After displaying our initial rough cut to a few impartial students at our school, we weren't surprised at the honest feedback we received. The general consensus agreed with us in that our idea has the unique element of the sweded scenes. If edited correctly this could make our music video stand out as one of the better ones. They also thought that we managed to capture some great performance shots and that this should be shown more in our final piece as it strengthens the quality of the video. Despite in my personal rough cut evaluation I spoke about the fact that one of the issues that we found ourselves having was the poor shot management and how the top of the set appeared in certain parts. Having said this, I think we overcame this issue very well and chose shots effectively to hide this and we noted the fact that they didn't notice it, this showed us that our editing skills had been successful as this had been our goal.
One suggestion that came up a few times was to include more shots from the performance scenes as these looked very professional and suited the image that we were looking for. Also as it was a rough cut, we had not completed editing in all the real movie scenes to duplicate the sweded scenes that we created. The encouraging this about this was that we knew this before showing it to them and this was our next step in our development. The fact that they thought the exact same techniques would enhance our final piece meant we knew we were doing the right thing.
Overall, according to Stuart Hall's encoding-decoding model, I would say our rough cut was partially preferred but partly negotiated, henceforth, the feedback was positive. We received no negative feedback on what we presented, but the only reason why I would say it was negotiated was due to the positive criticism and advice we were given to enhance our piece. However they all liked it and didn't think there was too much work that needed to be done.
No comments:
Post a Comment