This is a great, thought provoking post. I like how you set the framing and lighting on these. And while I agree that we need to experiment with our effects, I’m not sure I agree with the Comic effect here.

Some of the “prettiest” screencasts I’ve seen are from BeeDocs, the makers of the gorgeous Mac timeline tool. They choose natural settings and make great use of lights, cuts, and sound effects. You can see them at http://www.beedocs.com/movies/ The 101 and What’s New videos in particular are well done.

I’m experimenting with more green screen effects because I believe it’s important for listeners to “see” the speaker. It allows you to establish rapport–and no, I don’t mean in a little cutout windows. You can see an example at http://macscreencasting.com/green-screen-video-in-screencasts.html Your eyes and smile convey a sense of trust and compassion; they make you real.

The downside, as you expressed in your own personal fears, is that it can turn viewers off if we’re not one of the “pretty people.” I’ve shared with others that I think it’s a trade off. Will some people be turned away? Perhaps. But, so what? Let ‘em go. Others will immediately identify with you. I’ve had more than one person say, “I feel like I can trust you.” That more than makes up for those that might be put-off by looks.

The challenge for all of us is the trade-off on production time. I know your 5-minute tutorial took A LOT longer than 5 minutes to produce :-) We’ll have to determine when it warrants an entire day to plan, shoot, and edit a screencast. Maybe that’s for another post.

In the meantime, great job and you gave me lots to think about. Thanks.

Scott

Like everything else it’s priorities, I guess – what really needs the full treatment vs. what you can live with as a polished piece of crap. If there’s a question in this I’d ask if there’s some guidelines or shortcuts that could be applied to every production (regardless of time pressure) so at least the polish is at a high gloss?

I think that especially for the non-technically inclined (your group of secretaries) this type of presentation would be especially helpful. The amount of production involved would be substantially more than a few slides so you have to think of your audience and return of investment Is this for two or three people? Slides + personal help would be more efficient. Hundreds or even dozens? High quality production would be a better use of your time.

I think the mindset we need to enter isn’t just “use these techniques to make your screencast or slideshow better” but instead get us to think about our topic and the BEST way to portray that information. Slideshows and old fashioned screencasts just don’t move info into brain very well.

How well do you think some of these techniques and approaches work across an Enterprise? I’m concerned that some of this may not work so well when you’re trying to explain to a group of secretaries how the new purchasing tool works.

I’m also curious about applying this to a screencast composed entirely of PPT slides – at a certain point there’s not a ton you can do to perk up 20 slides on the new benefits package.

Thanks for this post – it’s given me a lot to think about.

PS I’m a historian by training – to say I don’t know a single thing about film making is being generous.

Hi Brooks:

Thanks for your note. Intriguing concept and refreshing approach to what many fail to see as an art, so it’s exciting to see you plow new ground and show capabilities.

To your question:

• Break the copy into bullet points when possible. Easier to read.
• Great opening with the moving text, but music overrode your narration. Easily addressed.
• Speed up the video when viewers don’t have to see every dot. We get the idea and are busy people.
• Include two or three variations as examples of the final product even though you don’t create them while we watch.
• Include a brief “Most Common Mistake to Avoid” if there is one. Often there’s one thing, when not done properly, that brings the project to a stop.
• Add humanity by including yourself on camera in a meaningful way, showing something significant = Viewer benefit.

Seriously though, this is great and would really like to know how you did it!

The keyboard shortcuts are admittedly experimental. I believe the arguments you level against them (I don’t need to know where the “s” key is) effectively undercut graphical overlays or stills as well. The position I take is I’m trying to think of this whole screencast as though I was filming it with a real world camera. In that scenario I’d probably pull back or cut to the keyboard shortcuts to “show” what was being done rather than just relying on the audio. If I had real world camera footage of the presenter I’d probably cut away to medium shots of the subject several times to add visual interest, help viewers connect to the presenter and reinforce esoteric ideas that aren’t clear from the screen video or audio. The larger point is you shouldn’t be afraid to use cutaways as an additive / enhancement for your story and since we’re talking about video that means the opportunity to use b-roll footage.

Yes, this is the rendering I was tweeting about. I ended up doing four, six hour renders to look at the pan & scan / lighting footage. I tried previewing it with Dynamic Link, but it was dropping almost all of the frames. We’ll see though, there could be other workflow optimizations I uncover the next time I start experimenting.

Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree that the underlying principles of lighting, framing, proportion, camera movement, pace, and storytelling apply regardless of the subject matter and medium.

If I had any quibbles, I guess they’d be that the jump cuts (e.g., 3:27 and 3:43) detracted from the experience for me as someone who is unfamiliar with the After Effects interface. I think smooth camera movement would have been a preferable way to change camera angles while maintaining continuity.

Also, I remain unconvinced that the keyboard cutaways really add anything to the experience. I found them a bit jarring and disproportionately prominent relative to the amount of benefit derived. I’ve thought a bit about whether to blame the execution or the concept, but I think it’s the latter. So I’ll toss a question back to you: what contribution does this cutaway make beyond aesthetics?

I don’t need really help finding the “v” key on my keyboard. :-) So is it teaching me a new keyboard shortcut? Helping me better comprehend and track with you?

I think by cutting away from the screen to show the action in isolation you lose the mental association between the keypress and the tool change. So if the benefit is to teach or reinforce a useful hotkey, might there be some way to show both things simultaneously and thereby strengthen the association in the viewer’s mind?

Thanks again for posting; this is good stuff to consider and discuss!

-Daniel

P.S. – Was your earlier tweet about a 6-hour render in reference to this screencast?