Hi! I am writing the script for a documentary on a social issue as well, so when I saw your post i immediately checked out your documentary! I really liked it! I am of the opinion that if the content is important and well explained, the viewer will overlook other things such as color/photography and so on, because once you capture the viewer those become small detail. At the least that's for me (who bear in mind, don't represent the audience of tv/cinema).
Thank you for taking the time to critique! Let me know when your piece is done and I'd be happy to return the favour.
- The subtitles were a bit intrusive especially on that semi-transparent banner which occupied 1/5 of the screen, next time try to use a smaller size for the font and stick with that.
Agreed. I needed subtitles because some of the audio is so bad you can hardly hear what the person is saying. I wanted conventional subtitles, but there is no built in way to do this in iMovie, which I use for editing. This is the closest I got with the built in titles, so I tried to convince myself I was being artistic. Next time I will probably make transparent .png images in a separate program and add them as picture in picture, which is tedious, but needed.
- I am planning a micro budget documentary so I know that money is scarce, but from what I learned on this forum is that audio really matters. If you can invest on audio, that's the weak part of your documentary. For instance, maybe it is me but at around min 2.30 the audio quality drops and at ~ 3.00 it becomes scratchy ad echoing.
Yes, audio was difficult in this one, much because of the varying environments, including windy and noisy streets and covert recording where the person being recorded cannot know that they are being recorded.
if you compare 3:34 with 6:49, it should be clear that the audio quality in the latter is an improvement. That is because 3:34 was recorded with my spyglasses and no external mic, while at 6:49 I hid a shotgun mic in my sleeve, and pointed it towards the speaker. It's the same person, the same place and pretty much the exact same circumstances.
So can I ask you this: Was the audio recorded with shotgun mic good? That would be mainly 6:49 and all statements by Jon Harley in the second half.
The narration should be crisp clear. It's recorded at home with a Zoom H1 with a windshield to better handle plosives.
Now my questions:
How long did it take to make the documentary?
2-3 months or so, not full time. I still have a day job.
I had to throw away tons of material because interviewees said nothing clear or sufficiently relevant. I have hours of useless footage with homeless people.
It hurts to throw away so much material when you worked hard for it, travelling all over the city, but the respect for the viewers' time must come first.
What software did you use to edit your software?
iMovie for Mac, which I'm not entirely happy with.
What equipment (audio/video) did you use?
Camcorder - Canon Legia HF R606 .
The parts with the best video quality comes from this one. However, it has no input audio port (in America it does, but not in Europe strangely). The interviews with the homeless was done with this camera, and no external mic. I have also had a
lot of difficulty transferring the footage to my computer, and Canon customer service cannot help.
DSLR - Canon EOS Kiss X5 with the standard 18-55 mm lens
Often out of focus, probably because of my lack of skill. Can't video long scenes in high quality. Has an audio input port. Overall a good camera.
Audio Recorder - Zoom H1
Does the job. I'm very happy with it, although I rarely need it. I had it in my inner jacket pocket connected to a shotgun mic when I did covert recording.
Shotgun mic - Audio Technica ATR6550
In the interview with Jon Harley, I used this mic connected directly to the DSLR. It was placed in the hotshoe of the camera and pointed directly at him.
Where did you hide the camcorder for the interview? (or did you use a micro camera?)
I used spyglasses for $70;
http://www.ebay.ie/itm/5MP-HD-720P-...-Recorder-Sun-Eyewear-Cam-CMOS-/161282221992?
The cheaper ones have thicker frames and a visible - albeit tiny - lens. These glasses are very discrete and nobody ever seemed to suspect anything. However, the mic is rubbish, and the camera needs
a lot of light, probably because the lens is hidden behind a sheet of black/semitransparent black plastic. Also, after using it only for this project, it now doesn't record anymore. I wouldn't say it was worth the price. Spyglasses is a great idea because you will be able to easily get your subject in frame and (s)he will look straight into the camera, but it's difficult to find a high quality product.
Another idea would be to use a smart phone. It's small and has a good camera, but it's more difficult to hide while also pointing it on a subject.
Thank you for your feedback, and I hope my answers also helped you!