Here are the documentaries created by Section T10 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 Light Pollution by Beatrice, Zoe, and Venue
Group 2 Multitasking Madness by Kelly, Vicky, Beatrice, and Bernice
Group 3 Dim the Light by Annette, Carmen, Maggie, Marco
Group 4 Dim the Light by Shawn, Ian, Mike, and Gary
Group 5 Dim the light by Rex, Paul and Joe
Group 6 Multitasking Madness by Florence, Isabelle, Phoebe, and Tony
Group 7 Light Pollution by Fergus, Milly, Heidi, and Rachael
Group 3: Great work.
Clear structure, from biological mechanism to suggested measurement, it explains the topic thoroughly.
And the types of the footage are diverse, showing the commitment of the team. In addition, doing the experiment adds some credibility to the conclusion.
Shawn, Group 4
The video from group two has several funny and relevant background music, which raises people’s interest and keeps them focus on the video.
I Like Group 3’s video. Because in their video, it was fun and the music choice is good, it makes me feel more relax and feeling more fun in their documentary. Also, their results and analysis are very detailed so I can understand how light pollutions is affecting us.
The video of group 3 is nice because they are confident to speak in front of the camera.
For group 4, nice background music and many districts are investigated. Sometimes the subtitle is a bit too small and the colours of the words are similar to the background colour.
For group 3, the video is funny and I like the news report style. It will be better if the technical terms can last longer so that the audience can have a better understanding.
For Group 3, the images and videos can help me follow the flow of the documentary but there are too many bar charts included.
For group 4, the music matches the theme and it makes me feel very comfortable.However, the words sometimes cannot be seen as its color is too dark which is the same as the background and the transition part for the experiment is too long.
The analysis and instrument usage of group 4 is good, but i am doubtful where those interviewees really lived
Group 3 very good opening, very clear explanation of the experiment.
Group 4 content is clear but the narrator can speak faster.
Group 3.
I liked their structure, All of them are showing up on their video. Also, they conducted the two experiment for the documentary and the music for the documentary really good. However, I just wonder that the memorizing and the responding? one is not directly related to the light but related to the individuals ability toward that area. Thank you:)
Group 7. Kimyeokyeong
Dear gp. 4
Great filming technique and good explanation.
However, the results part is complicate for audiences.
Rex
I like group 3 video,because the video clear to explan the biological effect with light pollution problem. Also, the experiment part investigated the luminance level at different places. It is very detail and good analysis.
Group 3’s video is attractive, interview of people from different district are included. Also, group members are performing in kind of role play, making the video more different from others.
The video of group 3 is interesting. The interview part is great since they find the interviewees on the street randomly.
They use the first hand resources which make their research more reliable.
Group 4.
The structure and the experiment constructed is really good. Also the music is very good.
However, scene with the lux meter and the street, some of area we can see the number from the lux meter but some cannot. Also I think for the experiment part the background video is not related to the content.
some minor things to work on:
Try to film in a quieter place so unwanted noise would not be recorded
The volume of different footages can be more uniformed as the sudden increase in volume would be quite unpleasant for the audience
Group 2 Multitasking
The video includes mostly the interview parts, which is too long and makes the interview sounds quite boring. But Maggie said the male interviewee is somewhat handsome <3
Group4
Shooting angle is good and has a lot of variety. The video shows certain professionality.
group 3. The editing and storyboards are not statisfy. The interviewees are too much. It make a little bit weird. Also, i don’t understand why they are choosing tai wai to compare TST, CWB, and MK. The didn’t explain clearly the relationship between lux level and human health.
However, so far so good than me la.
Group 3
Strength: The interview part is great, as they chose the interviewees randomly on the street, therefore, the results are reliable and fair.
Re: Kimyeokyeong from gp7
We had first conducted researches and found out that sleeping quality influences one’s work performance adversly, and therefore we make the assumption that people living in strong light intensity areas generally weaker in terms of work performance, and we define work performance into 2 categories: memorisation and instant response. Although thses 2 aspects are not directly related to light toxicity, we want to examine how people’s performances are altered by Lights At Night. Thank you for liking our video and we really appreciate it. Hope I have solved your puzzle 🙂
For group 1:
Good B roll given, diverse location which could catch audiences attention. Voice over is very clear and easy to understand
We had first conducted researches and found out that light polution affects one’s sleeping quality adversly**
Re figh:
We have conducted several interviews and included the footage of 2-3 interviewees for each idea. We believe that this would be the best way to show the people’s general opinion on the issue. The hypothesis of our project involves comparing residents living in high light intensity areas and those who live in low light intensity areas. That’s why it is necessary for us to compare TST, CWB and MK (i.e. high light intensity areas) with Tai Wai (i.e. low light intensity). Besides, our video mainly focuses on proving the relationship between poor sleeping quality caused by LAN and work performance. Human health is just another idea to give an additional inspiration to our viewers which is not our main focus.
Thank you for your comment and we would definitely do better next time.
group 1: No lux level was examined and also no daytime lux level is recorded. Basically they said MK and TST have high lux level can be seen subjective case as they don‘t provided anything to prove.
Group 5: I think we are great.
Group 6, Good analysis provided with sufficient information on why the results come out. Meanwhile, the animation is good.
Group 7: The methodology is somehow wrong. It is because if you directly measure lux level from its source, it may get a relatively high level than normal.
The experiment designed by group 6 is good with both the control variable and the independent group to be observed.
Group 6.
I like the style of the video which is done by the animation however, as the animation is main way to show the chance for the showing their face is too short.
Also i liked the experiment conducted
Group 7. Kim yeokyeong
Group 6 very good content with lots of information and animations make the video very interesting.
I think grup 5’s video is interesting. Their structure of the documentary is good and clear. Their video is attractive also cause they had different interviews with people came from different areas.
Re: Suen Annette
Thank you 🙂
Group 1, the video is clear to show the consequences of light pollution but the results taken at the daytime and nighttime for the lux measured at Mongkok and Tsim Sha Tsui cannot be seen clearly in the video. Also, there is a typo for Tsim Sha Tsui.
Group 5, they give a clear comparison with images of the light pollution problem in the different areas, but too many bar charts are used for showing the results.
Group 6, they give clear instructions for their experiments, also the images used to explain how the brain works during multitasking gives a clear flow. But the zooming in the people’s multitasking at the streets is quite sudden. Nice job!
group 5 has a detail conclusion and a CIE standard to compare the data.
Group 6 has a control group which highlights the disadvantage of multitasking.
Group 7:
Detailed survey, with the result well presented.
And the video includes a host, easy for the audience to follow.
Shawn, Group 4
i really appreciate the video of grp 6. They have provided a well-rounded and in-depth analysis on multitasking. Their result is supported by strong scientific evidence which makes it very convincing.
Group 7
The editing of the video does work with the background music, making the video seems different. I do appreciate with the hardworking.
I like the video of group 5 because the interview is interesting.
For group 1
Good video skill.However the in the measure luminance part,your group measure the urban area only. I think your group can try to investigate lower light intensity places and compare with high light intensity places.
Dear gp. 1
Good introduction.
Rex
Group 7:
It is good to have the charts for showing the statistics of the topic. It is clear and persuasive.
Group 1 is pretty good as they gather opinions of lots of students but they somehow forgot to measure the light intensity oftheir destined places before the sunset.
Group 5: The atmosphere of the whole video is very entertaining. Presenting data in the fun way is definitely good for catching audiences’ attention. I personally think that group 5 finding their friends as interviewees is to make us laugh, and they did it.
Group 5: I think the interview part is good and they have a good analysis.
Group 7: The overall of video is nice and the introduction part is very attractive and professional 🙂
re paulyim
i agree that our methodology was somehow wrong. next time could better. Thanks
group 7
For group 7
I like the way to use for conducting the experiment, but seems your group measure the lux level directly from the light sources which may make the result relatively higher than normal. However good b roll given , overall nice piece of work.
For group6, I think the way they present the results and discussions by using animation is quite interesting. The analysis is also clear provided with sufficient information.
For group7, I think the filming technique is quite good. Moreover, it is great to include ways to improve the problem of light pollution.
Dear gp. 6
Good explanation on brain function.
Rex
Re: paulyim
For the measurement of the lux, to show the huge difference between the different places we just uploaded the maximum result for it.