Best screen recording programs

gren00b · #1 01-30-2010, 04:09 PM

I'd like to put together a video of my Sniplane in action, but being as my computer isn't a beast I need to find a program that will run smoothly without amazing hardware.

Currently I'm running an Intel Duo 2.1 GHz, 4gb RAM, Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit; I'm not sure what my video card is (I'm writing this at work), but I know it's an Intel one so it's nothing amazing.

When I am running Fraps (without recording) I'm easily at 60fps while playing altitude, once I start to record (with 1280x800 resolution, high resolution) it drops to 4fps. If I make the resolution as bad as it gets and do half-size recording with no audio with Fraps I can get it to vary between 16 and 20, in which I can almost control my plane to fly--just fly though, no shooting here.

Are there any other programs that can run efficiently on lesser computers or am I just SOL?

Edit: I don't need a program that records in HD, even if I could play in 600x480 at low resolution at a decent fps that would be fine.

Triped · #2 01-30-2010, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gren00b

I'd like to put together a video of my Sniplane in action, but being as my computer isn't a beast I need to find a program that will run smoothly without amazing hardware.

Currently I'm running an Intel Duo 2.1 GHz, 4gb RAM, Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit; I'm not sure what my video card is (I'm writing this at work), but I know it's an Intel one so it's nothing amazing.

When I am running Fraps (without recording) I'm easily at 60fps while playing altitude, once I start to record (with 1280x800 resolution, high resolution) it drops to 4fps. If I make the resolution as bad as it gets and do half-size recording with no audio with Fraps I can get it to vary between 16 and 20, in which I can almost control my plane to fly--just fly though, no shooting here.

Are there any other programs that can run efficiently on lesser computers or am I just SOL?

Edit: I don't need a program that records in HD, even if I could play in 600x480 at low resolution at a decent fps that would be fine.

Are you recording to the same drive as Altitude? You need to record to a separate drive.

Beagle · #3 01-30-2010, 04:53 PM

I've never had a compy with an internal video card so I think you might be SOL!

As far as I'm aware - no wait, I'm gonna stop myself here for a disclaimer.

I'm terrible tech-wise. My best friend always plans, buys and builds my computers for me. If it breaks, I can usually fix it, but if it breaks HARD he's the only person to call. Now, with that in mind, this is what I believe based on my experiences;

Screen-capturing to video demands a lot, particularly on the video card I believe, hence why you might have some serious issues with an internal one. Furthermore I'm pretty sure if FRAPs can't handle it, its your PC in general, I've always been pretty happy with its performance. Normally I'd include that it could be the game itself, but I've FRAPsed Alty a bit and had no issues.

Best of luck to you getting it to work anyway! Its always a pleasure to see new names playing my favourite of Altitude's playstyles, so I hope we'll see your video soon.

tyr · #4 01-30-2010, 05:13 PM

I tend to agree with Beagle. All my videos are from Fraps and it works fine.
I have just some minor lag when I record but it's very playable.

Varonth · #5 01-30-2010, 08:15 PM

Jep using Fraps works pretty good.

Which Fraps Version are you using?
3.0.1 is the actual one.

Also your CPU might be a bit slow.
Fraps, although its a very low compressing codec, uses the frapscodec to compress the video.
Without this, a Video would be way to much data.
Just an example:
A video with 3.9gb filmed by fraps, is about 17gb without the fraps codec used for compression.

This needs some CPU power.
What was already mention is the fact, that filming on a HDD which isn't the one with the operating system and/or the one of Altitude would increase the speed a bit.
And that means another HDD, not just a partion of the existing one.

The last thing you could do to increase your performance is closing al non-relevant background processes to free more CPU-time and RAM.

gren00b · #6 01-30-2010, 09:17 PM

I was using 3.0.3, it's the newest version on their website. Coincidentally, I recently purchased an external hdd; tonight I'll try recording to that and see if it helps.

Edit: Has anyone used Camtasia before? I was just reading a review that said: Full DV/HDV 64 bit, multi-core video capture that doesn’t drop 30fps to 5fps or introduce voice sync problems when a PIP video is captured simultaneously with the screen on the same computer.

So that has to be good lol. If recording to another hdd doesn't work I think I'll try Camtasia. I'll post my results tonight in case anyone else has a similar problem in the future.

gren00b · #7 01-30-2010, 11:55 PM

I tried recording onto my external hdd and it was still super slow. For those of you who have ran FRAPS fine, what are your specs? Maybe I'll just go buy a desktop...

Stormich · #8 01-31-2010, 12:04 AM

External disk doesn't change anything, you need a slave disk to record to. Try having your settings lower and record. I get around 30 fps (which is still kinda low) when i have 1024x768 on medium graphic settings.

gren00b · #9 01-31-2010, 12:19 AM

I think I've solved my problem. I'm now using Growler Guncam and I can record easily at 30fps on 600x480 high details--even got a nice two-kill shot recorded.

Hopefully I'll be able to record at higher resolutions to make the videos any nicer, but everyone should expect a nice Sniplane video coming out soon, and it's gonna be epic, I'm talking like feature film length here lol.

iTimmy · #10 03-05-2010, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gren00b

I'd like to put together a video of my Sniplane in action, but being as my computer isn't a beast I need to find a program that will run smoothly without amazing hardware.

Currently I'm running an Intel Duo 2.1 GHz, 4gb RAM, Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit; I'm not sure what my video card is (I'm writing this at work), but I know it's an Intel one so it's nothing amazing.

When I am running Fraps (without recording) I'm easily at 60fps while playing altitude, once I start to record (with 1280x800 resolution, high resolution) it drops to 4fps. If I make the resolution as bad as it gets and do half-size recording with no audio with Fraps I can get it to vary between 16 and 20, in which I can almost control my plane to fly--just fly though, no shooting here.

Are there any other programs that can run efficiently on lesser computers or am I just SOL?

Edit: I don't need a program that records in HD, even if I could play in 600x480 at low resolution at a decent fps that would be fine.

Probably way too late but check out Jing, it should do exactly what you're looking for http://www.jingproject.com/

gren00b · #11 03-10-2010, 08:02 PM

I'll look into it. Growler is running well but I can only record at 20fps (thought I am able to get 1280x800 resolution).

outlawz-gosu · #12 03-10-2010, 10:55 PM

I use WeGame to record altitude. The FPS goes from 60 to 45. Much better the what I get from fraps.

WeGame.com check it out.

Pieface · #13 03-10-2010, 10:59 PM

Currently using iShowU HD (Mac) to record some videos for the ladder contest. I've been recording at 29.97fps for ease of editing, but my in-game FPS stays at a constant 60. Haven't experimented yet with higher capture frame-rates.

drunkguava · #14 03-10-2010, 11:02 PM

Yeah I'm using iShowU also, but non-HD. It's working great. I was able to even record games i was playing in earlier, but it's not working well anymore for some reason. FPS drops too much. As long as I'm not playing though, I record 30 FPS and get in-game of 50 or so.

-MH-CaptainVogez · #15 03-11-2010, 11:52 AM

Capture at 144fps and then polarise each picture opposite of each other.
Then we can watch it in 3D when 3D TV's are the big thang!

nesnl · #16 03-11-2010, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -MH-CaptainVogez

Capture at 144fps and then polarise each picture opposite of each other.
Then we can watch it in 3D when 3D TV's are the big thang!

That's how movie theaters show 3D movies with alternating frames of polarized light. However, the technology will actually be different for a home tv because actually displaying polarized light would require you to buy a whole new tv. The home versions of 3D will actually just show alternating frames on the tv (but not polarized) and you will wear glasses that will have a "shutter" in each lens that will alternate on and off.

gren00b · #17 03-11-2010, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nesnl

That's how movie theaters show 3D movies with alternating frames of polarized light. However, the technology will actually be different for a home tv because actually displaying polarized light would require you to buy a whole new tv. The home versions of 3D will actually just show alternating frames on the tv (but not polarized) and you will wear glasses that will have a "shutter" in each lens that will alternate on and off.

Aren't they making whole new tv's for 3d viewing...?

nesnl · #18 03-11-2010, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gren00b

Aren't they making whole new tv's for 3d viewing...?

no, that's why I said it would require whole new technology. I mean of course you will be able to buy ones that are 3D ready, but the technology is different than that in a movie theater. As long as your current tv can display 144 frames per second then you will be able to buy an adapter unit.

Pieface · #19 03-11-2010, 10:23 PM

Just to clarify, there are currently two widely used ways to create a 3D image:

1. Anaglyph images are by far the easiest way to add dimension to your stills or video. The gist of creating an anaglyph image is that you composite two colorized versions of the same picture on top of each other. The two versions need to be colorized such that they occupy opposite positions on the color spectrum (the most common colors used are red and cyan), and arranged so that they are in slightly overlapping and shifted positions. When you wear glasses that have lenses colored to match the two separate layers of the image, your brain molds the two images to create perspective and give the illusion of a 3-Dimensional scene. Anaglyph images are fairly easy to create in many image and film editing programs such as Photoshop and After Effects, and don't need any special technology to view.

Maimer and I actually fooled around with the idea a while ago of converting the official maps to anaglyph 3D images to be played by only the most hardcore in dedicated servers, but our plan failed due to the fact that everyone playing there would need highly calibrated red/cyan 3D glasses tuned to the exact hue that we had altered the images to.

2. Stereoscopic images on the other hand make use of different viewing angles instead of chromatically opposite superimposed layers. The most recent and widely used technology today is Sony's RealD, which projects alternating oppositely circularly polarized frames to account for the clockwise and counter-clockwise polarized lenses of your glasses. Unlike anaglyph images, it is impossible to create RealD images or films solely in post production due to the need of different footage from different viewing angles. Almost all normal film is shot at 24 (actually 23.976) frames per second, so using two slightly different shots of the same film you get 48 frames per second. However, each frame is repeated quickly three times to eliminate ghosting which gives you the final frame rate of 144 (24*2*3) frames per second. Note that this is not true for all 3D films, but rather is the RealD standard. RealD and other stereoscopic 3D films used to be projected from two different projectors, but more modern ones are able to project from only one projector. If you've recently seen any 3D movies such as Avatar you have undoubtedly witnessed some sort of stereoscopic projection, most likely RealD.

You might wonder how future TVs will be able to show regular program streams in 3D without the projection technology and polarization that happens in today's movie theaters. As Maimer said, one possible solution would be to show non-polarized footage and have special glasses that could turn "shutters" in each lens on or off. Another possible solution would be to scrap the idea of viewing glasses altogether, and put the technology that will add the dimension in the TV itself. These TVs would have a "parallax barrier" placed in front of the screen that would direct the light from the different frames into your separate eyes, removing the necessity of wearing 3D glasses. The downside of this approach is that you really need to be sitting right in front of the TV for it to work right, and your viewing angle becomes much less wide. Some fancier TVs have a second LCD screen in front of the first one, that can be turned on to create a virtual parallax barrier that would create the 3D effect only when you need it.

So that was the long, nerdy explanation. Maybe it's just me, but I find this stuff pretty interesting.

TL;DR version: Pretty soon, 3D television will be much more common than it is now. Until then, we can only guess at what will become the most widely accepted form of it.