Final Summary

(Clickable learning outcomes throughout this post will transfer to a reference list at the bottom)

This post reflects on the successes and failures of the project in detail using my original learning outcomes as signposts.

Our group aim was to manage the process of creating five film soundtracks collectively, and deliver these soundtracks to a good standard and to the client’s specifications. We succeeded in this without any doubt – All of our clients were happy with the work we presented (feedback is available from all of them to this effect), the soundtracks are diverse and of good quality, work synergistically with the pictures, are produced to recognisable technical standards and follow client directions and specifications discerned throughout the project. This evidence also speaks to the achievement of learning outcomes GR3, GR4 and GR5 – all of our clients praised our professionalism on set in their feedback and several noted the quality of music or specific aspects of their film’s audio, and I believe our work in all the distinct audio areas of the films we’ve made is more or less up to scratch.

Only one film slightly lets down the artifact we have delivered in terms of audio quality, and this can largely be put down to the inexperience of the directorial team in choosing horrendously noisy locations and in ignoring our advice about these during recces etc. Beyond this, the raw location audio (which most of us had a hand in at one time or another on set) was also technically flawed in some areas, leading to some issues with dialogue takes in post which couldn’t be rectified to our satisfaction. The film was a dog from the word go, but we did everything in our power to rectify it’s audio problems and if any mistake was made this resides in taking the job in the first place, since there were misgivings from several sides about the script and team.

Addressing group outcomes GR1 and GR2 which are concerned with the internal processes and acting as a company might – I believe we have successfully collaborated as realistically as possible in the sense of a company or partnership in this academic context. Weekly production meetings, a centralised google calendar which was kept up to date with room bookings and workflow plans throughout, supervisors for each film reporting weekly and then daily on their responsibilities and requesting more resources as and when they require them are all testament to this fact.

As a part of the above, I believe I have also fulfilled my more specific research learning outcomes PER1 and PER2, which required me to develop a better understanding of the pros and cons of business structures, processes, regulations and agreements which might enable film audio producers to collaborate on multiple projects and the wording and content of contracts, rates and rate cards offered in the film audio field. We’ve also variously researched and applied many of the fundamental aspects of running a business, with my own focus being on furthering my understanding of the complexities of agreements, contracts and IP in a complicated partnership situation, as well as the more practical aspects of collecting consistent and useful client feedback and structuring data in a way accessible for others who may have to use it – in this last there is much to be learnt from the organisation techniques used in game audio.

The collective process was not without it’s drawbacks however. The administrative burden of managing multiple productions is much greater, and any issue can become a deluge of reorganisation very quickly indeed. The decision to appoint a supervisor for each film also had unexpected ramifications in two ways – the first was the tendency for supervisors to end up isolated with the preproduction ideas and planning processes, which we dealt with through an extra round of regular meetings to read through scripts and collectively input ideas, as well as involving as many of the group as possible in meetings with production teams. The second was the personal investment in what came to be seen as *their* film on the part of some supervisors, which meant that the supervisors tended to want to do the ‘credited’ jobs (such as the dub mix) themselves. Reflecting here, it would have perhaps been more realistic to appoint specialisms on the basis of our research roles within industry, and require that those specialisms fulfill a certain percentage of the work on x number of films within that specialism – for example, I only mixed Descent and some of Remember, to truly represent a dub mixer specialism in my work here I feel I should really have completed at least two full mixes.

Nonetheless, I can certainly say I have fulfilled learning outcome PER4 which required me to contribute extensively to multiple film productions. My contribution – encompassing preproduction input into all of the films, location work on three of them, and significant post production work on Descent, Immort and Remember as well as the ever present administration, ancillary support and meetings – should be evidence enough of this. This blog also provides ample evidence of the management process for Descent, which was arguably the smoothest of all the films until the later post-production phase which required some relatively minor remixing, allowing me to claim learning outcome IN1 as fulfilled. Improvements I would make here were mainly technical – mono mix on location – and, as usual, I would have liked to have had a hand in co-composing the music for the film, but there simply wasn’t time.

The final three learning outcomes IN2, IN3 and PER3 deal with my wish to expand my understanding of techniques deployed in similar works and I have succeeded to my satisfaction in two of these. In learning about and practising mixing to R128 standard I have expanded my knowledge of dub mixing in the post industry, and I have already referred to my contribution to the artifact in that role. My work on the sound design of Immort (street scene and some of the specialist spot FX) and the research which underpin these are evidence of me bettering my understanding of sci-fi sound design.

It is only in PER3 that I would have liked to have done more work. Whilst the study of the film Hannibal is relevant and represents a partial fulfillment of the criteria here, I have had the film Shutter Island sitting next to my DVD player for three months, unwatched. I had intended to draw influence for Descent from this film and present a similar comparative study to that of Hannibal but was unable to find an opportunity to sit down and watch the film.

In final analysis, the intention of the Omni-Gaffer project was to enable us to complete more work more effectively this term and we were fully aware that this would present it’s own unique set of challenges and requirements which I believe we have overcome and fulfilled. I think it’s fair to say the project was successful and justified, since it would not have been possible for this group of students to complete these films – the best part of one hour’s worth of diverse and complex picture – to the standard we have presented whilst working seperately or in smaller groups in my view, but that the extra group size was slightly more useful in the early pre-production and production stages for ideas and spreading the labour intensive production process more evenly, and towards the end as feedback and critical listening became important to drive better quality.

So, for Omni-Gaffer productions it just remains to say thanks for a great degree course and goodnight.

Final Pic

———– 1000 words

 ——– Learning outcomes, for reference ,


Group Aim

To manage the process of creating the above soundtracks collectively, and to deliver these soundtracks to a good standard and to the client’s specifications.

Group Objectives

  • [GR1] To professionally operate as a small to medium size company (or other recognisable business entity) in the audio production / post-production field might.
  • [GR2] To organise and fulfil an operating strategy and schedule which deals with multiple productions simultaneously, and which maximises efficiency and minimises issues or risks to delivery.
  • [GR3] To provide a professional standard of service in respect to location sound recording and post-sound design / mixing.
  • [GR4] To conceive, compose, source and / or produce music to client specifications that synergistically supports the other components of their films.
  • [GR5] To produce soundtracks comprising of foley, SFX, dialogue, music and atmospheres to client specifications that synergistically support the other components of their films.

Outcomes and Learning in the context of Moving Picture Industry roles

  • [IN1] To successfully manage the provision of service by the business for the film Descent with regard the assignment of resources, specialisms and working time, liason with the director, editor and producer on a practical and creative level, and communication of information on their needs and requirements for the piece, in order to appraise the efficacy of the collaborative approach to working on the piece – (Supervisor and Company Officer)
  • [IN2] To develop a better understanding of the craft and industry of a Dubbing Mixer, and to contribute to the dub mixing required for presentation of the artifact – (Dubbing Mixer)
  • [IN3] To better my understanding of sound design with at least some reference to the science fiction genre – (Sound Effects Editor)

Personal Learning Outcomes

  • [PER1]  To develop a better understanding of the pros and cons of business structures, processes, regulations and agreements which might enable film audio producers to collaborate on multiple projects.
  • [PER2] To develop a better understanding of the wording and content of contracts, agreements and rate cards offered in the film audio field.
  •  [PER3] To expand my knowledge of the theory of and audio techniques deployed in films similar to or influential upon those we will deliver.
  • [PER4] To contribute extensively to multiple film productions.

 

 

P + P – DESCENT – Footsteps, foley and less is more

(Outcomes – IN3 + GR5)

This is a quick blog describing how a small piece of advice can make a big difference.

Whilst I was working on the footsteps for the first kitchen scene in Descent, Ronnie Fowler stuck his head into the sound theatre. I was moaning about the job at the time, and he pointed out that there’s no need to slavishly detail scenes with incidentals like footsteps, and that doing so can actually be distracting. He suggested using fewer sounds, and concentrating on establishing movement or augmenting actions only, in the time-honoured fashion of less being more, echoing the advice of Wyatt and Amyes who point out that ‘Often in foley, less is more and lots of foley tracks running together can seem chaotic. The foley editor’s skill is in achieving a high degree of naturalism whilst focusing attention on those sounds that are actually important.‘ (Audio Post Production for Television and Film, 2004). [IN3]

An example of this principle at work is the first thirty seconds of this clip from Battlestar Galactica’s 2006 reboot –

Whilst you might at first argue that deciding what’s realistic in the context of science fiction might be somewhat complicated, Battlestar Galactica draws stylistic influence from gritty WW2 films such as Das Boot. Practically speaking, the central character’s feet are ruthlessly dropped in and out as required and are in no way consistent across a scene which is generally very busy in the audio dimension whilst other characters are given no audio presence at all as they pass the camera, and everything is subordinated to the dialogue regardless of the level of activity elsewhere in shot. [IN3]

Taking inspiration from this example and the advice referred to above, I revisited the foley edits for Descent and minimised my use of incidental foley wherever possible with much improved results. [GR5]

————————— 300 Words

Key Points

Advice and research into better implementation of foley FX – Research

  • [IN3] To better my understanding of sound design with at least some reference to the science fiction genre – (Sound Effects Editor)
  • [GR5] To produce soundtracks comprising of foley, SFX, dialogue, music and atmospheres to client specifications that synergistically support the other components of their films.

RESEARCH – Intellectual Property + Omni-Gaffer

(Addresses outcomes – GR1, GR2, PER1)

Approaching the work as a larger group this term requires us to consider the potential real-world management of such activity. As such, I will briefly discuss our decisions for splitting up of credit in the context of Omni-Gaffer Productions (which I cover in more detail in my post about contracts here) provide an overview of some issues with intellectual property we’ve researched, and discuss the possible business structures we might use to enable our work.

Five parties constitute Omni-Gaffer Productions, and it’s the agreement between these five parties to work together on the film projects at hand which really brings that business into being. Obviously, no money is changing hands for the work, but credit will be due for work in the academic context and it’s this which drove us to formalise our collaboration in this way. We hoped that doing so would enable us to carry out more ambitious work (by providing more comprehensive services to a larger number of films this term), in that researching and operating something akin to a formal business structure would go some way to breaking down a situation we’ve identified at university as something akin to silo mentality found in corporate literature:

Silo mentality is an attitude found in some organizations that occurs when several departments or groups do not want to share information or knowledge with other individuals in the same company. A silo mentality reduces efficiency…‘ (investopedia.co.uk – emphasis in original) [GR1 + GR2]

In the case of creative work at university, it is more the sharing of labour (rather than knowledge specifically, though the latter tends to follow) which is avoided because students do not see the value of collaborating outside of their small groups within the context of their own disciplines, usually because they believe they will receive no formal academic credit for doing so and, obversely, are often hostile to the implicit idea that others will be unfairly rewarded for work they themselves have not carried out. As such, we were interested in making sure formal rewards would be shared between the parties to the Omni-Gaffer Productions workload in the hope that this would incentivise closer collaboration and increase our efficiency as a team.

I have tended to break the work on the five films we’ve carried out into two categories – Services and Creative. Examples of services would be location audio, dub mixing, foley and editing, where creative would be compositional work. The key distinction between these is whether or not they entail the creation of intellectual property, such as the composition of a new musical work for the use of the film, and this creation of intellectual property problematises the situation we’ve developed somewhat when we transcribe it to the real world.

Basic first principles of intellectual property: ‘Intellectual property is something unique that you physically create. An idea alone is not intellectual property. For example, an idea for a book doesn’t count, but the words you’ve written do.’ and at the point a person creates, a copyright is also created- ‘Copyright protects your work and stops others from using it without your permission. You get copyright protection automatically…‘ (www.gov.uk).

With regards to music specifically, this gives rise to the potential for two types of renumeration for works in the form of mechanical and performance royalties. Mechanical royalties are payable on the copying or reproduction of a song or work, where performance royalties become payable when the work is aired in public, such as on television or the radio. These royalties are relevant to the university project because they can provide a longer tail of income (unlike services for which payment would generally be rendered upon completion) which should be properly accounted for if the collective has been involved in the production of the intellectual property (such as several songwriters collaborating on a song) as a future stream of income, and because the rights governing their use must be established in the specific context of each film and Omni-Gaffer Productions, and between the individual composer or composers and the collective body that is Omni-Gaffer Productions. [PER1]

I deal with these latter two specific agreements in another post, and will here concentrate on research carried out on the specifics of intellectual property as it relates to production by students in the context of a university course.

There was initially some question as to whether IP created by students would be controlled by the university, given the university’s role as facilitator and the argument that creation of IP is often facilitated by use of the university’s equipment, giving it as an entity some claim to proceeds generated from IP’s. We were referred to the university’s policy on  student IP which states ‘The University of Lincoln acknowledges that its students own the IP in materials that they create in the course of their studies with the University unless there is a written agreement to the contrary.’  but that …’Students enrolled with the University may be required to assign their IP to the University in a number of circumstances which will require them to complete and sign a Student Intellectual Property Rights Agreement.’  (University of Lincoln)

Furthermore, the wider policy on intellectual property states that ‘The product of work carried out with the benefit of the University environment (including facilities, resources, expertise and intellectual assets) constitutes Intellectual Property that should be owned, protected and used by the University for the benefit of the University specifically and for the benefit of society more generally.‘ (University of Lincoln).

Whilst this seems to be a case of the students retaining IP unless they sign it away, there is a conflict evident between the general policy claim and the student policy claim where IP can be considered the product of work carried out utilising university facilities and advice, and where ambiguity exists it’s usually a good idea to seek advice, which I did.

Barry Turner is a senior lecturer with a specialism in media law who, upon consultation, pointed out that these matters are ultimately rooted in the laws protecting consumers in the UK. He referred me to the Competition and Markets Authorities Guidance for Higher Educational Institutions, and in particular page 48:

“…In general, HE providers will not have an automatic statutory claim to intellectual property (IP) generated by students given that they are not employees, but many HE providers do set out rules about IP ownership in their IP policy/terms and conditions. Undergraduate students can generate significant IP products, for example in creative sectors this could include designs, artworks and writings.

5.33 A term that has the object or effect of changing the ownership of IPRs from the position that would exist under the general law is potentially unfair. Where IPRs are created by a student during their time studying and they would belong to them under the general law, the starting position should be that they retain the IPRs.

5.34 A blanket term that applies so that all students’ IPRs (for example, all written work, creations, inventions and discoveries) are assigned by students to the HE provider, regardless of the circumstances of study or the type of course, may be open to challenge as unfair under unfair terms legislation.

 The key distinction is between an employee and a consumer, though there is also a further question as the ability of the university to compel a student to sign away these rights which I will digress from tackling here, but sufficed to say LSM student IP’s have significant protection under law. [PER1]
 ———————————————— 1200 Words

KEY POINTS – 

How and why OG exists – Professional practice

  • [GR1] To professionally operate as a small to medium size company (or other recognisable business entity) in the audio production / post-production field might.
  • [GR2] To organise and fulfil an operating strategy and schedule which deals with multiple productions simultaneously, and which maximises efficiency and minimises issues or risks to delivery.

Details of intellectual property situation at university and relevant laws – Research

  • [PER1]  To develop a better understanding of the pros and cons of business structures, processes, regulations and agreements which might enable film audio producers to collaborate on multiple projects.

 

P + P – Final Progress Report – April

(Outcomes – GR2,5 + IN1)

This will be the final situation update for this project, taking place after our final review of the work in progress for all of the films that comprise the artifact. The date of this entry is one week prior to our deadline, so any other pertinent information on the actual carrying out of the project will be included in my final summary.

We have received picture locks for all the films except Immort throughout the early part of April. All of these have, naturally, then been broken by the various editors and directors in charge to a greater or lesser degree after we have started work on the fine audio work, mostly due to a lack of understanding of the import of the word ‘lock’ on the part of student filmmakers.

Descent and Sour Puss are nearing the final mix stage, with foley, dialogue, music and SFX all largely complete. We estimate these films will require another 12 hours of work between them to complete.

Remember has fallen behind schedule due to poor practice on the part of it’s editor complicating our dialogue edit. We estimate another 15 or 20 hours of work will be required here.

Feel Good is still technically incomplete because the production team have failed to factor production of the montage sequences they’d slated throughout into their timeline, but it’s supervisor assures us we will be handing in the version slated to arrive at end of play today or, failing this, the one we have already been working on regardless of further changes to picture. This will require a further 15 hours of working time.

Having seen it’s ambitious plan for the ‘real-life’ aspects of the film largely stymmied, pressure on the visual FX team working on Immort appears to have increased. This has caused an extension to be required to the production, but we are still required to deliver the film with audio complete on the 5th, in time for it’s premiere. In addition, the repeatedly delayed VFX cut of the film is now promised to us on Monday the 2nd May – 4 days prior to our own hand-in date. This is not ideal, but the supervisor of the film is confident it can still be delivered since much of the work on the film (such as scoring, dialogue and foley editing) is complete. We’ve collectively agreed that this is the concrete outer limit of what we consider achievable, and that we will be required to hand in the version without VFX we’ve already largely compelted if this final deadline moves any further. It is difficult to estimate how much time the film will need, since the VFX could make the current audio obsolete, but we’re prepared to commit a further 8 hours if necessary (the film is relatively short). [GR2]

My contribution has largely been made to Descent since it’s pictures began to arrive, with some extra sound design work for Immort based on the concept art for the as-yet-incomplete VFX and basic atmosphere work for Remember also taking up some creative time. Foley editing of Descent has proven quite complex, as the mix of production audio and foley I’ve settled on is difficult to achieve the correct balance of in terms of the environments depicted. The dialogue edit (which was largely handled by another member of the group) also suffered from unpleasant room effects (despite being of good quality), and required a large amount of treating and balancing to complete. [GR5 + IN1]

Time spent on admin has noticably dropped off this month but has essentially been replaced with internal quality control meetings driven by the interminable watching of the different edits as they’ve come in and the transfer of sessions and data around different facilities, and the changes to ostensibly locked pictures have also lost us extra time resyncing audio. Elsewhere, the cancelling of our facilities bookings have also continued to reverberate, with us having to stake-out the Sound Theatre three days of each week and second guess the movements of other students in an effort to find extra time for foley, VO recordings and sync work.

Reflecting on the situation presented here, we’ve been reasonably fortunate that only one film has been significantly delayed in production and even then in a way which has enabled us to work on it regardless, but the final week sees us in a position just shy of the required number of facilities hours we need to complete and mix the films, a situation which could become severely problematic if further issues arise from Immort’s incomplete state.

The process of collaboration and feeding back amongst the group during the post phase in April has been very useful to everybody, not least in my case with Descent – This film has been an exemplary example of the collaborative effort we undertook in post, with dialogue edit, music construction and foley / SFX all benefiting from a significant collective contribution which has then been brought together, finessed and is just about ready for mix. I have learnt however that this process is similarly time consuming and that it effectively takes the place of the administrative work from the earlier part of the process, though I believe it is just as critical for achieving our desired outcomes.

In the sense of effective collaboration the project has undoubtedly been a success, with five films now largely complete to a much better standard than we could have managed as individuals. [GR2]

—————————-

KEY POINTS – 

Overview of situation with a week to deadline, and plans moving forward. – Process Management
[GR2] To organise and fulfil an operating strategy and schedule which deals with multiple productions simultaneously, and which maximises efficiency and minimises issues or risks to delivery.

Breakdown of work carried out in April so far – Contribution
[GR5] To produce soundtracks comprising of foley, SFX, dialogue, music and atmospheres to client specifications that synergistically support the other components of their films.
[IN1] To successfully manage the provision of service by the business for the film Descent with regard the assignment of resources, specialisms and working time, liason with the director, editor and producer on a practical and creative level, and communication of information on their needs and requirements for the piece in order to appraise the efficacy of the collaborative approach to working on the piece – (Supervisor and Company Officer)

Reflections on the process – Individual Reflection
[GR2] To organise and fulfil an operating strategy and schedule which deals with multiple productions simultaneously, and which maximises efficiency and minimises issues or risks to delivery.

P + P – Progress Report – March

(Outcomes – GR1, 2, 3, 4 + IN1 + PER4)

With completion of our final shooting day on Thursday 24th March, production has now wrapped on all of the five films we’re working on, and even with two shoots substantially over-running their initial dates and requiring numerous reshoots we are currently on track for picture-locks for all of the films more or less on time – all of them are scheduled for today, basically. We have also made  inroads into some substantial aspects of post production for three of the films over the last few weeks, mainly due to a policy of consistently badgering editors for work in progress cuts of the work which have enabled the members of the team not tied up with location work to make a head start on post-production. The team have also been extremely effectively covering one another for location work, with boom ops and supervisors operating interchangably based on who’s available on any given day. [GR1,2,3]

Amusingly, in terms of our expectations vs the reality of production, the most outwardly-organised group of film-makers with the most ambitious ideas in pre-production have ended up being the most heavily behind schedule, whilst the production team with whom we had a horrendously complex experience last semester that caused their project to overrun by some months (and from whom we half-expected issues this term) ran an extremely efficient shoot which completed without need to recourse to their contingency day and without any significant issues whatsoever. [IN1]

Composition is as good as complete for one picture and underway for two others, with work in progress scratch-tracks having been demoed to the relevant supervisors and the rest of the team for feedback purposes in all those cases. Supervisors have remained in close contact with both directors and editors (in some cases these are the same person) for the films they’re managing, and we are now beginning a process of adapting the initial audio plans for our films to the reality of the pictures as they arrive. [GR1,2]

The sci-fi leaning films are the best examples of this process. Since it is extremely difficult to realise a convincing sci-fi vision with little experience or budget, the two films with sci-fi themes have tended to underplay the futuristic elements visually a little. This leaves more room for the audio to do the work of signifying and world-building, but also requires a deft directorial stance not to allow the audio to undermine the visuals where these haven’t quite matched the director’s initial vision. The picture must always dictate the audio and even if the director’s original vision for a scene was much more interesting from a sound design perspective it’s necessary to rein in the largesse at times. [GR4]

In terms of my own contribution, I’ve been on-set for three of the five films including managing the entire location audio operation and subsequent transfers and admin for Descent, have contributed considerably to sound design and foley aspects of Immort and Feel Good, such as they are completed at the moment. As we’ve got into the momentum of production with the crews, administrative requirements for the project have thankfully slackened off somewhat. [PER4]

My hours spent on the project for March have broken down roughly as follows, not including academic aspects such as blogs or research –

March Total = 101
Admin – 16
Meets – 7
Location – 52
Creative Work – 24.5
Other – 1.5

Our main issue this month has been facilities, as mooted in February’s report. In order to alleviate the pressure on our favoured workspace our institution took the insane decision to cancel 12 of our 38 booked sessions and drastically shorten another 8. This destroyed our post-production schedule at a stroke, and created a veritable storm of admin in planning and rebooking work. We tried to rationalise this into real world terms as if some kind of technical catastrophe had befallen the facility, but practically we have lost any hint of a margin for error on the part of any of the films and experienced another ballooning of administrative time for the project as a consequence. [GR1,2]

The main impact of this complication in terms of the team was morale, since most of us were flat-out on set with little time to think about the ramifications or spend time replanning our post work for the films. As the situation here is now somewhat fluid (it is impossible to say whether the Sound Theatre will actually be available to use for two days of each week until we get to the day), we are setting our work priorities on a week by week basis, with desired outcomes for each film set at the production meeting at the beginning of said week. We’re confident we can manage the films as long as they remain on schedule which, at the present time, largely appears likely.

In the interest of staying ahead of the game the priority for each supervisor going forward is now to decide who will be performing the final mixing of each of their films and where this person will be performing said mix, and then setting a deadline for it’s completion, the latter preferably in confluence with the director of their film. Aside from the benefit of a solid deadline, this will enable a process of centralisation of the data from aspects of audio production for each film which is now being split across multiple people in different environments (our composers are tending to work at home, for example) which will hopefully avoid too many data management and compatibility issues as the aspects of the films come together. [GR1, 2]

——————————————– 950 words

KEY POINTS – 

Overview of situation generally for the project and specifically for the film Descent –Professional practice, Process Management.

  • [GR1] To professionally operate as a small to medium size company (or other recognisable business entity) in the audio production / post-production field might.
  • [GR2] To organise and fulfil an operating strategy and schedule which deals with multiple productions simultaneously, and which maximises efficiency and minimises issues or risks to delivery.
  • [IN1] To successfully manage the provision of service by the business for the film Descent with regard the assignment of resources, specialisms and working time, liason with the director, editor and producer on a practical and creative level, and communication of information on their needs and requirements for the piece, in order to appraise the efficacy of the collaborative approach to working on the piece – (Supervisor and Company Officer)

Breakdown of work carried out in March Contribution

  • [GR3] To provide a professional standard of service in respect to location sound recording and post-sound design / mixing.
  • [GR4] To conceive, compose, source and / or produce music to client specifications that synergistically supports the other components of their films.

Collective creative process – Process Management

  • [GR1] To professionally operate as a small to medium size company (or other recognisable business entity) in the audio production / post-production field might.
  • [GR2] To organise and fulfil an operating strategy and schedule which deals with multiple productions simultaneously, and which maximises efficiency and minimises issues or risks to delivery.

Contribution specifics Contribution

  • [PER4] To contribute extensively to multiple film productions.


Reflection on process of adapting audio plans and outcome of facilities issues– Individual reflection on learning and team role