20 thoughts on “T05 English for Science Documentaries”

1. T05_Group 2_Tiffany, Lorraine, Nelson, Gemma

   Good: Subtitle provided
   Coherence, logically organised
   Bad: monotune
   Sometimes sound quality is bad

2. Video that I am commenting on: T05_Group 2 _Tiffany, Lorraine, Nelson, Gemma

   There are several areas that this group performs well in this documentary. First of all, there are quite a number of different scenes, for instance the garden, MTR station as well as the entrance between the escalator in the Festival Walk and the university campus. Secondly, the names of narrators are provided. Thirdly, the display of the results is quite clear with good elaboration. Moreover, the pace is good. It is not too fast and not too slow.

   On the other hand, there are some rooms for improvement. To start with, there seems to be only one soundtrack, which is at the beginning of the whole documentary. Thus, more can be added. Besides that, sometimes the background noise is too loud. This makes the speaker’s voice not clear enough. It is also noted that inserting some topic slides between the time after a narrator has finished talking about one part and then moving on to the other part may be better, for example discussion,conclusion etc.

3. T05_Group 1_Alex, Hon, Leo, Friday

   good:
   good use of scientific picture
   bad:
   sound suddently change
   words fly too random at begining

4. T05_Group 3_Kevin_Niki_Mandy
   Comment on group 4 Multitasking Madness
   There are some advantages such as enough content for multitasking and good data explanation. The technique skill for video edition is attractive and the games for multitasking are very scientific and creative. However, the background music and background noise are too loud when the narration is too soft.

5. I am commenting on T05_Group 2_Tiffany, Lorraine, Nelson, Gemma.

   The documentary is good since it provide the clear subtitle and the results are clearly presented. Also, producers have interviewed several interviewees and provided plenty of personal comments on sleep debts that are deserved attention.

   However, the background noise are sometimes too loud to listen to people talk.

6. T05_Group 5_Samuel, Rebecca, Teresa

   There is no narration during the experiment, and that part is too long. Making that part shorter and adding narration would make the video more interesting. Yet, the video has an appropriate pace. Both interview and experiment were conducted, so more information was given.

7. T05_Group 2_Tiffany, Lorraine, Nelson, Gemma.
   I am comment on T05_Group 3_Kevin, Niki, Mandy,

   The documentary presented in a very interesting way. There were clear data presentation that can show to the audience. I appreciate the recommendation part of sleep debt.

8. I am comment on T05_Group 3_Kevin, Niki, Mandy

   They are able to present the information in an organized way with a clear structure, for example, opening, process of experiment, results and solutions. I think it is good to include a slide to introduce the parts which are going to play.

   Background music and visual effects can be added to support the documentary and to make it more interesting. The color of the sub titles are clear, audiences can follow the flow of the documentary easily.

   They are able to express their general ideas in fluent and accurate English with few errors. Also, they use appropriate language for the overall context.

9. Comment on T05_Group 4_Jess, Keith, Amber, Will:

   1. The background music is good
   2. The data analysis and multi-task game explanation is clear and easy to understand.

   Improvement:
   There are some background noise during the interview and narration, so the sound is not very clear. Adding the captions in these two part will be better.

10. Comment on T05_Group 6_Cephas, Angus, Terry

    The experiment is really interesting. It is nice that they replaced the suggested experiment by a more funny one which let audience more enjoy the video.

11. Comment on T05_Group 6_Cephas, Angus, Terry

    Generally, the video is interesting, especially for the experiment. It attracts audience to watch. Also, there is a clear structure and great editing.

    For the opening, you use a common example to introduce human multitasking in order to catch people’s attention.

    For the music, it’s relaxing!

12. Video to be commented: T05_Group 1_Alex, Hon, Leo, Friday

    The documentary demonstrates a good practice with B-roll that supplementing the the narratives and ideas from the main shot. Narrative sound is clear with sufficient diagrams and annotations for illustrating the ideas.

    However, it would be better to demonstrate the survey result with a better and interesting way. Overall, it would be appreciated for the video.

13. To: T05_Group 5_Samuel, Rebecca, Teresa

    There are couples of good things I found from you video. First, there are on-screen narrators to be the transition of different parts of the video. It makes the video to be more connective and complete. Secondly, the soundtracks are well recorded. Even though some of the sense are recorded from outdoor environment, it is still very clear.

    There are also few things you should improve. Weak introduction is the first thing you should deal with. A clear definition and a deeper explanation of the hypothesis should be included in the introduction. Also, time allocation is a big problem to the video of yours. Too much time was spend on the experiment, resulted in short introduction and short conclusion.

14. Comment on T05_Group 6_Cephas, Angus, Terry

    Narrators speak quite slow so audience can hear clearly and subtitles are also provided which facilitate audience to understand the video. However, the ending part is a bit rush.

15. T05_Jess
    Comment on T05_Group 5_Samuel, Rebecca, Teresa

    Data of experiment is clearly shown with different graphs. Also, the procedure of experiments are well explained.

    However, it is better to give more time on introducing multitasking, discussing more about the results. The part showing the participants who joined the experiments is too long and a bit boring.

16. Comment on T05_Group 5_Samuel, Rebecca, Teresa

    Good: Use 2 methods to testing ability of the multitasking, it is more objective and wider oberservation.
    Bad: The little thing is transition (music) is too long.They have better to put discuussion of results in longer time

17. Comment on T05_Group 3_Kevin, Niki, Mandy

    The video is interesting because the story is creative that can draw the audience attention, I think me and the audience will stay focus when they watching the video.
    Your group also create your unique style of the scientific documentary, I really appreciate your work.
    Your video also provided good information on the suggestion in avoiding having sleep debt and the sleeping mechanism of human.
    I think this documentary may need to add more B-roll to improve the quality of the video as the camera sometimes stay at one angle for a long time.

18. Comment on T05_Group 3_Kevin, Niki, Mandy

    Good:
    1. accelerate the interviews, which saves more time for including more other important information in the video
    2. include recommendations for handling sleep debt for audiences’ references

    Bad:
    1. the speaking pace would be too fast sometimes, pronounication of vocabularies could be improved as well
    2. the disussion session only shoots one person which would be a bit boring

19. Comment on T05_Group 2_Tiffany, Lorraine, Nelson, Gemma

    1.presentation of introduction is very creative and attractive
    2. sound quality is acceptable

20. Comment on T05_Group 1_Alex, Hon, Leo, Friday

    1. have clear graphs to show the data and have a good animation to show how blue ray can affect our sleep.
    2. some parts in the video can have a better sound quality because the background noice is too large.
    3. a good background music to keep the audience interest.
    4. the result cann’t show the relation between the usage of electronic devices and the sleep dept of university students.