Review: Adobe Captivate and TechSmith Camtasia Studio
Camtasia’s PowerPoint operation (Figure 6) is also superior to Captivate’s. Plug a microphone into your computer while you make your presentation and you can record your comments in real time, even adding a video feed of the speaker if desired. For example, in our tests, we recorded a PowerPoint presentation, using Logitech’s OrbitMP QuickCAM to capture the audio and a video window. Then we integrated the two using Camtasia’s new picture-in-picture feature.
Though Captivate can import PowerPoint slides and let you add narration, there is no live recording feature. With Camtasia, there’s no reason not to record every live PowerPoint presentation, since you can edit the audio and video later if necessary. Then you can publish your presentation on online or on CD/DVD literally in the time it takes encode the file.
Figure 6 (below): Camtasia’s PowerPoint plug-in, shown on the upper left, makes it incredibly easy to record your PowerPoint presentations in real time.
Speaking of encoding, we also liked the range of output formats that Camtasia offered, which included H.264, Windows Media, AVI, SWF, and FLV, a nice contrast to Captivate’s "any flavor you want so long as it’s Flash" option. Interestingly, in our tests, the SWF files created by Camtasia were almost identical in size to those created in Captivate, though these examples involved no real-time capture of streaming or other video.
One irritation is that Camtasia builds the movie controls and the content into separate SWF files, so you can’t simply send a single SWF file for remote viewing. Fortunately, Camtasia creates the HTML file necessary to meld the two, so it’s easy to integrate them on a Web site. Captivate creates only one SWF file, however, which is even easier to integrate or send via email. Captivate can also create a standalone Flash executable for playback, as well as publish a movie to a Breeze server.
Summary
So how do the tools stack up? Overall, Captivate’s precision is both its greatest strength and biggest weakness. Captivate is a tool you might use to paint the Sistine Chapel, when time and money was no object, but you wouldn’t use it to paint your living room, even if your spouse were watching—it would simply take too long. So for all but the most complex software demonstrations, we prefer Camtasia.
On the other hand, with training and simulation, Captivate is more capable and easier to use, particularly the ability to preview Click Boxes and other user input in near-real time. We will say that the Captivate manual was very disappointing, with no screens and very little contextual information. If you’re new to the Flash/Director/Captivate interface paradigm, you’ll find Tom Green’s Visual QuickStart Guide to Macromedia Captivate (Peachpit Press) a life saver.
As we said at the outset, each program has killer features that may swing the pendulum in its favor, but more likely will make both tools essential for many presenters. Once you get to know their strengths and weaknesses, it really is hard to imagine living without either one.
Related Articles
The addition of project themes and 60 fps editing makes the trusted screencam program more useful, and some will get rendering speed improvements.
08 Oct 2018