You can import the audio either to the background or project narration depending on what type of project you are doing.
Are you talking about a Video Demo or a normal cptx-project?
Especially for video demo but I would like the option for both. I just think it's odd it's not a workflow option.
I think for all types of projects it makes more sense to script and then record the narration first. You end up with a much more professional result. Recording both together almost always produces a clumsy result. Recording video and then narrating over results in a significantly draw out edit while you try to match (and even then your end product doesn't feel natural).
When we use screencast-o-matic we script first, and then record each line of the script separately (which is how you easily buffer for time), and then record the actions on screen as directed by the narration.
I understand the request for video demo, not for the classic capture however.
My present work flow for video demo is to write out the script first. Because I don't like to combine the visual recording with the audio recording, I will the record the video, but while speaking the script to have the proper timing for the video. When finished with editing the video, I will replace the 'temporary audio' by a separately recorded audio. But why not first record the audio and listen to it while capturing the video?
I don't see this as useful for a classic software capture, maybe because I will always record in the three modes at the same time (Demo, Training, Assessment). You do not need the same audio for the three files. I like then to create the VO after the static slides have been recorded. It is so much easier to synchronize for those files than for Video Demo
Yeah - I get what you mean. It's similar to the workflow I used to use before I discovered the screencast-o-matic workflow. It's just so much faster and the end result is way better. It's a scaffolding of process that Adobe build into most of their other projects (it's in Voice for goodness sake). It's odd that a software designed for professional learning doesn't have that scaffolding built into the design (or at least as an option) especially because Adobe knows how to do it and they know why it's valuable.
If I could get that workflow on Captivate I could do so much with it but, for now, I'm drawn towards the program where I can pump out way more of a significantly better quality product.
...It's a scaffolding of process that Adobe build into most of their other projects...
It's worth noting that Captivate wasn't always an Adobe product. It was acquired from a copying that acquired it from another company that acquired it from the original company that created it. And it's evolved considerably.
One thing you could try would be to use something like Audacity to record that narration, then play it back as you listen and record the video sequence.
If you were to take that approach, you would likely want to enable recording of system sounds and disable recording of the microphone. This is because of the way audio is handled in a video demo. Unfortunately Captivate doesn't expose it in the same way tools such as Premiere do, where you see the visual waveform below the video recording. What I mean to say is that you don't have an easy option to just "drop in" the audio to match it up to the video.
Yeah. You're right. I still think it's weird that they haven't fixed it - they have made those types of fixes on other acquisitions (especially if it means keeping up with competitors).
I'm cool with workarounds - it's what I used to do for years. It's just that I don't want to do workarounds anymore - especially when they result in a lesser product that takes longer.
I can't speak for products such as Articulate Storyline. Perhaps others can. But I regularly work with another product that is similar. Perhaps you have heard of it. Camtasia Studio. And it pretty much works the same way as Captivate in that video demo mode. And I do see folks in that forum talking about desiring to record narration first, then play it back as they record the screen activity. And the workaround I offered is one I regularly see offered over in that forum. So I'm not convinced there is any real failing on Adobe's behalf. It just seems (to me, at least) to be part and parcel of the process of creating video.
And even when we look to the "big boys" in Hollywood and elsewhere. The actors speak as they are being recorded. It's not as if they are all in a studio, then they record the audio conversation, then move to the set and mime the words in an attempt to match up to what was recorded earlier, right?
I am familiar with those products. I've been using screencast-o-matic most recently. It does have that scaffolded workflow embedded into it. The end result is significantly more professional and it takes half the time. It doesn't have a lot of the other functionality that Captivate has but having a more professional product that takes less time to produce tips the scale way in its favour.
I get that it might not be part and parcel of the established workflow of these products - what I'm saying is, given everything we know about scaffolding a project (and what Adobe has shown us they know about scaffolding process through their more recent products), it's odd that a program made primarily for education purposes doesn't model this same best practice.
I get that the Hollywood process is different but that's a different workflow for a different product with very different time constraints, budgets, planning and personnel. The nature of smaller (read: cheaper) projects requires more scaffolding for a quicker turnaround to ensure viability.
Hmmm, thanks for the heads up. I need to go do some googling now to find out more about whatever this "scaffolding" thing is all about.
I'm guessing a logical first stop would be to check out this screencast-o-matic thing and see how it operates.
But that does make me wonder. If screencast-o-matic is all that and a bag 'o chips better, why not use it to create the videos, then just add them to Captivate? Because you want your entire workflow in one product?
Scaffolding is a instructional concept in education. This is a pretty good explanation (even just the first paragraph): http://edglossary.org/scaffolding/
Scaffolding of process (and providing limitation or restrictions) can be a good way to ensure a higher quality end product. If you use a program like Adobe Voice it had in built process scaffolding and restrictions. You pick a structure first (which makes suggestions about what each slide should cover), and then you record audio (never longer than ten seconds at once), and then you adjust your layout, and then you pick icons or images or text, and then you sort your music, and then you review, and then you export (and on export you adjust credits and titles). It's a truncated version of the filmmaking process that guides you towards making a better product. That's (one of the reasons) why voice projects come out much nicer and profession than you could do on other software. You could make the same stuff with PowerPoint but you'd be using copious workarounds to get your content in and PowerPoint doesn't provide you with that scaffolding so even the most talented producers still struggle to produce anything better than a typical Voice project.
I'm not that fussed about it all being in one product. I've been using adobe products for over 15 years now - I'm used to switching between programs that suit different tasks. The real reason I can't use both is that my work won't pay for two software packages that have similar outcomes. If Captivate could do what screencast-o-matic can do (without the workarounds) it'd be a simple choice to go with Captivate. It wouldn't even have to be in the Captivate program - it could be in a sister program made available with the Captivate package. The same way After Effects and Premiere compliment each other.
For now it seems Captivate has more functions but a lesser embedded process which means we'll likely just stick with Screencast-O-Matic.
What I really want is for Adobe to take the understanding of education and instruction theories they've applied to Voice and Slate and apply that to Captivate (or a program that is packaged in with a Captivate purchase). I think it's weird that they haven't yet...
Okay, I get that scaffolding is a concept used in education. What baffles me is how (or why) you would expect an educational concept to be applied to the process of using a software application?
You say that Scaffolding of process (and providing limitation or restrictions) can be a good way to ensure a higher quality end product.
I'll emphasize the use of the word "can" here. Sure, there are many things that "can" be implemented or done. But should they? What purpose would be served? Additionally, I'll also mention the "and providing limitation or restrictions" bit. That sounds to me as if during a creative process such as creating elearning or other information development, the author may find themselves stymied and wanting to do something but because of the limitations or restrictions that were imposed they would be unable to achieve. I'm not sure about you, but I rather enjoy as much creative flexibility as I can get. The absolute LAST thing I want is for the software to hinder me in any way.
I think the bottom line here is that you seem to want Captivate to be identical to Adobe Voice. And if that's the case, why not just abandon Captivate in favor of using Voice? Or use Voice for its strengths and possibly use the output from Voice in Captivate.
I've been looking at the screencast-o-matic stuff, and maybe it's just that I'm an old dog and need to learn some new tricks, but I'm not all that impressed so far with the "record your voice first then record screen actions later to match" way of working. I do see some efficiency in working that way if you are totally scripting what you do and you want that script to also be used as Closed Captioning and/or a transcript in the end. But for most things I've been personally involved with it doesn't seem like a better approach. I need to see and experience more before I'm sold or convinced.
And I know I'm but a lone voice. Others likely will see it differently.
No Rick you are NOT a lone voice.
I've been watching this thread in silence till now but I feel I have to pick a side and it's going to be yours. I've met way too many academics in my time who felt the best way to encourage creativity was to hem it in on all sides with rules of their own making.
Like you I'm opposed to the idea of imposing some arbitrary framework on Captivate's workflow. I prefer to have the option to design my own workflows as I see fit. I like the way Captivate gives me this freedom. I know Captivate has limitations and I am all too happy for users to offer their own suggestions about how to improve it. There's nothing wrong with encouraging a free flow of ideas. But I often see comments made on this forum along the lines of: "I cannot understand why Adobe hasn't seen the wisdom of...[insert what they want here]." And I always wonder if the people behind those judgements have ever tried to build a better mousetrap.
From where I sit, Adobe Captivate still seems to be the market leading rapid e-learning authoring tool. Somehow I doubt that was a happy accident. Adobe might not always agree with our viewpoints on what they should do, but given that none of us have created a better authoring app, I think we need to acknowledge that the people behind Captivate are better at what they do than we would be in their place. Even though I HAVE personally built software apps, I'd never presume I could have built this one better.
I think this thread is dead. You both obviously have very fixed ideas and
seem to insist on deliberately misunderstanding what I'm saying here.
Scaffolding exists everywhere that we have workflows - a workflow is a
scaffold. You don't have to obey a workflow but you can. The reason I used
Voice as an example as it has a scaffolded structure that you can follow OR
you can ignore. In screencast-o-matic I can follow that workflow OR I could
do it in reverse. I "can" follow that workflow but it's up to me to decide
if I "should".
All I'm suggesting is an addition to the process. I'm not trying to take
anything away from Captivate or suggesting I could do it better and getting
super defensive about the product will never help a forum discussion. What
I'm saying is I think this as an option (the key work is option) would
improve this product. Adobe does and always has welcomed feedback from
consumers about what might improve their products - it's not ridiculous to
assume these can be suggested.
*"What baffles me is how (or why) you would expect an educational concept
to be applied to the process of using a software application?"*
It's an eLearning software application. Of course it should be built around
educational concepts and best practice. It is for the most part as well -
just not in regard to this part of it.
*"I think the bottom line here is that you seem to want Captivate to be
identical to Adobe Voice. And if that's the case, why not just abandon
Captivate in favor of using Voice? Or use Voice for its strengths and
possibly use the output from Voice in Captivate."*
That's not the bottom line and I think you are well aware of that. You can
disagree with me without deliberately misunderstanding what I'm suggesting.
I am, and always have been, suggesting that the not being able to create a
project from audio first is limiting. The fact that it isn't an "option" is
limiting. The key word here is "option". These aren't laws these are
structures you can follow or not follow. You have both explained how
strongly you feel about hemming in the creative process but what you've
missed is that the lack of this as an option does that for other producers.
It does it for me.
Again, I am suggesting that I think this would be a useful ADDITION to the
workflow. At present it is something I CAN'T do without heaps of
Personally I'm a little insulted by your repeated references to Rick or I "deliberately misunderstanding" you as if our disagreement is some kind of intentional refusal to see reason. I think we have understood your argument quite clearly. You are confusing the simple fact that people are allowed to hold a different viewpoint and may not happen to be swayed regardless of your best argument.
This issue really boils down to a simple matter of personal preference as to which tool or approach is better. If you prefer Screen-O-whatsit, by all means use it. If you have suggestions for improving Captivate, by all means submit them to Adobe. But outlining them here on the user forum is not the best option for that. There's a web form on Adobe's website for bug reports or enhancement requests.
However, be warned that Adobe traditionally gauges the number of people requesting an enhancement as a guide to whether it's worth implementing. And even though I've been watching these forums daily now for several years I cannot recall ever hearing any previous reference by other users to a huge need for your particular enhancement. So submit your idea but don't hold your breath. There's a long list of other enhancements in the queue.
Sorry if you feel insulted Rod but, to be honest, there is a big difference between a difference of opinion and wilful misinterpretation - this is certainly the latter (and I think it's a pretty safe bet that you know that).
Feel free to keep commenting about your feigned offence and how you are 'just trying to help' but I'm done with this thread. I had a question. The answer to the question was no. I got that answer a while ago. The thread just devolved from there.
All the best,
Again with the accusations that those who disagree with your view are engaged in "wilful misinterpretation" and unwilling to concede any other possible explanation.
The people on this forum who have watched this thread play out will draw their own conclusions. They all know Rick and I from our many contributions here.
Now they know you as well.
Please, stop this discussion which is only causing frustration and wasting precious time.
When I answered I told that for pure video (like in Video Demo) the approach of having first the narration recorded before the video makes sense to me. Log a feature request, and that is it.
Nobody can claim that I'm not a defender of Captivate's features, this could improve Video Demo which I doubt is used very much compared with a normal cptx-project.
While I do agree there is no value in simply saying things such as "oh boo hoo, get over it" because they add no real value to the conversation and likely only stir animus, I don't feel this thread has no merit. I know that I certainly learned something I didn't know. Such as the whole "scaffolding" concept. Likely others did as well. I may not understand the desires, but that doesn't make them any less valid.
And I very much appreciate Rod chiming in with his own viewpoints. I do know it's frustrating for someone to try and convey a message and feel they are being misunderstood. But I have to say that I don't believe there was anything close to "willfully" misunderstanding anything. Just differences of opinion.
As far as the different approaches (Video first and narration later vs Narration first and video later vs Video and Narration simultaneously) I'm sure each has its own merits as well as down sides.
Cheers all... Rick