Final Cut Studio and Production Suite give you a beautiful and complete set of tools to produce video and audio, no doubt about it. But even when you know these applications inside out, there can be times it just makes a lot more sense to use a more lightweight program. Screencasting or videocasting can be an example.

Let’s say you are going to create a video for training purposes. The video will ultimately be burned to a DVD and sold as a training package, but it will also appear on the web as a downloadable alternative. The video will consist of many different components. There will be a recording of the trainer, a number of slides, a considerable chunk of screen captured as a “movie” and a background tune to make it a more pleasurable experience. Oh, and some of the components will flow from one to another using some nifty effects. The whole thing will of course be equipped with a menu for on-screen navigation.

That’s an assignment you’re going to need some serious toolset for. The video recording of the trainer can best be done using a HD video camera with the recording downloaded into Final Cut Pro. The screen recordings can be done using a tool that can record a screen (obviously) and that has the ability to export the screen movie to an uncompressed, Final Cut ready format. The transitions can be created in Motion and Final Cut and the sound can be added later, using Logic Studio.

On a Windows machine, or an Intel Mac with Adobe’s Creative Suite production installed, the video recording can be downloaded into Premiere, the sound created with SoundBooth and the whole thing stitched together using After Effects and Encore.

The job determines the tool set you're going to use

We all agree it would be foolish to use anything less for an assignment like the above. But what about when you’re going to record a screencast only, and distribute that on the web? No complex transitions, no music, no recording of your face. Only a recording of some action taking place on your screen. My guess is that you’ll be better off doing that with a tool like () ScreenFlow or Snapz Pro with Movie recording capability.

A tool like ScreenFlow is specially developed to create screen recordings, and because it’s specialised (and well programmed) it does that one thing very well. It’s not bad at adding some special effects, but these are limited to enhancing the “what I wanted to show you” experience, while its transition effects are limited to basic tools. In fact, ScreenFlow --or Snapz Pro to a lesser degree-- are the tools you should be using in the first scenario, in order to record the screen video itself.

For a simple job like the second scenario, where you’ll only be creating a video screencast for online use --like the screencasts I’ve made to go along with the QuarkXPress 8 preview story-- a tool like ScreenFlow will do, and in fact will be more efficient and effective than Final Cut.

The reason is not only that ScreenFlow is specialised, but also that Final Cut simply gives me too many options to choose from. For simple jobs, it makes things too complicated. Which gets us to the cross-media publishing angle: if you’re going to migrate stories from print to online, the options suddenly become overwhelming. You can --and should-- offer a total experience to online visitors.

The problem that you’ll be faced with is to decide whether it is OK to only buy a tool like ScreenFlow, or whether it’s important to familiarise yourself as soon as possible with the power of a tool set like Final Cut Studio’s. In this case, it’s the diversity of output channels you’re going to use that determines the answer. 

Learning iMovie wastes time

Unless of course you have a professional video department, you will have to get someone assigned the exciting task of creating those screencasts. But is there a chance that person will also be creating video for a broader, perhaps higher-quality use someday? If the answer is yes, it pays off to invest in a complete tool set right away. If you are sure screencasting for the web is all you’ll ever do with video, than ScreenFlow or Snapz Pro will do just fine.

A final word: I haven’t mentioned iMovie or Final Cut Express. The latter is in my opinion good for recording weddings, but once you’re going to output professional material like training DVDs, Final Cut Studio simply has more flesh to the bone.

iMovie is in my opinion a waste of time to familiarise yourself with. If the goal is screencasting, you’ll have to use a tool like ScreenFlow anyway, so you can forget about iMovie. If you’re going to step up the ladder and do more professional things with your video capabilities, then iMovie is not alike Final Cut enough to save you time learning Final Cut afterwards.