These are the scientific documentaries made by students in T03. This year, we have worked on two topics: “Multitasking” and “Sleep Debt”. I’d like to take the opportunity here to congratulate our students for their creativity and efforts! Please leave some comments for our video productions. Remember to keep your comments positive and constructive!
Multitasking Madness by Group 1- Yopie, Issac, Cliff and Amuro
Sleep Debt by Group 2- Mandy, Molly, Lawrence, Tom
Multitasking Madness by Group 3- Linda, Carl, David, Group
Sleep debt by Group 4- Victor, Mandy, Nicole, Priscilla
Multitasking Madness by Group 5 Alfred, Charlotte, Karen
Sleep Debt by Group 6- Andy, Owen, Kelvin
For group1: impressive green screen technology as well as the opening. I like the editing in result part, creative.
For group1, I find the whole process is complete and intereting, but the volume of the video’s sound is not quite consistent, volume of some parts is small.
For Group 1, I think their documentary is creative! They boldly use many techniques such as green screen. but the narration is flat in general and also there are some mistakes such as miss one sound track sometimes. The technique parts cover our attention to the content because the content is not as attractive as techniques.
Group 1’s documentary is very scientific, which have done a very great job in making it professional and reliable. The video is very well organised and editted! Nice one.
We are group4
Gruop1:
Great video editing
Game’s result can be presented in a better way
Audio quality can be better
For group2
Karl: Opening is weird actually, but impressive! Nice explanation of the theory, but I’m wondering if using a speed-up would be better. The interview part might be improved, for I think it’s a little bit boring. Overall, it is funny and interesting.
Group: Is that really called “big black eye”? Not “panda eyes”?
David: So funny!
Linda: Beginning scene is designed in a really humorous style.
We are group4
Group 2:
Quite fun to watch
Intro can be shortened
Presenting the result too directly, can add more b-roll to it.
To group 2:
The artworks for drawing supportive theory are brilliant! Although there’re irregularities for subtitle styles and minor grammatical errors, eg. Let’s analysis (n.), the storyline and acting are appealing. It’s excellent that the message is clear and no complicated data were shown. By the way, it’d be more attractive if you can imply different musical as background.
Group 1
We are group4
Group3:
Narration can be clearer and louder
Nice intro
Good video editing.
Group 3 ia doing a great job in interviewing strangers and get different data. However the editting of the video is not well enough. The background music is too strong making the voice over unclear.
To group 3
We appreciate your effort on making video, especially for selecting different editing effects. However, the message is not so clear and we cannot see the hypothesis and solid conclusion. The repeatition of scenes might be a bit excessive and our attention got lost sometimes, including the data presentation part. It is recommended to put the focus on significance of the data instead of themselves. Anyway, it’s a good try and we can see the efforts behind.
Group 1
Group 1
The discussion part is interesting by showing the information in graphic.
For the audio part, it is better too record in a clear way as some may not easy to be listened.
Data presentation is a bit long while the analysis part is brief.
Group 3
It is better to have subtitles when presenting tones of information in a short time as we cannot receive the message.
The background music is too loud when the narration is too soft.
The interview part is quit interesting as you have got some funny answer.
We are from Group 2.
Group 4 is presenting the result with incredible art work and making the video much more interesting instead of just reading out the facts. However in between clips the sound controll is not balanced. Nice one using the current meme for the ending.
To group 4
The flow of presenting message is very clear and drawings are awesome. it’s a bit regretful, however, the sound and music are not persistant, most of narrations in interviewing component cannot be heard clearly without the help of subtitle. On top of narration, we are not sure whether there’s only one narrator throughout the whole video.
Group 1
For group4:
Karl: What impressed me most is the drawing part.
Group: BGM is sometimes unstable.
Linda: Much nosies in the background of some parts; Results and interpretation presenting are well prepared, and the editing way is engaging.
David: sometimes there are some specific terms in the video, but its speed moves too fast in the explanation that we cannot hear and see clear enough in video
We are group 4
Group5:
The animation makes the idea clear and well-presented.
The flow of the video is natural
Group 5 have chosen to use a lot of online informations, in fact the content has become highly reliable, but at the same time becoming dull. They tend to read a lot but they present the details well and joyful.
For Group5 :
There are enough research to support the hypothesis and the result can highly connect with the research. However, it seems that the experiment part is a little bit short.
Besides, Camera angle for interview part can be improved by providing a better focus on the interviewee.
Group 3
To Group 5
The animation for transition is good, meanwhile, it would be better if you can apply other editing techniques to other parts, such as presenting chart in a dynamic way perhaps. The significant data could be emphasised more by not putting them on the corner of screen sometimes.
But we have to say tha the method used for interviewees choosing “male or female” paper fascinated us a lot.
Group 1
We are Group4
Group6:
The opening is really really eye-catching. the shoot in lab can make the video more reliable. It is comprehensive to mention light pollution. However, sometimes the sound level is not stable.
Group 4
The sound quality in interview part can be improve and some bgm is too loud that cannot hear some interviewees.
Maybe the volume of sound can be adjusted into more balance way.
The drawing is good!!
Group 5
It is good with explaining the fact by applying different animations and graphic.
You may be add some more different background music.
The last discussion part may be can present in more interactive way.
Group 6
The scene in lab may not match with the message that giving to audience?
The opening is interesting by using movie with some changing in the script!
The volume should be more balance since some narration is too soft.
We are from Group 2.
Sound quality and volume seems to be a common problem among groups.
For Group6:
The opening is quite impressive, no, it’s shocking. But our concern is that copyright issue of the film clip you used. Besides, it may also be improved a little. It’s somehow exaggerated and unrelated.
Some narrations contents and tones are professional.
Group 3
To Group 1
Subtitles were added to help audience to understand its content easily. Some interesting effects were added. For the result part, the charts showed were too small to see.
To Group 2
Funny video but a bit long for the opening. Sampling size was big enough to obtain a more accurate result.
To Group 3
The angle of recording the video was good. The chart in the result part was not quite able to understand. The volume of the narration towards the end of the video could have been increased.
To Group 4
Clear narration except interview part. The volume of background music was not consistent throughout the entire video. Good drawing. Yet it was a bit difficult to manage such a huge amount of information at one time, plus the flow was too fast to follow.
To Group 6
Attractive opening. Some part of the narration could not be heard clearly and the intonation was a bit flat. Some part of the video was some how not connected with the narration.
From Group 5
Group 6
As an opening, narrating the famous film”Inception” is really amusing. The consistancy is good and the main actor did good at interacting with audience by asking questions and using “you”. While sometimes the narration might not be so clear and loud enough sometimes. And please make sure you do not breach the law and commit any plagiarism as there’s no credit for the film at the end.
Group 1