Production Process Research

Welcome to the production process research stage, this is where you will find all research that informs how I’m going to produce my idea. This includes areas such as the techniques I’ll need to use to produce it. Within this, there will be both primary and secondary research, secondary research for understanding the techniques, and primary research to apply what I have learnt.

To begin this research stage, I am going to be expanding upon the content convention research I have looked at in the content research stage. Specifically, looking into the conventional techniques used to produce a documentary interview. This is a vital aspect of my production and will be where I can get all of the emotion and sympathy from the audience. I will first be looking into the camera positioning of a documentary interview.

Conventional Interview Techniques

Camera

There are many different ways in which the camera can be positioned for a documentary. All of these ‘styles’ have a different effect, so it’s important that the right one is chosen. I will be looking into these different styles so that I can understand more about the choices I have, and which one would be most appropriate for me. The styles I will be looking at are from a Youtuber named Mark Bone, who is a documentary filmmaker has worked along side large production companies – he knows what hes talking about. Therefore, the names of these styles, may not be what everyone calls them, but it does explain what they do.

Normal

The interviewer and interviewee sit face to face, like they are having a normal conversation, but the camera is positioned slightly off centre, so that one side of the face is showing more than the other. This is the most conventional and traditional way of filmmaking. We see all of the interviewee’s facial expressions and because we are able to see their eyes, are able to connect with them, but because they are not addressing the audience directly, the audience still feel as if they are sort of ‘observing’ what’s being said. Furthermore, the positioning of the subject on frame is off centre – their shoulder should crossing the middle line of the frame.

Interrotron

Opposingly, the interrotron method gets the interviewee to look directly down the lens. This method allows the audience to feel included within the conversation, meaning it creates much more of an intimate connection with the audience. This technique is executed in the industry using special hardware that mirrors a video screen of the interviewer infront of the camera. This way, the interviewee does not have to look down the abyss of a camera lens, and instead feels comfortable looking at someone speaking to them, when actually, they are in fact looking down the lens. On a budget, it is possible to get them to look down the lens, but this does require some skill as it can be awkward to do.

Conversational

The conversational style is as it sounds, it’s shot so that it looks and feels like a conversation between two people. It’s best if there are two cameras that are available so that they can cross shoot, capturing both people’s reactions and responses, but if there is only one camera, ‘noddys’ may need to be implemented. This is where the filmmaker asks both the people pretend to nod/seem interested in a conversation after the conversation has actually taken place. This allows the editor to cut it in whenever they need, allowing the audience to assume there were two cameras all along. To add to this, extra shots of hands or other movements may be recorder after to add visual interest to the piece. This style is definitely more scripted, due to its reshooting style.

Host + Standard

This is very similar to the ‘normal’ technique in the sense that the interviewee is looking just off to the camera, with their body being positioned on one side of the frame more so than the other. However, this style does not hide the fact that this interview is an actual conversation happening with an interviewer: the interviewer is captured too. An array of different shots can be used, ranging from the conversational cross over shots of two cameras on each subject, wide shots of the two subject together, and even over shoulder the shots from the interviewer too. This is great for a documentary where the filmmaker plays a role in the subject being discussed or has a relationship with the interviewee.

Host + Conversation

This includes the idea that the interviewer is on screen too, but it’s a lot more causal and relaxed in the sense that its not so scripted. These types of interviews can be done anywhere, and consist of the interviewer asking questions on the go as the conversation flows – they control the conversation. There is often only one camera in this style as it gives it a much more raw and fly-on-the-wall feel, we as audience are simply observing the conversation taking place.

A style of ‘host + conversation’ is known as ‘in the moment’. This is where the interviewee and interviewer are actively doing something as they speak. It feels very much like a casual conversation allowing for a very natural vibe.

Voiceover

The last technique is to not show the interviewer at all and to only use audio. This technique is great because it allows the filmmaker to produce engaging b-roll that relates to what’s being said. However, it does come with the downside that it doesn’t feel as personal. If we don’t see the interviewee speaking, how are we meant to emotionally react to it. This is all subject to the content of the piece and the b-roll used.

As I have been able to explore, there are plenty of different ways in which you can interview someone. The has held my understanding and allow me to come to a decision on the technique I am going to use to interview my interviewees. What I have noticed throughout these different interview styles is that many of them overlap, sharing common qualities amongst them. Therefore, I think it would be appropriate to make use of two different techniques. The first technique I would like to use is the 'normal' technique. This technique is the most conventional, and would love to expand my skills in producing a perfectly conventional and effectively engaging interview shot. Therefore, I will will look into how you light shot style of shot very soon.

This shot will be the main shot I use for the interviewees questions, however I do think that I could also ask the questions to them again in a more casual setting, perhaps when they are doing something they like - more of an in the moment style.

In real time, I would ask these questions to them first, as despite knowing the questions before I get to them, it helps remind and ease them into the filming process. It can be quite daunting having a camera stuck in your face and being asked questions, so this allows them to feel comfortable doing something they like. Furthermore, I am more like to get a better answer from them the second time round because they have already thought about what they are going to say.

My appearance in the documentary

As the filmmaker and interviewer, it's my role to ask engaging questions, capture their responses and continue the conversation, if necessary, in order to gain the best response. The next step of the process is to understand whether I should be seen in the documentary or not.

I’ve been able to explore the different conventional camera techniques used in documentaries, and found that nearly half of them include the filmmaker being a part of the documentary. The effect that this has is that we are able to observe the relationship being made between the interviewer and interviewee on screen. It kind of feels like a film in the sense that we are watching two people talking. However, there is another way in which the filmmaker can be a part of the documentary too – talking directly to the audience. A great example of this is in Exploration Volcano (BBC, 2022). In the context of the documentary, Christopher Horsley, the filmmaker, is exploring volcanoes with a crew when all a sudden he is prompted to wear a gas mask as gas levels are rising. Everyone starts to run away from the area as the gas levels are getting too high. As the crew are running away, the camera cuts from Christopher’s POV to a shot of his face. This close up of his face directs the audience’s attention to him, showing that he is talking directly to them. In this camera shot, we can a personal, intimate relationship where we as an audience are able to hear only what Christopher is saying. This camera shot can be seen below.

In addition to his face, what we can also see is the camera he is holding. This documentary is created in a way that makes the audience fully aware this is being recorded by a crew. Given the context of the documentary, this makes it feel a lot more real and nerve-wracking to watch, because we understand that it is not staged – anything could happen.

Despite the capabilities it has to be a part of the documentary, I don't feel as if it would be appropriate for mine because I have to think about why I am creating it; I am creating it to represent those with misophonia, and give them a platform to spread the word about it. I don't feel as if my appearance within the doc would add much to the engagement factor of the piece. I would much rather have the audience solely invested with the people on screen than me, the interviewer.

Though I decided against the idea of including me, it was definelty worth looking into it as this has helped broaden my knowledge and understanding of documentary filmmaking further. Furthermore, it also helps to ensure myself that I am making the correct, informed decision.

Lighting

The basic, conventional technique used to light an interview is called ‘three point lighting’. As the name suggests, this involves using three different lights to light a subject. I have demonstrated how the 3 lights effect the subject in the drawing below, so please refer to this when I discuss where they come from.

The first light is what is known as the ‘key light’ – this light is the brightest out of them all and is situated on the side of the far side of the frame (right side in the example below). It acts as the main light casting onto the subject and essentially allows the audience to see them. If this were to be the only light on, the subject would have a distinct light and dark side of their face, with the nose prominently casting a shadow. This is of course all subject to the diffusion of the key light, but I will look into that momentarily. Furthermore, the reason as to why its positioned on the far side of the frame is because this is the way the subject is looking. Light directs and attracts out attention, so by positioning the brightest light onto the front of the subjects face, we are drawn to look at them. This creates engagement and makes it feel like the subject is connecting with us through the screen.

The second light is called the ‘fill light’. This light fills in the area of the subject that was not caught by the key light. This light is very dependent on the context of the production: if the filmmaker is after a moody, serious shot, having a very low fill light, or no fill light at all, may be necessary to keep that harsh shadow line on the subject’s face. Opposingly, if the documentary is more upbeat, this fill light would be brighter. It’s important to note that the key light should always be the brightest light as this is the way the subject is facing.

Lastly, the third light is called the ‘back light’. This light adds depth, separating the subject from the background. This, once again, helps to draw the audiences eyes towards the subject, adding emphasis on them.

Depending on the light source being used, the light can often be far too harsh on the subject and not be giving the look the filmmaker is after. There are 3 different ways that a filmmaker can manipulate this light to have an effect on the subject: use of flags, use of nets, and use of diffusion.

To start off, flags are essentially sheets of material that can be used to block light completely. Multiple flags can be used at the same time to cut the light’s path and create a stylistic lighting element on the subject. For example, flags could be used to focus the light only on the eye of the subject, forcing the audience’s attention towards the eye. Light has the power to direct the eye, so it’s important to remember that it’s not all about adding light, it can be about stylistically removing it too. These flags work very similarly to the idea of barn doors on the lights in theatre stages.

Secondly, nets can be used to cut light, but only to a percentage degree (not fully as this would be the same as a flag). The material used is literally like a normal netting, and depending on how tight the netting is, will depend on how much light is let through. These can be used to decrease the light values on the subject if they are too bright. This is a little outdated as the use of LEDs an the ability to change brightness is more commonly known, but it shouldn’t be forgotten about that practical techniques exist too.

Lastly, diffusion, depending on the material, will possibly cut more light, similar to the nets, as well as making the light much softer. When I discuss the term ‘softer’ I not only mean the literally light being dispersed more evenly across the face, I also refer to the shadow that this light creates. When the light is softer, so is the shadow – the nose shadow is less defined, allowing for a more gradual gradient from one side of the face to the other. This can be much more pleasing to the idea, but must be remembered that it’s all determined by the context of the piece – a serious drama would not have light that is massively diffused because they want the light contrast to be more dramatic.

These 3 techniques to control light play a huge impact on the visual qualities of the image and mood it creates too. In particular, I think diffusion would be something really interesting to look at further as throughout my formative units before this one, I have always wanted a softer look. I think in the right scenarios, it would be really beneficial for me to learn more about this to help inform my practical elements in this documentary.

Continuing with looking into diffusion, the hardness and shape of the shadow will also be effected by the distance that the light source is from the subject. The closer the light source, the more intense the light and shadow will be on the subject. Sometimes however, particularly when filming indoors, there may not be a lot of room to move the light source away. This is a great opportunity for diffusion techniques to be used: they can cut the light slightly (nets can be added if needed) and they diffuse the light more, stopping the shadow from being so harsh.

From a budgeting standpoint, Justus McCranie states that a bed sheet, or a shower curtain is a great budget technique to diffuse your light. I think this is something I will be looking to use because, firstly, I do not have any budget, and secondly, I think that after looking into this research, diffusion is an important technique that will make my documentary look and feel a lot more professional.

A three point lighting set up, with the use of a diffusion on the key light, and additional tungsten lighting in the background can be seen below. This is something I admire and aim to produce.

Sound

Audio is an underrated and often forgotten part of filmmaking. Documentaries are all about the stories that a person tells, meaning that if you can’t hear what they are saying, audience engagement is lost. As I am looking to record vocal sound in a sit down interview style, I will be specifically looking into this style of audio recording.

How to record sound for a sit down interview style

There are lots of different factors to keep in mind when recording sound, even when recording inside in a, what seems like, controlled environment. The most important and straightforward way to reduce background noise is to simply turn off any electricals/appliances creating the noise. Fans are often the loudest, so this is vital to turn off; if it is a hot day then cooling the room first before recording is a good technique to get around this.

Now that noisy, disruptive factors have been removed, a technique used to make the interview feel more realistic is to record the room tone. Room tone is simply the sound of the room as nothing happens in it. This can then be added over the top of the interview sound in post. Without room tone being recorded, the sound of a voice can often feel ‘too clean’ and unrealistic. Furthermore, it also fills in the gaps between their words so that it’s not completely silent.

Another factor that has an effect on the quality of the sound being recorded is reverb and echo. Reverb and echo is caused by the room that the sound is being recorded in. Depending on the material of the walls and floors, and how full the room is of objects, the sound may feel echoey and unsettling to hear. A popular use for absorption materials is in the music industry. When artists record their voices, they go into small booths that are filled with acoustic panels on the walls, ensuring for the most crisp and responsive sound of their voice. In terms of a documentary interview, as interviews are not always going to be in an acoustic panel filled room, there are special, budget friendly options that can help. A great technique is to place lots of thick blankets around on the floors to help dampen the sounds. This is a cheap, easy and effective method of increasing the quality of sound being recorded.

Furthermore, another factor is how close the microphone is to the subject, with the additional factor of its orientational rotation too. The closer the microphone to the interviewee, the better the quality of the audio. This doesn’t apply when the mic is within 30 centimetres of the interviewee because this would cause peaking and may even pick up breathing – which is not ideal and is uncomfortable to hear. Breathing, in relation to my project would be even worse because it is a common misophonia trigger.

Returning to the term 'peaking' that I used, ‘Clipping’ or ‘peaking’ the audio is when the audio waves reach the top of the waveform, peaking. When audio peaks, the audio can sound very distorted and not clear. Additionally, it is very loud and unsettling which is not ideal for an audience to hear. It’s important that this does not happen because this cannot be reversed. This can ruin a production's quality and professionalism and can break the relationship the audience has with the interviewee on screen.

In film, the mic cannot be seen as this breaks the fourth wall of the production, however, in a documentary, this is okay because the audience is aware that the people on screen are real and in some cases, directly speaking to them. This may be something that I think about for my production because ultimately, will it make a difference on the outcome and effectiveness of the interview.

Hardware

There are three main types of microphones available to documentary filmmakers. These are shotgun, handheld and lavalier microphones .

The shotgun microphone is a great choice for getting audio in a more busy/noisy environment: the microphone pick up pattern is uni-directional, meaning that it will only pick up sound directly infront of it. This is great for documentary filmmaking because it allows the filmmaker to capture only what the subject is saying, and not any unwanted noise surrounding them. The microphone pattern can be seen in the image below.

Due to the nature of these microphones, they have to be carefully positioned at all times in order to capture the correct sound, and to have it at a good quality too. This means that a boom operator is needed. The boom operator attaches the microphone to a long stick called a boom pole and holds it in the air, above the interviewee as they speak. They position and angle the microphone downwards (where the interviewee is speaking) in order to capture what is being said. The reason it is held up high is so that the microphone is as near to interviewee as possible without getting in the shot.

Handheld microphones are typically used for a more ‘run and gun’ style of documentary filmmaking, where the filmmaker does not have time to set up and prepare shots, but they instead have to quickly hit record. These microphones will have the cardioid pattern, meaning that they will pick up mostly from the front, slightly less from the sides, and none below. This still gives the microphone a sense of direction, but allows for a broader pick up range.

What I have been able to learn from here is that I think I should experiment into both the shotgun mics and lavalier mics as these would be most appropriate for my documentary. Additionally, it never hurts to record the same audio on two microphones, because if one microphone does something unexpected, I would always have the other one to resort to.

Harvard References

Websites

Maher, M. (2016). 9 Helpful Audio Tricks for Recording Documentary Interviews. [online] The Beat: A Blog by PremiumBeat. Available at: https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/9-helpful-audio-tricks-for-recording-documentary-interviews/.

Motion Array. (2019). 6 Tips to Improve Your Film’s Audio Recording and Quality. [online] Available at: https://motionarray.com/learn/filmmaking/film-audio-recording-tips/.

Izotope.com. (2021). The Basics of Room Tone in Audio Editing. [online] Available at: https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/basics-of-room-tone-audio-editing.html#:~:text=That%20is%20what%20room%20tone

www.buzzi.space. (n.d.). BuzziSpace. [online] Available at: https://www.buzzi.space/noise-reduction/acoustic-panels-basics.

Stray Angel Films (2014). Basic Cinematography: How To Light An Interview (3-Point Lighting Tutorial). YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLlMl2KuZi0.

‌ academy.tomorrowsfilmmakers.com. (n.d.). Tomorrow’s Filmmakers. [online] Available at: https://academy.tomorrowsfilmmakers.com.

‌

Bone, M. (2022). Every Interview Style Explained (A documentary masterclass). [online] www.youtube.com. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E5DkR87SwI.

‌ Desktop-Documentaries.com. (n.d.). Different Types of Microphones. [online] Available at: https://www.desktop-documentaries.com/different-types-of-microphones.html.

‌ This is the Epidemic Sound blog | Epidemic Sound. (2021). Your Guide to Lavalier Microphones | Epidemic Sound. [online] Available at: https://www.epidemicsound.com/blog/a-guide-to-lavalier-microphones/#:~:text=Lavalier%20microphones%20have%20either%20cardioid

‌ Amazon (2023). Amazon.co.uk: Low Prices in Electronics, Books, Sports Equipment & more. [online] Amazon.co.uk. Available at: https://www.amazon.co.uk.

‌ www.thomann.de. (n.d.). Sennheiser EW 112P G4 A1-Band. [online] Available at: https://www.thomann.de/gb/sennheiser_ew_112p_g4_a1_band.htm?glp=1&gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIyafBluDOhAMVRBiiAx1fKg4lEAQYAiABEgLyQfD_BwE

‌ Pro Audio Systems. (n.d.). Audio Technica AE6100 Hypercardioid Dynamic Handheld Microphone. [online] Available at: https://proaudiosystems.co.uk/product/audio-technica-ae6100-hypercardioid-dynamic-handheld-microphone/

Films

Exploration Volcano. (2022). [Documentary ].

‌

Practical research - Camera, Lighting and Sound

Using what I have learnt so far throughout my production process research page, I have decided that it would be best to do some practical work. As I am making a documentary, with which I am basing it around interviews, this practical work will help to inform producing a professional looking interview. I will be using all three areas of technique that I have looked at so far, including camera, lighting and sound.

Although it seems a little backwards, the end result of this research can be seen below…

Now that you have seen the end result, I will be breaking it down into the three 3 different areas, discussing the choices I made and why I made them.

I will first be discussing my use of camera positioning and framing.

Camera Positioning and Framing

I decided to stick with a very conventional set up when it came to the camera work because I wanted to be able to create an effective, conventional frame. I think for the purpose of my documentary, this will be absolutely appropriate. The images below show two freeze fames of the shots I ended up framing.

I decided upon using a two camera set up because having the ability to cut to a close up shot to add dramatic effect is really powerful. Without being able to cut between the close up, I could lose upon great opportunities and engagement factors may be lost. Furthermore, it also gives visual interest to have two different shots to watch.

The image below shows my deconstruction of the master shot of the interview…

The first thing I would like to discuss is the placement of the subject within the frame. I positioned her conventionally so that the eye-line sits on the upper left intersection of the grid. The reason for doing this is that an audience’s eye naturally falls towards these 4 points. Furthermore, as humans, we relate and communicate with people through their faces, so its pleasing for the audiences eyes to naturally fall onto the interviewees face. As you may see, the placement of the eye is not perfectly on the upper left intersection, so this could be seen as a slight improvement to the composition.

What I was also thinking about during the composition of my interviewee was their shoulder and how it should be breaching over the centre line of the frame. This is to prevent it from feeling too one sided and making the frame feel unbalanced. This shoulder fits the width of the centre third perfectly, leaving the last third for the lower third…

The lower third is placed next to the subject so that it is not only easier to see, but it also balances the frame more, making it pleasing to see. As this does not sit on one of the intersections, it does not distract the viewer from watching, sitting pleasantly in the bottom corner of the screen.

Lastly, another factor I had to think about when composing my interview was the headspace. This comes with the eyeline, so it was just about ensuring the zoom scale was set appropriately to give the interviewee appropriate headspace. Headspace is important because it stops the interviewee from feeling too squished within the frame.

Something that could have been improved in this shot however is her eyeline. I intended upon making it seem like the interviewee was speaking to a interviewer behind the camera, but because the eyeline is so close to the camera lens, it still feels like she is addressing the audience directly. Additionally, because her eyeline is so close to the camera, she does directly look at it occasionally, which can be distracting and break the fourth wall, depending on the style of documentary.

To overcome this issue, one solution would be to stand slightly more camera right as I speak to and address her. This way, her eyeline would be more camera right, and be further from the camera lens. Another solution would be to literally move the camera to the left. This solution would have worked but does come with the side effect that the framing of the shot does change – we would see more camera left side of her face. The problem with this is that the angle difference between this and the other camera is not a lot, making it awkward, uncomfortable and awkward to watch.

Moving onto breaking the close up shot down, this was essentially just the same principles but getting a tighter, closer angle. I didn’t need to think too much about headspace in this shot however, as the point of it was that it was close to the subject, making every word said much more impactful. The same concept with the shoulder over the centre line applies in this too.

Although a very simple technique, shooting the shot at the same angle is very important. If I decided to shoot the shot from the other side, having the interviewee positioned on the right side of the frame, this would seem very jarring and uncomfortable to watch when cutting between them: it would not feel seamless – editing is meant to go unnoticed.

The shot breakdown can be seen below.

Harvard References

www.descript.com. (n.d.). Rule of thirds: Definition in film & 6 examples to master it. [online] Available at: https://www.descript.com/blog/article/rule-of-thirds#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20rule%20of%20thirds%20in%20filming%20interviews%3F

Lighting

As explored previously in my secondary research, lighting is a big aspect of documentary interview filmmaking: it can change and create a mood, and can make an interview go from looking basic to professional. I learnt a lot and refreshed my mind about lighting in the secondary research stage, so I have tried to bring as much as I could into here.

The aim I had when setting up these lights was to create a dramatic and serious looking interview. No matter the conversation topic, what ever said from the interviewee sat in that seat, with the right sound and editing, would be serious. To achieve this, I used three point lighting. The image below shows my set up for this shoot.

After positioning the lights, as they are LED lights, I then played around with the brightness percentages. I was able to learn in my secondary research of lighting that the key light should be 100% brightness (the brightest light), the fill light should be half of this, and the backlight at 20%. However, strangely, these lights did not make much of a difference between 30% and 100%. Therefore, with the fact that I wanted to create quite a dramatic and moody look, I only ended up putting the fill light on 1%. Even then, the light was still a bit too bright and harsh. What I would have done, if I had the resources, was uses a netting to cut a bit of the light out. Furthermore, used a bed sheet to diffuse the light too. However, because I did not have this, I had to be resourceful. What I ended up doing was using the barn doors on the light to block the amount of light reaching the interviewee. I am quite proud of my idea to do this, as I had used what I had learnt about flags and blocking light for creative effect. Proof of this can be seen in the image below.

A breakdown of the light and where it hits the subject can be seen below.

Green = Key light

Red = Fill light

Yellow = Back light

I am very happy with what I was able to do with the lighting, and though I think it could have been better with the use of diffusion materials, using what I had, I am very proud to say I did it. The lights hit where they were conventionally supposed to, as using the brightness percentages on the lights, I was able to effectively produce an image that reflect a mood I was going after.

Sound

For sound, I had 3 options: in my research I explored 3 different microphones all, when used appropriately, effective at capturing sound for a documentary. However, what I was able to conclude from that research was that the handheld microphone would not be suitable for the style of interview I want to achieve. In the situation I was in when deciding which microphone to use for this test, I thought about the practicality and ability of me using a shotgun mic, and decided against using this. This is because for these to capture the best sound, they have to be near to the interviewee, and for that to happen I would need a boom pole. It would be unsuitable and awkward for me to have to hold a boom pole, monitor sound and ask questions whilst engaging in a conversation with my interviewee. If I had a crew, someone to hold this boom pole for me, then I would be more inclined to consider it as a possibility.

Therefore, the last mic option I had was to use a lavalier mic, which I think will be absolutely perfect. Despite being sure that this microphone would be the best suited mic for my style of interview, it’s also important to have a backup: what if it suddenly stops working? The back up microphone I chose was the ‘Rode VideoMic Microphone’. An image can be seen below. This microphone has a super cardioid polar pattern. I explored what a cardioid pattern was before, but not a super one. After a quick search, I was able to find that a super cardioid ‘is a deviation from the cardioid polar pattern with an even tighter directionality’ (Cory Young, 2022). This is perfect, as the mic is attachable to the top of the camera and should suffice for capturing audio at a good quality in case the lavalier mics have any problems.

The best way to showcase the audio difference is through the videos below. I have removed the music for the purpose of making it clearer to hear the mic qualities.

The video on the left is with the lavalier mics and the video on the right is with the Rode mic.

Lavalier mic

Rode mic

It can definetly be heard that the lavalier mic sounds far better. There are three different factors that play into explaining why. The first is distance – the lavalier mic is much closer to the interviewee speaking, meaning there voice is a lot easier to be picked up by the mic. The second is the room – the room we were filming is was an open studio that was primarily very empty and had very hard surfaces. These surfaces caused reverb, meaning the sound being captured was not very crisp. The third is the microphone polaroid pattern – due to its distance and the room we were in, because the Rode microphone had a pattern that also captured a little bit of audio behind the microphone, it’s much easier to hear us behind camera.

Despite the negativity towards the Rode microphone, I think that if filmed in a smaller room that was far more filled with objects, particularly sound absorbing ones, it would be a very good back up microphone. The lavalier mic sounds very crisp and I will definitely be using this for FMP interviews.

Harvard References

Young, C. (2022). Microphone Polar Patterns - Everything You Need to Know. [online] Gear4music Blog. Available at: https://www.gear4music.com/blog/microphone-polar-patterns-everything-you-need-to-know/#:~:text=The%20supercardioid%20polar%20pattern%20is [Accessed 1 Mar. 2024].

Conclusion to Production Process Techniques

I am very happy with what I was able to achieve and learn within this research stage because it has been very useful in my understanding for how to create a conventional and professional looking documentary.

I think the end product that I was able to create in the practical section, through the use of my collected recorded components and a bit of editing and free music, was very successful. It actually makes me really excited for the opportunities this project gives me, and I am looking forward to speaking to some real interviewees! It was a great chance to refresh my practical skills, particularly after last unit’s work having no practical elements apart from postproduction I felt a little out of practice. Furthermore, I was able to use the skills I had learnt in the secondary research section to support this primary practical research, which showed very useful, especially the lighting techniques. Lighting is something I have always been afraid of and haven’t ever really been able to do very well, so getting the opportunity to use lighting within the project, and improve upon my skills with it was very good.