The wrap-up at the end was a good inclusion, as were the shots that included graphic arrows to indicate the location of light anomalies – thought by many to be one of the forms in which spirits physically manifest themselves. There was a suspicious shadow, as well, that appears behind Dr. Hawkins at one point during the night, and was supposedly not caused by any of the crew members. However, this wrap-up was a bit anti-climactic, as the replay of this particular shadow was shown several times in the midst of the actual investigation, and was not initially identified as being a replay. In this case, it would probably be better to save this particular phenomenon for the final wrap-up, rather than put it in the middle of the investigation.
In addition, in preparing for the investigation, the crew set up still cameras in several rooms of the house to capture any movement that might occur, but these were never referenced again. Even if there was no paranormal activity recorded, there ought to be mention made of this fact, at the end of the film.
Visual Look
The nighttime investigation made good use of night-vision cameras. Not only do these add to the ambiance and overall eerie feel of a ghost hunt, but also they allow for capture of light anomalies and other phenomena that might not otherwise be captured on film. Unfortunately, night vision cameras can be difficult to focus and sometimes the quality is lacking, but it is still certainly the right choice in any type of paranormal documentary.
Good use was also made of filters and curved lenses, in order to increase the overall eerie feeling for the audience. Occasional off-color and twisted perspective shots strategically placed throughout the documentary, created a great effect.
However, there were quite a few visual issues in this film. The most glaringly obvious are the shots of the mansion taken with the narrator, as nearly all of them are out of focus. They seem just slightly blurry, as if the lens of the camera is not quite clean, or that in the low light of the building, a wider aperture was needed, which resulted in a very shallow depth of field. Video cameras – even digital ones – operate on the same type of scale as still cameras. The amount a lens is opened is denoted by an f-stop number. The smaller the number, the larger the opening (i.e. a lens set to f/2 is opened wider than one set to f/5.6). However, the lower the f-stop, the shallower the camera’s depth of field will be. In other words, to let more light into the camera, there is less information that will be in focus on the image. Many of the images shot inside the mansion appear to be shot without supplemental lighting, which would mean that the camera would have to overcompensate, resulting in an out of focus shot.
While some of the interview shots were slightly better lit, some still looked slightly out of focus, and one was over-lit, resulting in a washout effect on the interviewee’s face. It looked as though the shot was the result of too much natural light coming into the room. This can easily be fixed, by some sort of diffusion. Professional diffusers can be purchased, but the same effect can be easily achieved by hanging sheets across the window in question. The natural light needs to be toned down a bit, but can still be used as a key light, and then reflected back with a white card or some other sort of reflector on the opposite side of the subject as a fill light.
The importance of proper lighting – even in a documentary – cannot be understated. Read MFM's information on putting together a low-budget light kit as well as our tips on how to light on a shoestring budget.
