Cambridge Travel documentary

After presenting our brief ideas on what our documentary could be, we chose Serchik's documentary idea. This followed investigating the modes of public transport in Cambridge and how this benefits and affects the public. Serchik created a range of questions he wanted to ask as a form of interview/Vox pops and also had a general idea of what audio, footage and design he wanted to be included in the documentary. After discussing these ideas we created a range of pre production documents to benefit the cast and crew - this can be found here https://charlotte2006lr.wixsite.com/charlotte-arnold-yea/post/documentary-pre-production .

We were asked to make our documentary's at least 3 minutes long and have them feature use of voice over, use Vox pops and create an interview. We went out into Cambridge with this in mind and began filming our documentary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peCYPQZPm7w

Our documentary featured a range of different key features found in documentary genres. For example, ours followed the basic structure of an expository documentary as it shows footage, interviews, b roll and a "voice of god narration". However, it also featured participatory documentary style features by having the film maker and the subject interacting (film maker asking questions on screen). We thought the mix of the two was good as it had a balance and could interest the viewer more. Through having our film maker on screen we knew that we could use a good representation of verisimilitude meaning that we could gather and present the truth better. We also tried to make it non bias by having lots of different members of the public respond to our questions. For example we had a worker for Greater Anglia (representing the trains), a taxi driver (representing the general traffic in and around Cambridge) and a range of general commuters. This means that everyone was able to voice their opinion and thoughts on travel in Cambridge.

We took two days to film our documentary. On the first day we went and recorded bus stops and the general flow of traffic. This was used as b roll footage. During the editing process, I removed the audio by using audio gain as this was going to be put on top of interviews and voice overs so the audio quality for our b roll was not particularly important. On the second day we went into Cambridge specifically in and around the station. We filmed for a number of hours and gained b roll footage and interviews/Vox pops. Recording our interviews was rather difficult as when asked people would often say they didn't want to or didn't have the time. The first man featured in our interview (Builder at the station) was happy to help and took interest in our coursework and project. We tried to make our audio better by turning away from the wind and using a zoom mic. Had we had not used some form of microphone our camera would have not picked up our audio due to the wind breaking the sound. When editing my Vox pops and interviews, I uploaded the footage and then found the zoom mic track which matched it and synced it to the video. Throughout my documentary I used a range of premier pro effects to enhance the quality of my audio, for example I used de nosier on lots of my clips as this got rid of unnecessary background noise quite well. This worked well on shots which were filmed in busy areas where they may be road noise or wind. I also used Parametric Equalizer in a lot of my clips and edited this by using vocal enhancer and changing the settings until it sounded better. I also paired this with audio gain, either making the volume of my zoom mic clips or my backing track to make it sound seamless. Whilst editing I had to rerecord my "voice of God" narration as they ended up not being recorded on the zoom mic, due to lack of time and equipment I recorded these on my phone and edited the clips using the same effects. I think even though its not the best I think that it shows a good range in how the quality of different microphones affect the final documentary. I think that my sound editing went well as I individually edited every clip to see what would make it better (removing the effect if it had no affect or made it sound worse). I tried my hardest with trying to get zoom mic clips and voice over to sound better.

When editing my documentary, I needed to find a good backing track that was not too heavy and not too overpowering. The track that I used had a good beat and good tempo to follow the b roll and movement of the documentary. I faded out my backing track and added a new one which was not as upbeat as the clip which I used was the taxi driver discussing how driving in Cambridge is difficult sometimes and that the council has affected it. This will provide the audience with the feeling of emotion as it is incidental music (the music is sadder which reflects on the scene and what is being discussed). I then faded this out and continued to fade in the more upbeat backing track. I was happy with this as it was a new skill that I had learnt and I found it quite difficult at the start and then was happy with the outcome. The audio/music choice reflects on the general mood of the footage.

There are definitely a number of audio clips that needed to be changed and corrected to be made better. One of these would be the interview between Bella and I at the bus stop. The zoom mic did not have a microphone cover on which meant that the microphone itself was more exposed to the wind. I followed the usual idea of adding de nosier, parametric equalizer and single band compressor however due to no cover it really is not the best quality. I would change this by checking the bag before we left or emphasizing to the group that it is needed.

When looking at our footage we filmed, we gathered a range of b roll footage which means that this could be placed well with our footage. For example, when scooters were being discussed I used b roll footage of somebody on a scooter, when busses were discussed I showed images of busses, when trains are discussed I showed b roll of trains. Through doing this the audience has a clear and precis idea of what the subject at hand is and also is more visually pleasing than having a plain screen with voice over or a few still images. One thing we could have changed was the amount of b roll footage we had. In hindsight when we were out filming we felt as though we had a lot of b roll and had gathered lots of different b roll footage however with the length of our documentary and our Vox pop interviews this was not enough and as a result of that I have ended up reusing the same clips and using a number of pre existing footage off of YouTube. This is not ideal as the audience may start to feel bored as they will have already seen some of the b roll footage or may feel that not enough time and effort has gone into the making of the documentary.

Another factor of our documentary that I would change would be that we did not add a formal interview. We were asked to add a formal interview discussing a subject within our documentary how ever we mainly focused on the use of Vox pops. We did this as we felt that it could be more bias as our group mainly shared the opinion that transport in Cambridge really is not the best and if we interviewed someone in our group this idea may be projected forward onto the documentary - which was not what we wanted. We wanted it to be balanced, shows the truth and shares different views and opinions, this was why we focused on Vox pops. If we were to film again I believe as well as gaining the footage from Cambridge station (Vox pops and b roll), we should have done a formal interview with two people. One interview could have been someone saying the positives and one could be someone saying the negatives - this would have made it fair.

As well as the use of Vox pops, interviews and voice over, we were asked to add a graphic which is relevant to what is being said, a statistic that is added graphically, clean up noise added, use music from found sources to benefit emotion and to color grade all of my shots. I represented a graphic relevant to what is being said by captioning each Vox pop with who that person is and what they do. This gives more context to the audience and carries out the documentary interview format. I could have made this better by making it a cleaner graphic and make it more complex and interesting. The graphically shown statistic was a map of the bus routes in and around Cambridge. This was added whilst there was a voice over of me sharing a statistic of how many people travel by bus in Cambridge. I could have made this better by having the image slightly move or zoom in slightly. I tried my best to "clean up" any audio added. This was done through effects and the changing of volume. I added a backing track that was universal suited to the whole of the documentary however I faded it out and faded in more emotional music as the tone of the documentary changes slightly. When colour grading my shots, I added lumetri colour onto the first shot in my documentary and then copied and pasted that, added it to an adjustment layer and shared that adjustment layer throughout the documentary. This added more colour and made my documentary brighter - becoming more visually pleasing to the audience.

My group and I worked extremely well together as we shared thoughts and opinions on how the documentary could be made, how it could be improved, how we were going to film, where we were going to film, taking it in turns to carry out pre production document tasks as well as carry and set up the equipment. One thing I think we could have changed in production to improve the documentary would be the listening of the team. Whilst we involved everyone's opinions I felt that my opinion was overlooked a few times which resulted in me filming extra footage that the group said "was not needed" and I created a few voice overs to seamlessly make sequences and interviews play out cleaner in the documentary - instead of them being choppy and gappy.

Overall, I am happy about how my documentary turned out after filming and editing but recognize that there are a number of thing that I would have done differently, added in or changed.