 | Oct 29 2009 |
THATSTHEWAY ScreenFlow has always been an extremely user friendly and relatively powerful program. It beats SnapzProX by far. The export works much better and you have a lot more screencasting tools in ScreenFlow. I do have to admit, though, that there are a lot of bugs that not at all been addressed by the developer. It's very frustrating when the program freezes after a long recording, losing everything that you have just done. In addition, the program sometimes adds an extra pixel to the exported video. It would be nice to see some new tools to better an already great program. A Join feature is an absolute must for video editing. It really makes working with clips a lot easier. It would also be great to see some kind of integration with recording software (Garageband for example), because the audio tools for ScreenFlow just don't reach the professional mark. And why not include an estimated file size feature or a preview in the export dialog. QuickTime 7 Pro has the latter. Really, you guys are doing a great job, but we need a little more stability and professional tools.
(Version 2.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Oct 26 2009 |
GLA I've used ScreenFlow 1.x for a long time, for many screen casts. There are many aspects of this application that are fantastic. And probably, for what it has been created for, producing slick screen casts, it is the best there is. However, there are certain things about it that are maddening, and from what I can see version 2.0 does not fix them. Where it is most lacking is in the video/audio editing department. It is an application meant for full cycle, from start to finish. So it must have a capable suit of editing tools. It doesn't. Example: You shoot your screen cast. Fine. It comes up in SF as one long video/audio strip on the time line. First rough cut, you want to trim to get rid of the bad parts, the parts you had to do again or where you went "Ehhhh, and then, eeh..." First offence, there is no trim. You can't select part of a clip in the middle and go delete. You have to split the clip in three to get rid of a bad middle part. Ok, to live with. Now you have your rough edit down. So now you want to add a few zooms and pans to focus on the important areas of your screen. SC has beautiful zoom, the trouble is getting it to behave when you have many clips in your time line. For one thing, a video action cannot occur across a clip cut. AND THERE IS NO MERGE CLIPS COMMAND. Once you have cut a clip in twine, forever shall the two be apart. Yes, there is undo of course, but for crying out loud! Now, to get the new screen viewport resulting from the zoom propagated to the next clip you have to select the next clip as well as the one where you want the video action to occur, and *then* perform the video action where you want it on the first clip (I hope you already can see how messed up that is, from a conceptual standpoint. But that is not even the point.). In fact, you have to select multiple clips until you are certain that all the clips are selected where you will want the screen to be zoomed in. If you are lucky, that'll do the trick. If you are unlucky, the zoom will only 'take' on the first clip, or the first few clips, or there will be one clip in the middle where the zoom didn't take, or that simply for some reason now displays black. It's just gone black. Nothing there. Ok, so now I've staggered into the realm of bugs. Maybe those have been fixed in version 2.0. But the fact remains that the way video actions work, not to have a merge clips command is bordering on insane. The lesson of course is: "Kids, do your video actions first, before you make the rough cut". What kind of hopeless editing software forces you into such a workflow? Well, not forces, as much of teaches you, after your first two attempts to make that screen cast has been reduced to a mess of time line cuts, broken zooms and clip offsets. "But aren't there numeric controls to set zoom and pan, so that you could line up clips, one after the other?", you might ask. Yes, there are numerical controls for zoom/scale and rotation. But as a cruel joke, there aren't any for offset. So you have better control over clip rotation than clip offset. Talk about having your priorities right. You can drag/offset the clip visually, of course, and it's suppose to snap to the edge of the viewport. But good luck with with. If you are happy having clips jump 1-3 pixels in a random direction across clip cuts, by all means go ahead and try that. Well, maybe all this too has been fixed in version 2. But it wasn't mentioned in the "New features" PDF, so I'm doubtful. The point is it shouldn't work like that. There is so much promise in this app, and other aspects are so beautifully executed that these criminally bad omissions and bugs (and there are more of them) seem like, well they honestly seem like a few brilliant developers with a few too few testers to challenge the way the developers think that everybody are using their software. What version 2 really should have focused on was the editing weaknesses. Not transitions and YouTube export and other marketing department features. Too bad.
(Version 2.0) | |
| [ 13 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
 | Oct 27 2009 |
CRAIGSEE While it doesn't use the Elegato Turbo, it does use Matrox CompressHD and it speeds export about 300%
(Version 2.0) | |
| Oct 27 2009 |
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) | |
| Oct 27 2009 |
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) | |
| Oct 27 2009 |
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) | |
| Oct 27 2009 |
CRAIGSEE Macworld review of ScreenFlow 2.0 http://www.macworld.com/article/143482/2009/10/screenflow2.html
(Version 2.0) | |
| Oct 27 2009 |
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) | |
| Oct 27 2009 |
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) | |
| Oct 28 2009 |
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) | |
| Oct 29 2009 |
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) | |
| Oct 29 2009 |
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) | |
| Oct 29 2009 |
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) | |
| Oct 29 2009 |
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) | |
| Oct 29 2009 |
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) | |
| Sep 24 2009 |
JEFF H. Can ScreenFlow use the Elgato Turbo.264 when rendering/exporting?
(Version 1.5.4) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Sep 21 2009 |
ICONZ113 How does this work with snow leopard?
(Version 1.5.4) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
 | Apr 30 2009 |
MAXRUEHL I had a crash in the middle of a render. Can you tell me if there might be a remaining partial temp file hidden on my scratch disk that I would need to delete manually? If so, where would it be located?
(Version 1.5.2) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jan 26 2009 |
REAL MEN RIDE SINGLESPEEDS Looks just what I need but does anyone know if the movies this creates run okay Chrome, IE and Firefox on MS Windows?
(Version 1.2.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jan 21 2009 |
STEPHENRS I've tried almost all of the other screen recording apps, and none of them even come close to ScreenFlow. Effortless UI and workflow, rock solid video recording/exporting, and many features not found in any of the other apps. It really is a joy to use. It costs a bit more than the others, but if you need to make professional quality screencasts, or want to be able to easily make adjustments after the initial capture, it's well worth the investment. The closest contender with regard to features and price is SnapZ Pro, and Screenflow blows it away...
(Version 1.2.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Dec 5 2008 |
IMAGE_CTRL exceptionally strong application... very nice job!
(Version 1.2.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Nov 18 2008 |
RICKDUDE This is very, very good. I don't really know what I'm doing, but was able to make a semi-competent screencast in quite a short time.
(Version 1.2.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Nov 18 2008 |
SHRALLDAM I love Screenflow. But why did they have to change the registration system?
(Version 1.2.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Oct 30 2008 |
GCOGHILL I have to say I am amazed at the feature set of this application. Not only does it offer everything I was looking for in a video screen capture app, but what's unbelievable is that all the effects are dynamic -- keystroke overlay, mouse zoom, pointer click indicators, pointer scaling -- everything is added after the fact while you prep your video, so you don't have to worry about the recording while you record. It's all done in the editing stage and is extensively -- and easily -- customizable. I didn't know something like this was even possible! And this impression is from a quick 5-minute test drive, not even reading the manual or help. After some more usage I'll have to give it a star rating, but for now -- wow!
(Version 1.2) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Aug 29 2008 |
MACGRUDER So far this is exactly what I need. Seems great. But one totally weird thing: Screen capture applications are ideal for showing people how to use software. So wtf doesn't Screenflow itself have an screenflow made tutorial. Sure they have a promotional video which is great for marketing the product but one has to wonder how good the product really is if they have been unable to use Screenflow to make a video how to use Screenflow.
(Version 1.2) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Aug 27 2009 |
4QVS Well, maybe it is not trivial to use the same software to record and demonstrate at the same time !?!
(Version 1.5.4) | |
| Aug 8 2008 |
DONMONTALVO I know one word reviews are not very helpful, and pretty annoying...but...WOW!!! Don Montalvo, NYC
(Version 1.2) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jul 25 2008 |
JABRAMS As others have said, this application is wonderful. Screenflow makes many slick editing operations quite easy, and the results always look great. In the past I used iMovie HD to create screencasts and the results were okay, but nothing like what I can get with Screenflow. My only complaint (and this may just be my failure to find the solution) is that there is not a very good method for adjusting the timing of the video. I usually start by recording the narration, and I always end up wanting to either speed up or slow down the video at various points to match the narration. Just let me stretch or compress regions of the video and I would be forever grateful! Despite this one request, there really is not better application out there for producing screencasts. If that is what you want to do, get this program!
(Version 1.1.3) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jul 25 2008 |
IERIKA You wont even touch your final cut to produce screencasts.
(Version 1.1.3) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| May 31 2008 |
BIAGIO1 Highly recommend! Best app ever :-)
(Version 1.1.2) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| May 31 2008 |
WIMDS I can recommend this awesome app to everybody. ScreenFlow work like you should ask from a Pro app and it has a decent video editor on board. The dev gives good and quickly support to all emails. I give it a 5 star :-)
(Version 1.1.2) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| May 13 2008 |
MACLOVIN This app is great. I bought Snapz Pro X from the MacHeist II bundle, but I just can't get into it. I don't like that you can't preview movies, mainly. This seems so much easier to use, has never crashed on me, and seems on par with Snapz in terms of features. A bit costly in my opinion, though.
(Version 1.1.1) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| May 13 2008 |
MACLOVIN Oh, and a bit of advice: get Mouseposé with this.
(Version 1.1.1) | |
| Apr 23 2008 |
PIXELJUNKEY Just switched from Snapz Pro and I won't look back. This product is so much more robust and is every bit as easy if not easier to use than Snapz. Not to mention Snapz has languished with the same feature set for over 2 years. Time to give the new player on the block my business. Nice work Vara!
(Version 1.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Apr 22 2008 |
GLA ZANGIEF: Fail. I'm a long-time Snapz Pro user, but ScreenFlow is targeted for a different use and has different features. Snapz records your screen. Full stop. But Screenflow is so much more. Not only does it record your screen action impeccably, but it has a complete authoring anvironment to author the screencast after you've recorded some action. A really effective authring env. Great for tutorials, demos and thelike.
(Version 1.1) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Apr 23 2008 |
PIXELJUNKEY Agree completely. Anyone who says or implies Snapz can do more either a) works for Ambrosia or b) has never used Screen Flow. It does *MUCH* more than Snapz. Well worth the money.
(Version 1.1) | |
| Apr 6 2008 |
ZANGIEF Two words: Snapz Pro. More flexibility and features, and at a price people can afford. Non-obtrusive, runs in the back and is available with a simple hotkey. If you got Snapz Pro through the MacHeist bundle, it was even more affordable. Nice app I suppose, but not worth the money.
(Version 1.0.2) | |
| [ 4 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Apr 22 2008 |
SHRALLDAM You must be kidding. Screenflow has some flaws, but you can't compare it to Snapz Pro. I've been using Snapz for years and while I like some of its features, it just records the screen. That's all. And you have to wait until your movie is compressed. Screenflow lets you do much more, like editing your recordings. Ambrosia did not update SP for ages (they just made it UB a while ago), and the price has not changed since either. Oh, and if it's all about the hotkey you can use from any app, Screenflow does it too: in the Preferences, you can activate the helper which will look for the key combination even if Screenflow isn't launched. Sorry, but even if Snapz Pro was a good utility a few years ago, it's now largely beaten.
(Version 1.1) | |
| Apr 22 2008 |
FARDILHA I have to agree with Shralldam. I've been testing the demo of ScreenFlow and so far it seems quite more capable than Snapz Pro. Besides, Snapz Pro crashes A LOT on intel processors.
(Version 1.1) | |
| Apr 23 2008 |
PIXELJUNKEY If you think Snapz "does more", you have never used Screen Flow, period. There is nothing Snapz can do that Screen Flow can't, and there are several things (like call-outs) that Snapz can't do. Please be honest with your review and don't spam the reviews just because you don't want to try something new.
(Version 1.1) | |
| Aug 12 2008 |
MACGRUDER Try zooming with Snapz.
(Version 1.2) | |
| Mar 31 2008 |
FLASHGEN I actually own this app and it is good but I have to agee, while Screenflow is a good app, it is missing quite a few key features: * You cannot rename assets (so you could end up with a few "built in mic" audio clips (if you use Screenflow to capture audio) * There is no ability to pause a frame and have it span a period of time. You need to actually record a static loop and then keep adding it from the library to get the desired lenght if it is longer than the lip itself * None of the assets provide information on what their duration is - you need to place them on to the main timeline and try and work it out from there. * There are no hotkeys for Delete (which seems a bit odd... * You don't appear to be able to define a region of your screen / just an application like you can in Snapz Pro * It is rather expensive for what it currently offers. On the upside, it does create very smooth good quality casts and the audio is clear - even from the built in microphone of my MBP. I'm hoping that the developers will take these comments on board and potentially add these features sooner rather than later (i.e version 2.0).
(Version 1.0.2) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| May 12 2008 |
SPACEROGER @FlashGen : In response to : "You don't appear to be able to define a region of your screen / just an application like you can in Snapz Pro" In one of the demos on the developper site, you see that you can in fact crop a section of the screen after you recorded. I suppose they feel it give you more flexibility that way (i'll have to try to see if it's true, but it seem to be a nice way to build a good screencast)
(Version 1.1.1) | |
| Feb 26 2008 |
LMP Very nice tool for creating video tutorials, but way overpriced for most home users, and version 1.0.x still lacks the features that would make it a great choice for professionals who could afford it. Personally, I'd buy it if it it was $50 or less just to encourage the developers to add more features, but $100 is way too much for my budget.
(Version 1.0.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Feb 18 2008 |
87LINES Simply amazing! A bit pricey, but well worth it!
(Version 1.0.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Feb 18 2008 |
PROFETES Completely agree with the rest of the other reviewers. Amazing app!!!
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Feb 17 2008 |
GROOVEMACHINE This app is amazing. I couldn't believe how much better it was than Snapz Pro X and iShowU. It records with a flawless framerate (the movie is literally full-speed, like you're using the computer), and has an awesome editor once you're done recording. It doesn't slow down your computer at all. ScreenFlow, despite the price, is the best video screen capture app available.
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Feb 17 2008 |
MACVAULT Finally! A screen capture app that does justice on the Mac. Blows away EVERY other program I've tried for capture. 'Nuff said.
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ 6 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Feb 19 2008 |
ROY VAN DER WONING Funny how most people who end their review with "'nuff said" don't actually say much at all. Just reading how an app "blows away" the competition is hardly "nuff" for anyone who is looking for factual info.
(Version 1.0.1) | |
| Feb 19 2008 |
MACVAULT Funny how there's always somebody who has the time to bitch and complain about something.
(Version 1.0.1) | |
| Feb 19 2008 |
ROY VAN DER WONING Classy response; every bit as smug as the boilerplate "review" you apparently fail to see the futility of.
(Version 1.0.1) | |
| Feb 19 2008 |
MACVAULT Yeah, you're classy alright. Exactly where does my comment say "review". Idiot.
(Version 1.0.1) | |
| Feb 19 2008 |
ROY VAN DER WONING Window title: "Screenflow Reviews" Header: "Original Review" When posting: "Write a Review", "Review type" and "Post review" And how is this even relevant? Does labeling your blurb as "Comment" instead of "Review" somehow make it more relevant or valuable to MacUpdate community? Being obnoxious and resorting to ad hominem attacks is a poor but telltale and transparant way to cover up a lack of comprehension/conversational skills. I'm done here. Let the people decide.
(Version 1.0.1) | |
| Feb 19 2008 |
MACVAULT Yes, let's let the people decide by all means. They should begin by reading your other comments. As I said earlier, there's always someone who just likes to bitch and moan. Seems to describe you well. http://www.macupdate.com/users/Roy%20van%20der%20Woning
(Version 1.0.1) | |
| Feb 15 2008 |
ZAC Amazing. Blows the socks off every other screen recording app I've used.
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Feb 14 2008 |
TESLANAUT This is a really amazing app. Steep price though. If you can, could you make a Lite or Free version of your application? With the watermark of your logo on the bottom right like a TV show. I would greatly appreciate it. And hey, it just might start a new trend.
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Feb 14 2008 |
TESLANAUT Nevermind, I got it from your website and it works. I've been using it and its a pretty good application. Though 100 Dollars seems really steep...
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Feb 14 2008 |
TESLANAUT I think your file is broken. The DMG is unmountable.
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
|
Main
