My group have produced a short part of a paparazzi documentary to experiment with interviews, lighting and other effects. From this i have been able to list all the good and bad points but also improvements so when we film the main documentary we will know how to make it look as good as possible as we have experimented before.
Shot 1
good -shows main title in a simple form so easy to read
bad -music of a film roll as it does not relate directly to the paparazzi
improvements -make the title stand out by making it bigger and brighter
-shorten the length of the title
Shot 2
good -sfx to look like a camera flash
-sound of a camera shutter to match the flashes
-relevant paparazzi pictures
bad -pictures are very quick
-only show pictures of paparazzi not celebrities
improvements -show pictures of both to show the documentary is not bias
Shot 3
good -sub title shows the name and profession
-idea of the lighting
-off centred to the right showing which side of the argument he has
bad -sub title takes up a lot of the room
-big gap between head and top of screen
-gap between him and right of screen
improvements -smaller sub title
-shine a light on one side of interviewies face
-position the camera better- to the right and lower
Shot 4
good -lighting, natural light by window-relevant to topic
-positioned to the left to show opposing side
bad -jolty zoom
-gap between head and top of screen
improvements -smoother zoom
-better positioning of camera
Shot 5
good -same as shot 3
-split up his interview to keep audience intrested
bad -same as shot 3
improvements -same as shot 3
Shot 6
good -positioned to left showing same view as celeb
-good positioning
-shows small amount of interviewee walking to show they are public
bad -to hear the question wastes time but is needed for approaching public
improvements -possibility of using sub titles when talking to public as speech is not always clear