Use of Audio
Some of the audio (particularly the interviews) was recorded using a lavaliere mic; other audio was recorded with the on-board camera mic. Again, the onboard camera mic is one that is best relegated to family events, and has no place in the realm of microcinema filmmaking. The problem with using both an external and the on-board mic is that you end up getting two completely different qualities of sound because the mics are of different quality. Such was the case here. Most of the interviews are fine, because they were recorded with the lavs; but a lot of the other (e.g. non-interview) audio is harsher and sounds more tinny and echo-y. I found myself constantly adjusting the volume during the film. While there isn’t much that can be done about this after the fact (besides mixing your audio so it’s all at the same volume), an ounce of prevention in the future will definitely save hours of frustration afterwards: invest in a good shotgun mic. A decent Sennheiser shotgun mic can be had for between $250-$350, but will more than make up for its value in future projects. (For specifics on shotgun mics and other great audio tips, check out our “Audio Tips That Every Filmmaker Needs” article.) While this is best used with a boom pole, for documentary shoots where there is no space or personnel for this, a slightly raised shotgun mount can be attached to the XL1 to get the mic closer to your interview subjects.
For best results, scan in photos,
and import them for editing...
...and try to avoid covering up
footage with graphics.
Use of Budget
At $1,700, this film was right on target for its budget.
Lasting Appeal
While this film is informative, its visual and structural problems are distracting, and as a result, they detract from the potential “learning power” of this film. Because of this, in its current state, I would not be interested in watching this film again, nor would I show it to others. However, if some of the improvements were made, I’d definitely give it another go.
Overall Comment
As a former teacher and someone who’s had a longtime involvement with Shriner’s Children’s hospital, I’ve had an interest in autism and other learning disorders for many years. And while The Story of Luke offers a lot of good information, its problems ultimately diminish much of its potency. The interviews end up looking awkward because the people are looking right into the camera, and the voice-over is un-engaging. The shaky camerawork, uneven framing, and constantly-shifting focus are all extremely distracting to the audience. While the audio in the interviews is not bad, the overall quality in the film is uneven, and, for future films, could be improved by avoiding the on-camera mic in favor of a good-quality external one. While the budget was modest and on-target, most of the film’s problems would not have been solved with more money. For this film to achieve the potential I see in it, it would take some work, including planning, re-shooting, and redubbing. But I believe that it is possible, and I would be very interested to see what it looks like when it’s done. It is very encouraging to see microcinema filmmakers helping to increase awareness of autism; keep up the great work!
A
powerhouse in management, Kari
Ann Morgan successfully produced a feature length film before
coming to work at Microfilmmaker as Assistant Editor. In addition
to writing for the magazine, she's been successfully working with
various distributors to get microfilmmakers the chance for theatrical
distribution.
