Tag Archives: review

Don’t Be So Serious with Your Science Videos

Posted on by

Scientists are supposed to be serious…and most of us live up to this expectation.  However, this trait can be quite detracting and frustrating to non-scientists, unless it’s meant to be humorous as in this clip from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off:

You might succeed in using such humor, making fun of an egghead speaking on camera.  But in general, this humorous approach is already a cliche, and it would take a really fresh twist to succeed.

In general, a talking head who is pompous or pedantic is going to turn off viewers. The viewer does not want to be lectured to (they got enough of that in school). As a scientist videographer, you will have two choices of (professional) talking heads in your projects:  you or your colleagues.  Both of you likely suffer from the “stuck in their heads” syndrome.  We think too much instead of just doing or saying what comes naturally to other people.  A book called, “Don’t Be Such a Scientist”, by Randy Olson addresses this very issue as it relates to science communication.  Olson has advice for scientist communicators, spelled out in his book chapters:

1. Don’t be so cerebral

2. Don’t be so literal-minded

3. Don’t be such a poor story-teller

4. Don’t be so unlikeable

Olson makes the case in his book that although accuracy is important, it’s even more important to grab the public’s attention so that the science message is heard.  I agree, but that’s easier said than done.

Many of my scientific colleagues are, to put it bluntly, boring on camera (and I include myself in this group).  We are, to borrow Olson’s list:  too cerebral, too literal-minded, poor story-tellers, and generally unlikeable.  It’s rare to see a scientist whose personality attracts rather than repels viewers.  Think Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and science communicator:

We can’t all be like Tyson, but we can strive to “get out of our heads” so that we can communicate like the average person.  It’s impossible to change someone’s natural demeanor (and you don’t want to try).  However, we can select our interview subjects carefully so that the message we want to convey is heard and accepted.  If you are uncomfortable on camera and this discomfort is contributing to a poor demeanor, then practice giving interviews.

I was absolutely terrible the first time I was interviewed on camera (at least it felt that way).  The interviewer kept restating my answers in a much clearer and appealing way without scientific jargon and asking, “Is this what you meant?” Although I felt like an idiot at the time, I learned a lot from the experience.  More recently, what has helped me improve my performance in front of a camera is interviewing other scientists.  Seeing how other scientists perform….which ones shine on camera and which ones are dreadful…is an eye-opening experience.  I highly recommend doing a few interviews with your colleagues and then reviewing the footage.  If I were going to teach a science videography course or workshop, that would be one of the exercises.

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.

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.

Science Video Review: Attention Span and The Green Ninja

Posted on by

In a previous post, I identified ten features that characterized an inspiring science video and pointed out four that I considered to be key to success. I thought I would elaborate a bit on those four key points.

In this post, I’ll talk a bit more about #1:  The video is short, less than three and a half minutes in length.

The average video viewer’s attention span is short.  People want their information in brief, entertaining packets. Unless they are really, really interested in you or your topic (e.g., your mother), they are not going to sit still for more than five minutes to watch your video.  I know that you will be tempted to try to cram a lot of information into your video, thinking it is important to instruct the viewer about all the various aspects of the science topic you are discussing.

I’ve made this mistake and so I know how hard it is to edit out all the footage you shot (of yourself or other scientists) talking about research or whatever the topic was.  This difficulty is not unlike editing a scientific paper:  we must be ruthless and cut out all the extraneous verbiage and data that do not contribute to the main conclusions.  We must be even more ruthless with editing our videos.

Most of the science videos I’ve done so far have been around ten minutes in length, which is probably way too long for all but the most interested viewers.  However, I did strive to include a variety of ways to impart information: talking heads, footage of people engaged in some activity, aerial and ground footage of landscapes, animations, historical images, and text explanations. Such tactics help to keep the viewer’s attention, but it’s better to strive for brevity with your message.

Here is an example of a video that successfully imparts its message in 2:49 minutes:

 

Science Video Review: Another Perspective

Posted on by

In the last post, I showed you a video that would be difficult for the average person to create due to the advanced animation techniques involved. However, I tried to use it to get across some basic points about what makes a video not only watchable but fascinating to a wide audience. I did not want to leave you hanging and thinking that you have to create a complicated video with advanced animation to be successful in getting your science idea across. Here is a very simple video that contains no fancy graphics or animation as well as no voice-over or written explanations, yet makes its point very effectively. It uses the concept of “perspective” to make this point about the relative energies of earthquakes in history and is appropriately titled, “Perspective”. Take a look:

Now, how many of the features I listed for the other video, “Nature by Numbers”, did you see in this much simpler video? Let’s review:

1. The video is short, less than three and a half minutes in length. Yes

2. The information is all visual and understandable by any culture. Yes (assuming they can read English).

3. The video keeps adding information at a steady, relatively rapid pace (but feels like the information is being leisurely unveiled). Yes.

4. There is constant motion going on throughout the video. Yes.

5. Colors are intense and dramatic. Yes (especially contrasting colors).

6. The text is minimal; only what is essential to understanding the mathematical relationships. Yes.

7. There is a dream-like quality about the video. No.

8. The video elicits an emotional reaction in the viewer, largely driven by the music, which is compelling and carefully keyed to the visual shifts. No.

9. All visual and audio components are rendered to the highest quality possible. Yes.

10. There is no traditional beginning, middle, and end. Yes.

By my count, eight of the ten features seen in Nature by Numbers are found in the second video (note that I selected Perspective to analyze on this blog before I had analyzed Nature by Numbers). I was somewhat surprised to see so many qualities in common, but it makes sense. A big difference between the two videos, however, is the music/emotional factor. Perspective lacks music, which was probably a conscious choice by the creator who clearly wanted to keep the message simple and uncomplicated. However, I can’t help but wonder how it would play if accompanied by music appropriate to the visual elements? Just out of curiosity, I played Perspective while playing the music from Nature by Numbers (Often a Bird). Even though the music was not keyed to the video, it matched surprisingly well and would have added an emotional component that likely would have grabbed more viewers and kept their attention through the entire video. But as I said, I understand the creator’s choice not to have music.

Anyway, my main point in this post is to show how an effective video can be created that meets most of the criteria necessary to capture and hold a viewer’s attention without using fancy animation or professional film crews or anything that would be out of reach for the average scientist.  Now, I’m guessing that it did take an animation program to create the smooth transitions from earthquake to earthquake throughout the video.  However, you could recreate a similar sequence using a program you already have and are familiar with: PowerPoint (although the transitions would not be as smooth).  In upcoming tutorials, I will show how to create animations using PowerPoint and export them as a movie file, which you can post as a standalone film (like Perspective) or insert into a larger video.

For now, be thinking about the key criteria we’ve been discovering and how you might incorporate them into your video projects.