Evaluating residents interview

Because we interviewed the residents only about an hour after the senior management team, we used the same set up in the same room (college boardroom) for practical reasons. See this post for details. Because of this, some of the same problems were experienced, as we had not at this point viewed back the footage, and so hadn’t spotted technical issues with the filming or interviewing style.


What went wrong?

  • The lighting was not good, however to make matters worse, it began to get dark during the interview, and so the light conditions gradually worsened. This was only subtle to us at the time, but on playing back the footage there is quite a contrast to the beginning footage to that at the end, and so the visual quality is not consistent. This could be problematic when cutting and changing the structure and order of the footage during the edit, and will have to be fixed with video effects and filters. (Hopefully placing filler shots in between the ‘talking-head’ shots will make this less noticeable).
  • Had problems matching the ISO and white balance on the two different cameras. I think that unless necessary I will not use the alternative angle that we filmed because the visual quality is that much worse.
  • There may not be a huge need for the alternative angle footage anyway if we have a lot of cut-away shots to be played over the interview audio. In the first part of Vis Lit, I felt like an alternative angle would have been beneficial, however I have learnt now that it is only important to create variation in visuals where there are not any or many cut aways. For this project it was not necessary.

What went well?

  • Dawn and Bill both spoke in a very well informed way, and their dialogue was full of interesting and sometimes shocking facts and figures that Tom and myself were not already aware of, and that perhaps the Council members and MPs have also not considered. This makes what they are saying quite persuasive as it may also have a shock factor, rather than simply stating the obvious points.
  • An example of this is when Bill mentioned how there is an existing park and ride which is rarely used and very unsuccessful because it doesn’t work in places like Leeds where there is plenty of cheap parking in the centre. A large aspect of the trolleybus is to get people to use  it as a park and ride, so therefore this may be redundant.
  • Another interesting point made is that the Trolleybus technology is outdated. This is a good point because it emphasises that the Trolleybus is not the right solution to Leeds’s traffic problems, which may be a good angle to attack from as this could encourage them to consider other options rather than just protesting against the project because it negatively effects some people.
  • Some parts of the interview, although interesting, might not be particularly persuasive to those viewing at the enquiry. These points are the ones based on personal opinion and experience. I think that when it comes to cutting down the footage these will be the ones to go.

All of the interviews collected so far total at 28 minutes, and so a whole 25 minutes will have to be cut in order to produce the 3 minute film required for the enquiry. This will mean being quite brutal when getting rid of aspects, so I will have to bear in mind that only the most persuasive points will stay. To help me do this, I should take a critical viewpoint, as if I am scrutinising the strength of the arguments, when reviewing the footage, in order to produce the most persuasive piece of film possible.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s