. I also could have done something to redress the image of them playing drafts. The image seems a bit flat and could possibly do with a bit of red tint, through the mixer. It�s partly due to the first interview being of this texture and Stacey�s question being of redder white balanced that this opinion comes from. I�m probably not being very objective here as it fits together pretty logically. The whole sequence seems to work. Ideally the music would come in sooner, but the timing of the fade up is pretty much avoidable considering the length of the music. There�s a glitch as we manage to switch from VHS to SVHS again, but this was infeasable to rectify in such short notice after it was identified. The following voice introduction with the chairs interferes with some background sound, but this was the best complete take we managed to achieve out of our many takes.
Urn, paper shot. This is a good link between the two. It shows the urn, the focus of the last shot and Ray, the subject of the voice over. I think the levels are way off in terms of continuity throughout the piece but it links well. OK...at least. A logical 2 shot follows and then a slight hint of a dodgy edit. It may seem OK initially, and some might say that�s all that matters, but the cut isn�t quite fluent and exact. It looked perfect on the preview, but with hindsight it was edit suite 4 which has a beep, plastering over-riding the all important sound edit. Overall it isn�t bad, it�s just a fraction out.
Here the cemetery. I quite like the way the ambience precedes the fade and the shots are well composed. Rooftops and crosses. I don�t think the top of the cross is quite in frame, but I might be getting it mixed up with another bit.
The sound levels on the three archway shot is way too low. Substitute soundman to blame there although the editor could have boosted the levels quite easily. Who�s to blame there? Anyway, the principle behind the shot is varied and interesting. It seems to work quite well.
The next, archway shot is comparable. A couple of facts about ghosts and we�re on our way to the next setting, another shot with good intentions. The main thing tugging down this piece is that Stacey is clearly reading it off screen, but the whole idea of popping up behind a gravestone has plenty of credit, adding various elements of interest into an already interesting backdrop. I like the little laughter at the end. A cheesy way to end it off. There�s no time for credits. I don�t know if we need them anyway, being a part of a bigger programme and everything. No, the real reason is we just didn�t want out names to be associated with it.
No, it�s not that bad. Apart from the inconsistent levels and poor recorded sound in the interview it�s a valiant attempt.