Edit Process
The major issue we've come across when coming to edit is the fact that the interviewees seemed pretty concerned in promoting their own cause, in other words, almost nothing they say relates to what the other says. As far as learning curves go, this is a steep one. In order to get around this we have had to sacrifice much of what we initially thought good footage in order to create a loose structure that gets an audience from A to B.
Multi Camera; Due to the fact we had two DSLR's to use on the project we thought it a good idea to have two camera set ups per interview in order to achieve a more interesting style and break up information that could have otherwise been quite mundane and relentless. The problem with this is that in post we discovered that the two cameras were potentially set up slightly differently, meaning that the two angles differed in colouring. We used filters and colour correction to get around this and generally I'm pleased with the result. Paul in particular when using the stationary footage, was badly washed out and not vibrant at all, the finished result, while clearly altered, does a good job of establishing continuity.
The End; I have a big issue with the ending, I found it really hard to end the documentary in anyway better than the way we did. With the footage we captured it seemed that no matter what we finished with it was always a bit of an anti climax and didn't really leave the audience with any lasting message. I'm aware that this is a big issue as the ending of this kind of documentary should be a summary of the film as a whole. If i were to do this project again i would be more aware of the edit during the shooting process and try to get what i needed out of the interviewees, rather than settling for just anything.
Screen Grabs;
As you can see from these screen grabs we chose to colour correct some of the footage to improve continuity.
The major issue we've come across when coming to edit is the fact that the interviewees seemed pretty concerned in promoting their own cause, in other words, almost nothing they say relates to what the other says. As far as learning curves go, this is a steep one. In order to get around this we have had to sacrifice much of what we initially thought good footage in order to create a loose structure that gets an audience from A to B.
Multi Camera; Due to the fact we had two DSLR's to use on the project we thought it a good idea to have two camera set ups per interview in order to achieve a more interesting style and break up information that could have otherwise been quite mundane and relentless. The problem with this is that in post we discovered that the two cameras were potentially set up slightly differently, meaning that the two angles differed in colouring. We used filters and colour correction to get around this and generally I'm pleased with the result. Paul in particular when using the stationary footage, was badly washed out and not vibrant at all, the finished result, while clearly altered, does a good job of establishing continuity.
The End; I have a big issue with the ending, I found it really hard to end the documentary in anyway better than the way we did. With the footage we captured it seemed that no matter what we finished with it was always a bit of an anti climax and didn't really leave the audience with any lasting message. I'm aware that this is a big issue as the ending of this kind of documentary should be a summary of the film as a whole. If i were to do this project again i would be more aware of the edit during the shooting process and try to get what i needed out of the interviewees, rather than settling for just anything.
Screen Grabs;
As you can see from these screen grabs we chose to colour correct some of the footage to improve continuity.
No comments:
Post a Comment