Week 3

Exercise:

This weeks exercise was to critique some videos explaining concepts.
Specifically we were asked to:
- give our first impression
- explain if we could understand the concept
- what questions does the video raise
- what could the video do better
- what did the video do well
- how well was the video made? (quality of video + audio, and were things shown well)

First video, Brisbane Parkfinder:

The first impression of this video is that its boring, mostly consisting of just a man talking in front of the camera, with occasional simple visual aids that do not provide much interest.
The concept was simple to understand, and explained fairly well. The concept could be better explained by getting to the point rapidly, which the presenter did not do.
The video does not raise many questions, covering most of the information it is intended to present.
The video could be improved by having a better speaker, and showing more interesting scenery (for example, showing shots of the the parks they are talking about), and possibly having some background music.
The video did well in the camera work, having a good steady shot with the presenter well placed in the shot. The video also did fairly well in covering the relevant information without digressing too much.
Audio quality of this video is not great, with a constant wind sound in the background and birds making noise. The video quality is decent and stable.

Second video, PadMapper Explainer:

The first impression here is good, with lots of interesting information and visuals being introduced at a rate that is not overwhelming, but still keeps the viewer constantly interested.
The concept is explained well, with the videos visuals clearly demonstrating the explanations given by the voice over.

The video could be improved by showing a real world interface (or mockup of an interface) to better show the viewer the concept.
The video did well keeping the viewer interested, using eye catching and engaging visuals, and having a good pacing on the voice over which kept to an excellent rate which did not overwhelm viewers.
The video was well made, with good visual and audio quality, with no background noise, although there were occasional words that were hard to understand.

Third video, Pegasus:

This video is somewhat confusing, with no real explanation as to what is happening. The first impression suggests that the concept is some sort of board game, but no further explanation is given throughout the video. The entire video consists of what appears to be a game being played out, but after the first few seconds of this, the video becomes very boring and repetitive to watch, especially without knowing the rules of the game being played.
The video produces questions as to the rules of the game.
The video would be greatly improved if it explained at least the basic concepts of the game being played at some point, and would be even better if it explained what is going on throghout the game being played. (E.G. on screen text pointnig out what moves have been made. (White tile captures black section for example)).
The video does well providing a detailed and visually engaging graphic of the game being played, despite overusing it.
The audio and visual quality of the video is good, although given the entirely animated and unvoiced nature of the video this is to be expected.

Fourth video, ember light:

This video has a good first impression, rapidly drawing the viewer in with an interesting explanation of what the product does, showcasing what the product can do for viewers before going on to explain the more technical details.
The concept is explained well, with the visuals of the videos showing how the product would be used in real life.
The video could be improved by showing more how the interface for controlling the product would work, and possibly by interleaving the technical explanations and the showcasing of the product with one another, to prevent viewers getting disinterested with the info dump in the second half of the video.
The video does a good job of showcasing the product and explaining is use in every day life, showing very real situations which viewers would empathise with.
The video is of very good quality, with excellent audio and video. Shots are well framed, highlighting the important aspects of each frame, and the voice over and speakers voices are clear and without interference.

Prototype thoughts:

Having seen some examples of concept videos, I have gained some ideas on how to go about making my own video. I plan to use a method similar to the PadMapper video, using graphics and a voiceover to explain the concept (although I plan to use physical effects rather than animation). I think that creating the video this way will best explain the concept in an interesting way, and will prevent me simply creating a boring 'sit in front of a camera and talk' type of video.