dfsdffgfgffgfgfgfgfgfgfgfgfgfgfgfgfgfgfgfgfgfgfgfgfgfgfgfgfgfhghghgfghfgghgh

1. Retrospectively, from your preliminary task to your film opening, are
there stark differences observable, between the two’s quality?

2. Retrospectively, from your preliminary task to your film opening, are
there stark differences observable, between the two’s quality?

3. Preliminary Task – inadvertent noise
Though it was not planned for the inadvertent noise to be left in, outside of dialogue, the fact
that we had filmed in locations for where noise was able to be heard in the first place, is a
downside I have learnt to not reproduce.
This corridor had a lot of noise within it

4. Preliminary Task – Worsening Via Fumbling Camera Angle
From where my partner (pictured) gets up and then sits back down, the camera took an
apparent jolt, and for that, the illusion of seamlessness was thereafter lost. If we were as
conscientious about filmmaking as we have become, it would have been our shared instinct, to
check our gallery of footage for errors then and there.

5. Preliminary Task – Using Panning More Effectively
Whilst I still did use panning in the preliminary task, in the film opening however, it was put to a
more understandable sensible use. Where first off, I used panning for transitioning, in the film
opening, me and my partners used it to help establish wits about the surroundings, rather than
only being a device which passes on to a scene.

6. Preliminary Task – Having functioned coinciding camera angles actually
function in that way
Although switching to other camera angles was not done decently in the preliminary task, it was
though, done faultlessly in me and my partners’ film opening. Where in the film opening,
multiple camera angles served to being a help for seeing more of the expanse of our film
location, all that it had done for me and my previous partner in the preliminary task, was disrupt
concentrated attention.