Retrospectively, from your preliminary task to your film opening, are there stark differences observable, between the two’s quality?

Retrospectively, from your preliminary task to your film opening, are there stark differences observable, between the two’s quality?

Preliminary Task – inadvertent noise Though it was not planned for the inadvertent noise to be left in, outside of dialogue, the fact that we had filmed in locations for where noise was able to be heard in the first place, is a downside I have learnt to not reproduce.

This corridor had a lot of noise within it

Preliminary Task – Worsening Via Fumbling Camera AngleFrom where my partner (pictured) gets up and then sits back down, the camera took an apparent jolt, and for that, the illusion of seamlessness was thereafter lost. If we were as conscientious about filmmaking as we have become, it would have been our shared instinct, to check our gallery of footage for errors then and there.

Preliminary Task – Using Panning More Effectively

Whilst I still did use panning in the preliminary task, in the film opening however, it was put to a more understandable sensible use. Where first off, I used panning for transitioning, in the film opening, me and my partners used it to help establish wits about the surroundings, rather than only being a device which passes on to a scene.

Preliminary Task – Having functioned coinciding camera angles actually function in that way

Although switching to other camera angles was not done decently in the preliminary task, it was though, done faultlessly in me and my partners’ film opening. Where in the film opening, multiple camera angles served to being a help for seeing more of the expanse of our film location, all that it had done for me and my previous partner in the preliminary task, was disrupt concentrated attention.