Storyboard & Animatic

Proof required

Submit your storyboard document (minimum 20 panels) as a PDF or image set with camera direction notes and timing annotations. Include a 150-word written rationale explaining three key visual storytelling decisions.

What gets checked

• Panels show clear shot progression with camera angle, movement direction, and framing marked on each
• Timing annotations are specific — in seconds or frame counts, not vague descriptors like 'slow' or 'fast'
• Written rationale explains visual storytelling decisions in terms of how they serve the brief

Common mistakes

• Panels describe story events in words rather than visualising them — text-heavy with minimal actual drawing
• No timing information present — the storyboard cannot be used to build a timed animatic

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm storyboard has minimum 20 panels with camera directions and timing marks on each
• Verify the written rationale cites the brief and explains visual decisions in terms of narrative purpose
• Check timing annotations are specific — seconds or frames, not vague descriptors

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your exported animatic video (minimum 30 seconds) with audio synced to picture. Include a 100-word production note describing the key pacing decisions you made and how the animatic differs from your original storyboard plan.

What gets checked

• Animatic is a complete playable video with audio — not a slideshow of static panels at uniform duration
• Audio is present, synced to picture, and contributes meaningfully to pacing decisions
• Production note demonstrates that timing is deliberate — the student articulates why cuts happen when they do

Common mistakes

• All panels display at the same duration with no pacing variation — timing has not been considered
• Audio is absent or not synced — the relationship between sound and picture has not been explored

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm animatic is a video file with playable audio — not a static slideshow or PDF
• Verify pacing variation is present — panels are not all displayed at identical duration
• Check production note explains timing decisions in terms of the brief's narrative intent

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: (1) review session documentation — reviewer name and professional role, date, 200+ words summarising specific feedback and challenges posed; (2) your written response explaining which changes you made and why. If the review identified critical problems, include a revised animatic alongside the original.

What gets checked

• Review document names the reviewer with their professional role or credential — not just 'my tutor'
• Feedback summary captures specific technical or narrative challenges with scene-level references
• Student response articulates reasoning behind each change — or a principled case for not changing

Common mistakes

• Review summary is general praise with no specific scene-level feedback documented
• Student treated the session as approval rather than critique — no specific challenges or responses noted

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm reviewer name and professional role are stated — not just 'my tutor' or 'a friend'
• Verify feedback summary contains scene-specific or timing-specific challenges, not general impressions
• Check student response to each challenge is principled — either explains what changed or why no change was made
• Confirm the review was live (in-person or video call) and is documented with a date

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.