4. How did you use new media technologies in the construction and research, planning and evaluation stages?

Research & Planning

Web 2.0

Throughout the process we used Google and an assortment of websites from image searches to artist websites for references. We also used YouTube to access other music videos from within our genre that we wanted to use as references. We were then able to create playlists with all of these videos and easily access them. This playlist is shown below.

We did not only take videos from YouTube but also uploaded our own videos. These videos showed our ideas and plans as the project progressed. For example, we uploaded animatics and screen tests.

We also used Facebook as a means of communication. We shared ideas we had come up with and set agendas for group meetings.

Here is an example of where I used the Facebook group in order to brief the group on what would be covered in our meetings for the week. This way everyone knew what to expect well in advance.






Phones

We had iMessage and Whatapp group chats where all the members of the group actively communicated. This was the main means of communication that we used as we could instantly send a message at any time, this proved especually useful on the go, where we were arranging meeting times on shoot days.

These group chats were useful for showing each other potential shoot locations. This is shown below, where I suggested to the group a location for the bedroom argument.


iMessage group chat, Whatsapp group chat. Very useful on the go for organisation and sharing media and ideas. We were able to show each other useful locations for the shoot.

Blogger

In the early stages of the project Blogger was used to  observe each others' ideas for the type of video we each wanted to make and find similarities between these. Following this, it was used to log all the progress that was made regarding the project. This was very useful as it was easily accessible from any computer and open for the whole group to see.

Construction - Production

Canon Legria HFG30


This camera was used to shoot the location shots at the start of our shoot, as well as some of the earlier studio shots. It was small and lightweight, meaning that it was easy to transport, especially when manouvering the busy streets of central London. The long battery life also meant we could use it freely throughout the day on location. This camera picked up some excellent HD footage when the lighting was good. 


However, in poor lighting the quality of the shots were affected massively, with high levels of grain. This meant that a lot of our location footage was unusable and we also decided to reshoot most studio shoots on a better quality camera.







Canon 5D

The Canon 5D replaced the Legria as our preferred camera to use for studio shots. This produced much higher quality footage that we were far happier with. This was further amplified by the fact that we could manually control many settings such as exposure and contrast on the fly. This meant that shots looked much more impressive and left less work for post production.

We were also able to use it to take still images. This was useful when taking our promo shots as these were, again, very high quality.

There was, however, one major drawback. Due to department rules and the lack of portability, the 5D could only be used in the studio, meaning that we would be unable to use it for location shots.

GoPro

Due to the technical capabilities of the GoPro, we were able to use it to shoot a lot of footage that the others cameras couldn't. For example, it was the only camera that we had access to that could shoot time lapses, so this was used here. In addition, it had the highest frame rate (120 fps) meaning that we could slow shots down massively. For this reason, we also used the GoPro to take slow motion shots; one of which was the ice smash, shown to the left.

The GoPro was also very small, portable, and durable however, it interface was difficult to use and it was hard to see what was being picked up on the tiny screen. Also, we encountered some problems trying to transfer footage from the GoPro to the edit suite.


Studio Lights

The studio lights were controlled by the Leapfrog Lighting Desk and this was one vital part of our studio shots throughout production. This was very useful and easy to use as we were able to alter the intensity and colour of each individual studio light using the lighting desk. This allowed us to choose the perfect lighting setup and then programme it into the memory of the lighting desk so it could be quickly and easily accessed at any point. 

We also manually moved the studio lights in order to position them perfectly, again, helping us create the perfect lighting setup.

Projector

We also used a projector in our fire performance shots, where we projected an image of fire onto Yssy and the wall behind her. This was good as it made for some extremely good looking shots. However, with any lights on in the studio the images would be drowned out. This meant that we had to light the whole shot entirely with the projector itself so could not control exactly how it would look. Despite this, I feel that the shots came out very well.






Construction - Post Production

Premier Pro

Premier Pro was used to edit the majority of our footage. We could use it to cut our raw shots and put them onto the timeline. This is what we did to begin with, using our storyboard and animatic to decide where we wanted our shots to go. the multi-track layout meant that we could then fine tune exactly where we wanted each shot to start and end. We could also quickly and easily move shots around to wherever we wanted.

We also used a number of tools within Premier Pro, such as the ProCamp and the three way colour corrector to grade our shots. These tools allowed us to edit the colouring, brightness, contrast and saturation of the shots. This was good as it allowed us to create the perfect shot and make it look exactly how we wanted it.

However we did face some difficulties. Some shots, even after we had graded them, were still not of high enough quality. For example, the silhouette shots still appeared dull and the fire poi shots still had too much grain due to the low levels of light.

After Effects

For the reasons expressed above, some shots that still were not of high enough quality after grading in Premier Pro, were taken into After Effects. One shot that was edited in After Effects was the silhouette shot. This was edited using the colour finesse tool and then imported back into Premier Pro.

Using After Effects meant that all of our shots looked much more professional as the grading was much better. One problem we did face, however, was that sometimes after shots were put back into Premier Pro from After Effects they would be corrupted. This meant that we had to delete the shots from the timeline and go back to stage one again, taking the raw footage onto the timeline and re-grading.

Photoshop

Photoshop was used in the creation of our ancillary texts through editing our promo shots for the website and the album digipak. This was extremely useful. Firstly, it meant that we colud remove any imperfections from our promo shots making them look almost perfect and very professional. In addition, when making our album cover, it meant that we could create all the graphics (such as the smoke and the gradient behind it) from scratch. This allowed us to make an album cover that was exactly how we wanted it.

There were however, some issues when editing both promo shots and the album cover. All of our promo shots were shot on white. Because we couldn't entirely remove the white background from the promo shots, especially between Yssy's hair, these shots could not be used on any dark colours. This restricted where we could place these images on our website. There were also difficulties creating the smoke graphic on the album cover. Due to the interface, there was no way of seeing exactly how each part of the graphic would look until it was placed on the image itself. This meant that we had to play a guessing game when creating the smoke graphic. Because of this, it took a very long time s
ince we had to keep going back and deleting graphics that didn't look right at all.


Web 2.0




We used Wix which is an online platform to create websites. This was used to create our artist's website. It was very useful as it was easy to use and we could easily create and move around the different elements of our website so we could see, as we went along, exactly how it would turn out. In addition, Wix had a number of interactive web tools that could be integrated into the website itself. For example, we were able to insert Roza's live Twitter feed on the homepage of our website.



We did, however encounter some problems. Having a website maker that was not based on code did make things easier, but also meant that we did not have entire freedom. Ofter we would not be able to make some of our ideas for the website a reality, since we were restricted to the format of Wix.

Evaluation

Web 2.0

Blogger has been the main platform for logging my progress throughout the project, including the evaluation. It has allowed me to answer the evaluation questions in a number of ways. Blogger has been extremely useful as it can be accessed from any computer with an internet connection and I have been able to pick up exactly where I left off, which has also made editing posts and making changes very easy. Also, Blogger can be used in conjunction with a number of other web tools that can be integrated into posts, making posting a much more visual and interactive experience.

However, these interactive web tools are vital. If blogger is used on its own, it becomes a boring, essay-like experience and is not enjoyable to read.

In order to present my evaluation, I also used a number of other web tools that I embedded into my answers on Blogger.

One of these web tools that I used was Prezi. This is a website that allows you to create interactive presentations. This interactivity was key in making an evaluation that was presented in a much more enetertaining way. Anothe advantage of Prezi is that you can embed videos and images into the slides that are created, again making it much more immersive.

On the downside, animated gifs are not supported on Prezi. This affected me massively when I was attempting to show elements of my video and I had to opt for still images instead.


Slideshare is another website that can be used to make presentations. One massive advantage was that I could create these presentations with Powerpoint, a piece of software that I am very familiar with and then import these directly into Slideshare.

Unlike Prezi, however, Slideshare lacks interactivity as slides are presented like a normal powerpoint. This lack of interactivity is also shown as you cannot move around slides and zoom into videos and images within the presentation. This makes the experience less entertaining and immersive for the reader.



Youtube was a very different means by which i presented the information that I wanted to get across. It could be embedded directly into the blog and shows points much more visually, since I was able to use text and moving pictures to add another element by which I could make my points.

I also used Soundcloud, by uploading voice clips in which I explained my points. This was good as it allowed me to express what I wanted to say more easily and stimulate alternative senses for listeners who would now be hearing my points as opposed to reading them.

However, since Soundcloud is purely based on sound, no images could be used to present information and explanations were sometimes not enough to truly express the point.



Padlet was another visual means of showing my points. It was simply a blank 'board' where images and text could be placed anywhere. It was useful as I was able to place writing alongside images to express points.

However, it was very time consuming and often text would end up underneath images, making it impossible to read. This meant that Padlet took a lot of effort and time in order to create quite a small amount of work.





We used Survey Monkey in order to get get opinions on our artefacts. Survey Monkey is an online questionnaire. This was very useful as we were able to ask any questions we wanted and it clearly showed figures and the responses of people who answered it. It allowed us to get both quantitive and qualitative information from audiences.

Canon Legria HFG30

We also asked our audience some questions directly to, again, gain qualitative information about our video, website and album digipak. For this we used the Canon Legria to record their responses. This meant that not only could people read what responses we got about our artefacts but also visually see what people had to say.