4 ms·
Capturing the video display from the presenter seems almost easier than having a videographer manually time static slide changes along to the video afterwards.
by paulirish 14y ago
Capturing the video display from the presenter seems almost easier than having a videographer manually time static slide changes along to the video afterwards.
This also assumes that people use slide decks that can't be shared afterwards (in their original glory), can't iframe content, or have syntax highlighting within reach? I'm sorry but for developer speakers and audiences, Keynote is a poor choice.
- phillmv 14y ago>Capturing the video display from the presenter seems almost easier than having a videographer manually time static slide changes along to the video afterwards. Yes and no. For starters, it's more expensive. You need a second camera and, at worst, potentially a second operator to worry over it. Secondly, it's more error prone. Copying the VGA feed off the video switcher will fail in hilarious ways/also require a second person whose job it is to look over it. I've thrown two conferences, and been responsible for front of the house AV for a total of three and a half. You're often understaffed or overbudget, and something often gives. Even in the best of situations you end up wanting the slides as a backup. >This also assumes that people use slide decks that can't be shared afterwards (in their original glory) Post your .ppt or .key file! >can't iframe content PLEASE do not have your talk depend on conference wifi. It's impossible to guarantee stable internet with hundreds of nerds trying to slurp down hotel internet. >I'm sorry but for developer speakers and audiences, Keynote is a poor choice. I disagree. There's absolutely nothing these frameworks give you other than the warm fuzzies over the 3d transitions and that you got to style it using css. You're displaying words and pictures on a screen, and Keynote is absolutely a killer at that task.