螢幕錄影還是程式碼生成的產品示範影片：應該選哪一種？

An honest side by side of recording your screen and rebuilding your UI from code, with the cases where each one is the better choice.

There are now two very different ways to make a product demo video. You can record your screen while you use the app, or you can have a tool rebuild the app's screens from its source code and animate them. Both produce an MP4. They get there in completely different ways, and that changes what each one is good at.

This isn't a post that ends with "always use code". Screen recorders are the right tool for a lot of jobs. The goal is to make the choice on purpose.

Disclosure: I make DemoVexa, which is demo video software that rebuilds your UI from code, so I have a side in this. I've tried to be fair about where a screen recorder is the better choice.

Key takeaways

• Screen recorders capture exactly what's on screen, quickly, with almost no setup.
• Code-generated demos rebuild the UI from source, which makes them easier to update and keeps real data off screen.
• Recorders win for quick, informal and one off videos. Code-generated demos win for videos you'll keep and update.
• Many teams will use both, for different kinds of video.

Contents

• Key takeaways
• How does each approach work?
• How do they compare side by side?
• When is a screen recorder the better choice?
• When is a code generated demo the better choice?
• What does each one cost you?
• Where does DemoVexa sit?
• A simple way to decide
• FAQ

How does each approach work?

A screen recorder captures pixels from your display, usually with your voice and sometimes your webcam. What you do is what the viewer sees. Tools range from the recorder built into your operating system to dedicated apps with editing, captions and sharing.

A code-generated demo starts from the product's code. A tool reads it, writes or takes a script, adds a voice, and recreates the screens as animation. Nothing is captured from a display. The output looks like the app because it's built from the same components, labels and styles.

How do they compare side by side?

Neither column is better everywhere. The rows that matter depend on the video you're making.

When is a screen recorder the better choice?

• Quick, informal videos. Explaining a bug to a teammate, answering a support question, giving feedback on a design.
• Anything with your face. A founder update or a personal sales follow up works better with a real person on camera.
• Live behaviour. If the point is that a real integration responds, or real data loads, a recording shows that honestly.
• One off videos. If nobody will watch it after this week, the update cost doesn't matter.
• No access to the code. If you can't get the code or a good description of the product, recording is the practical option.

When is a code generated demo the better choice?

• Videos you'll keep. Landing page demos, docs videos and onboarding clips stay useful for months, so the cost of updating them matters most.
• Products that change often. If the UI changes every few weeks, rebuilding from code is easier than re-recording.
• Several formats. When you need 16:9, 9:16 and 1:1, a tool that lays out each format separately avoids awkward crops.
• Several languages. Rewriting a script and voice per language is easier than recording a person in each one.
• Privacy. When your real environment holds customer data you can't show, recreated screens with sample data avoid the problem.

What does each one cost you?

Not in money, which varies by tool, but in time and attention:

• Screen recording costs most in the recording and editing session, and again every time the product changes.
• Code-generated demos cost most in setup and review: pointing the tool at the right code, reading the script, checking the scene plan and the final video.

If a video will be redone many times, the second pattern usually ends up cheaper. If it's made once, the first one usually is.

Where does DemoVexa sit?

DemoVexa is product demo video software that rebuilds your UI from code instead of recording it. It's a desktop app for macOS, Windows and Linux, with a CLI. It reads a local code folder, Claude writes the script, ElevenLabs can voice it (or you record your own voice, or use captions only), and the screens are recreated as animated React components and rendered as MP4s in 16:9, 9:16 and 1:1. The page on why it makes videos from code instead of screen recordings explains the reasoning in more detail.

It's not a screen recorder, and it doesn't try to replace one for quick, personal videos.

A simple way to decide

Ask two questions about the video:

1. Will anyone still watch it in three months?
2. Will the screens it shows change before then?

If both answers are yes, a code-generated demo is worth trying. If either answer is no, a screen recorder is probably the faster choice.

FAQ

Is a code-generated demo better than a screen recording?

Not in general. It's better for videos you'll keep and update, and for avoiding real data on screen. A screen recording is better for quick, personal and one off videos, and for showing live behaviour.

Can I use both approaches in the same product?

Yes. A common split is code-generated demos for landing pages, docs and launches, and screen recordings for support replies, internal updates and anything with a person on camera.

Do code-generated demos look like the real app?

They're built to. Because they use the app's own labels, layout and styles, they look like the product, but they're a recreation, so it's worth comparing them to the real app before publishing.

What do I need to make a code-generated demo with DemoVexa?

A copy of the code on your computer (or the product's website and documents), Claude Code with a Claude Pro or Max plan or an Anthropic API key, and optionally an ElevenLabs key for AI voices. The page on requirements for making demo videos from code lists them in full.