<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:series="http://unfoldingneurons.com/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Trying Out Picture in Picture in Screencasts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://idratherbewriting.com/2009/12/17/trying-out-picture-in-picture-in-screencasts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://idratherbewriting.com/2009/12/17/trying-out-picture-in-picture-in-screencasts/</link>
	<description>The Latest Trends in Technical Communication</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 07:07:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sita Bhatt</title>
		<link>http://idratherbewriting.com/2009/12/17/trying-out-picture-in-picture-in-screencasts/comment-page-1/#comment-147349</link>
		<dc:creator>Sita Bhatt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 12:21:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.idratherbewriting.com/?p=5362#comment-147349</guid>
		<description>Great effort and definitely looks good!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great effort and definitely looks good!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Johnson</title>
		<link>http://idratherbewriting.com/2009/12/17/trying-out-picture-in-picture-in-screencasts/comment-page-1/#comment-147305</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Johnson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:01:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.idratherbewriting.com/?p=5362#comment-147305</guid>
		<description>Thanks Michelle. I just listened to the videos again and didn&#039;t realize how much youtube &quot;optimized&quot; them for the web. I guess that&#039;s what happens when I upload a 200+ MB file. I wonder if the addition of the video means that youtube will always have to optimize the whole thing and thereby reduce the audio quality significantly. Hmmmm. 

Thanks for feedback about looking into the camera.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Michelle. I just listened to the videos again and didn&#8217;t realize how much youtube &#8220;optimized&#8221; them for the web. I guess that&#8217;s what happens when I upload a 200+ MB file. I wonder if the addition of the video means that youtube will always have to optimize the whole thing and thereby reduce the audio quality significantly. Hmmmm. </p>
<p>Thanks for feedback about looking into the camera.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michelle Schoen</title>
		<link>http://idratherbewriting.com/2009/12/17/trying-out-picture-in-picture-in-screencasts/comment-page-1/#comment-147304</link>
		<dc:creator>Michelle Schoen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:27:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.idratherbewriting.com/?p=5362#comment-147304</guid>
		<description>Tom,

I think it looks really good. I think the audio sounds just fine and I wouldn&#039;t worry too much about the lighting either. If you happen to have a laptop you can just find someplace (even outside) that has nice, natural light. I also like that you don&#039;t show your face the whole time you are demoing because I find that really distracting and I don&#039;t know whether to look at the person or the screen.

I do sometimes hook up my camera with a firewire into my PC and record the video separately in chunks then import it into Camtasia and mix it in with the screencasts.

My main suggestion might be that you look into the camera if possible so it looks more like you are talking to the viewer instead of talking to the computer screen. And I would like to see a little less explanation, as you mentioned in your post.

Overall, I think it is an excellent test of the PIP capabilities.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tom,</p>
<p>I think it looks really good. I think the audio sounds just fine and I wouldn&#8217;t worry too much about the lighting either. If you happen to have a laptop you can just find someplace (even outside) that has nice, natural light. I also like that you don&#8217;t show your face the whole time you are demoing because I find that really distracting and I don&#8217;t know whether to look at the person or the screen.</p>
<p>I do sometimes hook up my camera with a firewire into my PC and record the video separately in chunks then import it into Camtasia and mix it in with the screencasts.</p>
<p>My main suggestion might be that you look into the camera if possible so it looks more like you are talking to the viewer instead of talking to the computer screen. And I would like to see a little less explanation, as you mentioned in your post.</p>
<p>Overall, I think it is an excellent test of the PIP capabilities.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Johnson</title>
		<link>http://idratherbewriting.com/2009/12/17/trying-out-picture-in-picture-in-screencasts/comment-page-1/#comment-147300</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Johnson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:26:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.idratherbewriting.com/?p=5362#comment-147300</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m going to look more closely at webcams as well, because they just seem simpler. Having to go back and sync audio, video, and screen is a time drain, and anything that takes a lot of time usually doesn&#039;t get done. If I can simplify everything with a webcam, so much the better. 

I think my previous experience using a webcam was tainted by the fact that I used it in low light, and as a result the quality wasn&#039;t so good. I&#039;ll try another one with better light. I actually have a decent little webcam, though it&#039;s not HD. I would like to buy an HD webcam (not sure if Camtasia Studio accepts HD webcams or not -- they don&#039;t take camcorder inputs).

Tom</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m going to look more closely at webcams as well, because they just seem simpler. Having to go back and sync audio, video, and screen is a time drain, and anything that takes a lot of time usually doesn&#8217;t get done. If I can simplify everything with a webcam, so much the better. </p>
<p>I think my previous experience using a webcam was tainted by the fact that I used it in low light, and as a result the quality wasn&#8217;t so good. I&#8217;ll try another one with better light. I actually have a decent little webcam, though it&#8217;s not HD. I would like to buy an HD webcam (not sure if Camtasia Studio accepts HD webcams or not &#8212; they don&#8217;t take camcorder inputs).</p>
<p>Tom</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ellis Pratt</title>
		<link>http://idratherbewriting.com/2009/12/17/trying-out-picture-in-picture-in-screencasts/comment-page-1/#comment-147290</link>
		<dc:creator>Ellis Pratt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:38:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.idratherbewriting.com/?p=5362#comment-147290</guid>
		<description>We&#039;ve also been looking at Screencasts with embedded videos, too. We&#039;re currently using webcams, because of the audio and lighting issues with camcorders that you raise. I wonder if a different computer and webcam, with fast CPU and USB 2 connections, might give you different results?

You wooden floor and the glass door might be affecting your audio. It might be worth trying recording with a couple of rugs on the floor. 

Screencasting raises a number of issues. Should we follow the conventions of TV or radio programmes? Is it TV? Is it training? What do we do about searching? What is the right balance between quality and &quot;time to market&quot;?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We&#8217;ve also been looking at Screencasts with embedded videos, too. We&#8217;re currently using webcams, because of the audio and lighting issues with camcorders that you raise. I wonder if a different computer and webcam, with fast CPU and USB 2 connections, might give you different results?</p>
<p>You wooden floor and the glass door might be affecting your audio. It might be worth trying recording with a couple of rugs on the floor. </p>
<p>Screencasting raises a number of issues. Should we follow the conventions of TV or radio programmes? Is it TV? Is it training? What do we do about searching? What is the right balance between quality and &#8220;time to market&#8221;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris McQueen</title>
		<link>http://idratherbewriting.com/2009/12/17/trying-out-picture-in-picture-in-screencasts/comment-page-1/#comment-147284</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris McQueen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:49:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.idratherbewriting.com/?p=5362#comment-147284</guid>
		<description>Looks good.  I like the intros.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looks good.  I like the intros.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

