In creating science videos, we usually are tempted to cram in as much information as possible. However, sometimes we are better off keeping things simple and unencumbered by a lot of facts, figures, and explanations. I decided to see if I could create a one-minute video about a science topic with no narration and minimal text. Putting such restrictions on ourselves can often help spark our creativity.
I was in Duluth, Minnesota last week for a conference and had a chance to drive along the shoreline of Lake Superior. There, I saw an example of primary succession from bare rock (basaltic lava) to lichens, mosses, small herbs, grasses, and shrubs and trees and thought this might be a good opportunity to do a “minimialist” video.
So how does one get across the concept of primary succession without voice-over narration or a “talking head” appearing on camera? After thinking a bit about how to go about this, I decided to walk from the rock outcrop at the lake edge to where the forest began and film my feet as they passed over each vegetation sequence. The idea was to use the spatial sequence of vegetation to illustrate the successional sequence, which is how scientists have traditionally studied succession. Then all I needed to do was trim the footage, insert brief text indicating the changes in major vegetation types, and add music. I included a more technical explanation in the description of the video for anyone interested in more scientific detail (watch on YouTube to view the description).
Constructive criticism helps us improve our individual communication products as well as our overall communication skills. If you plan to publish your video, either on a video-sharing site or as online supplementary material with a journal article, it’s a good idea to first get some feedback from potential viewers.
Many of my science videos have gone through a formal peer review process, which involved comments from at least two colleagues, followed by review and approval by officials at several levels in my agency. You don’t have to go to this extreme, and, in any case, there are few mechanisms currently in existence that offer peer review of videos comparable to that of scientific journals. And, not all videos require peer review. You certainly don’t need a formal, collegial review of a video tour of your laboratory facilities to put on your website. However, you do want to know if your tour video is likely to attract prospective students and postdocs, for example. In that case, you might want to show it to a few students and ask them what they think. If their response is not what you expected, then you’ve gotten some useful feedback and perhaps need to rethink your video.
Similarly, if your video is to be submitted to an online journal, it would be wise to show it to a couple of colleagues first. Or, if your target audience is the general public or some other non-specialist group, you might want to ask members of that group to preview your video before you publish it. Your goal is to determine if the content is understandable and interesting to your target audience. You (and your colleagues) probably are not the best judges of whether your video is engaging and whether the content is presented in a way that is easily understood by a non-specialist. The only way to determine this is to solicit feedback from your target audience.
If after viewing your video, a target viewer expresses confusion over a key concept, then you know you’ve still got some work to do. Or, your student reviewer might say, “I really liked the part with the students collecting samples; I wish there had been more of that instead of the scientist talking about the carbon cycle.” Again, this would be very good feedback. In response, you might want to change your video by intercutting more footage of students working while the scientist’s voice is heard explaining how what they are doing relates to the carbon cycle. That would be an easy editing job, and the change will likely make your video more appealing to its target audience.
However, I find that some of my colleagues are uncertain about how to review a science video and, consequently, fail to provide useful feedback. They either try to review it like a journal article or want me to change it to something that will not appeal to my target audience (usually by adding citations or data). Because this is such a new area, there is virtually no guidance available to aid reviews of science videos. To help potential reviewers out, I’ve compiled a list of questions to help guide the review of a science video.
Here are twenty questions designed to provide useful feedback (and perhaps stimulate other comments) for your science videos:
1. Are all visual media (e.g., video footage, photographs, animations) of high quality (i.e., in focus, well-composed)?
2. Is the audio clear throughout and not obscured by extraneous noises?
3. Is all text legible and easily read within the timeframe provided?
4. Are all graphs, diagrams, or other illustrations of good resolution (not pixelated) and clearly labeled?
5. Are interviews (with scientists, students, others) professionally done?
6. If music or sound effects are used, are they appropriate and effective?
7. Are there any additional media that might improve the video?
8. Are sources of all external media (e.g, historical footage/images, music) clearly acknowledged?
9. Are proper safety procedures followed throughout the video (e.g., are laboratory personnel wearing lab coats and appropriate footwear, safety glasses, etc.)?
10. Does the video address an important issue or interesting topic or provide useful instruction?
11. Does the title of the video accurately reflect the content?
12. Is the scientific content accurate and appropriately attributed?
13. Is the length of the video appropriate? If not, where might it be cut or expanded?
14. Does the video clearly identify a central question, objective, or concept?
15. Does the video capture the viewer’s attention early and hold it throughout?
16. Does the video have a clear storyline or logical path that is easy for the viewer to follow?
17. Will the video be understood by the target audience? If not, which parts need to be revised?
18. If for a non-specialist audience, is scientific jargon minimized and are all essential technical terms defined or explained?
19. Does the video achieve its stated or implied purpose (inform, instruct, engage)?
20. Do you have any other suggestions for improvement?
The success of your video will depend in part on good audio, which will require a decent microphone. You will need a good microphone during filming with a video camera as well as for doing voiceovers during editing. Which microphone you need and can afford will, of course, vary with your situation. Although there are many microphones that provide excellent audio quality, these are often quite expensive and may be out of reach for students and scientists with limited budgets. If so, there are some inexpensive options that will improve your audio, which I will emphasize here. In this video report, I demonstrate a few ways to improve the quality of your audio without breaking the bank.
Most camcorders and other cameras that shoot video have built-in microphones that will work fairly well–as long as the speaker is close enough to the camera, and there is not a lot of background noise. Many of my videos were filmed using the built-in microphone on the camcorder or digital camera. This approach works fine when the speaker is stationary and speaking directly to the camera from no more than a few feet away. If the speaker is moving around or standing a distance from the camera, however, then it’s best to use some type of external microphone to boost the quality of the audio. The lavalier or lapel microphone is likely to be what the scientist videographer will find most useful. These are tiny microphones that clip onto the lapel of the person speaking and are connected via cable or wirelessly to the camera or a separate recording device.
Unfortunately, not all video cameras come with receptacles for microphone jacks. One of my favorite point-and-shoot cameras, which shoots outstanding HD video, has no option for attaching an external microphone. My solution is to use my iPhone as an audio recording device and an external microphone with a jack designed to work with the headphone receptacle.
The other situation requiring a good microphone is when doing voiceovers for your video. If you rely on the microphone on your computer or an inexpensive external microphone, your voice will likely sound “tinny”, and the overall quality of the audio will be noticeably poorer. I invested in a studio-quality microphone with a USB cable to connect to my computer. The better microphone has made a huge difference in the quality of my videos.
I’ve just gotten some new gear to assist with making solo science videos with a Smartphone….for those times when you don’t have anyone to help you. In the following video, I introduce some accessories (microphone, cable, monopod) that will facilitate filming alone with your Smartphone and will also make your videos look and sound much better.
If you like the tip, please leave a comment!
Links to where you can purchase this equipment are given below the video.
I’ve been discussing the pros and cons of short science videos and how length influences viewer engagement (see previous post). In general, the shorter the video, the more likely the average viewer is to watch it through to the end. However, a colleague questioned whether it was possible to adequately describe a scientific method in only a minute. My response was that it was possible, although not necessarily easy. And, obviously, not all methods could be described in such a short time period.
Although it’s good to strive for brevity, your video, especially if for instructional purposes, should be of a length appropriate to the purpose and for the target audience.
So I thought I would critique a couple of videos describing a scientific technique and see how successful they were. The first one, done by the Texas Parks and Wildlife, shows how to use the Daubenmire frame, a widely-used method for surveying vegetation. I selected it because it happens to be about a minute in length, it has a clear purpose, and the method is one that most people, including non-scientists, can comprehend and replicate with inexpensive supplies. Take a look and then we’ll consider how successful it was.
I thought this video was well planned, nicely executed, and accomplished its purpose of explaining what a Daubenmire frame is and how to use one to gather data about the vegetational composition in an area. The video begins with a short, simple explanation of the purpose of the Daubenmire frame and then moves into explaining how to construct the frame (briefly) and how to select sampling sites. It briefly describes how to position the frame and what data might be collected (numbers of each species present or their percent cover).
Note how the video minimizes the “talking head” shots and uses cutaways to show what the narrator is talking about. Also, there is a variety of footage shot from different angles, which were clearly planned in advance. The video opens and ends with the narrator talking to the camera, which nicely “book-ends” the instruction.
The video does not get bogged down in explaining how to get a “random sample”, how to identify plants, or how to estimate percent cover. It assumes that the target audience already understands these concepts or will get that information somewhere else. One thing that could have been explained in one sentence is why it’s called a Daubenmire frame (named after a plant ecologist who developed the canopy-coverage method of vegetation analysis). This fact is not essential to the instruction but would have answered an obvious question and added a bit of history to the video.
The audio is clear and without distracting background noises. It looks like the narrator is wearing a lapel microphone, which would help ensure that her voice is recorded properly. You will also notice that a transcript is provided along with this video. This is important for viewers who may not understand your language well or are hearing impaired.
I think the style and tone of the video was just right for instructional purposes. The narrator (Kelley Bender) is professional, poised, and dressed appropriately for the setting. Her delivery is confident without being preachy. She has no distracting behavior such as waving her hands or scratching her head. The tenor of her voice is nice, and her speech is not interrupted by annoying uhs and ahs.
It’s important that the viewer who is interested in learning a new method feels that the instructor is credible and professional, and that’s the case with this video. Perhaps a video would get more views if it is humorous or entertaining but it will likely turn off many target audience members. The latter are interested in only one thing: to learn how to use the method you are describing. They are not interested in being entertained, surprised, mystified, or emotionally moved.
In summary, the science video with the objective of demonstrating a method should be clear in purpose, straightforward in execution, and professional in tone. The length may be variable but should be no longer than necessary to cover the essential points. For simple methods, such as using the Daubenmire frame, it’s possible to keep the length to around 1 minute. If the method is complicated, then consider breaking up one long video into a series of short videos.
