CRAIGSEE  While it doesn't use the Elegato Turbo, it does use Matrox CompressHD and it speeds export about 300%  
(Version 2.0)

CRAIGSEE  You do not need to split a clip into three. There is a Trim function. Look at Edit menu and see trim from front and trim from end to scrubber. Simply split and trim as one would do in most edit applications.

Yes joining clips would be a good idea.

I think you seriously overstate the issues. Read the Macworld review for a good assessment. ScreenFlow beats anything else on the Mac and 2.0 is a MAJOR improvement.  
(Version 2.0)

GLA  CRAIGSEE: Fail. read what I wrote again. Don't you think I've seen the trim function in the Edit menu? Seriously. But it doesn't do what I was writing about.

If you need to delete the middle part of a clip, you need to split the split in three, in effect. Cut in two at the beginning of what you need to remove, then cut the remaining in two at the end of what you want to remove. Then delete what is now the middle clip. Whether you use the trim function on the remaining clip instead of cutting that in two is a completely moot point, because the number of steps to actually perform the edit you are after are almost the same.

This is *not* how it works in most editing apps. In iMovie, for instance, you can just select the clip, then drag the in/out markers inside the clip to encapsulate what you want to remove, then hit Delete (Backspace). This trims the clip and retains it as a single clip. *That* is how it's supposed to work. But this is impossible in SF, because there are no in-clip in/out markers to drag. You'd think the developers had looked around what editing capabilities exist in other entry level video editing software?

Before you make illinformed comments next time, maybe you should do a little research first? Just a thought.

I didn't see any review of SC 2.0 in Macworld, only a short article based on the press release from Telestream. But regardless, unless you can point to actual factual errors in my assesments above, I stand by them.

But see the first paragraph of my original review again. I did not say it wasn't the best. Only that its shortcomings in the editing departement was maddening. I didn't give a rating since I haven't used 2.0. I stated that clearly. I do not write for a magazine and did not mean to write a full review, I wanted specifically to point out its weaknesses and not write about what actually does work.

I gave a very positive comment about SF 1.x over a year ago, here on MacUpdate, like many reviews, I'm sure. The difference is since then I've actually used it many more times, for real, critical work.  
(Version 2.0)

CRAIGSEE  I edit professionally (more years than I care to mention). Simply split the clip and one point and trim back. One could do the same in Final Cut Pro. What you're referring to is not really trimming, it's Ripple Delete and you can do that too in Screen Flow. Yes you can mark an in point (i key) and an out point (o key) and you'll see a dark blue shaded area. Then in the Menu Edit/Ripple Delete (or Apple/Command key Delete key). No need to split the clip at all.

Please look at Macworld online today. They posted a review 8:30AM and gave ScreenFlow 2.0 four mice.  
(Version 2.0)

CRAIGSEE  Macworld review of ScreenFlow 2.0

http://www.macworld.com/article/143482/2009/10/screenflow2.html  
(Version 2.0)

CRAIGSEE  Link to ScreenFlow Ripple Delete demo. Mark In (i), Mark out (o), Edit>Ripple Delete (or use keys Command Delete)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9495572@N08/4049930305/  
(Version 2.0)

GLA  CRAIGSEE: To be fair, I stand corrected on the mark in/out feature. I had overlooked that in more recent versions. However, this was not really part of my central critisism. This makes the in-clip ripple delete (yes, I know the difference - I was using trim in a loose sense, not really targeting an audience of editing pros) into a better experience. But the result is still two clips surrounding the edit, and so apart from the method of arriving there with fewer clicks, the rest stands and it is still maddening for the reasons stated. And if the Macworld review didn't spot that, so be it.

Hm, I see now that they did in fact notice the lack of merge clips (kudos!), but didn't really see how badly that impacts your workflow if you want to do many zooms/offsets, and the other things I wrote about. So a typical "I'll run down the list of features and test them, but I haven't got the time to actually put the tool through some hard work on actual projects" kind of review.

Good for Telestream, bad for the users.  
(Version 2.0)

CRAIGSEE  Merge Clips - easy to speak of, VERY DIFFICULT to implement on the coding level. When a clip is "split" the source file itself isn't "split." you're simply creating "pointers" to different parts of the file. That's why it's NOT as simple as joining two SEPARATE files in Quicktime Pro. You have no separate file to merge, just pointers (aka reference files). Note you can't "merge" files in Final Cut Pro or other major NLE.

Most NLEs do have a solution. It's NESTING so a "super" pointer can point to the other pointers. Nesting opens another can of worms because one then has to create a "media management" system. Basically it can be done but the R&D is major.

That either happens at the exclusion of other features (takes hours away from developing them) OR it means greater cost (and greater price) for the applications. I don't doubt ScreenFlow will eventually address this but one has to be aware that simply "naming a desired feature" doesn't make it easy to make it so. In the mean time, there are workarounds which are certainly awkward though.

Overall, ScreenFlow takes advantage of some "unique" was the Mac handles graphics internally which is why many of the "actions" and "callouts" can work they way they do. That they work, has to do with the way the screen is captured (internally generated in the Mac) which is why you don't see similar feature in Final Cut Pro (or other NLEs) which import externally generated video.  
(Version 2.0)

GLA  CRAIGSEE, shouldn't you in all fairness indicate your affiliation with Telestream? I notice you have a "By dev" tag on other postings regarding Flip4Mac, Episode etc. I was kinda wondering why you were defending ScreenFlow so "enthusiastically". I wonder no more.

Anyway, it kind of goes without saying that implementing merge clips and the other issues I was addressing (yes, there were others) takes development time and therefore development time away from other things, don't you agree? I develop commercial software myself, and that's the way it works, so what's the point of bringing it up? I was specifically expressing my disappointment that you guys had chosen to add what I consider more marketing department features to version 2. When the two headline features in the new features PDF you publish are transistions and YouTube export, well, I rest my case.

So the feature is hard to implement. Good, then you'll have another competitive advantage for implementing it. If it was easy, any dofus could have done it. What's your point again?

Comparing the editing capabilites of SF to iMovie is inevitable and fair and is just something you'll have to take.

Again, before you started adding fluff like YouTube export, which can be accomplished so easily with other software after you have your master produced in SF, you should really have made sure the app had a solid workflow down for the majority of its pro users. I obviously can't speak for all of them, all I know is that for me it's &%$#%& frustrating when the first part of the process is super fluid (recording), then it completely breaks down in the middle (editing), but if you manage to get past that it's all sunshine again (wicked good mp4 export with small file size and crisp images).

In a word: Maddening!  
(Version 2.0)

CRAIGSEE  I'm a beta tester. I test products I like, not out of obligation. I test many programs so it's not specific to Telestream. I also moderate many online forums for video related industries. I don't speak for Telestream, I speak as a beta tester which is different than an end user though. It does mean I find issues and make suggestion for the programs I test. Hence my knowledge about the products I test.

Many end users don't understand the process by which some features make it into a program and others don't or have a longer cycle. When someone says they see feature A and not feature B, I explain WHY that's the case to the end user is aware. There's a difference between a missing feature as an oversight vs one that simply isn't ready yet. I know that so I express it so readers can be INFORMED. It's unfortunate that you don't see that as an important point. You point out what is/isn't there. I point out WHY. Big difference. I think WHY is important.

I'm not a marketing person and as a beta tester I make suggestions along with other beta testers so I may have nothing to do with a specific feature. Keep in mind that marketing people often do add features, like YouTube export, because they're getting requests for it. As a beta tester I make suggestion, I don't add anything people in the company, not beta testers, make those decision.

ScreenFlow happens to be a rapidly developing product. Different features will have different development time lines. What it doesn't have today, it may have in the future. You may be frustrated by the lack of a feature. I felt it should be explained why it's not there. Many other new and great features are. Others are coming I'd think.

Macworld posted a REVEIW which was professionally written and balanced.  
(Version 2.0)

GLA  Yes, just cling to that "REVIEW" (Professional! Balanced!) :-) if that's what floats your boat.

You write that you just wanted to keep people "INFORMED", to point out "WHY" things where like they were. Oddly enough it took you five replies to get to that.

But sure, silly me for pounding on issues that don't work like they should. How rude of me! We must all be nice to the developers, and just gladly accept what nuggets they decide to throw to us, the unwashed and ill-informed masses. I sincerly apologize! I mean, if an important feature is "VERY DIFFICULT" to implement then we must be understanding and just wait. Because we care for the developer's emotional state. We just have to work around the problem and hope for the best. "Maybe next version" we can think softly to ourselves. But we must never express frustration, and especially not in a public forum. That is bad form. Because, after all, that important feature is "VERY DIFFICULT" to implement. And also, there is a very positive, balanced and professional REVIEW. So what do we know? Nothing. That's what. We only have over a year's worth of real-world usage under our belt. No big deal. That was a professional REVIEW, son.

Really? Is that what you think? It is important to explain why that important feature is not there? And the answer is that it's very difficult? But YouTube export is there? Ok.

In my world, version 2.0 should be a mature product with core functionality completely nailed. If the internal process in the company dictates, for the version 2.0 release, to prioritize development of transitions and YouTube export over implementing core functionality, then there's something very wrong. In my world, you implement the difficult features that form core functionality as soon as you can and definitely within the 1.x release cycle or at the very least in the 2.0 version, to give your users a solid experience and scare off competitors. But maybe that's just me.

You can explain and inform and tell us why and point to the (professional and balanced) review all you want. But: I don't care why and I don't think users should ever have to be explained why something that seems like core functionality isn't there. If you have to do that, there's something wrong with your product. Also, if the explanation you deliver with a straight face is "it's very difficult!" and you're at version 2.0, then there's something wrong with the company.

I'm not trying to flame, but there you have it.

And when merge clips appears in SceenFlow, I'm going to take full credit. Cos you know that shouting helps. Why do you think I do this? It's not because I enjoy trouncing you, I can assure you. That's just added bonus. :-)  
(Version 2.0)

CRAIGSEE  I was one of the beta testers, not a developer. Shouting does not work. Making feature suggestions does. As a beta tester I think it's a courtesy to explain why a feature may not yet be included. Given your comments you apparently aren't aware of development cycles. As I've mentioned I test other products from other companies . . . and rather than appreciating a comment from someone who tested the product, you continue to shout as well as claim to "know" where a product should be in its development cycle.

ScreenFlow at 2.0 has a very good feature set and that becomes more evident when you compare it to other screencasting programs.  
(Version 2.0)

GLA  Ah, you're so funny!

If ScreenFlow wasn't the best app for what it's supposed to do, I wouldn't have used it, would I? If you think that is what we're discussing you haven't paid attention to the discussion. So I think I'm going to leave it there.

PS. I'm obviously not shouting at *you*, I'm shouting *to* Telestream, indirectly, by addressing these issues in this very popular forum for downloading and discovering software.  
(Version 2.0)