viii. Evaluation

Evaluating the Product
This section can be related to the "Fitness for Purpose" section of my blog, where feedback from my client of each success criteria point can be found also. 

1) The video must be between three and four minutes

• General: To be fair, I wrote this aim at the very start of my project, wanting the product to be short enough to keep any and all viewers intrigued. It also had to be long enough so that my audience would be able to get a general idea of what learning science at Nexus International School Putrajaya would be like. My product ended up being less than three to four minutes, ending up around just under two minutes, including the credits.
• What Went Well: Interestingly, I think that the succinctness of my product, regardless of it being against my original aim, is of benefit to me. In hindsight, having the video be three to four minutes long might have made the video too long, and that some of my viewers would begin to lose interest around the two-minute mark. As a short, succinct, inside look to how science is learnt at Nexus International School Putrajaya, I think the length of it served the purpose well.
• What Could Be Improved: If I was being harshly critical, I could say that the video could have been slightly longer, to include more shots and scenes of learning science at Nexus. However this I think could potentially be a flaw, as viewers could lose interest in a particular scene, distracting themselves by wondering why a scene had to be shot from so many different angles.

2) The video must accurately portray the range of learning that takes place across the department - including off site activities.

• General: I set this aim for myself as a way of ensuring that the representation of Science in the video was an accurate one - it had to include the learning of all three sciences: Chemistry, Biology and Physics, as well as the nuances that differentiate the learning of them from one another. This criteria would further my client’s needs of wanting the video to correctly portray a learner’s experiences of Science at Nexus.
• What Went Well: I felt that I met this aim well, making sure to include a range of ways in which science is learnt at Nexus. Illustrating this are the shots of the practical experiments carried out over all three sciences, the more studious aspects of learning (using textbooks/exercise books/making notes), the teacher-learner one-on-one approach as well as the typical method of the teacher standing at the front of the class to teach, the groupwork that takes place between learners, and off-site activities such as the aquarium.
• What Could Be Improved: However, though there was a range of learning presented in the video, the range could have been wider. In specific, many shots simply included the people in my class, as I found them to be the most convenient subjects to shoot. To improve, I could have included learners of all year groups in equal amounts of exposure, and not just those in mine, even though there would have been a slight difficulty in getting permission from teachers to film the learners in lessons that were not concurrent with mine. In addition, I could have been more proactive by making a greater effort to attend the science trip to the aquarium - that way the shots that I could get from there would presumably be better suited to what I had in mind - as I would be shooting it (not to say that I am not grateful for the teacher that took the time and effort to do it for me).

3) The video should be learner focussed and not adult focussed - it should aim to reflect the learner’s experiences of Science at Nexus.

• General: Whilst at first I was puzzled as to the rationale of my client setting this as one of my criteria, the importance of it soon dawned at me. The purpose of my video was to illustrate - give an idea of - how science is learnt at Nexus. Of course, that would mean the main subjects of my video were the learners, rather than those who taught them. Though the teachers would come and go, the way in which science is learnt at Nexus would vary only slightly from year to year, which is why it was of more import for the video to focus on the learners, rather than the teachers.
• What Went Well: I felt that all in all, I met this criteria well - the majority of the shots I included in the final version of the film were those of learners, with only some having the teachers within them. Even then, they were not the focus of the shot, only being there as a way of further reflecting a learner’s experiences of Science at Nexus.
• What Could Be Improved: Ways of improving on this criteria includes not having any shots of teachers at all - but this seems illogical, as teachers, even though they are not the focus of the video, are an integral part of presenting how science is learnt at Nexus. Plus, I could have made it even more learner focussed by choosing to focus on one learner and following their day-to-day journey of how they learn science at Nexus. Though the advantages of this include that the viewer would create a connection with the specific learner through the video, it would also be presenting Science at Nexus from only one perspective - which would be counterproductive to what I sought to achieve. Moreover, as an improvement, I could also have included learners from every year group in secondary, so that the learner’s experiences of Science at Nexus could be presented from a variety of age groups.

4) Ideally, the video should be fairly timeless - able to be used for a long duration (the next 12-24 months).

• General: The purpose of setting this as one of my criteria would be to ensure that another video would not have to be created for a period of time. This would remove the need for my client (or the next Head of Science) to have to spend the time communicating with another learner about the same things that he had already told me - a convoluted burden, if he has to do so multiple times. It’s hard for me to say how a video could be ‘timeless’, but I took it to mean that the way Science is presented in the video would be applicable in the next years to come; that though the learners and teachers within the video may inevitably come and go, the essence of a learner’s experiences of Science at Nexus would remain constant, and conveyed to the viewer.
• What Went Well: I think I met this criteria well. My decision not to focus on a specific learner - and revolve a narrative around them - worked to my favour in this case, as doing this would not help the ‘timeless’ aspect that the video should possess - it would only reflect the experiences of one learner’s experiences of Science, rather than that of the learner body as a whole.
• What Could Be Improved: In vague, I guess that to better meet this criteria, I could have worked harder during the planning process of the product - especially during the storyboarding phase. Every shot of the final film could have had a clear purpose behind it, and for every scene, the subjects could have been directed meticulously. As of now, some shots are cut together because I thought they would be visually complementary (and be interesting by themselves), rather than all culminating towards one shared purpose. Again however, this criteria is a hard one to define - and thus hard to improve upon. Time will tell if I come to meet it.

5) The video must contain a variety of different camera angles in a way that holds the viewers’ interest.

• General: Being a hobbyist filmmaker, I wanted to challenge myself as well as put some artistic and creative influence on the film. To do this, I wanted for the film to have a wide variety of shots from many different angles. This would help to engage my viewers and make the video more visually appealing - not to mention that it would force me to be more involved during the production process,  making me approach scenes in different ways.
• What Went Well: Overall, I think I did this well, and that if regarded on a purely cinematographic level, the film would stand up well. In my opinion, the types of angles that I used for my shots were incredibly varied, and well composed for the time that I had to plan each of them. I used close-ups, extreme close-ups, wides, extreme wides and over the shoulders for the most part, intercutting between each of them in a way that made the film intimate and artful whilst still serving the purpose of giving the viewer an accurate impression of a learner’s experiences of learning at Nexus.
• What Could Be Improved: Of course, though I consider the variety of angles for the shots I used as adequate for the project, there still could have been more. However doing this would present the risk of distracting the viewers from the scene at hand, or possibly obscuring and taking away from the film’s purpose.

6) The video must not contain inappropriate language and/or content.

• General: The purpose of such a criteria was obvious. Viewers - especially parents of prospective students - of the video could not be audience to something containing inappropriate language and/content of a learner’s experience of Science at Nexus, for fear of being given a bad impression of it. Inclusive in these terms is the absence of foul language/actions - and I had to make sure that the shots that I had taken were relevant to Science at Nexus, and appropriate.
• What Went Well: From the final product that I have produced, I can safely say that I have met this criteria well, and that - thanks mostly to my decision of there being minimal audio other than the score behind the film - I have not included any inappropriate language within the movie. In terms of inappropriate content, which may be hard to define given the breadth of how science is learnt at Nexus, I think I have voided them from the video also.

7) The format of the video must be website-friendly, and the platform that I host my video on should be able to be embedded on other websites.

• General: There would have been no point in creating the video if it could not be shown to an audience. For this reason, though the criteria itself was not a difficult obstacle to overcome, I kept it in mind particularly during the post production phase of the project.
• What Went Well: Thankfully, another of my peers - one working on the Nexus Science website of which the video would be embedded - assured me that the platform I had chosen to upload the video to (Vimeo) was easy to work with. Informed of this, I can safely say I’ve met this criteria with aplomb.
• What Could Be Improved: Youtube was another consideration. It being more well known and commonplace of the two platforms could have even further expedited the process for my peer - but this did not seem to me too big of a problem.

8) The resolution of the video must be 1080p.

• This criteria was not the main priority for me. I felt that if the video served its purpose, the resolution of which it was played at would not be of much consequence. Regardless, I did meet this criteria, making sure to set the main camera to record at 1080p 25fps, and uploading it at that resolution also.

9) Filming must be finished by March 20th/First Edit must be finished by March 27th/Final version of the film must be uploaded and shared with the client/those involved by April 14th.

• Setting myself deadlines to meet was important - doing this made sure that there was a momentum to the process across all three production phases, and that I did not fall into a lull and slack off on the project, knowing that I was susceptible to it. I needed to get all the filming done before I could edit so that I would not have to go back with the main camera to shoot additional scenes, which would have been a troublesome process. Even then, during the edit, I found it necessary to shoot some more - only using the camera on an iPhone, rather than the main camera.
• I also had to complete a rough edit some time before the final version of the film so that I could incorporate feedback from my client. If their suggestions for improvement were time-consuming to put into place, having a while before the final deadline was useful, as it allowed me to do so properly, rather than be rushed.
• To improve, I could have firmly decided on all the shots that I would use in the final edit during the storyboarding process, so that I did not have to capture additional shots during my editing process (which was slightly tedious). Additionally, I could have made sure to have the main camera with me the majority of the time, or scheduled shoots with it more efficiently, so that I did not have to resort to the camera on an iPhone for extra footage.

Evaluating the Process

Research and Planning

In retrospect, I think that one of the strongest parts of the project was the research and planning that went into it. The preproduction phase of the project took the longest by far to carry out and complete to my liking, but I saw this fitting as it was the most essential part of it - without a solid foundation to work off, production and postproduction would have been more difficult.

I first began the research process by learning more about the types of shots that cinematographers employed in their films, and for what reason each is employed for. Though I had previous knowledge of some of the shots from past experiences with making short videos, I wanted to improve my skills in this area, and use types of shots that I had not even considered before, to make the project even better. Finding more about this was not hard to do - a quick Google search served me pages upon pages of helpful sources. Afterwards, once I had digested a good amount of this, I began putting it to immediate use, applying new types of shots within the storyboarding process. Having this research fresh in my mind as I approached storyboarding made sure that the range and types of shots I used in the film would be greatly varied, and that - since I found out what different angles were used for specific purposes - each of them would have a clear line of reasoning behind them. In short, every shot, in terms of composition, type of angle, and order in which it comes, would have been considered carefully, to culminate in meeting the client’s needs. Looking back on this part of the research process, I do not think that there was much more I could have done to broaden my knowledge of types of camera shots - there were even pans and dolly moves in my storyboard.

After that, to get a better idea of the style in which I wanted the film to be in, I researched more about promotional videos as a whole. Though I knew that strictly speaking the product I would be making was not a promotional video, I felt that its purpose - to convey an idea to the audience of a learner’s experiences of Science at Nexus - would best be served if I knew more about creating a video that was short, yet succinct, and gets a point across (which a promotional video is effective in doing). Through this process I found that the video had to have a strong idea throughout (this is how Science is approached at Nexus), realistic (definitely could not be set in outer space), and short (so that the audience is engaged) - all of which I kept in mind during all three production phases of the project.

Besides those points, I was reminded of the importance of properly planning the film using a storyboard and screenplay. A storyboard would ensure that I had a concrete shot-by-shot vision of what I wanted the film to look like, so that during production I had to only follow the shots that I had drawn out, and not have to waste time composing shots off-the-cuff within the actual shoot. Though the process of planning every shot and sketching it out on paper, figuring out what would cut well with each other, was very time-consuming, it proved to be the most useful aspect of the planning and research stage. Thankfully, because I was working on my own, the storyboard sketches itself could be very vague, with only me knowing what it fully meant, and how it should look. However, even after saying all this, I did not let the storyboard inhibit the creative, more impulsive side of me, so whenever during a shoot I felt as if a particular angle would be visually appealing - even though it was not in the storyboard - I would go for it, filming it and only during postproduction figuring out where the new unplanned-for shot would fit best. If it didn’t fit anywhere, I would axe it.

But over the course of each shoot, I felt less and less compelled to follow that which I had sketched out in the storyboard. I had the impression that the storyboard could not fit the location of the shoot, nor the way the objects and students were set out in the location. For this reason, I began, simply put, to film shots based on how I felt during the day of the shoot, so as to not have to follow my own plans.

In hindsight, this was a bad idea, and a terrible practice. Doing it this way, while producing a more raw, intimate style of film, was not only a waste of time - after all, I had spent all those hours sketching out shots - but also, as I discovered during editing, made the film lose a sense of continuity. It made it seem that the shots were almost haphazardly put together, with only a loose sense of purpose flowing from shot to shot. Though harsh, and though the film really was not as bad as I make it out to be (I did think it achieved its aim), I really should have followed the plan that I had set in the storyboard. The end product would have been more polished, the purpose more clear, and the film itself of a higher quality - something I will make sure to keep in mind on future filmmaking projects.

After that, and since this was during the early phases of preproduction where I did not yet know for sure how I would approach the project, I decided that it would be a good idea to learn how to form a screenplay. Doing this allowed me an assurance: if the style of film I decided to pursue would contain any amount of planned dialogue, then I would have been able to prepare for that. However, it did not, and so this section of research proved to not be of use during the course of this project. With that said, I am sure that in future filmmaking projects, the knowledge of knowing how to write a screenplay will prove to be very useful, as it is a one of the most basic things a filmmaker needs to know how to do.

Planning the project around the audience whom it would be targeted at was important as well. I had to keep in mind, in the end, who the video would be viewed by and make decisions based around that. For instance, since I knew that most of my audience would be the parents of prospective students or teachers, it was clear that I had to keep the video purely focussed on a learner’s experiences of Science at Nexus, and not have it sway from that and contain content and language of an inappropriate - or even irrelevant - nature. Being clear on who the audience was also helped me decide how to edit the film as well - adults would have a slightly longer attention span than children, so I would be able to use slightly longer cuts in the edit. Moreover, I wouldn’t have to explain the video (meaning I would trust that my audience would be able to infer what is happening during the shot), and I would have to make sure that the quality of it would be at a good standard, as this would play a part in their overall impression of Nexus International School.

Other parts of the production phase I felt obligated to research and plan for was sound and lighting. Firstly, I knew that sound was as important to a film as the actual shots are, and learning more about the process of capturing clean audio made clear to me the importance of it. For this reason, I needed to know how best to capture on-location sound, if I were to use it. Thankfully, Mr Tom, the go-to guy for anything film related at Nexus, patiently explained to me that the most efficient way of recording audio would be through a microphone that attached itself to the camera - a Rode Videomic Pro. Though in the end I decided not to use any of the on-location audio that I had recorded during principal photography, it was useful to know how to capture clean sound quickly, as I would be able to do so in the future had I the need.

The importance of lighting in the video was obvious to me - it would add to the visual appeal of my shots, highlighting areas for the viewer to focus on. Looking into this topic would make it much easier for me to understand which areas of my subject should be lit during a shoot, as well as how they should be lit (be it soft light, hard light). Coming hand in hand with looking at light was looking at the way the camera I used would sense light - and there were three ways in which this was affected: ISO, Aperture, and Shutter Speed. Knowing this beforehand, and composing shots with the lighting of my subject always in mind, made the production phase much quicker - especially with the ability to alter things in-camera. I found myself very often changing one of the three (ISO, aperture, shutter speed) to achieve the look I wanted of the shot, or to correct an under/overexposed image so that the subject was adequately the centre of attention. However, the research I did to learn how to light a location with equipment proved to not be of much use, as frequently I would not have the time nor the opportunity to set up some shots - during production I would just work with the light I had, figuring out the best composition of each shot through that way. Had I known that this would be the case, I would have researched more into how to lighting a location with only the barest of equipment, such as a bounce board.

Besides that, I felt that I had to research and plan for the postproduction phase of the project as well - and this included the software which I would use to edit, how I would render the video, and the platform that I would upload the video to. Software-wise, it was clear to me that I should use what I already knew: Final Cut Pro X - it would streamline the editing process, and make my post production workflow more efficient, as it was something that I was familiar with, and knew how to use to a proficient level. Nevertheless, I researched other software - like Adobe Premier Pro and iMovie - and, after outweighing their respective advantages and disadvantages, determined that the features that came with it could quite handily be done in FCPX.

But though I knew to the best part how already to use FCPX, one aspect that I was never sure about was the proper way to render and export my projects. As such, I began to research this, finding out that I should export my file under “Apple ProRes 422 HQ”, as this would ensure that the quality of the video would be high, and that export times would be kept manageable. Knowing this, I proceeded to follow these exact specifications during the postproduction phase of the project. However, in hindsight, I feel that I only performed a cursory study of the other exporting formats, so did not know much about them, or what separated them from each other. To improve, I could have looked more into this, to the level that I could surely explain to someone which format was suitable for which circumstance, and why I had chosen the format I used for the project.

As the last part of postproduction, I also needed to know which platform to upload the video to. Youtube, because of its ubiquity, was the first thing that came to my mind, but I knew that there was Vimeo as well. Exploring further, I resolved to use Vimeo rather than Youtube, as it was the platform where most ‘quality’ videos were held, and would not be drowned out by the sheer volume of videos Youtube serves - most of which are unpolished products. The main downside to Vimeo, however, was that because I was not a paid user, I could only upload files with a maximum size of 500MB - but with Youtube, there was no size limit. My final size being 2GB large, I had to compress the video, exporting it again through Quicktime player to get it below 500MB. Had I done it differently, I think Youtube would have been a better host of my video, as it allowed the video in its full size - and thus its full quality - to be uploaded.

One of the last things I researched, and arguably the most important thing to research, were videos similar to mine. From finding and watching promotional videos about Science that other schools had made, I would be able to plan my video around the things that I felt worked with their products, and avoid the things that fell flat. For example, from doing this, I knew that it was not a good idea to have an interview with one of the teachers - as one video did - as it would lead me away from achieving the aim of my video to be learner-focussed. The benefit of analysing similar products was limited, though, as, although they were similar, they did not specifically mean to meet the same criteria that I wanted to. Because of this, I had to be careful which aspects I took from them, making sure that it would be a tool to achieve what I wanted to, instead of something that drove the purpose of the film backward.

Technical Skills

Shortly put, this project allowed me to learn and develop many different skills. For example, I know now how to properly manage my files using Automator so that I had a more efficient workflow, how to optimise Final Cut Pro X so that it performed without lagging, how to first colour correct and then colour grade my footage to achieve a look I wanted for the film, how to stablise my footage using the Inspector, how to keyframe the motion of an object so that it moved the way I wanted, and how to rebind keys so that the default shortcuts that for actions in FCPX would be changed to better fit my workflow. I have also learnt how to use Blogger as a platform, effectively posting regular updates of the process of producing a video for my client.

Other technical skills I have learnt include how to quickly adjust the way a camera captures light by altering the ISO, aperture, or shutter speed, how to sketch a storyboard, how to write a screenplay, how to best capture clean audio with a DSLR camera and an attachable microphone, how to light an interview, how to direct actors,

Most of these skills came to be useful during the process of developing my product, culminating in me being able to complete my product to a good standard. Even the skills that I did not end up using, such as writing a storyboard or capturing clean audio with a microphone that attached to my camera, I would not doubt find use in elsewhere, in future filmmaking projects.

These skills, the ones I learnt, have a common theme to them - it allowed me to have a more efficient workflow, especially during the editing stage of post production. This, I felt, was very important - the quicker I could get things done, the quicker I could implement changes to the product for my client, and ultimately, the quicker I would complete the project. However, I knew that speed was not always the answer to everything, and that it comes second when the quality of the work comes into jeopardy. I made sure this wasn't a problem, though dedicating myself to work fast, I, in equal or more measure, dedicated myself to work hard as well.

Ultimately, I know that my development as a filmmaker is a gradual incline, and that this project, whilst forcing me to accelerate my growth, is only a step towards becoming a better filmmaker. I now know that whatever obstacle I come across on the technical side of things, I can learn to overcome with patience and perseverance. Moreover, I now appreciate Final Cut Pro X more as a tool in which I can use to make my films, realising that however well I know the software, there will always be a quicker way to do things, and that whatever I wanted to achieve could more or less be done within it, if I was creative and worked hard to figure it out.

Communication

Because my client happened to be one of my science teachers - and thus someone I interacted with on a weekly basis - communication between he and I was effective. At first I sought to pursue a formal method of communicating with him, doing so by setting up a meeting with him before the start of the school day. However, as time went on, the discussions we had over the direction of the project became much more informal, and so much of the pleasantries were dropped. I was grateful for this, as it allowed me to communicate my ideas to him - and vice versa - much more effectively: I did not need to formalize every conversation I had with him by way of scheduling a meeting. Instead, whenever I had a question about the project, needed to clarify its purpose, or wanted to know his opinion of something related to it, I would simply informally ask him during some downtime in my Physics lessons, or shortly before they begun (or after they ended).

Besides that, especially during school holidays, I utilised Gmail as the main platform with which I communicated with him (as evident in my “Communication With End User” page). Gmail being so integrated with how learners and teachers communicate with each other in Nexus, it was the obvious way I thought to approach contacting him. In the end, though I feel that any mailing platform would have served me adequately, Gmail was simply the most convenient one for me to use.

The thing I feel most appreciative about was the trust which my client confided in me. In loose terms, after setting the parameters in which I should work the project to, he allowed me the freedom to develop the project mostly of my own whims and wishes, and encouraged me to challenge myself both in a creative and artful aspect - because of this, the video has some semblance of me within it, something that gives the project a sense of self.

Other than my client, because I knew the primary platform the video would be viewed on would be the Nexus Science website, I also had to communicate with my peers - in specific the ones working on it. Knowing most of them in person, my conversation with the primary programmer of the website was short and clear: I just had to make sure that I shared the video file with him once it was finished, and that whatever platform I chose to host the video could be embedded on the website - which was very easily done.

I also had discussions with Stephen, the one who composed the music for the video. Our conversations were mostly held during our IT lessons, and would be very informal, as we were friends that trusted each other, knowing each other well. Because of this, whatever critique I had of his work - like the suggestions I had for changes to the first composition he sent me - would be met not with hostility, but with an open mind. I feel that this is the reason why the communication between us would also be very effective, which lead to a video of a higher standard.

The last person I had to work with was Johanna, the one who designed the graphics for the video. Though our conversations in person was not as relaxed as the ones I had with Stephen, they were still effective. Recognising her natural work ethic from the several classes I shared with her, I knew that placing my full confidence in her would not lead to any amount of disappointment. For this reason, I simply told her to send the final graphic to me when she was happy with it. I felt that the graphic needed to be in the video as a way of linking it to the website, which it would be on as well. Afterwards, when I requested changes to the colour of the background of the graphic, I did so by asking her nicely on Gmail. All in all, the communication I had with my client and three of my peers was affable and relaxed, whilst still serving a clear purpose.

Originality and Creativity

I was allowed to be very creative during the course of this project. The freedom my client allowed me to have to meet the purpose he had set for the video was the main reason for this, and I took full advantage of this. In filmmaking, the main ways a director can make a piece of work ‘creative’ is during the edit - in terms of how the shots are cut together, at what speed, how the angles complement each other, how the cuts fall on the beat of the music, etc. - and the actual compositions of the shots he takes.

Whilst the storyboarding process in preproduction allowed me to be creative in theory, the actual capturing of principal photography during production allowed me to be creative in practice. It was during this time that I felt compelled to not be inhibited by what I had planned for, and trusted myself to take assessment of the location and subjects I had at hand and decide then and there how best I could approach the task. Many a time I discarded entirely the shots within my storyboard to favour those that I had come up with on the spot, and I feel this, above everything else, was how I implemented the creative side of me into the project.

Post production allowed me to develop my creative capacity as well. Having all the footage in one place,  to my disposal, and realising that there would never be one ‘correct’ way of editing all the shots together, gave me a sense of purpose. I was able to edit the video in ways that I thought was best - and for this reason, the editing process was the one I enjoyed most, and experienced the most momentum going through. Thanks to the trust that my client had placed in me, I did not only feel encouraged to implement my own creativity into the video, I felt compelled to do so. If I thought that the best way to do something would be like so, I would do it that way - as evident by the quick, quirky cuts at the start of the video, zooming into each shot separately as a transition even though there was a loss of resolution - and if I wanted to do something like this, I would teach myself how to do it, or figure it out, even though it was time-consuming, based on the skills that I already knew, and the knowledge that I already had. Through this project I learned that the best creative decisions I make are the ones I make spontaneously, on the spot, as they usually are the product of my passion for something, or my conviction that it was how it should be done - and I carried this idea throughout, especially during the production and post production phases of the project.