Category Archives: Musings about Science Videography

I occasionally muse about various aspects of science videography, including random thoughts about why scientists should learn to make science videos, what makes a great science video, and how science videos can have a broader impact on how the public views science and scientists.

Science Video Review: Best Quality Crab

Posted on by

I have a technique that I use to predict whether a movie is going to be good or not. I call it the Five Minute Rule…although this time limit is somewhat flexible. I might come to a decision in one minute or eight. Anyway, this is how it works. If the first five minutes of a film are boring, poorly shot, uninspiring, etc., then the rest of the film will likely follow suit (not always, but usually). On the other hand, if the first five minutes are interesting, elicit an emotional reaction, or make me hungry to see more, then I know I’m going to be entertained.

Two examples come to mind when I consider the Five Minute Rule:

The Joy Luck Club (1993 based on the book by Amy Tan)

and

The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, & Her Lover (1989)

The Joy Luck Club not only grabbed me in the first five minutes, it elicited a strong emotional reaction:  I started crying during the opening scenes.  My first thought was, “Wow. If this is my reaction to the opening scenes, what’s to come?” And the rest of the film definitely did not disappoint.  Take a look at this opening clip and you’ll see what I’m talking about (also, the opening title sequence is excellent and predictive of what’s to come):

Now, I know you guys out there are thinking, “Aaarrghh. This is a chick flick.  No way am I going to watch it….unless my wife/girlfriend forces me to.”  What kind of film it is, however, is beside the point.  It has something to teach us budding videographers, which I will get to in a moment.

In the meantime, for you more macho types out there, consider the second example, The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, & Her Lover.  I vividly remember the opening sequence and my visceral reaction to it. Within the first two minutes of the title sequence, I experienced an incredible sense of dread and even felt physically ill.  I almost got up and walked out.  In those two minutes, however, there is nothing obviously nauseating….just some dogs and then some vehicles pulling into a back alley parking area.  But there’s something dark and disturbing about the scenes, which is emphasized by the music.  By minute 2:20, you know that this is going to be a film about vicious cruelty.  Take a look:

As it turned out, my initial reaction was right on target.  About the dread, I mean.  This is a disturbing film and not for everyone (so be forewarned if you decide to see it).  However, the opening sequence had me hooked, and I had to stay until the end.  The experience was sort of like passing a gory traffic accident.  You know you shouldn’t look, but you just can’t help yourself.

OK, so what’s my point in describing these films and their opening sequences?  Whether consciously or subconsciously, we judge people, situations, and movies based on the first few seconds or minutes of our exposure to them.  As videographers, we need to keep this in mind when planning a project.  These two examples I described above provide an accurate preview of the mood, message, and quality of the entire film in the first few minutes.  Whether you like these films or not, they deliver what is promised in those opening sequences.

In the previous posts, I’ve listed some key ingredients to a compelling video.  However, one criterion I left off that list was that the video needs to capture the viewer’s attention right in the beginning (and never let it go).  For full-length films, this means that in the first five minutes or so, the audience needs to become invested in sticking around to see how it turns out.  For science videos of, say, five minutes in length, this works out to the first 12 seconds.  So that means the goal is to get the viewer invested in your video in about a quarter of a minute.  Is that even possible?  I think so.

In upcoming posts, I’ll explore this idea further and provide some examples.

What Jurassic Park Can Teach Us About Making Science Videos

Posted on by

You may remember this scene from Jurassic Park.  Scrub to minute 2:32 and watch from that point on (go on, I’ll wait for you):

OK, now the point I want to make is that humans and other predators like T. rex have evolved to notice movement.  Imagine early humans on the ancient plains of Africa scanning the horizon for any motion that might warn them of danger or the opportunity for food.  Anything hopping behind a tree or flitting through the grass caught our ancestors’ eyes.  Their very survival depended on distinguishing motion that indicated something of interest or something that could be ignored such as rocks or leaves blowing in the wind.

We are hard-wired to be fascinated with moving pictures. Furthermore, we are experts at analyzing movements, whether we realize it or not.

If you watched the TED talk by Chris Anderson in the previous post (if you didn’t, please do), you heard some startling statistics: “Humanity watches 80 million hours of YouTube every day. Cisco actually estimates that, within four years, more than 90 percent of the web’s data will be video….Video is high band-width for a reason. It packs a huge amount of data, and our brains are wired to decode it.”  Read that again: “more than 90 percent of the web’s data will be video”.  These data have been updated.  Google sites, driven mainly by YouTube viewings, had 146 million unique viewers in just the U.S. who watched 16 billion videos in March 2012 alone (comScore Video Metrics).  People are definitely watching a lot of online videos.

Why?  As Anderson explains in his video, even though it may be faster to read the information we seek, we seem to prefer to view it. It’s in our genes to seek information about our surroundings by watching for movement.

The TED talks demonstrate another important point.  People are fascinated with TED talks.  They are riveting. Even the ones in which the speaker is not showing any slides.  One of the most popular is by Jill Bolte Taylor, a brain researcher, who studied her own stroke as it happened (here’s the link).  She shows a few slides, but that’s not what draws people in.  It’s seeing her body language and hearing her voice describing her experience that makes the video so fascinating.  The other reason is that she’s describing some amazing ideas and insights that spark the audience’s imagination.  It’s a powerful combination.

Scientists wishing to get their message out (about their latest research finding, an environmental issue, an important method to be shared) should take note of these points:

1. Humans are hard-wired to gather information from audio-visual sources (moving pictures, if you like).

2. A huge number of people are searching for information on the internet in the form of video.

3. Linking audio-visual information with ideas that stimulate the imagination is a powerful combination.

Scientists, as a group, are pretty smart people.  We should be able to figure out how to use these insights to create effective and powerful videos that will reach a wide audience.  The question I have is, why have scientists been so slow to catch onto this?

I hope to explore these ideas more in coming posts.  Stay tuned….

Science Communication: The Game Has Changed

Posted on by

As a scientist, I’ve been trained to write technical papers and to give technical presentations to colleagues.  These are our primary modes of science communication.  However, things have been changing rapidly in how people share information.  I can find on the internet a video showing me how to do just about anything…from making a souffle to how to dance the tango.  A couple of years ago, our toilet broke, which to fix was going to require complete replacement of the entire flushing system.  I briefly considered calling a plumber, but then had the idea to look online to see if I could find some information. I quickly found several videos on YouTube that clearly and professionally showed, step-by-step, how to replace the fill valve assembly.  One was particularly well done; shot from various angles and showing each critical step as well as providing advice (in voiceover) along the way.  After watching this four minute video, I felt confident that I could repair our toilet.  I went to the store, purchased the replacement parts, and within a couple of hours had a working toilet again. Here’s the video I watched:

Now, as a scientist (or a student of science), imagine how much easier it would be to replicate someone else’s research if you could see a video of how they actually set up their intricate lab apparatus or calibrated an instrument or set up a field experiment.  Some researchers spend months working out a technique that someone has described in a paper but that could be quickly demonstrated in a video.  Yet, there are few such videos out there doing this and only one online journal (that I know of) that publishes peer-reviewed videos (of mostly medical research methods). What’s amazing to me is that there are not more such journals in this age of the internet and electronic gadgets.

Many scientists seem to be still stuck in the 18th century when it comes to communication of science.  We are following a model that was developed long before digital cameras, computers, and the internet.  Scientists initially communicated with each other through letters and eventually journal articles.  We carry on this tradition and try to describe our methods as best we can in writing.  Obviously, much of this information could be much more easily and accurately conveyed visually.  Now that we have easy access to electronic gear that can capture video and audio and to inexpensive software to edit it into a coherent instructional video, I wonder why more scientists are not taking this obvious step?

Part of the answer, of course, is the perception that such an effort will take time away from the real communication of science (written articles) or would require an expensive film crew.   There is also perhaps a reluctance to try a different medium of communication…a clearly non-traditional medium and one that is not going to count toward tenure.  This perception may be changing…gradually.  A few journals are encouraging authors to submit videos showing their methods, and a few scientists are complying.  I think, however, it will take a dramatic change in how we view science communication before the scientific community embraces the idea.

I’ll have more to say about this in later posts.  For now, you might like watching this TED talk by Chris Anderson who describes the coming revolution he’s termed, “Crowd Accelerated Innovation” (note his comment about science communication at 10.43 min):

More Reality Thoughts about Science Videography

Posted on by

I’ve been describing my experience “field testing” my iPad and the iMovie app to make videos. I attended a scientific conference last week and conducted a few interviews. I found shooting video with the iPad to be somewhat awkward–not at all as easy as with a camcorder. However, it was possible to get decent footage, which could be directly recorded into an iMovie project.

The awkwardness was partly due to having to hold the iPad with both hands to keep the image steady. But the main problem I had was in conducting interviews and holding the iPad in such a way that my subject could look at me while talking. I should explain here that it’s best to have the person being interviewed not look at the camera, but at you. This approach produces a more natural conversational aspect.  Also, the interviewee is often intimidated when asked to speak to the camera. This is particularly problematic with the iPad because it’s difficult to see the camera lens, which is very small. I had subjects nervously ask me where they should look and seem very relieved to be told to look at me and basically talk to me in giving their answers to the questions.  So it’s a good idea to prep your subject before filming to encourage a more relaxed, conversational setting.

In case you are wondering how my field test worked out, here is the finished video:

Science Video Tips: Say What?

Posted on by

In the last post, I started talking about some of the challenges in using an iPad to shoot video and audio.  I mentioned some of the issues with audio in particular.  Some of these points are relevant to any device you may be using to capture audio.

For example, during interviews should you record your voice (as the interviewer) along with the response of your subject?  The answer is yes.  It will make things much easier when you sit down to edit your movie project later, especially if you are not going to be able to edit soon after shooting.  Although it may be clear from the interviewee’s answer what you asked, it’s not always apparent, especially if your subject tends to ramble and does not answer your questions directly.  Another consideration is that although I plan my questions ahead of time, I always think of something extra to ask during the interview (these unplanned questions often yield some of my best footage).  You can remove your voice during the editing process so easily that there is no reason not to record it.  Also, depending on your desired interview format, you may wish to record both interviewer and interviewee and retain both in your finished product.

So overall, the iPad did pretty well in recording audio, even in situations with a lot of background noise.  I did find, however, that I needed to get pretty close to my subject in order to have their voice record well enough to be distinguishable from the background.  That tended to interfere with framing the shot I wanted.  Because what my subjects were saying was more important (in this situation), I compromised on the visual aspect.

I did not try using a lavalier (lapel mic) with the iPad during this field test. However, a lavalier would definitely enhance the audio of any movie project and avoid the problem mentioned above.  In the future, I will look into appropriate adapters for connecting a lavalier microphone to an iPad and give it a test run.