Here are the documentaries created by Section T04 in Semester B 2017-18 on two topics: “Multitasking Madness” and “Dim the light”. These groups have done a great job creating such fun videos. Feel free to comment on any of them, and keep your comments positive and constructive. 😀
Group 1 Multitasking Madness by Belle, Eunice, Janice, and Mandy
Group 2 Dim the Light by Ivan, Jonathan, Lucus, and Marco
Group 3 Multitasking Madness by Benny, Sam, Steve, and Tat
Group 4 Multitasking Madness by Gabriel, Jason, and Michael
Group 5 Dim the light by Louis, Tommy, and Tracy
Group 6 Dim the Light by Agnes, Stephanie, and Christy
Group 7 Multitasking Madness by Anson, Calvin, Simon and William
For group 2, the whole procedure and research are great and detailed,but It is more better to include the faces of the participants who join the experiment.
The video from group 2 is great. Lots of animation and b-rolls, the narration is on point. However, the whole feeling is quite dark, as the video mainly was filmed at night. It could be better for some interviews to take part under the day light so as to balance it out.
Comments for Group 2:
The video is generally quite great with smooth transitions and creative experiment. The background music is great without covering the vocal. The shots have a large variety with normal speed or in fast motion. Cool!
For group 1, I found that there were quite some grammatical mistakes in the video. Besides, it was difficult for me to see the subtitles and I do not think that they explained their revised experiment set up well. In the revised experiment, I don’t think they have mentioned how finding certain words in a music song can be related to multitasking. Their cartoons are great though.
Group 2’s video include many shots of lighting, also they have stable shots ( camerman not shaking), also their video include self-product animation.
Group 4:
Everyone did a great job! Keep it up guys!
but it looks a bit familiar to some samples…
Group1 :
Specific point: they conduct the experiment well
Concerning overall performance , they can make better use of animation and larger variety of shots in order to replace the shots of on-screen narration. so it will be more interesting and attractive
Refer to Group 2, I think they did a great job since they have different angles to take the video and they can control the background music well while they narrated. However, they need to simplify the table of light parameters and limits rather than capturing the photo to us only.
Group3 has brilliant background music, their background music is energetic and attractive. However, their narration could have some room for improvements, like sometimes their narrations recorded loud surrounding sounds. Also, their animations for presenting data are fascinating. All in all, they did a good job!
I like group 2’s video. It’s great to interview random foreigners on the street. This makes the video more convincing. Their B-rolls are visually beautiful. The narrations are understandable. The interpretation of results and discussion is simple and straight forward. Good job.
Refer to Group 2
I think their group have done a great job in the animation and their animation was also great. I appreciate that they can go to the community to interview people to get a lager sample size. However, I think that they can maybe they can change their experiment a bit as the sleeping quality was not only affected by the light but also other psychological factors so the result may not be that accurate.
Group 4 is good because they have well preparation, various skills applied in the video and the evaluation method is quite interesting. However, the script recording may need some improvement, and the data presentation could be more interesting like containing some animations.
Refer to group 3,
I think this group have done a good job in animations. It attracts people to watch their video. They explain the result using the graph. It is easy for audience to understand. In some time, when the narrator is speaking to explain their experiment result, the background is too loud. Therefore, it is a little bit distracted people to listen what they are talking about.
I am going to give a comment on Group 3’s work.
The documentary is very rich in terms of content. First, there are more than enough theoretical backgrounds to support their results, that is there is no significant difference between the multitasking ability of male and female. The explanations and interpretations of results are also extensive.
For the video editing, the background musics this group picked are energetic and appropriate which help audiences to concentrate on the video. Plus, the animations are quite amazing.
However, there are also certain weaknesses. In my opinion, the most critical faults is located in the result part. There are numerous graphs shown on the screen, including graphs for K-S Test, QQ Test and so on. However, even as a science student, I do not really understand the meaning of these tests. The group failed to justify the use of such tests. There are some obvious mistakes in the narration recordings such as loud background noises (bird sound) and unclear pronounciation.
Despite the above listed weaknesses, the video is rich in content and it is a meaningful and informative after all. I truly appreciate your hard work.
Gp 01:would be better if more narrating part with animation and background music.interesting experiment.
Gp 02:good video.great B roll,background music.
Gp 04:good music.nice idea to compare the multi-asking skill between young and elderly.
Gp 05:screen size changing.Too dim for some parts,hard to see the words in some session.
Gp 06:good experiment.detail explanation.
Gp 07:Too less B roll.Too much narrating,making the video little bit boring.
Group 1 is lack of the background music and is slightly dull as there are long slices of monologues.
Group 2 is brilliant in the video making. The wording of narration is clear. But the data analysis part is too slim for the conclusion they have got.
Group 4’s beginning and ending scene is not so relevant to their narration and the topic of the video and is somewhat meaningless. Their data analysis part is more like a PPT style and not all data in the narration was shown, e.g. the variance of the data. Their video does not have subtitles.
Group 5’s scene is good and is artistic. But the background of the data analysis part is distracting as we cannot see the graphs and the data within clearly.
Group 6’s connection is natural and brilliant. Some words on the scene are not clear as the background color is similar to the color of the words. Probably their data analysis part can be improved by making the table into charts and graphs.
Group 1 has used a lot of interesting animations! But the monologue is a little too long.
Group 2’s beginning and background music is great! You guys created a feeling like cyberpunk, which is highly consistent with the theme ‘light pollution’.
Group 4’s contains resources in the ending, which is missed by most of the other groups. Good work! However, the work still need improvement in general. Like the scene and narration is not very related, the explanation of experiment result is not very clear.
Group 5’s scene and narration is also not very related. But their drawing in the beginning is great.
Group 6’s narration is a little bit too long. In general, the video is well edited and the transition is good.
Group 7’s video is hilarious, you guys can be comedians!
Group 2: The interview of foreigner make the video look so real. The analysis shows the data clearly. However, the only mistake part is that the word of the credit is too small.
Group 6: They are using same video again and the video does not match the audio often.
Group 1: Very detailed explanation ans subtitles are provided
Group 2: The animation is beautiful and the footage for the video is presenting the theme – light pollution
Group 7: The design of the experiment is good and the response from the interviewee can make me understand more about the theme.
Group 6’s video is interesting since their script and acting are well, however I think there should be 2 to 3 more respondents in the video.
Refer to Group 5, I think the video recording can have much improvement. When they interviewed the passengers, they can use the microphone to record their sound since it’s too low for us to listen.
Group 1:
The content is nice but don’t have the subsection titles
Sometimes the subtitle is invisible because the background colour is the same as the colour of the subtitle
Group 2:
The starting part is quite nice because using a lot of interview in there.
Credit is too small which cannot see
Group 3:
The animation and video effect is nice
The background music quite attract audience
Trying to using some on-scene narration such as asking questions each other while walking around
But there is some noises in some interviews and a bird sound inthe conclusion part
Group 4:
There is a colour background is the same as french flag thats is a great idea
Nice brain drawing on the whiteboard
It would be a little bit long showing only how to play the game in the introducing experiment part
Group 5:
The scene become smaller in the middle
Group 6:
At the beginning, the cars is moving backwards to represent the narration talking about the past information, which is a good idea
But always showing the same interviewee.
Group 7:
Some graphs (attempt 1,2,3) is too complicated to look at. I think it can be improve by summarize that attempt 1,2,3 data by average or median
Group 6 have done a great job on their videos, they have attractive b-rolls like a person acting the insomia symtoms and that is very interesting. In contrast, the interview could be elevated. For instance, have more interviewees take part in the video.
Group 7:
there are too much interviews for the video
For suggestions, they could further elaborate the experiment and conclusion ,hence having a balanced and informative documentary.
GROUP 7,
I like what u guys doing at the end of the video. it’s nice. good job guys!
For group 4,they have their unique way to do their research on how well people multitask such as the game they found,which is special when comparing with other groups.
However,I think there could be more on-screen narration and the presentation of the video can be improved.
Comments on Group 2
A great video and it contains a lot of animations, which are really interesting and easy for audience to follow.
The experiment of sleeping quality is nice, it can show the negative effect of light pollution. However, I think the voice and the pitch of the narrator can be improved.
Comment on Group 6
The interview is appreciated that they found a lot of interviewees. But it is disappointed that the video always show a women who is participating in the interview, but they just mute the sound of that women.
Group7: They got a great effort in interviewing people, but it may be a little bit too long for that section. But in conclusion, they did put many time in filming the documentary, nice!
Refer to group 6. I think they can add more animations and interciew footage so the video can be more interesting
Comments for Group 4:
The video contains some animations which makes the video fun to watch. Also, I like the nearly transparent video shots as background. Using on-screen narration as discussion and using the white board for drawing is great although I think using the presentation method of drawing instantly in front of the camera is better. With someone standing in front of the camera telling the audience the discussion will make the words on the board seems have distance with the audience. but generally, quite great!
For Group 6, I appreciate you have a good performance in the part of on-screen narrating : ) As I know it is very hard to do this well. However, I think the rhythm of the whole video can be faster so that it will be less boring. Keep on to the other project ; )
I think group 6 did a good job although their video length was long and the tone was so boring. Because their research sample size is large enough and the explanation is so detail and clear.
Regarding to group 6, I like how they reversed the B-rolls when they were introducing the research in the past. This filming technique is metaphorical and cool. However, I believe the narration of methods and experiments could be more detailed . I hope they could find more interviewees to support their discussion and show more data to make the video more convincing.
For group 6,
They found 75 person to do the questionnaires. It is good to mention the limitation in the video. For example, they should use the professional equipment rather than using phone application. They can find more interviwees to support their data.
Group 1:They have a clear pronunciation in narration,which I quite appreciated. The animation inside the video is brilliant
Group2 :I think they are quite creative to use Stroop test for testing the effects in light pollution. It makes light pollution more scientific
Group 3:They make good use of animation and infographics.Also, the game is an effective means for measurement in multi-tasking.However,the can simplify the results part.
Group 4:Anyway a good video. But the background music a bit noisy.
For group 6, it is impressive that they have 75 responses included in their experiment. They also conducted an interview, which makes their experiment more comprehensive. Maps, tables, charts, they presented their results in multiple ways which I believed that the audience will not feel bored while watching the documentary. The shootings they have taken are great too. There is just one place I do not understand is that I do not think the place they defined as a rural area is truly a rural area. Anyway, it was an outstanding documentary in terms of their experiment procedure and presentation, I appreciated it a lot.