The Assignment:
- Collaborative Documentary Making Assignment- (From the class website) “For this project, you will work collaboratively in a group of 2 and produce an 8 to 10
minutes of documentary film. Aligned with our course theme, the topic I have
chosen for this project is—emerging new media and shifting literacy practices.”
In other words, we were given the assignment to plan, film, edit, and generally produce an 8 to 10 minute documentary film. We were expected to talk about the topics discussed in
the classroom, generally the expansion of the meaning of literacy and literacy
practices within existing pedagogical frameworks.
Our production process was supposed to be inspired by Barry Hampe’s instructional book Making Documentary Films and Videos. This book explained, through mostly anecdotal examples, the methods to utilize to successfully create and distribute a well-constructed documentary film.
Production Process:
1. Topic Brainstorming
a. Once given the assignment, our group, consisting of classmates Megan Tierney, Fowzia Sharmeen, and Jesse Gray, sat down and thought of various topics that would be interesting enough to become the focus of the documentary.
b. After deciding on a topic, there was a number of E-mail and communications that led to the drafting of this file outlining all of the steps needed to get the project going. Including:
i. Individuals to interview
ii. Shots needed
iii. Visual Evidence needed (See Hampe)
iv. Materials (from the Creative Media Studio)
v. Possible film titles
2. Filming
a. First camera malfunction
i. When it came to finally filming, we learned quickly that the Creative Media Studio had an equipment waitlist of at least 10 days. In order to record a meeting of the AEME (Archive of Early Middle English) Research Group, we used a camera that Fowzia had at home. The camera worked fine, and we were able to get many useful shots of Dr. Scott Kleinman assisting his students in their coding, as well as shots of the students participating in independently led work.
ii. This camera utilized the somewhat aged recording technology of MiniDisc, and while it worked well in filming and recording, the medium was unable to function with our newer computers. As a result we were unable to find any way to use the footage we captured, functionally losing a few days of work. It did not finish properly so the footage could not be extracted.
b. Second camera
i. Our second camera was from the Creative Media Studio after the aforesaid 10 day waitlist. Unlike the camera before, this one used and SD card and so was fully transferrable to our computers for usage within our film.
ii. Shots filmed (Chronological order):
1. Interview with Assistant Professor Danielle Spratt in her office on campus.
2. Interview with masters students Liz H. and Lily T. on campus.
3. Interview with Dr. Scott Kleinman in his office on campus.
c. Third camera
i. In order to record footage of another AEME meeting, occuring every fortnight, we borrowed a camera owned by the 4 Humanities club chapter. We received the camera about ten minutes before the start of the meeting only to learn that whoever had used the camera last had misplaced the charging cord and neglected to recharge the battery. As a result, we were unable to obtain any usable footage of any AEME meeting.
Post-Production
1. After gathering our primary footage we made a list of the other shots still needed, including b-roll of the CSUN campus, as well as screen caps of digital visual evidence needed. This list can be found here.
a. Some of the visual evidence - actual pictures of the Bodleian Laud Misc. 108, one of the primary texts used in one of the projects mentioned in the footage - was unable to be found since the website where the image files are stored has not online for whatever reason.
2. In order to attempt to allow all members of the group to be able to participate in the post-production and and editing process, we searched for a free-to-use video editing software that was comparable to iMovie and able to be ran on a PC. Eventually, we just decided to use the iMovie program on Megan’s Mac, meaning that we could only work on the project when we were all together, which really wasn’t all that bad.
Some software we attempted to utilize were:
a. Free Video Editor - Link
i. Pros:
1. Free
2. Trimmed clips without compression.
ii. Cons:
1. Only trimmed one clip at a time, requiring the user to start a new file each time they wanted to trim another clip.
b. Avidemux - Link
i. Pros:
1. Free.
ii. Cons:
1. Very hard to use.
2. Very difficult to extract the audio from the video for editing reasons.
c. Windows Movie Maker - Link
i. Pros:
1. Free.
ii. Cons:
1. Hard to use.
2. Unable to insert pictures. Required the user to split the audio and the video, and leaving it up to the user to find the correct spot to sync the audio with the unclipped video (an arduous, rarely successful ordeal).
d. iMovie - Link
i. Pros:
1. Comes installed on most Mac computers, in campus labs and personal alike.
ii. Cons:
1. Doesn’t work on PCs.
2. Difficult to use on iPads.
e. EzVid (Screen capture software) - Link
i. Pros:
1. Easy to use and effective
2. Free
ii. Cons:
1. Forced the user to record screen captures only with pre-loaded music playing at the same time. No setting for silent recording
3. In addition to having difficulties in finding a reasonable editing software, we also had issues with finding a method to share our individual work with each other. One suggestion was to use the website Box due to its ease of use and large offered storage size. We opted to just use Google Drive though, due to Box not functioning correctly for one member of our group. Google Drive functioned well, the only issue was the time it took to upload and download the clips from the cloud, though this would be an issue with any cloud software. A better way to deal with this problem, perhaps, would have been to just use USB memory drives, yet method would have also prevented any sort of independent work.
Lessons Learned for Future Documentary Filmmaking
1. Camera
a. In order to avoid the issues we had with faulty and unavailable equipment, we would have to make absolutely sure that we have a camera available that also has a battery and the capability to have its memory transferred to our personal computers for editing.
2. Filming
a. Relative to everything else that happened to go wrong with our project, the actual filming of people went out problem-free. Of course, having a battery or working camera while recording would have been nice, but the clips that we were able to use were successful.
b. Considering the B-roll, or lack thereof, it would be smart perhaps to have an entire day of someone filming B-roll of the campus and other related places.
3. Editing and Post-Production
a. In the future, we would attempt to avoid this sort of experimenting with various free programs, losing time hoping to find one that meets all of our needs. We may then instead work only in labs, or places on campus that have Macs that have iMovie installed, and share our progress or work on a cloud website like Box, or Google Drive.
Project Explanation
The film itself came out of our interviews with students and professors about the effects that the growing field of Digital Humanities and its place within the college classroom. Originally, our topic had more to do with the differences between classes that were ran in the more traditional method of concentrating non-digital written texts and the classes that are attempting to broaden that model into utilizing digital texts more often. But after starting to film, we found that the people that we interviewed were talking more about Digital Humanities based class projects, and this interested us enough to make it the central focus of the film. Our hope was for the film to function less as an argument for Digital Humanities as a superior method of teaching, but more as an endorsement of the field as a point of interest and potential for future classroom models.
In order to show the potentiality in Digital Humanities based learning projects, we decided to show interview with professors who conduct their classes this way, as well as students that have experience in these sorts of classes. Given more time and larger resources we would have discussed more of the sort of interdisciplinary aspects of Digital Humanities, as well as explore in more detail the projects that are being done in these sorts of classes, including the AEME digital translations that Fowzia and Jesse were a part of in the Fall 2014 semester with Dr. Kleinman.
Overall, we have the hopes that this film will peak the viewers interest or curiosity about the future of Digital Humanities. All while, encouraging future engagement with topics peripheral and central to the expanding realm of Humanities within the classroom.
- Collaborative Documentary Making Assignment- (From the class website) “For this project, you will work collaboratively in a group of 2 and produce an 8 to 10
minutes of documentary film. Aligned with our course theme, the topic I have
chosen for this project is—emerging new media and shifting literacy practices.”
In other words, we were given the assignment to plan, film, edit, and generally produce an 8 to 10 minute documentary film. We were expected to talk about the topics discussed in
the classroom, generally the expansion of the meaning of literacy and literacy
practices within existing pedagogical frameworks.
Our production process was supposed to be inspired by Barry Hampe’s instructional book Making Documentary Films and Videos. This book explained, through mostly anecdotal examples, the methods to utilize to successfully create and distribute a well-constructed documentary film.
Production Process:
1. Topic Brainstorming
a. Once given the assignment, our group, consisting of classmates Megan Tierney, Fowzia Sharmeen, and Jesse Gray, sat down and thought of various topics that would be interesting enough to become the focus of the documentary.
b. After deciding on a topic, there was a number of E-mail and communications that led to the drafting of this file outlining all of the steps needed to get the project going. Including:
i. Individuals to interview
ii. Shots needed
iii. Visual Evidence needed (See Hampe)
iv. Materials (from the Creative Media Studio)
v. Possible film titles
2. Filming
a. First camera malfunction
i. When it came to finally filming, we learned quickly that the Creative Media Studio had an equipment waitlist of at least 10 days. In order to record a meeting of the AEME (Archive of Early Middle English) Research Group, we used a camera that Fowzia had at home. The camera worked fine, and we were able to get many useful shots of Dr. Scott Kleinman assisting his students in their coding, as well as shots of the students participating in independently led work.
ii. This camera utilized the somewhat aged recording technology of MiniDisc, and while it worked well in filming and recording, the medium was unable to function with our newer computers. As a result we were unable to find any way to use the footage we captured, functionally losing a few days of work. It did not finish properly so the footage could not be extracted.
b. Second camera
i. Our second camera was from the Creative Media Studio after the aforesaid 10 day waitlist. Unlike the camera before, this one used and SD card and so was fully transferrable to our computers for usage within our film.
ii. Shots filmed (Chronological order):
1. Interview with Assistant Professor Danielle Spratt in her office on campus.
2. Interview with masters students Liz H. and Lily T. on campus.
3. Interview with Dr. Scott Kleinman in his office on campus.
c. Third camera
i. In order to record footage of another AEME meeting, occuring every fortnight, we borrowed a camera owned by the 4 Humanities club chapter. We received the camera about ten minutes before the start of the meeting only to learn that whoever had used the camera last had misplaced the charging cord and neglected to recharge the battery. As a result, we were unable to obtain any usable footage of any AEME meeting.
Post-Production
1. After gathering our primary footage we made a list of the other shots still needed, including b-roll of the CSUN campus, as well as screen caps of digital visual evidence needed. This list can be found here.
a. Some of the visual evidence - actual pictures of the Bodleian Laud Misc. 108, one of the primary texts used in one of the projects mentioned in the footage - was unable to be found since the website where the image files are stored has not online for whatever reason.
2. In order to attempt to allow all members of the group to be able to participate in the post-production and and editing process, we searched for a free-to-use video editing software that was comparable to iMovie and able to be ran on a PC. Eventually, we just decided to use the iMovie program on Megan’s Mac, meaning that we could only work on the project when we were all together, which really wasn’t all that bad.
Some software we attempted to utilize were:
a. Free Video Editor - Link
i. Pros:
1. Free
2. Trimmed clips without compression.
ii. Cons:
1. Only trimmed one clip at a time, requiring the user to start a new file each time they wanted to trim another clip.
b. Avidemux - Link
i. Pros:
1. Free.
ii. Cons:
1. Very hard to use.
2. Very difficult to extract the audio from the video for editing reasons.
c. Windows Movie Maker - Link
i. Pros:
1. Free.
ii. Cons:
1. Hard to use.
2. Unable to insert pictures. Required the user to split the audio and the video, and leaving it up to the user to find the correct spot to sync the audio with the unclipped video (an arduous, rarely successful ordeal).
d. iMovie - Link
i. Pros:
1. Comes installed on most Mac computers, in campus labs and personal alike.
ii. Cons:
1. Doesn’t work on PCs.
2. Difficult to use on iPads.
e. EzVid (Screen capture software) - Link
i. Pros:
1. Easy to use and effective
2. Free
ii. Cons:
1. Forced the user to record screen captures only with pre-loaded music playing at the same time. No setting for silent recording
3. In addition to having difficulties in finding a reasonable editing software, we also had issues with finding a method to share our individual work with each other. One suggestion was to use the website Box due to its ease of use and large offered storage size. We opted to just use Google Drive though, due to Box not functioning correctly for one member of our group. Google Drive functioned well, the only issue was the time it took to upload and download the clips from the cloud, though this would be an issue with any cloud software. A better way to deal with this problem, perhaps, would have been to just use USB memory drives, yet method would have also prevented any sort of independent work.
Lessons Learned for Future Documentary Filmmaking
1. Camera
a. In order to avoid the issues we had with faulty and unavailable equipment, we would have to make absolutely sure that we have a camera available that also has a battery and the capability to have its memory transferred to our personal computers for editing.
2. Filming
a. Relative to everything else that happened to go wrong with our project, the actual filming of people went out problem-free. Of course, having a battery or working camera while recording would have been nice, but the clips that we were able to use were successful.
b. Considering the B-roll, or lack thereof, it would be smart perhaps to have an entire day of someone filming B-roll of the campus and other related places.
3. Editing and Post-Production
a. In the future, we would attempt to avoid this sort of experimenting with various free programs, losing time hoping to find one that meets all of our needs. We may then instead work only in labs, or places on campus that have Macs that have iMovie installed, and share our progress or work on a cloud website like Box, or Google Drive.
Project Explanation
The film itself came out of our interviews with students and professors about the effects that the growing field of Digital Humanities and its place within the college classroom. Originally, our topic had more to do with the differences between classes that were ran in the more traditional method of concentrating non-digital written texts and the classes that are attempting to broaden that model into utilizing digital texts more often. But after starting to film, we found that the people that we interviewed were talking more about Digital Humanities based class projects, and this interested us enough to make it the central focus of the film. Our hope was for the film to function less as an argument for Digital Humanities as a superior method of teaching, but more as an endorsement of the field as a point of interest and potential for future classroom models.
In order to show the potentiality in Digital Humanities based learning projects, we decided to show interview with professors who conduct their classes this way, as well as students that have experience in these sorts of classes. Given more time and larger resources we would have discussed more of the sort of interdisciplinary aspects of Digital Humanities, as well as explore in more detail the projects that are being done in these sorts of classes, including the AEME digital translations that Fowzia and Jesse were a part of in the Fall 2014 semester with Dr. Kleinman.
Overall, we have the hopes that this film will peak the viewers interest or curiosity about the future of Digital Humanities. All while, encouraging future engagement with topics peripheral and central to the expanding realm of Humanities within the classroom.