Category Archives: Reviews of Science Videos

I analyze my own and others’ science videos in order to better understand what makes a good (and bad) science video. We improve by constantly assessing our work and that of other practitioners. By identifying key criteria in science videos, I develop protocols that, if followed, will improve your science videography.

Science: It’s a Girl Thing! (or How To Send the Wrong Message)

Posted on by

Some of you may have heard of the European Commission’s recent blunder, which involved a public service announcement in the form of a slick video called “Science: It’s a Girl Thing!”  Although the intent was good (attracting more girls to consider science as a career), the implementation was awful.  The EC actually has a good YouTube channel with other videos showing real female scientists….doing science or talking about their experiences as scientists.

In this case, however, I’m guessing that they hired professionals who were more experienced in doing cosmetics commercials and really did not understand the EC’s campaign.  The video was a cross between a high fashion or cosmetics commercial (high heels, designer sunglasses, lipstick, and face powder) and a trailer for a TV show like Sex and the City.  The video was chock full of stereotypical images and seemed to send the message that women in science can still be beautiful, sexy fashionistas who love to be ogled by male scientists (it doesn’t indicate where that leaves us more ordinary-looking females).  There were no women in the video being shown actually doing science or talking about all the interesting reasons why one would want to choose science as a career.

The outcry from scientists and women resounded across the internet, and the EC pulled the video from YouTube within days of the video’s release.  Fortunately, some quick viewers had already downloaded the video and reposted it on YouTube.  You can take a look here:

My objective in showing this video is not to critique it, but to use it as a lead-in to the other videos that were made in reaction to this one by the EC.  Several enterprising and creative women produced a few interesting video responses that captured the overall outrage felt by many viewers.

Here is a sampling of my favorites:

This sampling shows a nice variety of approaches to rebutting the EC video and the stereotypes displayed therein.  The first one used an interview format in which a female scientist is asked for her opinion about the EC video.  The second one used an animation approach quite effectively to make its points.  In the third one, the creator used humor and sarcasm, which was delivered like a stand-up routine.  A fourth example was shot like a news media interview, with the reporter talking to a variety of women (and one man who clearly didn’t “get it”) about their reactions to the EC video.  The last example was fashioned after a music video and featured a group of female marine scientists on a research cruise.

Although none of these examples is as slick as the EC video, they are much more effective in getting across their message in a passionate, entertaining, or informative manner.

Science Video Review: Up Your Nose

Posted on by

Here’s a great video showing how a flu virus invades your body and replicates itself.

It’s informative but interesting; the narrators are funny even while talking about a serious subject; and there are excellent animations to illustrate what a virus might look like and how it gets a foothold in the tissues of your nose and throat.

Notice also how the narrator uses everyday language to describe what is being shown, followed by the correct terminology: “knobby things on the virus surface” = “keys”.  When the term “key” is introduced, there appear images of door keys along the surface of the virus, which drives home the idea of how the virus locks into the cell surface of a human throat cell.  Then as the virus makes contact with the cell surface, there is the sound of a lock turning. This is a brilliant use of visual and audio effects to help viewers learn and remember the lock and key concept of viral invasion. Later, when the narrator describes how viruses copy themselves, there are sounds and flashing lights resembling a copying machine as the animation shows new virus particles being produced.

The double-teaming narration is also very effective, using a conversation between the NPR interviewer (Robert Krulwich) and the medical illustrator (David Bolinsky) to describe the entire process of viral invasion and immune system response.  I found this approach to be very appealing because the interviewer is asking questions that a viewer might ask while watching the video.  What are those pink things?  Why is the virus doing that? When the interviewer gets an answer, he interprets it in everyday terms.

Nicely done!

Science Video Review: Seven Minutes of Terror

Posted on by

No, this post is not about my recent trip to Sri Lanka and riding in their infamous tuc-tucs in crazy traffic.  It is the title of the recent video released by NASA describing the anticipated descent of the Mars rover Curiosity from orbit to the surface of the red planet planned for August 6 at 1:31 am ET.  The “seven minutes of terror” phrase refers to the time it will take for the vehicle to descend through the atmosphere and be deposited intact and functioning on the ground.  The terror will be experienced by the NASA scientists back on Earth as they wait to learn whether the mission has succeeded or not (60% of Mars missions have failed).

The video has been called “stunning”, “exciting”, and “terrifying” by various news outlets and bloggers.  I don’t think I would go that far, but I would describe the video as excellent and a successful effort to dramatize and advertise the upcoming Mars landing.  It also manages to get across some technical information but in a palatable way. It’s short: 5:07 minutes and highly visual, with outstanding animations and graphics.  Take a look and then read my assessment below:

The video starts off with a good “hook”:  The opening sequence shows Adam Steltzner (EDL engineer) who says, “When people look at it, it looks crazy.  That’s a natural thing. Sometimes when we look at it, it looks crazy.  It is the result of reasoned engineering and thought. But it still looks crazy.”  The video creators have identified an intriguing aspect of the landing, which is the untested approach to putting the rover safely onto the surface of Mars.  The viewer is immediately curious about what’s crazy and why NASA would be trying something so crazy.  The title is also a good attention grabber.  Right from the start, the viewer is wondering what the connection is between this crazy idea and the seven minutes of terror.  This video thus provides a good example of how to capture the attention of viewers and keep them watching.

Information and images are continually introduced, keeping the video moving forward at a steady clip. Each new segment adds a bit more information, e.g., about the challenges of the landing (thin atmosphere), the mechanics of the landing, what will happen if some step fails, how long it will take for scientists waiting back on Earth to learn if the rover has safely landed. Each new aspect is illustrated with a different animation and described by a different scientist who worked on that aspect of the landing.

They kept the text to a minimum and used it to get across startling statistics:  6 vehicle configurations, 76 pyrotechnic devices, 500,000 lines of code…..ZERO margin of error.  This text is superimposed on animations and other graphic sequences that illustrate what those numbers represent.  And the text is moving across the screen, further adding to the impression of movement.  This is the way to use text in a science video.

There is no traditional beginning, middle, and end.  That’s OK, as I’ve described previously.  The lack of these traditional components does not mean that the video is not organized around a logical manner.  In fact, the video has a definite sequence to it, which is highly organized and keyed to the actual landing sequence it is discussing:  what the 7 minutes refers to and what it means to the scientists waiting back on Earth, an explanation of EDL (entry, descent, landing) and all the steps in the landing sequence, violent entry through the atmosphere, Mars atmospheric characteristics and what it means for the landing process, the supersonic parachute and why it’s important, getting the heat shield off, cutting the parachute and coming down on rocket motors, the skycrane maneuver to avoid stirring up dust, and avoiding a collision between the descent vehicle and the rover once it’s on the ground. The ending screen image has a single, bold statement: “Dare Mighty Things” followed by the date and time of the landing event.

The style of the NASA video is more like a movie trailer than a movie, which is appealing and immediately recognizable by the average video viewer.  Most people have seen hundreds of movie trailers and are familiar with the format, so will readily relate to this style.  Even the music sounds reminiscent of movie trailers.  The major difference is the lack of a voice-over narrator, which is more typical of a movie trailer.  Instead, they used the voices of the scientists to substitute for the narration.

Overall, the NASA video has all ten attributes I identified previously as being important in making an interesting and appealing science video.  I recommend studying this video yourself to better understand the features that will help you create better science videos.

Don’t Be Afraid To Have Fun With Your Videos

Posted on by

As I’ve tried to emphasize in previous posts, scientists need to lighten up a bit when communicating science. I’m certainly guilty of being too stiff and cerebral in interviews and in my own videos. The character of Mr. Spock on Star Trek epitomizes the public’s view of the logical, emotionless scientist; Spock was always being criticized by Bones, the ship’s doctor for his Vulcan nature:

Like Spock, I’m probably not going to be able to go against my nature, but can modify how I say things on camera so that I don’t sound so much like an egghead.

As scientists, we also make the mistake of assuming that the general public will be impressed by facts, facts, and more facts. When scientists approach a video project, our inclination is to present the facts in a straightforward and, yes, logical manner. It’s drummed into us throughout our training to follow set guidelines for our research and strict formats for our science articles. So it’s difficult to break out of these molds and be creative in presenting science information. We also shy away from anything that might seem like fun for fear of being thought frivolous or, worse, ignorant. However, by not being creative and frivolous, we lose a lot of potential viewers.

Before I go any further, take a look at this video that is focused on beach litter:

Now, there are lots of videos out there about beach litter put out by various environmental organizations….and they are mostly deadly dull…. but this one gets the message across in a clever and entertaining way. And I’m guessing it was fun to make. This approach is just one way to be creative about communicating a message or educating the public about an important environmental topic. Humor is very effective. Other approaches, such as stimulating the viewer’s curiosity about how something (a field expedition, a lab experiment) will turn out also works.

I’ll discuss some of these methods in coming posts.

Science Video Review: Keep it Moving

Posted on by

In the previous post, I talked about how brevity is a virtue in making a science video.  In this post, I will consider two more features of successful videos (from the list of 10 characterizing a video I analyzed previously):

#3:  The video keeps adding information at a steady, relatively rapid pace

#4: There is constant motion going on throughout the video.

The constant addition of new information (and new visual stimuli) keeps the viewer watching.  This point is an important one.  If you let a segment of your video drag on too long, the viewer will get bored and look for something else more fast-paced and that seems to be feeding them more and more information.  As I explained in a previous post, humans are hard-wired to be fascinated by motion. A lot of science videos feature talking heads. Not much going on….just someone droning on and on and on.  If you have talking heads in your video, interspersed with images or footage of something else (an animation, a landscape scene, people working), then you make the segment more interesting because you give the eye something to look at other than the talking head.  If you only have a talking head (e.g., TED talks), then your talking head must be describing something (an idea or concept or emotion) that sparks the viewer’s imagination or causes an emotional reaction.

Here’s a video that meets the two criteria (constant addition of new information, constant motion) listed above and also is shorter than 3 minutes:

This is an example of informational graphics (infographics), which is a hot trend in motion graphics.  It’s clearly an effective way to get science information across in an entertaining way.