Evaluation.

1. FMP
Evaluation
Thomas Dickinson

2. Production
Process
Evaluation

3. Research
Making a survey on “SurveyMonkey” helped me with my product by
discovering answers to questions like how long should my documentary be
and what elements should it contain. With the feedback it helped me evolve
and adapt my product by adding things like interviews, etc.
It was useful examining the 4 pre-existing documentaries as I could locate key
elements that composed the final product like different camera angles, etc.
The documentary prior to 1990 was especially helpful to analyse as it was
interesting to see how documentary-making evolved over the years and what
elements they kept after time had passed.

4. Planning
The first form of planning I did was a mind map in which I came up with three FMP
ideas which I chose to be documentary related. My three choices were: a conspiracy
theory documentary, a horror movie documentary and a Loch Ness monster
documentary. I chose the Loch Ness Monster documentary as I had already made
horror products on this course and the conspiracy theory topic is to broad to give
good facts on. I then made a second mind map just for specific details of the
documentary. Overall, I found it helpful as it’s an easy way to arrange your ideas.
After that, I made a mood board which primarily contained images of picturesque
scenery, mythical greyscale photos of the Loch Ness Monster and front facing shots
of people being interviewed. When I’d collected the 15 images I analysed them and
found key elements shared between them like the black and white colour scheme,
real life photography and illustration. The mood board wasn’t really helpful but it
was interesting to look at the ingredients of documentaries and how they are made.
In the informal proposal I discussed the concept of the documentary deeper than I
did on the mind map. I also developed who my audience was going to be and their
age, psychographics, etc. The informal proposal was really helpful because of all the
information; however, the writing wasn't fun and was a downside to the method.

5. Time Management
I was on time for the majority of the project, for example, I was on time for the planning, the
research, etc. The only time I fell behind during my project was during production and
evaluation because I could only edit my documentary one day a week. This is because the
Premiere Pro version I started on was 2022 but all the other computers I used were the 2020 or
2021 versions which aren’t compatible with my save file. This meant that I had to do my
evaluation in my production time and my production in evaluation time; however, if the
computers all had the same version of Premiere Pro I’d have finished on time. If I had more time
or the computers were up to date, I’d have added more footage to it to make it more snappier
and overall more enjoyable to watch. When editing my footage, I started with my narration first
as there was a lot to edit, so I needed to go through the whole thing. When I’d finished editing
my narration, I started the interviews which were fairly easy to edit as they were all good takes
because we’d keep reshooting if they weren’t. I just had to edit all the interviews in an order
that made sense. The last things I did were edit the footage and add noises over my narration
and add the credits. I had to add the footage after I did my narration because the pictures
correlated with what I was saying in it. I did the credits last as they go at the end so it made
sense and I needed to include the names of everyone who starred in it. Given the problems, I’d
say I handled my time well. However, if I had more time I would’ve added some royalty free
music, zoomed in on some of the interviews so it was just a green screen behind them and
maybe I’d have rendered over the green screen.

6. Technical Qualities
The Butterfly Effect
Both include a
montage of images
that reflect what
the narrator is
saying.
Both products
include a narration
instead of someone
talking to a camera.
Both products are
about popular and
relevant theories.
Both narrations
have a similar
serious tone.

7. Aesthetic Qualities
I think my product looks good, because I chose a good array of images and
footage. I believe this because they’re primarily of picturesque landscape and
animals. I somewhat believe that my works creative, because I didn’t record
my own footage and take my own pictures except for the interviews
therefore, I don’t think it’s as creative as it could be. However, I embraced
that and chose some beautiful pictures regardless. The images reflect my
narration well. I’d improve the image quality because some of the images look
blurry. The way I’d improve the image quality is by finding similar images of a
better quality or try and render it to a higher quality on Premiere Pro or
Photoshop.

8. Audience Appeal
My product has appealed to my primary age range of people who are 19 or above by
making it educational as people of that age range are more likely to want to learn.I
have appealed to my secondary age range of 10 to 18 year olds by including images
which would keep them entertained.
My product appeals to males and Females equally as I have guests of both genders;
however, I have more males than females.
My primary psychographic is achievers and I have appealed to them by making it
educational therefore it’s worthwhile. I have appealed to my secondary psychographic
of belongers by choosing a common/well-known urban legend of the Loch Ness
Monster.
My product has appealed to my primary social status of upper class people by making
it informative which may appeal to people of a higher education, as they may be more
likely to learn in their free time. I’ve appealed to my secondary social status of working
class/middle class people due to fact the majority of people in my documentary and
me are that social status. Therefore the way we talk and phrase things will be similar
to other people of our social status.

9. Peer Feedback

10. Feedback 1
Charlie
• What did you like about the product?
– It was very professional and the responses the interviewees gave
(especially the blonde one with glasses) were very thought out.
– One other thing I liked about it was the images used made me know
what he was talking about and what the narrator thinks the monster
looks like.
• What improvements could have been made to the product?
– Should add quiet music in the background because it is a bit bland and
would make it more professional.
– One other improvement is the narrator could be louder as you can
barley here him.

11. Feedback 2
Muhammad
• What did you like about the product?
– I liked how smooth the narration of the narrator was
and how all the footage used in the video was
accurate and fits the overall theme of the
documentary.
• What improvements could have been made to
the product?
– The audio quality of the narration could be better as I
kept on hearing buzzing noises in the background.

12. Feedback 3
Kal
• What did you like about the product?
• I liked the talking part when the narrator was
giving facts about the topic also, the pictures
were very handy with the voice over. I also liked
how the interview was edited and overall it was
very smooth.
• What improvements could have been made to the
product?
• I think what should be improved was the quality
of some of the pictures as they were blurry and
the camera was a bit out of focus, which is a
shame as the rest of it was good. I also think
when the title comes up it shouldn't be up for
that long or it should at least have music behind

13. Peer Feedback Summary
• What do you agree with from your peer feedback?
• I agree that music would have made the product less boring
especially during the title card and the credits roll. I also agree
that the images helped picture what I was talking about even
though some were blurry.
• What do you disagree with from your peer feedback?
• I don’t disagree with any of the feedback, as it was all fair and
was stuff I was thinking already. For example, I was supposed
to put a microphone on the camera and forgot which
would’ve helped the sound of the interviews and my
narration too.

14. Peer Feedback Summary
If I were to make my product again, I would’ve got rid of the
buzzing sound over the speaking parts, made the images and
interviews clearer and added music. To get rid of the buzzing
sound, I would have used a microphone like I was supposed to
originally instead of forgetting like I did. Then to make the
interviews and images clearer, I’d have used auto-focus while
filming the interviews and I’d have found images of a better
quality off Google to use. Finally, to add music, I would’ve
looked on YouTube to find royalty free music that was
tense/serious, so it would fit the atmosphere and theme.