The art of screencast - day 4

Quite honestly, I'm not sold by this video.

While I am glad that the interviewee liked it - this is my ultimate goal - I am really disappointed by the poor visual quality of the screencasts. On most of the shots, we can't read the text, which really diminishes the experience. I even feel this is castrating the video from the sensual (not sexual) pleasure it is supposed to convey. Minus 1 point.

That is mainly due to a logistics problem: since I don't have an active account on this Website, I cannot record the life that goes on in their users' life. The company has a video demo of their product accessible from their homepage. I requested that they send me the original video file to optimize the rendered quality, to no avail. On their end, they thought the online compressed video file would do the job - maybe they didn't want to bother looking for that never-used video file - but it didn't.

Considering the great speaking skills of the interviewee (at ease in the discussion, clearly-spoken words and never missing the point), this video could have had way more impact. Gone with the wind! Out the window!

The rest is pretty classic. At least there are no editing mistakes. His right/left body movements have been readjusted. I added some brightness to create a dimensional source of light, and color correction to please the pupils (without editing, the image is grey). A job done in an unsurprising conventional way.

The next interview will be with a fresh young startup that develops a creative solution to share music online. Their model is unconventional enough to drive the next video's creativity.