Timeline

Timeline

22^nd Jan

This was the day we were introduced to the idea of the industry projects, and the different version. We formed a group of Cal, Ella, Louise and I.

29^th Jan

 We had our first meeting, and decided our initial ideas of timeline, and episodes. This organization contributed to our successful pitch.  

31^st Jan

We began to research, and edited our concept down, so that it was a soundscape, and had historical episodes edited together by a timeline.

KEY SUCCESS: Concept and working as a group.

4^th Feb

In this meeting, we decided our roles, finished a concept brief, started on a prezi, and found pictures to use in pitch and final piece.

5^th Feb

We finished the prezi and split it up so we could all write different things. Cal made a mood board, we finalized ideas for the pitch. Louise and I made a timelapse. This splitting up of ideas meant that we could cover lots of group and make lots of media. It also meant, however, that some areas were only covered by one person, which was a problem later on.

KEY SUCCESS: Organization was at it’s best here.

10^th Feb

We made some soundscapes, and finished the prezi, and practised. We had been exchanging emails with potential interviewees.

19^th Feb

This was the day we did out Pitch, but Cal was ill, and we had to say her stuff. We completed the Pitch, and got good feedback, saying that we were well prepared and creative.  

KEY SUCCESS: Pitch finished and great feedback, a success as we had managed to come up with a good idea and impress the client.

KEY FAILIURE: Cal is ill, and we had not prepared for this, so we had some frantic last minute scrambles. We were therefore badly prepared.

28^th Feb

We begin to prepare for shooting. I write an equipment list and shot list. We hand in essays for the first 30%.

4^th March

The dome tell us that shooting is limited, and only “possible.” We try to plan around this announcement. The Dome were often hard to contact and unreliable, this was a contributing factor to getting behind on our schedleue, and having to compromise ideas.

KEY FAILIURE: Our idea had relied on having access to all points of the dome. This threw us off and we had to change ideas.

5^th March

First shoot at the Dome, where we filmed interior, exterior, the roof and tunnel, the organ concert and the archive footage. We split into groups and worked in pairs to cover as much stuff as possible, this was a contributing factor to the days success.

KEY SUCCESS: We had some excellent footage from this, and we worked well as a group.

KEY FAILIURE: None of us thought to bring extra tape, and some of the footage was shaky because we didn’t know how to use the track properly. This meant we didn’t have as much footage as we wanted.

12^th March

We first log and edit our shoot. It is not that good, but some of it is OK, we just have to re-shoot some stuff.

14^th March

We are told by the dome that we are not allowed to film and that they don’t want to narrate for us. We write a narration.

KEY FAILIURE: We had relied on the Dome to give us an interview, and edited/shot to this idea, so we felt that we didn’t have enough footage. TURNING POINT.

18^th March

We do a new shoot at the dome. It is better than the first, which is because we are learning from our mistakes.

KEY SUCCESS: Equipment, tapes and group work is very good here.

KEY FAILIURE: We don’t check the spirit level and are film as much as possible instead of adhering to the shot list. This is a problem for logging clips.

19^th March

We get feedback from our tutor telling us to slim down our idea and re-shoot. We decide to drop a lot of our own ideas to make sure we still have a good video. Louise gets us a new interview with Paul Clarkson.

KEY FAILIURE/TURNIG POINT: We decide to drop many of our ideas and stick to a more simple idea. We do not have enough time or man power to do what we wanted. This was a failure but also a compromise, and shows our ability to work with what we have, to compromise and to pin point what is important for this piece. This is a success and worked because we gel as a group and have a similar vision. 

24^th March

We have an interview with Paul Clarkson interview, which goes well. This is a KEY SUCCESS as we have our roles sorted out and we each know exactly what we are doing under the time constraints, and get it done.  

26^th March

A final shoot at the dome, which goes very well. We have a paper edit done. A contributing factor to this final shoot going well and the paper edit is that we have learnt to plan and prepare.

Key Success: This final shoot is finally well prepared and executed, we know how to use the equipment and how to film within a time plan. This is a learning curve.

4^th April

We begin to edit and log. The problems we had while filming are making editing a problem.

KEY FAILIURE: We have made so many shoots that editing is a huge undertaking, with 4 hours of footage to shift through. If we had organized before, this would not have happened.  

7^th April

First edit is done, with no narration. This is done by Ella.

8^th April

Narration is completed, and the second edit is also.

KEY SUCCESS: Group work is brilliant, we are within our original schedule, and the film is looking good, which is partly because we have separate roles, and this allows the film to progress quickly.

Reflections

I was thinking about how our group worked together throughout this project, and I think that we had both good and bad aspects to how we worked. I think at the start of the project we were much more motivated and had our tasks sorted out. For example, in the pitch, we all were coming up with lots of ideas and each one of us had different ideas about how the piece should look. We all had different things to do- I had to research camera and stuff, Louise the history, Cal the visual, Ella the sound, and all of us different periods of time, which we brought together.
I feel like after this initial spurt of ideas, we then lost momentum. I think this was partly to do with Cal leaving, so we were very unsure which ideas would work, and it was partly to do with the dome writing to us and telling us that we weren't allowed to do quite a few of ideas- this just made us feel like all the things we'd came up with were for nothing, and so we lost motivation.
After this, it took quite a while for us to get back on track. We spent quite quite a lot of time still trying to do the ideas we had come up with at first, as we hoped to not have to change them. In fore site  this was a silly thing to do, as we knew we couldn't do them after Cal/the dome. So, instead of focusing on what we could do, Louise was looking for interviews, I was trying to do re-enactments, and Ella was trying to soundscapes. As a group, this was the lull/bad part of the project , and i feel like because we were unfocused, our shoots were also not very good. We all wanted different things and didn't have roles sorted out- we were all doing a bit of everything (which we thought was collaborative)
However, as a unit, we did realize that we needed to change, which happened around the middle of March. I would say Ella was the first to admit it. And we also got a boost to change after showing our work to our tutor. This was a turning point, and after this, we sat down and really decided to hone down our ideas. After this, we changed a lot, and became motivated and decisive, and decided to focus on our roles. This was when our roles really came into practice and this meant (strangely) less work for everyone, as each of us had our own things to do, and this meant that everything was done, as our roles encompassed the tasks needed. This meant that things got done faster, and we shot less (good for editing) and could feel happy to say "thats a wrap."
I think as a group, we did work well- with roles and collaboration, though I would say that non of us took a definitive lead, or decisions maker. This was in a  way good, but It did mean that we took a long time to make decisions. I personally didn't want to be the leader as I felt this would be imposing on the other members. I feel like I could have taken more initiative than this, however. I think we should have stuck to our roles more, also- I know I personally let the others do as much camera as they wanted. This was a pretty silly idea, as it took far longer to film, I wasn't in control, and we had lots of footage. Once Ella got to the edit suite, she was the one making all the decisions and had the trump card that she was editor, so we got a lot done quickly. I should have done as she did and insisted that as I was camera person, I should be mostly in control of the camera- so we didnt get repeated shots.  I will do this next time.
I think though, as a group, we did get the film done, and I am happy with it, which therefore we did know how to work together properly and how to create media together under pressure. Therefore, I was happy with our performance as a group and working together.

Notes of the finished piece

Things I like about the finished piece:
-The pace of it
-the Ken Burns effect on archive material
-the graphic match
-The starting shots
-the tracks we did
-the sections about the Organ concert
-The interview with Paul
-history is clear

Things I didn't like about the shoot:
-The narration is too quiet and not interesting enough
-the pans of the dome from the garden are kind of boring
-There are parts of the shots over the top that are irrelevant but we needed a filler
-the shot of the Indian gate (in the rain, bluergh)
-The timeline sections
-the final shots of Brighton

The finished peice is good in some ways (because it adheres to the initial task, and because it is clear and informative) and because our visuals are mostly relevant and interesting. I was happy with these aspects. The visuals also are never shaky, out of focus or wonky, which is good, and the sound is never too loud or quiet. Therefore, we have made a good piece of media. however, I do think we needed a better narration, and as we didnt have many shots of things we were talking about (for the first sections when there wasnt any archive footage and we didnt shoot any re-enactments) and this felt like we were filling space. I think some of the stuff we did feels weak to me because we had a lot of good ideas at the start which we didn't fulfill- the timeline, for example. However, I think that the dome can use this video and show it to their visitors, therefore it is successful.

Done, and reflections

We have finished our piece, we finished editing today. Instead of using external music, we decided to use what we had already filmed from the dome, as this was uncopyrighted and our own stuff, (which we were pleased to have.) We fixed any issues with sound (we had had some feedback with the quietness of the narration) and placed in titles at the start and the end. I had a few ideas which Ella disagreed on, but in the end as Ella was the editor, she got to choose what happened to the piece. Though this is how it works on real productions, I think that as this is a student piece we should be more cooperative and collaborative, but I can see that having roles makes disputes such as this easier to resolve- because the one in the role gets last say.

Looking at our piece, I would say I feel a number of mixed emotions.  The way it has turned out is very different to our original ideas. We had the idea to create soundscapes, a timeline, re-enactments and interviews for a personal touch- none of these ended up being done. Some of this was not our fault- we couldn't find anyone to interview (who would interview) and Cal had to leave our group (so no timeline, as the rest of us don't study digital media) while some of it not being included was based on the repeated feedback that we were doing too much. Some of the reasons that these things weren't included is also because us as a group were very disorganised, or at least did not plan as extensively as was actually needed. I know that I could have planned more, and the output would reflect what we wanted at the start more solidly. However, when I think about it, I agree with the feedback- we started with a far too big idea, (or too many ideas) and would have been better keeping it simple- this confused us and led to too much footage and confusing emails back and forth. Next time, it would be better to be clear and precise, in planning idea and carrying it out- something I really learnt.

On the other hand, the piece we have made is quite good still. It is informative and interesting, with a good narration and selection of images. We have used these two things, with music, to create a clear and informative narrative, with the pictures backing up what is being said. I think this is important and keeps to our brief. I especially like the interview with Paul Clarkson at the end, as this is the "personal" touch we wanted to get at the beginning. I also feel like the way Ella edited the oran bit is really good and evocative.

As a group, I feel like we all think that this piece is good enough to hand in now- it is polished and completed after many hours. I also feel like we feel like we have contributed equally, and are proud of what we have achieved. I drew a very strange mind map sort of thing to illistrate my ideas. I hope it makes sense- it tried to show how the contributing factors to what went wrong and what went right. Mostly this depended on if we were prepared and planned or not:

Almost finished

Today we all got together and did the narration for the piece. It is a lot harder than initially thought to write the narration, and we spent quite a lot of time trying to work out on the specific arrangement of words to make it as clear as possible. Louise and Ella wrote most of the script, and as i hadn't, I could tell them if it sounded right or not- this actually worked quite well. The narration had to be clear and interesting, but not too complicated, or to full of ideas. We spent a lot of time a few sentences trying to decide what word fitted best.

We then went down to the edit booth, and used a marantz, and a handheld microphone to record. We decided that Louise would do the speaking (as I had a cold, and Ella is the one who studies sound and knows how the marantz works best.) The speaking went well, though it took quite some time to get the emphasis right and make sure the sound wasn't too quiet. We had to break the script down into sentences and work on each section, which we repeated several times in case Louise had stumbled, or got the tone wrong. She was very good, and I helped to cue her and hold the mic.

After this, Ella and I edited the narration into the first edit she had created. This took a long time, as we had to pick each perfect sentence, place it in the right order, and then switch around footage until the things that were being said matched the picture. (as our initial edit had been based on the paper edit, which had been made before the narration had been written. Probably this wouldn't have taken so long if we had written the narration ages ago, and had shot/edited to it AND a  paper edit, however, as we didn't know from the Dome if we had an interview this isn't a 100 percent our fault)
The edit was on occasion difficult, as sometimes the narration was too long, and we had to search through all of our footage to get relevant material- which took ages, as we took so much footage. This is a downfall of our shooting, and next time we have to make paper edits and shot lists before, so that editing isn't such a hassle because of this.

We also edited in the music from the organ that we filmed, and created a start and end which placed the Dome in Brighton, in an interesting way. This looks much better than before, as it allows for a start and end. It will look even better when there is music on top of it too. I was pleased with the way it looking, though we still have to find some sound scaping and music. I am quite sad that we will not be able to have some of our ideas from the concept, (timeline etc) but these problems are very much affected by problems we couldnt control. (Cal leaving, the Dome not letting us film, etc) However, we have tried to follow these ideas as much as possible- we have made titles which look like a timeline, and we are trying to soundscape underneath the piece. I did try and find how to use after effects and made a timeline, but it was too complicated, and so we decided to just let it be, and use titles, which might not look as good, but still work as well.  This is the next version of the piece:

I have also been looking at our schedule which we wrote before, and noticing that we have not kept that much to it, but that we didnt do too badly in keeping to it.  If we had been more active, we could have made sure that things were done. I have learnt from this project that organization is everything. I am pleased that we have got so far already though- many other groups haven't finished shooting and we have a second edit, which I am very pleased about. I feel like we had a turning point and really pulled ourselves together to make sure we got everything done and ready in time. I feel like this is quite professional and good. We are hoping to have a final edit on Friday.

Editing

As we have finished shooting, we are now into the editing stage. Ella has made a first edit, without the music or the narration- so it's a compilation of tracks, pans and Ken Burns effect on archive material, in order of history. She followed the paper edit we created, so she edited this version in a linear film following the history of the dome. I think it is a really good start. Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyboAnuYrV8&feature=player_embedded

My comments for her were about the end and the start. the first shot she used is a slightly uneven pan of the dome, whereas I think a good first shot would be the track outside, or the timelapse that Louise and I created a while ago. I also think a start with music and multiple shorter shots, is a common and professional start to such videos- this will make a bricolage of the dome as it now, and then slow down to start the history. This would look really good with music over the top as an intro.

I also had some feedback about the end, which I think Ella hasn't finished properly. Still, I think it needs like a sunset or a slow pan out, or a "bookend" which reflects the start (so a similar faster paced bricolage of the dome now.) Either of these might give the film a nice ending feeling, so it doesn't end so abruptly.

We have had some feedback about occasional places there is camera shake, and also about the direction of the Ken Burns (sometimes they pan in the same way, which looks weird) So we are all going to sit down together and make sure that these issues are dealt with.

The edit is good, I feel like we took on the feedback of our tutors, and made the piece simple, and clear.  Though this did mean giving up some of our ideas, I think with narration and music, the piece will be clear and informative. I was also very pleased that Ella managed to take out the sound problems with the interview.

Narration and Music

things have started to move on now. We finally had an answer from the dome, which was that they wouldn't do an interview. We were expecting this, and Louise (as our script writer) has written a narration, which is here:

For over two centuries Brighton Dome has played an integral part of Brighton’s cultural history. From cavalry barracks through to a music hall, the Dome has served as a multifunctional venue, and continues to transform to this day.
The Dome was originally used as elaborate stables for royal horses, and was built in 1803, along with what is now the Corn Exchange, on the request of the extravagant King George IV. The King was a regular visitor to Brighton and often lodged in a house in the Old Stein area.
He commissioned the architect William Porden to design the Dome’s elaborate structure; drawing on inspiration from (Jami Masijd’s) artistic works of Indian Mosques.
The Kings passion for the ornate came at a cost of £54,783; a sum that nearly bankrupted him. This did not, however, deter King George from commissioning a second stately building just meters away; the Royal Pavilion.
The two buildings are thought to be linked together via a narrow tunnel running beneath the pavilion gardens, with legend stating that King George intended to use the tunnel as a means to access his secret mistress, Maria Fitzherbert -until its completion, however- at which point the fickle King had grown weary of the furtive rendezvous.
After its completion in 1808 the Dome remained as a royal fixture for forty two years, until Brighton Town purchased it and in 1856, and converted it into Cavalry Barracks. (? what to say)
Phillip Lockwood remodelled the Dome in 1967 into a grand concert hall that could hold a capacity of 2500. The corn exchange was soon to follow, and began to be used as a market place every Thursday. It then turned into a military hospital in 1914, during World War 1, and The Dome itself was used as a major operating theatre. The make-shift hospitals in the three Pavilion buildings housed over 4000 recovering Indian Soldiers. The people of India consequently installed the Indian Gate, located in the Pavillion Gardens, in 1921, as a thank you to the people of Brighton for their benevolence and care.
In September 1943 thousands of Bombs rained down on Brighton, with one landing in the Pavilion Gardens. The Dome remained largely unscathed and during this incident, the aptly named ‘wonder-boy organist’ Douglas Reeve, a Dome Household name, was performing to a concert hall full of people. Upon the bombs explosion, Reeve famously continued to play, unfalteringly.

Douglas was well-known for his BBC Light Programme broadcasts and signature tune, Pack Up Your Troubles. (I have this downloaded) and he made history when entered into the Guinness Book of World Records, for achieving the longest seaside variety show in the world.

The Organ has been a fixture of the Dome ever since its reconstruction in 1856, and has played a key part in the development of its cultural Heritage. The original 4 manual Father Willis Organ was the feature of a suffragette plot to boycott prime minister, Herbert Asquith’s speech, in 1910. Mary Leigh and Eva Bourne were consequently arrested when they hid between the pipes of the Organ and tried to shout ‘Votes For Women.’ In 1936 a tailor-made Hill, Norman & Beard dual-purpose concert organ was installed in Brighton Dome to replace the original 1850 model. The organ is still in use today and, in memory of Reeve’s Tuesday performances, Organists such as Michael Wooldridge (man we have performing in footage) conduct monthly Tuesday afternoon recitals for the public.

The architecture that can be seen today in the Dome is reminiscent of the Art Deco era of the 30’s, during which the interior of the concert hall was sculpted into smooth circular curves and symmetrical shapes. Due to this reconstruction little of what made up the stables remains today.

1803 - 1808:The Dome was built for Prince (later King) George IV as stables, along with the Pavillion (his home) and asecret tunnel, rumoured to be for him and his mistress.
1850: BD bought by Brighton Town
1856-1864: BD is used as Cavalry Barracks
1867: Rebuilt into a Concert Hall
1910: Suffragettes attempt to boycott the Prime Ministers speech by hiding in the Domes organ.
1914-1916: 4000 Indian soldiers are treated when BD is turned into a Hospital during the war.
1921: Indian gate built as a thank-you
1934-1935: The re-modified concert hall is completed. Tea dances are held.
1934: The organ is rebuilt
1943: BD hit by a bomb but doesn't explode. Douglas Reeve plays the organ throughout air raids.
1944: More tea dances
1960: Pink Floyd play in BD
1969: David Bowie is banned due to his fans damaging the interior of the Dome
1972: "Dark side of moon" premiered by Pink Floyd.
1974: Abba win the euro-vision song contest at BD

 I like this, though we also had a meeting to go over what is being said. We discussed how much the project should be posed, whether we should be more story-like or factual. On the end we decided that facts should precede, as this is a factual piece. We are recording the voice over on monday. I dont know how to use any of the equipment, so this is going to be a learning day. I had some feedback on the some of the wording in the piece above (for instance, some of the ways the paragraphs start is quite unclear) I think that louise found this useful, as it's easy to get stuck into a piece and not read it as someone else. I also think it's good we're nearing an end, as our group are getting very tired.

Music

I have also been searching for music which is uncopyrighted online. There is a lot of music on sites such as Jamendo.com. After discussing with the group over what would be a good type of music  we decided a light classical background would be good. This is in line with other heritage videos we have found online.  I have been searching for this. Here are a few examples:

http://www.jamendo.com/en/track/33672/john-babbage-millennium-bug

This is by John Babbage. Its a classical piece, which struck me as good because it has different phases- clam, and then faster, and more interesting, before returning to quiet. I don't think the background should just be boring music you barely notice, it should move the story and narration on.

I also like this one (possibly more) for this reason:
http://www.jamendo.com/en/track/19630/conquest-of-the-west-conqute-de-l-ouest
I was thinking that this second one could be narrating the changing of times between the old and the new, when the dome began to change. It gets a bit excited at the end, so we would only use the start, but I do think this could feature.

http://www.jamendo.com/en/track/556534/snowing
This one is also interesting. It's quite calm, but has some relaxing series of chords which speed up, and I can imagine looking good over some tracks and timelines.