Unit 34: TV Studio Productions

Pearson BTEC Level 4 HNC Certificate in Creative Media Production

Wednesday 21st December 2016

Wednesday 18th January 2017
Patsy Mullan

Evaluate the technical and aesthetic qualities of their TV Studio Productions.

This is an individual (reflection – evaluation) report to be done separately by

each student

LO4: LO4 Be able to evaluate own television studio production work.

Tasks: 4.1, 4.2 and (M3, D1,)

1).
Write your evaluation of the three finished TV studio productions and comment on the
following headings:

Technical quality;
Aesthetic quality;
Suitability for purpose compared with production specification;
Own contribution to production;
Team’s contribution;
Audience feedback.

2).
Write an evaluation of your production skills for the three finished TV studio
production and comment on the following headings:

Production skills:
Technical competence;
Workflow and time management;
Production management;
Team working.

To achieve M3 you must show you complete a written report using technical language
accurately to evaluation and reflect on your contribution and work on the three TV studio
productions you were involved with.

To achieve D1 you must show self-criticism, self-evaluation and reflection has taken
place about your contribution and work on the three TV studio productions you were
involved with.
 Desmond Lynch: Evaluation

For my first semester at the NWRC I helped create three TV Studio Productions.
Below I will go into further detail about each production and what I learned from
the production process, I will also evaluate my skill set and comment on what
exactly I would have done differently if I were to make the production again.

TV Studio Production 1: Sandra McNulty Recording

My first production involved recording five songs for the Soprano Singer Sandra
McNulty, I will go into further detail of the production down below.

Technical Quality
We used the TV studio and equipment in the Northland Building to record the
singer. We used a Shot Gun Mic to record the audio, this was done because we
realised that the volume would be too loud to be recorded with a wireless mic
that could be attached to the singers clothing, the mic would have been too
close to register the vocals.
During the recording the audio captured from the Shotgun Mic seemed perfectly
fine. However during the editing phase I noticed that the audio quality
diminished, it was far too quiet which meant that adding background music
became especially difficult. I’m not certain at exactly why the audio was quieter
than it was during the recording session, my best guess would have to be an
error in the processing phase or perhaps the mic was not at it’s full volume.
Fortunately most of these songs were unaccompanied so we didn’t have to worry
about adding background music.
We had some issues with the camera equipment in the TV studio, specifically
Camera 3. There was a damaged wire that diminished the quality of the footage
if the camera was moved, the footage would appear to look like static if the
Camera Operator so much as budged. To avoid diminishing the quality of the
footage I instructed the camera operator to remain perfectly still throughout the
recording. This meant that focussing the camera and applying white balance was
made significantly more difficult however we did eventually overcome these
issues.
For the most part the technical quality in the production of this project was quite
satisfactory. If I wee to do tit again I’d have more practice with the shotgun mic
in order to get the logistics correct and perhaps even get better cameras to
avoid any technical issues.

Aesthetic Quality
During the recording session we set up a Green Screen to use as a background.
Initially we weren’t planning on using the green screen but we discovered that
the ordinary background for the TV Studio was completely unsuitable for the
recordings. We would later add footage to these Green Screens, most of them
would relate to the themes in each individual song for example; the cover of
“Morning has Broken” features footage of a sunrise in the background.
The quality of footage captured in the recording was fine; the real issues with
Aesthetic Quality came during the editing phase. We divided the videos up
between the group which meant that almost everyone got to edit a recording
video. This meant that the quality of Green Screen footage, Intros and Credits
varied significantly between each editor. Some videos contained still images
used in the background and included text that didn’t look at all professional. But
outside of that the quality of the edits was quite good.
We included a fake Microphone on a stand for aesthetic purposes. It was to
make Sandra look like as if she were singing into that microphone, while in
reality she was singing into the Shot Gun Mic. This was a group decision that
Sandra approved as these video recordings would be used on her website to
promote her work, specifically for weddings. So seeing her using a microphone
would make her look more professional.
Throughout the recording process, the Singer was listening to background music
via iTunes in her phone. She had headphones on throughout the session but we
ensured that they could not be seen. I instructed the Floor manager to tell
Sandra to cover her ears with her long hair in order to hide the headphones. You
can’t really see the headphones in the footage unless you’re really looking for
them; fortunately the footage in the background provided a distraction away
from the headphones.
For the most part the Aesthetic Quality of this project is quite satisfactory. To
avoid the issues with the green screen and the editing styles I should have
organised a team meeting to discuss what exactly each video should look like.

Suitability for Purpose with Production Specification

We were tasked to plan and produce a series of pilot studio based TV
Productions. This project meets the standards of the specification as it involved
extensive planning i.e; organising meetings with both the team and the singer,
designing storyboards, discussing roles for each member during the production
and post production phases.

Own Contribution to Production

I had a lot to do during this production. For starters I was the one who
volunteered my team to record the Soprano singer; I was also the one to be in
direct contact with Sandra via email. I organised several meetings with Sandra
to discuss what exactly she wanted and eventually introduced her to the rest of
the group in order to find out any issues we may experience in the TV studio.
On the day of the recording I was the Director, which meant I was in direct
contact with the camera operators and Floor Managers from the control room. I
told everyone how I wanted the lights set up, where the cameras should be and
when to focus them. As director I was also in charge of processing the footage
onto the Mac, creating copies that would be used in the editing process.
I also edited two of the videos. The videos I edited were “Ave Maria” and “Arms
of an Angel” both of which had backing tracks.

Team’s Contribution
I organised a series of Team Meetings prior to the recording session. We
discussed ideas about how we should go about recording the singer for example
figuring out what microphone to use and establishing the correct audio levels to
record her.
On the day of the recording most of my team was present. I was working as
director. Eoin, Jason and Nial were working as Camera Operators. Pippa was the
floor manager. We had to get outside help due to a shortage of numbers so we
got Emer to help out as Switchboard Manager and Shelby to work the sound
system.
I was in direct contact with all the people in the TV studio. Everyone worked to
the best of their abilities and produced excellent results.
After the recording session, we divided up the videos between ourselves. Initially
each person would get one video to edit (five people, five videos, one each) but
as time passed by some members of the group became absent indefinitely and
some of us had to take on more work. Jason and I had to edit two videos while
Eoin only had to edit one. There was a breakdown of communication and with
other projects the editing process took far longer than we anticipated.
We eventually did finish the editing process but as I stated above, some of the
videos differed in design. For one video we couldn’t get backing music as Sandra
was listening to an iTunes version of “Morning has Broken” which meant that we
couldn’t use it, iTunes prohibits third parties from using their music for editing
purposes. We couldn’t find a replacement song, because the iTunes version was
only two minutes long and every other version we found was well over three
minutes. Eoin and I tried to find a suitable replacement but we could not. This
video would not have a backing track despite Sandra’s wishes.

Audience Feedback
I sent a copy of all the finished videos to Sandra via email. I went into detail
about why it took so long to finish them and I apologised for being unable to get
a backing track to Morning has Broken.
However she was quite pleased with our work. She said it was of high quality
and that I shouldn’t worry about Morning has Broken, claiming that she herself
should have organised better accompaniment. So as Audience Feedback goes
the entire project was quite successful.

Production Skills
As the leader of my group I was in charge of most of the production. This meant
I settled what dates we would record, what equipment we would use etc. I
developed great leadership and communication skills that my team appreciated,
especially when I was directing them via headsets.
I also learned how to use the White balance machine in the control room, which
was very important in focusing the cameras.
I became familiar with setting up the control room, especially with using the Mac
to record the footage and then process the footage for editing purposes.
In the editing phase I learned how to use the green screen to present footage in
the background. I also learned how to use Final Cut pro.

Technical Competence
It took about 45 minutes to set up the studio for the recording. This involved
putting up the green screen, establishing the lighting setup, organising camera
angles and setting up the shot gun mic.
As I stated above we noticed some issues with the audio quality picked up from
the microphone during the editing phase; however during production everything
seemed perfectly fine. We actually had very heavy discussions about the audio
levels we should incorporate during the recording in order to get all of the
sound, perhaps the reason the sound quality diminished was because of our
inexperience with the equipment.
We had some small issues with cameras as I stated above, some faulty wiring in
Camera three meant that the camera operator had to keep it perfectly still to
avoid corrupting the feed. This created some difficulty with focussing and white
balance but we eventually settled these issues. All of us had some experience
with the cameras so setting the focus and white balance wasn’t difficult.
Everyone was fairly competent in their roles, we didn’t have any devastating
issues with cameras during the recording and we made sure to have a series of
sound checks right before recording anything.
 Workflow and Time Management
The recording session was on Wednesday the 25th of October at 10am. It took us
roughly 30-45 minutes to set up the TV studio and to do a series of sound
checks before recording. We recorded five songs, we did about three takes of
each songs. Each take would last around 2-3 minutes depending if there was
any issues with the singer i.e. she may have sang the wrong line.
I wrote some comprehensive notes detailing the exact process of the recording
session. We would take a small break in between each take. The recoding
session only lasted about an hour and a half, meaning we were finished by
around noon.
The team was professional and we didn’t have any issues with communication.
In the editing phase though we experienced a lot of delays due to other projects
and people remaining absent indefinitely. Fortunately we did eventually get
around to finishing the editing process. The project was successful.

Production Management
As team leader I was in charge of organising a lot of aspects of the production. I
was in charge of communicating to the singer, organising team meetings,
settling a recording date, booking the TV studio etc.
As stated above the recording process was very successful. Everyone worked to
the best of their abilities and produced excellent results. However during the
editing phase we had a lot of work to do, which was made a lot more difficult
due to other projects and a breakdown of communication.
The editing phase had poor management which could have easily been amended
by a few team meetings and better time management, such as establishing
personal deadlines for projects.

Team Working
There was a great amount of team working involved in this project. Prior to the
recording session we had many team meeting to update everyone on my
communication with Sandra, discussing possible technical issues and what
exactly we should do for the project.
On the day of the recording we worked as a team to set up the TV studio, there
was never any issues with communication between the Team and I during the
recording session, everyone performed to their best efforts and we aptly tidied
up the TV studio after the recording session had ended.
The only real issue with the team was with Emer and I. As director I was to give
her instructions on what camera to switch to during the recording. Unfortunately
we weren’t well practiced with these roles so when I gave Emer a command it
took her a second to realise it and to switch the camera on the switchboard. I’m
to blame for this because we didn’t have a run through to warm us up for the
recording. Outside of that Emer and the rest of the team performed excellently.

TV Studio Production 2: Sitcom/Sketch

My second production involved creating a sitcom/sketch production based of the
kind of sketches Monty Python made. I will go into further detail below.

Technical Quality
We used the TV studio and the equipment available in the Northland building. I
made the mistake of using the Shot gun mic again which really made the editing
process significantly more difficult. The actors were speaking very quietly so the
shotgun mic was not very suitable for picking up dialogue. If I were to do it
again I’d use wireless mics that could be attached to the actor’s clothes, this way
we can register the sound of the dialogue more efficiently and would save a lot
of trouble in the editing process.
Like in the first project, we were using the cameras in the TV studio and we had
the same problems we had last time. Specifically we had issues with camera one
and camera three, both of which have faulty wires. If they move in any way the
forage emitted from the camera turns to static. To avoid diminishing the quality
of the footage I instructed the camera operators to remain perfectly still. Again
this meant that focusing the cameras and white balance was made much harder
but we eventually did overcome these issues.
Despite these setbacks the quality of the footage we managed to record was
quite good, although the sound could have been a lot better.

Aesthetic Quality
For this recording session we required a Green Screen to be set up. Initially I
was sceptical about using a green screen, we didn’t even want to use the TV
studio but we couldn’t find a more suitable location so we opted to use the TV
studio. As I’ve stated above in Project one, the TV studio background isn’t very
suitable for most projects so we had to set up a Green Screen in order to add a
more fitting background in the editing process.
I noticed that the green screen was too small so that restricted the actors
movements, that’s why during the sketch one actor remains seated throughout
the entirety of the video.
We had to move a few chairs and a desk into the TV studio to establish a set for
the sketch. The entire scene takes place in a waiting room at a Euthanasia clinic
so that involved getting two comfy chairs, a desk, a computer (it wasn’t plugged
in) and a doctor’s coat for one of the actors.
The editing process went a lot more smoothly than in the first project. I was the
editor and it took me roughly four days to edit the entire thing. I was a little
worried about the background for the green screen but I was put to ease after I
included a still image of a grey wall, it was perfectly suitable throughout the
entire video so that meant I didn’t have to change the image once a new camera
angle appeared.
There was some issues with the sound quality, I had difficulty hearing the
dialogue which was made worse since I had to add office ambience and a few
laugh tracks. I decided it was best to add subtitles in case people couldn’t hear
the dialogue.

Suitability for Purpose with Production Specification

We were tasked to plan and produce a series of pilot studio based TV
Productions. As my second project this meets the standards of the specification
as it involved extensive planning i.e; organising team meetings, getting outside
help e.g. actors, designing storyboards, discussing roles for each member during
the production and post production phases.

Own Contribution to Production

I had a lot to d in this production. I wrote two drafts of the script; the first draft
and the final draft. I also created some storyboards for the project which we
followed for the most part. On the day of the recording I worked as both the
director and the switchboard manager, which unfortunately prevented me to
record the comprehensive notes I was able to write down in my first project. I
also worked as the editor which involved finding suitable music and sound
effects for example laugh tracks.

Team’s Contribution
I organised a few team meetings before the recording session, in which we read
over the script I had written and suggested ideas that we could include, they
even wrote a second draft of my initial script. We also talked about location
scouting and looking for props i.e. doctors coat.
Unfortunately most of my team was absent on the day of recording so we had to
get outside help. Not many people showed up that day so we had to work as a
skeleton crew. I worked as both director and switchboard manager, Shelby
helped out with sound. Jason, Eoin and Nathan were Camera Operators and Jack
and Conor volunteered to be actors.
We didn’t have any floor managers so I had to be in direct contact with the
camera operators in order to tell the actors what to do. Despite our short
numbers the team was quite efficient and very professional.
Jack and Conor were exceptional to work with, especially since they only had a
very short amount of time to learn their lines.

Audience Feedback
Before finalising the final version of the edit, I showed my work to both my team
and my tutor to verify it. They said that the sketch was quite enjoyable but they
noted that it was very difficult to hear the dialogue due to the laugh tracks. I
took their criticism and tried my best to lower the volume of the laugh tracks to
hear the dialogue but it didn’t help much since the audio for the dialogue was
quite low.

Production Skills
I learned how to operate the switchboard as the switchboard manager and I also
used my previous knowledge of setting the white balance to use the white
balance machine, which in turn solved a lot of issues we had in setting up the
studio.
Before recording we made sure to do a series of sound checks and a few
rehearsals before beginning the recording process. I improved my
communication skills and developed on my knowledge with the equipment I was
using, for example the Mac we used to record each scene.
I also developed some experience using the DLSR due to the fact I used it to
record a few POV shots and to get the establishing shot of the door.
I became more efficient with using Final Pro, which was especially important in
establishing a background for the green screen and to add subtitles.

Technical Competence
It took roughly an hour and a half to set up the TV studio. Mostly due to the fact
that we were severely understaffed so it took far longer than anticipated. The
setup process included putting up the green screen, finding suitable props i.e.
chairs and then moving them into the studio, positioning the cameras, setting up
the shotgun mic and finally doing a few sound checks in order to make sure the
headsets and the microphone was working properly.
Working in the TV studio we had the same issues with the cameras, specifically
camera one and camera three. Faulty wires meant that these cameras had to
remain perfectly still to avoid diminishing the quality of the footage emitted.
Again this made the focusing and white balance process a little bit harder but we
eventually got around it. Despite these issues everyone was quite competent in
their roles and the recording process surpassed my expectations.

Workflow and Time Management

The recording session was on the 28th of November, we started recording at
around 11am but beforehand it took us about an hour and a half to set up the
TV studio. As I stated above this was due to the fact we were severely
understaffed so it took far longer to set up the equipment and do the sound
checks.
We didn’t have a floor manager so my communication to the actors depended on
the Camera Operators informing them on what I said. The crew was very
efficient in their work. We divided the script into three scenes, permitting one or
two rehearsals for the actors before we would begin recording.
We would do at least three takes of each scene; each take lasted roughly about
two minutes each. After each scene was complete we’d take a quick break, the
actors would go over their lines and the Camera Operators would reposition their
cameras for the next scene. We needed different angles to accompany the
actors change of movement, for example in scene one both actors remain seated
however in scene two one of the actors is moving around. The camera angles
that suited scene one would no longer be able to serve scene two, especially
since Camera one and three had issues with their wiring and thus couldn’t follow
the movements freely. They had to repositioned entirely to avoid the footage
diminishing in quality.
I’d booked the TV studio for up to 1.30pm but surprisingly enough we were
finished by around 12.30pm, meaning we had saved an hour. I transferred the
video files from the mac and began the editing phase by establishing the
foundation of the work by getting the scenes in the correct order.
Despite our short numbers the recording session was quite successful and we
managed to finish up an hour early.

Production Management
I was in charge of a lot of things in this production. For starters I helped out in
location scouting and finding suitable props to use in the recording session. I
wrote two drafts of the script and created the storyboards that we would base
our set design and camera angles around.
I also organised team meetings, settled the date of the recording session and
brought in outside help by getting Jack and Conor to act and Shelby to help out
with the sound.
I also worked as both the director and the switchboard manager so I had a
crucial role in the management of the recording session. However I think the
editing could have been left for another person as I had too many roles in this
production. If I were to do it again I would get Eoin or Jason to edit the final
product, or even get someone else to be the director.

Team Working
This project encompassed a lot of team working. For starters we had several
team meetings to establish the ideas for the project. Then when I wrote the first
script the team then read it, shared their ideas and criticisms and provided a
second draft for me to read. We talked about the issues with the second draft
and they permitted me to write a final draft.
With our short numbers and the fact that we could only get two actors that
meant the script needed some major changes. I showed the team the script and
they approved it for production.
Despite our small numbers the team worked very efficiently in setting up the TV
studio and were very professional during the recording session. They managed
to communicate my demands to the actors very well and were very vocal about
any technical issues they may have had.
The team had great level of communication throughout the project, when I
showed them the finished product they were pleased at the outcome but they
made sure to share their criticism with the sound quality.

TV Studio Production 3: TV/Movie Debate Show

For my final TV studio production I created a TV/Movie debate show called
“Movie Night Fight Night” in which two people debated topics that related to
movies or TV, a third person would host and moderate the debate and also
share their thoughts on the topics at hand. I will go further into detail down
below.

Technical Quality
For our final project we used the TV studio and the equipment available to us in
the Northland Building. I learned my mistake from the previous projects and
decided not to use the shotgun mic. Instead I decided to use wireless
microphones that could be attached to the participants’ clothes, which was
perfectly suitable for picking up audio such as dialogue at a close range.
Again we had the same issues with camera one and camera three, faulty wires
meant that if they were moved the emitted footage would turn to static.
Fortunately unlike project two the cameras remained perfectly stationary
throughout the entire project. Our previous experience with the cameras meant
that we were perfectly suited to complete the white balance and focussing
without any issues.

Aesthetic Quality
For the debate we didn’t need to set up the green screen which saved a lot of
time in setting up the TV studio. We didn’t use the green screen because it was
too small to fit three people sitting down but also because in this debate it would
have been quite useless.
We used the same kind of lighting setup that we had throughout our previous
two projects, mostly dependent on LED lights but due to the lack of green screen
we were able to use more hot lamps from the ceiling (which we couldn’t use
before as the green screen posed as a fire hazard) I had to adjust the white
balance for each camera individually to get a suitable tone.
During the recording session the forage looked fine, however in the editing
phase I soon discovered that the footage appeared under saturated due to the
over exposure of light. This was an easy issue to quell however as all I had to do
was alter the saturation of the footage using my editing options in Final Cut Pro.

Suitability for Purpose with Production Specification

I was tasked to plan and produce a series of pilot studio based TV Productions.
My third and final project meets the standards of the production specification as
it involved extensive planning i.e; organising meetings for the team, getting
outside help e.g. debate participants and crew, designing storyboards and
discussing roles for each member during the production and post production
phases.

Own Contribution to Production

For my final project I worked as both the Director and the Switchboard manager.
I also organised some team meetings prior to the recording session, recruited
some outside help for helping out the crew, created some storyboards and I also
edited this project.
Personally if I had to do it again I’d have gotten someone else to work as the
switchboard manager so that I could create some comprehensive notes, also I
would have gotten someone else to edit it as I’ve already had the roe of editor
throughout all of the projects.

Team’s Contribution
With some of our team either dropping out or being absent on the day of
recording we had to get outside help. Jack and Nathan volunteered to be the
beaters while Tiernan was the host and moderator, he also participated in the
discussion.
Jason and Eoin were camera operators alongside Milo Quigley. Emer and Louis
were floor managers and Shelby returned as the sound manager.
The team quickly set up the TV studio and were quite efficient. The participants
spoke clearly and stayed on topic which was a great benefit for me in the editing
department.
Jason brought in DVDs, I instructed Eoin to lay them out on the coffee table
beside the three chairs for set design, to reinforce to the viewer that ths is a
Movie discussion platform.
Louis was satisfactory in his role as floor manager. If I were to do the project
again I would have gotten Emer to be switchboard manager because her sills
weren’t required for the second floor manager. It would have also freed me up
to write more notes during the recording.
Despite this however the team was quite efficient and we finished recording in
less than half an hour.

Audience Feedback
I edited the debate, when I finished I showed the final product to my peers for
approval. They were pleased at my work but said some of the footage I used to
depict the topics they were discussing could have been presented better. They
also made me aware that it was too long to upload to YouTube so I cut it down
from 16 minutes to just under 14. I showed them my changes and they
approved it for uploading.

Production Skills
I had to use some footage from YouTube e.g. movie trailers, certain scenes from
Movies or TV Shows etc. I used this footage to present the topics they were
discussing e.g. when Jack was talking about Saving Private Ryan I showed a clip
from Saving Private Ryan. To do this I learned how to download videos from
YouTube and then to overlay them on top of existing footage.
I also developed upon my editing skills in order to correct the under saturation
of the initial footage. I developed upon my skills using both the switchboard,
white balance machine and the Mac to process the videos.

Technical Competence
I learned from my previous two projects so we didn’t use the shotgun mic. This
was a wise move due to the fact that we had a lot of issue picking up dialogue in
the last project so it may have been even worse in the debate. Fortunately we
used wireless Mics that could be attached to the participants clothes and were
hidden out of site.
We had some issues with the lights which made the white balance process
significantly more difficult, one of the reasons it took so long to set up the TV
studio was due to the overexposure of light to certain cameras which interfered
with the quality of footage.
We made sure to do a number of sound checks before beginning the recording
process. Outside of some issues with the lighting setup the recording process
was a success.

Workflow and Time Management

We recorded the debate of the 5th of December. I told the team that we’d be
starting at around ten o’clock but unfortunately everyone was running late. I
spent fifteen minutes setting up the TV studio by myself. I positioned the
cameras, set up the lighting system, carried in the chair and a coffee table.
We were in a rush. I’d booked the TV studio from 10am-12.30pm. Another
group had booked the TV studio so we only had an hour and a half to record the
debate.
Eventually the team did arrive and they set up the rest of the TV studio by
plugging in the microphones, fixing the lighting setup and performing a few
sound checks.
It took us about 45 minutes to set up the TV studio and we began recording at
11.30am. The recording session only lasted about half an hour and we were
done by noon. We didn’t even have to put the equipment away because the
other team was going to use it.
Despite our small numbers the team worked very efficiently, having a few floor
managers on board meant that communication between the TV studio and the
control room was now far easier.
The editing phase was fairly quick, it only took me three days to edit and get the
approval of the team to upload the final product.

Production Management
I was in charge of the team so that involved me organising team meetings and
finalising the date we would be recording. I also had to get outside help in order
to get participants for the debate and people to help out as crew members.
I created some storyboards that created the overall layout of the debate. I also
wrote a brief script that Tiernan could use to remember specific debate
questions and to stay on topic, but for the most part the debate consisted of
natural dialogue that was unscripted.
I was also director and switchboard manager, which meant that I was in direct
contact with the two floor managers and camera operators. It was my job to
oversee the entire recording and to create it to my liking.
If I were to do it again I would have gotten Emer to work as the switchboard
manager in order to free me of some responsibility. It would also give me the
time required to create some comprehensive notes during the recording session.

Team Working
We had a few team meetings prior to the recording session to finalise some
ideas for the final project. We agreed upon filming a debate based around
Movies and Television. It was made a lot easier by the fact that we didn’t need
to write out a script for the debate. We discussed some minor technical issues
such as sound and we settled on using wireless microphones instead of the
shotgun mic we had used previously.
As I’ve stated above, many people from our team were absent during the
recording session and almost all of them were late on the day. I admit was
quite disappointed and anxious over this, manly because we only had an hour
and a half to record the entire debate so we couldn’t afford anything going
wrong.
Despite our small numbers the team was quite efficient. A lot of time was saved
in setting up the TV studio because we decided not to use a green screen.
However we did have some issue with the lighting setup and the team was very
helpful in fixing the problem.
We did a few sound checks and soon bean recording. The team performed at
their best and they were ultimately quite efficient, especially since the recoding
session only lasted half an hour.
What I would have done differently is get a better lighting setup to prevent the
problem of over exposure. I would have also gotten Emer to work as the
switchboard manager and I would have gotten someone else to do the editing
since I’ve been an editor in all three of the projects.
Despite being late for the recording session the team worked very efficiently and
in a professional manner. Without them I would have never finished this final
project.