On 7/12/2024 1:43 PM,
jaugustine@verizon.net wrote:
Hi,
I tried a couple Screen Recording apps, but I could
NOT find it easy to record and save the video.
Note: I am willing to pay for it, if it does what I want.
First I tried "Movavi". That one was a HASSLE for saving
the video.
I tried "TinyTake", but had issues with Hot keys selection.
"Camtasia" is suppose to be the best, but the price of $250 (about)
is more than I am willing to spend.
Once in a great while, I would like to download a YT video. If
I wanted to download many videos, I would pay the $250 (about)
for Camtasia.
If you use a screen recorder in order to capture videos,
and you are happy with it, please tell me the name.
Thank You in advance, John
I would think a hardware capture card would be best.
It might manage to capture VSYNC, whereas software recorders
are generally, just awful (async).
One reason you want a thing like that on a PCI Express bus,
is to avoid things like "compression". For example, a computer
with an NVMe for storage, could record raw as long as the
capture device isn't a bottleneck. You could do, say, a three minute
music video, and not lose anything during the capture phase. I've
recorded here, at 250 FPS, and at that point, the computer is
just starting to lose it. It can't handle rates too much higher than
that, while dumping to a RAM disk. The software becomes jerky.
You have to be really careful, to not get "junk". Now, this has passthru,
so a monitor can show you what s being captured. But with a USB3 connector,
I don't know if that's sufficient, to avoid compression entirely, and a device doing MJPEG compression doesn't look all that nice.
https://idaffodil.co.uk/products/august-vgb500-hdmi-passthrough-capture-card
*******
The hardware industry is a shambles. It used to be, you could get
a card (maybe not with passthru) for about $130. The prices are all
over the place now.
Avermedia is presumably priced for "influencers on Youtube". Humans don't
spend that kind of money, just for a little bit of streaming capture.
It's almost as bad as when capture first came out, and the equipment
for it was the size of a bathtub and cost thousands. It's almost like
those times threaten to come back, when the chips to do this, cost peanuts.
(Or at least, they used to cost peanuts. The single biggest issue
with this stuff used to be HDCP, and I don't know why the adverts don't
offer an opinion on HDCP when selling these things. HDCP prevents capture
at somewhere around 1080p60. HDMI 2.1, the HDCP is likely unbroken on that. )
While our hardware keeps getting "more capable", the results look worse and worse.
I tested this just recently :-/ I think I could software-record at 15FPS. Yikes.
It is 1999 again already ? I used to do 320x240 on a Mac, for fuck sakes.
Will Windows 12 offer 320x240 at 10FPS ?
*******
Boot up a Linux. Test this. See what you think.
Now, can Windows do that ? It used to be able to do it.
At about 60FPS on Windows 7 (with Aero turned off).
https://www.maartenbaert.be/simplescreenrecorder/
That will be within the Repo of a lot of distributions,
so the Package Manager in the Linux will have it.
The reason we're doing this, is to look at a low jitter
capture of a screen, and then work on the Windows side,
to match what you see. In both cases, the video you put on
the screen has to be play-able on both computers. That uses
some of the concepts of FFMPEG capture, but with parts of
it re-written.
I also have a home made test video I use for capture testing.
It has an incrementing number in the middle of the
screen, to make it easy to see sampling jitter. But that does
not do any audio testing. It may help, to have time stamping
on the video format, to try to keep audio and video aligned.
I did one recording, where I locked the audio and video together
based on the alignment at the beginning of the video. And it
turns out, the audio and the video "wander" with respect to one
another. No "single point adjustment" could make a decent video.
This stuff is just full of defects, which is why a hardware
capture device would be a breath of fresh air. A capture card
should be able to capture every frame, without dropping any,
and with the audio right in the HDMI frames.
*******
If you use YT-DLP, which just downloads the video as a file,
then that avoids the perils of screen capture methods. That's
what everyone uses here for Youtube, a downloader method, not
a screen capture method. I only experimented with the screen
capture way, for some "fun".
Paul
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
