Science communication videos - inexpert attempts, comments welcome

Dear FCP readers,

I would like to introduce myself on this forum by linking to a recent project I have embarked upon. For a science communication website, I am interviewing scientists (disclaimer: I am one myself), editing the videos to a one-minute youtube video with FCPX, and making them available online. I learned a lot by making the videos, and will highlight the most important lesson learned with each. If you have additional advice for me, please let me know!
So here goes:
I started by having a scientist prepare a one-minute explanation, and making a video from that:

(animations made using *cough* Keynote, audio recorded on an Olympus LS-11, video on a cheap Panasonic video camera)
While I was very happy with the effort from the scientist in question, the dictation method creates quite a static video and content delivery. So from this, I went to a more informal interview setting (also much easier for the scientists to agree to: 20 minutes interview as opposed to actually having to prepare something).
So that turned into this, playing with the then freshly released multicam options using a second "Victor" JVC camcorder:

I was quite happy with the way this turned out, so went on to record number 3:

Which was a bit more difficult to edit (much more source material to wade through). Also, there seems to be some issues with colour balance in portions of the videos, and the audio track, uncompressed, may be difficult to follow sometimes.
For my latest recording (not online yet), I made sure to apply a compressor and keep the interview to a manageable level.

I would be very interested in knowing what the community thinks of these videos (also please feel free to check out my other videos there).

Thanks for reading this far!

Cheers,


Brian.

Thanks for sharing your work with us Brian.
At first I was calling this series “Science Minute - With Dr. Brian” for a number of reasons. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think you want to share interesting science tidbits with regular laypeople or individuals of a different field. The idea of a “minute” seems palatable to us non-science types, & Dr. Brian sounds friendly & approachable (plus you start to build a brand). However, as I dug down into the working of these pieces in light of the mission statement, I think you have to build a brand without your name as the personal interviewer, I’ll explain in a moment. So, we’ve got our science lessons down to a minute, now comes the tricky part; keeping it interesting…

Another thing to remember, Brian, since you’re trying to essentially market the interest of science to the unwashed masses, you have to try & think like your demographic, which may mean a drastic drop in IQ. Fortunately you can maintain interest thru effective editing & FX, we’ll touch on that later. But suffice it to say, interest levels are key in any type of presentation. Even at a minute in length, science or any subject, no matter how passionate its practitioners are, can still be boring.

Which brings us to scientists. Sorry buddy. Always remember, you’re filming people that aren’t particularly known for their charisma, speaking ability or personal charm, that’s ok, they’re scientists. Compound this with the fact they’re usually badly lit & poorly dressed. By this I don’t mean not brightly lit, but badly lit with horrible florescent bulbs, & wearing things that aren’t particularly cinematically interesting. Then we add the horrible locations, not in the sense that there isn’t interesting scientific gear for us to shoot, but the set is complicated by nasty light, bad sound, etc. However, fortunately FCPX has audio refinement features that can reduce that annoying room tone, not to mention post production colorization & various treatments that can make that florescent effect somewhat less obnoxious.

Video 1 Dr. Sharma
First of all, just because you’re familiar with Keynote, is no reason to use it for your titling sequences. There are plenty of excellent tutorial videos & experts connected with this site (or even a simple youtube search “Titling in FCPX”), to ensure you can instantly & effortlessly tap into the vastly superior Titling capabilities in FCPX. As a scientist you probably prefer things quantified, check this, FCPX’s Titling potential is a million times better than Keynote’s. “Really? A million?” you say… Yes, believe it, & with all the 3rd party plugins, many free on this site, that number continues to grow exponentially. But you get enough graphs & figures on exponential growth with your day job, let’s get back to your vid.

You’ve chosen a parchment backdrop for your Keynote titling. Why parchment? This is new, leading edge science, not ancient scripture. This whole Keynote decision goes from bad to worse as in this title sequence your parchment appears splattered with dried blood, while you’re talking about ovaries & cancer, do I need to spell it out for you? All women are emotionally invested in the images of blood spotting, on a subconscious level, this is horrible. Perhaps ten women interviewed after watching your video might not articulate the blood image as being something they registered, but on a subliminal level it effects their receptivity, appeal, & connection. Once you invest just fifteen minutes playing with FCPX’s background generators & titles, you’ll find clean, modern, interesting, engaging backgrounds that will empower you creatively & draw your audience in, not repel them on some level.

The title above this video Squeezing Cancer is also a bad name, it doesn’t sound scientific at all, it prompts one to envision squeezing a swollen pimple like growth, yet it erupts with cancer filled pus. Charming.

Use your cultural awareness, Brian, what’s hot now? How about CSI Cancer? Suddenly I’m interested, what’s this about? The more you think about it, cancer is almost a crime scene investigation, Dr. Sharma is a detective on a hunt to crack the mysterious code. Wow, we’re engaged, this sounds fascinating. This isn’t lessening what she does, we’re merely putting a friendly spin on it, reaching your laypeople.

The CSI example is just off the top of my head, you can think up lots of similar catchy titles, one for each of your minute long episodes. Be careful though, you’re not a comedian, or a catchphrase copy writer, you might want to bounce your ideas of some witty NON-scientist types before you post the title on the web or your science communication website.

The camera angle here is all wrong, first you’re shooting up at her in Nostril Vision, she’s talking down to us like we’re the wayward stepchild, this doesn’t work. Next the room tone is bad, & what is it moving day? What’s with all the banging in the background? As director, you have to take charge, tell them “Put down that filing cabinet, we’re filming here.” Or film during a coffee break. If it was her kicking the desk while talking, ask her to stop. You can’t have noises like that, this is an office not a carpentry shop.

But it’s an awful office, drab & boring, nothing to grab us cinematically. I didn’t mind your little animated graphic though, it seemed professional but that list went by so quickly nobody could read it. On second view, I get it, we’re only focusing on ovaries. Now back to nostril vision. I like what she’s wearing, it’s textured & interesting, but the whole thing has the feel of something hurried, everyone was so busy she only had a few minutes to spare for this project. Whereas if you asked her to don a lab-coat & work her microscope or tour the lab, you have created what looks like another day of shooting, at least a change of sets & wardrobe. This boosts your value. Dr. Sharma has a slightly disengaging cadence with a kind of clipped inflection on the ends of words. That’s ok, it’s her cultural flavor she brings to the production, that’s great. But your job is to loosen her up a bit, so the delivery sounds a bit more natural, conversational, not pedantic. However, as I listen, the curt inflection she puts on the ends of words, is mixing with some other clicking in your background noise, making her dialog sound more like that African clicking language in The Gods Must Be Crazy.

Perhaps a better way to try filming these is to set the camera somewhere on a tripod close to your subject, mostly for sound, it doesn’t need to be right in their face, but close & a bit to the side. The visual here we’re not so interested in, but we will use some of it. The main thing is your sound. You will have to experiment in a few different kinds of rooms, so you know before you go in, what your camera is capable of sound-wise.

Then, just leave the camera rolling, get your hands off it, sit down & have a conversation with your subject. Ask them about their family, children, do they get any time for vacations, where are they from? Forget the camera… they will too. Laugh a bit, relax, please tell me scientists can do that…

Then, almost as an afterthought, begin to find out a little of what they do here. Transition into it, don’t be afraid to go back out of it with an emotional connector, “What does your family think about what you do?” Or maybe a heavy, “Have you ever lost anyone in your family to cancer?” But you have to be real when you ask questions like this, Brian. Don’t be reading them off a card, if you really care, so will they, & everyone who sees it.

The point is, we’re not trying to get a tearful confession, but we’re setting the tone, a free, natural, conversational style discussion, with some joy & pain, some happy memories, some noble aspirations. As they begin to talk about their work, it doesn’t sound like some text they’d write on their CV job description, because we’ve formed links (electrical, neural, chemical bonds in science-speak), you’re going to get a truer rendition of what they really think & feel about their work.

But that was just for audio. For visual, move the camera around the room on your tripod, get a classic two shot of you both talking across the desk, some for your POV say 25 degrees off the eyeline, same for her side. Don’t go less than that, it’s not an intimate romantic conversation. Keep the conversation going, even when you’re moving the camera, be relaxed, laugh & joke, tell them about a lab mistake you made to keep them relaxed, keep the camera rolling even as you’re moving it, just so you’re not breaking continuity with your subject.

Sure you’re going to have half an hour of useless conversation & rustling sounds as you move the camera, but guess what? You’re going to have one minute of great audio, the distillation of their life & work, a gem you can polish in FCPX’s audio refinement section. That’s the basic framework that will begin to emerge as you find the best sections & arrange them for maximum impact, then you’ll layer in your visuals. Finally work on some interesting fades, opacity overlays, effects, & finishing (colorization, filters, treatments, FX, etc.).

Ok, on this one you didn’t get any real cutaway or insert shots, so you toss in a couple still photos with titles. Boring! Don’t let me know that’s a pic you found on the web, do a Ken Burns style pan & zoom, so we think it’s you filming in the lab. That means lose the title. We don’t need to know exactly what it is, beyond what the scientist is describing, an air of mystery & wonder works better for the piece. It all looks scientific, that’s what we’re going for, but let’s present it in a manner that maintains interest.

The main bulk of your visuals will hopefully be them working, peering into microscopes, twiddling knobs, scanning cells, dressed in their lab coat, something that looks all sciency. (Yeah, I know that’s not a word)

Use multiple focal lengths, this ups the interest level, shoot lots of cutaways & inserts, preferably closeups of techie science gear being manipulated by the good doctor & her crack team of scientists. Add a few tricks, you’re in close out of focus, bring it into focus, hey it’s a petrie dish. Drop that shot in, as she’s alluding to zeroing in on the secret of this mysterious disease. Now you’re making art.

Be creative while collecting your shots, these are the things we’re going to see while we’re hearing her story. How about an interesting angled shot of the building with a slow zoom in? Why not a shot of the lab, pulling back with a smooth pan (practice that) to reveal its expanse & workers? Remember the implication of shots. For instance that bulging briefcase next to the desk, loaded with papers spilling out, implies this scientist has to bring their work home with them, effecting family time & sleep. All these implications are deep & meaningful. A little child’s bedtime story cut short because mommy has to work late into the night to try & save another child’s mommy. Yes, it’s just a little insert shot, but it carries great weight, even on a subconscious level, & now we have pathos.

So, now you’re thinking… “Oh man, this sounds like a ton of work.” Sure, before you just pointed the camera & asked something you’d scribbled down. Here’s a scientific principal to contemplate; you only get out of a system the same amount you put in. There are people that pour a lot of passion, time & money into making a one minute piece that really sizzles. Just check the Super Bowl ads, they grab people. If you & your communication site really think science is worthy of our attention, then prove it by showing us it’s worthy of yours.


Video 2 Dr. Rosalie

Opening text, I think I might like “… only just begun.” rather than “started.” The animated globe sequence works for me. Again we’ve got an off-putting room tone & lighting (all easily improved in FCPX). When you’re talking here, Brian, you have a bit of a smirk on your face for some reason. I get it, you’re trying to be warm & friendly, but it doesn’t come across as that. The fact that you have to look down to your notes to ask the first basic question seems incredulous. Your hand near your face or scratching your forehead is nervously distracting & unprofessional. Seeing the metals & titles is not bad, I wouldn’t mind some crossfade transitions here, it’s all a bit stark. The little busses graphic works for me. Don’t care for the long shot of the room much. Again you’re scratching your head, if you’re uncomfortable, we’re uncomfortable.

Not sure if I really need to hear your questions. If you prep your subject to answer questions with little lead ins, that way your voice doesn’t need to be in the piece. Eg: “What kind of equipment do you use?” “The equipment we use is mostly electron, transmission microscopes.” Here you had a nice chance to utilize a real shot of the real guy in the lab, but it’s a boring static medium shot of him by his microscope talking to you. Instead, ask him to use it, twiddle knobs & look scientific without talking, preferably deep in thought while you zoom in on him. Next you do zoom out on the less interesting green screen scope view. This shot is definitely made more interesting with the camera action, but those types of techniques need to be employed with your other shots. Even static tripod shots can later be made to look like a slow zoom in FCPX. Next we get him doing some actual business, it’s great & looks real, he’s at his machine that tests tensile strength, but again, another boring static shot. Go handheld, move in & out, FCPX can smooth it in post, make the shot come to life. Now, we’re back to you with your hand on your face & scratching your face again. God knows we’ve all seen enough sci-fi movies (Andromeda Strain, 28 Days, Contagion, etc) to know not to scratch our faces anywhere near a lab.

However, this time you’ve actually succeeded in making it appear that you had two cameras, & have accomplished it rather convincingly, but I can’t say it adds value to the production. As mentioned the nervous scratching is uncomfortable for us. The warmer conversational style chuckling at the end brings some humanity to it, so I prefer the direction you’re going with that, but I still think the interview style is a bit dead. Part of this comes from the POV, we’re always at the side looking in, we’re not part of the conversation, we’re eavesdropping. So we’re never fully engaged. If I heard the story, saw the work, & glimpses of Dr. Rosalie speaking more or less towards me (say 20-25 degrees), ending with his warm smile & good hearted admission that it’s not for the money, I’d feel a greater kinship, instead of detached indifference, which by the way, is what we feel from you as well.

This one is probably the best of the three for structure & deployment, & though it still has a long way to go to accomplish what you want it to, it’s the most encouraging from the filmic standpoint, you’re moving in the right direction with your insert shots & cutaway ideas. Develop that.

Video 3 Dr. Hollamby

As mentioned, not only could your title sequence do with a desperate upgrade, but I’m not entirely sold on the actual body of the text. “Some science is more fundamental.” Literally you’re beginning with a value judgement, I know it’s supposed to be evocative, but when your viewer finds out it’s not about utilizing developing science to feed the world’s poor, or save the Tibetan grasslands, but rather aligning molecules into cute little patterns, there may be a slight disconnect.

Also, since your audience may have Phd’s in something other than chemistry, you might want to use a lower third to decipher what “C60” is. To most here, it appears as the highly elusive soccer ball molecule.

Your scene structure here has some basic problems, the basic interview two shot down the table has you seated too far apart, when we get into our one shot, the angle is too great, 45 degrees or more off his eyeline. This is disengaging. I would lessen that angle down to about 25 degrees. Or here’s a nice trick; start at about 35 then as the interview progresses, or especially when you see the section he is most passionate about, slide the camera over to 20 degrees off the eyeline. This psychologically increases our intimacy with the subject.

It appears that the passion point for Dr. H comes when he says “Just seeing how it behaves in a solvent is fundamentally interesting.” Umm… no it isn’t. Another misapplication of the word “fundamental,” too. But that’s probably the section we should get in a bit tighter too, so the angle of the eyeline from the camera has decreased as well as his distance from the camera.

Now let’s look way over across the gulf…. oh yes, there you are. Since you probably didn’t have two cameras there, you must have staged your reaction shot, & boy does it show. Brian, you’re not an actor, please don’t try to pretend, because … well, it looks like me when I pretend to be a scientist. Just sit there & listen to him, if he’s not there anymore, think about something interesting. The giant faux nod is not only badly timed it’s poorly executed. You can’t use shots like that.

Another component, perhaps slightly more subtle, is that what you are thinking shows on your face. Perhaps you already know this science stuff, but if you don’t show a look of curiosity or eagerness to learn about this stuff, why should we? Essentially, if it doesn’t interest you, why are you trying to get us to watch it? In some of the videos, it’s subtle, but there is a slight look of smirking or smugness on your face, maybe you view your science as more important than theirs? Or you already know the scientific aspects they’re describing, so it’s nothing new to you? Whatever it is, you need to check that if you’re going to continue the interview style. However, as I’ve outlined, anything that requires acting & performing is best left to the professionals, so I suggest you drop the interview style & go with what your opening title promised in video one - The Story.

Closing titles, the music works for me, but the science url you present is preposterous. Even if someone were interested, which if you’ve done your job properly, they should be, they’d have to pause the video & painstakingly copy your fifty character url, nobody wants to do that. Please avail yourself of TinyUrl, it will reduce that horrendous unwieldy link, & render a sleek sexy, trim little six character TinyUrl appendage that’s free & lasts forever.

Have a look at this video, yes it’s very polished, 12 minutes in length, & we’re dealing with lifelong performers, but note the use of inserts & cutaways, you see the engine of the car, shots of the coffee, different angles, depths of field, etc, exactly like we talked about. You can do the same kinds of things in your one minute pieces too…

comediansincarsgettingcoffee.com/alec-ba...y-shiftless-bastard/

Hope some of this helps…

J. Matthew
Global•Watch•Media•Consulting
www.GWM2.com

I'm gonna come back with more ranting about the videos. But for now: 1- Keynote ROCKS for titles and motion graphics. It's been a staple of our studio for years because of that. 2- "Everyone" dresses bad and is dull in real life, especially us editors. Scientists are not the stereotype. Always have a wardrobe-talk with your subjects before hand. Have a make-up person around if you can. Even just a gal pal who's good with make-up and hair. 3- Keynote ROCKS! Oh, I said that, never mind...

I did a short film once interviewing a dozen or more editors. Wanna know who the worst group of people are to put in front of a camera? Let me tell you, we are...

Dear Ben and Trix,

Thanks very much for the detailed comments! I am sure that this topic was destined for forum oblivion if it wasn't for your efforts!

More later after I get to read the sections without a jetlag-addled brain.

B.

Dear Trix,

First of all, that is one of the most detailed analyses I have seen on forums, thanks for that. I agree with most of your comments, and I will try to improve the technique in the upcoming videos. A few notes of reply to your comments may not be amiss, though.

Unimportant but perhaps worthy of note: the "parchment" thing in the opening titles is not keynote, in fact it is a generator of FCPX, with titles added on top.

The intermediary graphics are Keynote, simply because it aids animation. I understand that using keynote for animations is like trying to use a horse as a hammer (or more commonly in my field: Powerpoint for posters which makes me cringe every time). However, the ease of animations using a simple "magic move" allows me to very quickly make otherwise labor-intensive motions.

As for my "laid-back" pose in Martin's video, That was one of my mistakes. I used two cameras, and turned the video into multi cam video. That pose was what my pose was at the time of that sentence. Now I realise that lining up the two video streams is not quite necessary.

I agree that the locations are unfortunately chosen. It turns out to be surprisingly hard to get a room set up in my institute for interviews, and the ones available are all quite shit. I am trying to look for better locations, but so far: no luck. If I could get a small space, it would be quite easy to set up some more appropriate lighting, backdrop and chairs.

With respect to clothing and lab-lighting, it is my intention to show science/scientists as it really is. Hollywood has led us to believe science is all about pipetting colourful liquids or twiddling knobs at moodily lit equipment, with a breakthrough every moment of the day, with fellow scientists running around in flowy lab-coats. I think that such a romantic view might be nice, but in the end may turn away otherwise suitable people from this poorly-paid life. None of us are geniuses, just people who like finding things out (and who doesn't?).

Ah yes, the topic at hand... So it is actually not allowed to wear a lab-coat outside the lab (you could be spreading nasty chemicals that way). Mood-lighting your equipment is fun, but very impractical in a work environment. Measurements are no longer about twiddling knobs, rather letting the machine mull about for an hour or a day while you are off behind your desk researching.

Clothing-wise, this is what we wear to work. Straightforward clothing. Yes, it does look like the videos are shot with the subjects merely dragged away from their work for a couple of minutes (usually 30 minutes), because they are. Though perhaps I should re-interview my latest subject given the comments, as he is dressed in a ratty t-shirt (freshly returned from Mount Fuji).

Finally, Martin's research is indeed "fundamental". But perhaps I am unaware of the use of that word outside work...

Sorry for the long reply. The essence is that I have learned a lot from your comments, though it will still take quite some videos to get it right. At the moment I am focusing on getting a steady rhythm in the production of these videos and making improvements gradually.

Cheers,


Brian.

Hi Brian
I used to be a scientist, now I make videos for the Media and Communications unit of a teaching hospital so I know where you're coming from.

Firstly, the critique from TrixTrax9000 is excellent. A lot of work went into it and it's pretty spot on. I won't re-cover anything already posted (with one or two exceptions) but I'll try and add to the conversation.

A couple of questions should be answered before you embark on a video project: "who am I making this for and what do I expect them to do once they have seen it." (Although I have a science background, I feel like I should do a Communications degree).

Marketers call the answer to the first question 'the target audience' and the second one 'the call to action' and knowing that information is important because it helps frame your video. Are you trying to reach students (because they are future employees), industry (for joint research projects), the general public (for donations or to raise awareness of your institution), patients (for donations/bequests or alerting them of new treatments in the pipeline), or medical specialists (for collaborations or patient trials), or some other group? Ultimately what you are doing is taking this idea from these people, transferring it into those people so they do this.

Avoid jargon at all costs. Nobody else gets it. Sometimes people use it because it's the shorthand of their job, sometimes they use it to look smart. Using jargon doesn't help in your quest to communicate. If it slips in, drop in a lower third to explain a difficult term.

I like to top and tail my informational videos with a presenter - someone who ties it all together and is a constant across all videos.

Get the audio right. Mic your subject at all costs, and try to avoid a room with a lot of echo. Sometimes, though, you don't find out how much echo a room has until you're done... :oops:

Shoot cutaways with action. I know how scientists work, but video demands action. I found this out many many years ago when I was still working in a lab. A TV film crew was in and was looking for cutaways. We had hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment, but none of it actually moves much, but when they saw a $50 mixer (not this , but kind of), that's what they filmed, because it had blood tubes on it (people knew what they were) and it moved.

Clothing ... unless this project of yours is being driven by management with clout, it can be difficult to motivate people to project their best image. Not a false image, but their best. See if you can let people know that a polo shirt would be fine to wear rather than what they usually wear (I routinely wore t-shirts, cargo pants and skate shoes when I was in research). What you want to avoid is viewers noticing the clothing. Once again, it depends on the target audience. Shoot for them. If it's high schoolers, don't get people to wear a tie. If it's doctors, a tie would be fine. If it's the public, polo shirt and a lab coat. If there's OH&S restrictions on lab coats going out of the lab, have one just for the shoots. I'd just like to point out, we wore our grotty lab coats from the micro lab all week and hung them over each other on the hooks, and no-one died. I also used to identify a particular respiratory pathogen (Burkholderia pseudomallei) by smell and never died. Good times.

Overall it was great to see your videos improve in leaps and bounds. What I love about this game, is there's always something to learn.