Here’s a great example of a creative video shot by Mark Rober who wanted to get some footage of monkeys and orangutans at his local zoo but saw that they ignored humans banging on the exhibit glass. So he held up his phone to the glass and lured the primates over to look at themselves on the phone’s camera. Not entirely happy with these results, Rober fabricated a mirror-cam so that his subjects would be centered in his shots as they investigated their reflections. Great idea and one that worked well to get some amazing footage of primates exhibiting self-awareness. One of the orangutans even brought over its baby, which proceeded to investigate its reflection.
Anyway, those of you who study animals might find this approach useful or inspirational to develop creative methods to film animals. And the rest of you can just enjoy the interesting video:
Cats almost always land on their feet. The question is why? If you’ve been following along, you’ll recognize this as a great dramatic question, which is answered in a nice video posted on the YouTube Channel “Smarter Every Day”. Take a look:
The approach used in this video is one that would work well for any science video aimed at explaining a concept or to demonstrate a method. Let’s break it down:
1. An interesting observation is described (cats always land on their feet) and the narrator asks an obvious question about it (why?).
2. A demonstration is given, filmed from various angles (and shown at different speeds).
3. A split screen is used to allow the narrator to explain what’s happening in the slow motion film of the cat falling. In other words, something interesting to watch while listening to some less interesting facts.
4. The narrator’s delivery is not preachy; he encourages curiosity about the topic without being pedantic.
5. Information is gradually revealed….using very different visual examples (old NASA footage, slow-motion photography overlain with text explanations).
6. Video ends with fun footage (of the cat chasing a ball) and a clever way to get people to subscribe to the channel.
What if you would like to make a video about a topic but you don’t have a lot of footage? Or perhaps you would like to describe a new technique, but have only still shots of your equipment and procedures. Maybe you would like to describe a science concept, but have only audio of someone explaining their work? Can you still make a video? Of course. In fact, there is an editing technique called “montage”, in which the videographer creates a narrative using a sequence of still images to tell a story. This approach can be very effective, as this video illustrates:
You’ll note that in this video, “Congo River: Artery of the Forest”, the creators not only used montage, but also some other ideas I’ve discussed in previous posts. Like many scientists, they had taken lots of pictures of various scenes and people, known a B-roll, which were the basis for this video. As I described earlier, it’s important to shoot lots of still images and video footage in addition to your primary footage (e.g., interviews with key subjects), which can be used for opening and closing credit sequences, for transitions between video segments, and especially to break up long interviews (“talking heads”).
In addition to B-roll, the video also asks (and answers) a dramatic question: “Will the scientists get their samples despite all the logistical challenges?” In a previous post, I explained the purpose of the dramatic question and why we should try to identify and incorporate the dramatic question into science videos. The basic idea is to grab the viewer’s attention and keep them watching to see how things turn out.
Finally, it’s possible to mesh film clips with still images very effectively to create a more interesting video than one that is composed entirely of video clips. In fact, by using a Ken Burns effect on still images, you can create the impression of movement, which blends well with film clips; the viewer often does not notice that the video contains a montage of still images. Here is one of my videos in which I used a combination of footage and still images (as well as animations) to explain sea-level rise and impacts on coastal wetlands (see minute 6:50 to 7:22 for one sequence):
In addition, you can also incorporate sound effects and voiceover to enhance a montage of still images. The “Congo River: Artery of the Forest” video does this very effectively (sounds of stamping along with passport images, for example). In my video, I added sounds of water movement and frogs chirping to give life to still images.
So if you have an idea for a video, don’t be deterred by the lack of film clips. If you have still images of your research and a good dramatic question, you still can develop a compelling video. In upcoming tutorials, I’ll show in greater detail how to incorporate the montage technique into your movie editing repertoire.
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.
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.
