How about using something like this together with a DVI-to-HDMI adaptor instead of pointing a video camera at the screen for video demos? It can capture video in full HD from HDMI. You do need a PC/Mac too though. There's also this, but it doesn't have an HDMI input, and would only be usable with cards that have a working HD component out (not sure if the drivers support that, and I have no hardware that could test it).
Pointing a video camera at the screen is fine if you also want to capture people watching, and the atmosphere at the show, but they just don't do the on-screen quality justice. SRec is another option, but recording slows the machine down, and so you can't record in full HD at full frame-rate.
Pretty interesting. Read info about "Intensity Pro", looks pertty cool. Can grab big resolutions in good quality at normal speed. Price also not so big - 200$.
Did that DVI-HDMI adapter are necessary ? Will it works on old radeons like Radeon9250 ?
Pretty interesting. How that will works ? I need 2 computers with 2 monitors: win32 + aos4, adapter which do DVI->HDMI conversion (will it works on radeon9250 ?) and then device itself, which will be controlled by win32 ?
Yes, you need another computer to act as the recorder. You should be able to get by with only one monitor.
Quote:
Price are 200$, not so many, i will be in interest to try this out when all details will sorted out
Yes, it is expensive. It's not worth it if you're only going to post one or two videos. However, it is the only way of getting full HD video at full framerate without slowing down the machine that you're recording. I've seen videos on youtube that have been recorded by these devices, and the results look good.
kas1e wrote: Did that DVI-HDMI adapter are necessary ? Will it works on old radeons like Radeon9250 ?
The Intensity pro has an HDMI input, not a DVI one. DVI-to-HDMI adaptors are pretty cheap though. It should work with any graphics card with a DVI output, so it should work with a 9250.
Yes, you need another computer to act as the recorder. You should be able to get by with only one monitor.
Yep, press record on win32, then swith back monitor to aos4 box and then do the work.
Already trying to found in Russia that device for now, price are 250$ :) Will order one today i think. Pretty cool to have such device (and not only because of aos4 recording).
@Hans I found also almost the same by quailty (even a bit better as docs says) device called "Matrox MXO2 Mini".There is pdf called "top 10 reassons by Matrox MX02 Mini, and not Intensity Pro". But price are much higher: 450$
Program solutions suck by default for our slow CPUs. Because it heavy load CPU for itself, and recording looks not how it should looks like. And because of it , HW solutions are the best way for us (and i think not only for us).
On the other hand if a software screen recorder was X1000 compatible I would use it with that all extra CPU juice it should run smoothly enough for recording Timberwolf and basic OS functionality for uploading to YouTube.
Imho djrikki mean that for x1000, these slowingdowns will be not visibly (because of fast cpu, and fast hdd). Of course it will slow-down in any way machine a little, but when you have 1.8ghz it will be no so visibly.
But on peg2, it visibly very, very very well. And i preffer make bad-quality-camera videos, in compare with SREC, which only show for users some 10fps -jump-jerkenes.
Imho that HW solution which you show (i mean IntensityPro) are very good idea.
Yeah slowing down the CPU is something you can't get away from when wanting to screen record is it!
But's that the same for any platform, my wee '05 iBook running at 1.2ghz PPC and a mega (at the time) 768mb of RAM used to fall over itself it just wasn't feasible.
Using a host machine and a dedicated hardware solution will always be the best solution if performance is key.
The clips I am thinking of making would be tutorial based eg:
How to multi-select files How to to crop an image How to rename a file etc...similar to what Apple do for noobs... I mean Mr and Mrs Average.
So hardly processor intensive anyway... at least with initial thinking.
You could likely use those, of course with the added PC host.
I thought the component adapters were relatively simple things, rearranging sync signals and maybe color conversion btu I kindof think not on color space., the radeon does whatever output as VGA and it's a basic translation to component wiring requirements.
Other platforms have a VCR sort of software that records what is displayed to the monitor, purely in software on the machine you're using at the time. Do we not have such a thing? If not, should we be begging for it? And then I see the post about srec...
I'd imagine the hdmi capture card in a PC is your best bet. I'd go for the USB one that does both HDMI and component... Same price... unless USB2 can't keep up and you also have to add a USB3 card, but I'd still do that. Though if you look at product reviews on Amazon, this brand doesn't score very high. :/
I vaguely remember coming across some commercial video processing board a few years ago, I believe that was an FPGA implementation and could be used with Linux video tools, but may have onbly taken power fromt eh PCI slot, couldnt' tell if there was computer access into it for capture purposes. I was searching for an HD component recorder at the time. Can't remember what it was called or find any google results that sound familiar to it. Most all I get now are FPGA experimenting boards and addon widgets with HDMI or DVI ports, leaving you to pay lots of money and still an empty FPGA and no drivers.
Edited by billt on 2010/7/26 23:06:26 Edited by billt on 2010/7/26 23:15:26
billt wrote: I'd imagine the hdmi capture card in a PC is your best bet. I'd go for the USB one that does both HDMI and component... Same price... unless USB2 can't keep up and you also have to add a USB3 card, but I'd still do that. Though if you look at product reviews on Amazon, this brand doesn't score very high. :/
That's weird. I've seen others raving about it. I always take the Amazon reviews with a grain of salt. When I bought my previous monitor, I had a look at their reviews, and the score was on the low side. There were complaints about dead pixels, colour washout etc. I then went to a computer store, asked them to demo the monitor for me before I buy, and it worked well. No dead pixels and, while the colour response wouldn't be good enough for a graphic designer, it was pretty good. Needless to say, I bought the thing despite people panning it on Amazon.
SRec source code is available at SourceForge under GPL license if anyone wants to help with improving it.
The source code of the current avi muxer (avi.library) is a complete mess and is extremely slow even when compared with cdxl muxer which has to do planar to chunky and truecolour to HAM conversion on the graphics. I've been intending to do a rewrite of the avi.library with a completely new and improved API but I haven't gotten around to doing much work on it yet (ATM I am waiting for my SAM440ep to come back from Italy, which will probably take some weeks still).
The problem is that it still drops frames on my 64-bit Windows XP dual-core 2.8 Ghz recording machine and there only a few options to reduce the recording load.
Instead of using a 7200 rpm drive, I will be switching to a 10000 rpm drive to see if that makes a difference. I've just not had time to do it yet. - Lars
I just watched that video, and it's definitely a much clearer picture than other videos. However, it looks like there are scaling errors, which suggests that the 720p version was made via scaling. It should work fastest if you're recording it at the resolution that the Amiga outputs. The other recordings that I have seen, have none of those artifacts at any resolution.
Quote:
The problem is that it still drops frames on my 64-bit Windows XP dual-core 2.8 Ghz recording machine and there only a few options to reduce the recording load.
I had heard that the hardware requirements are pretty high. The AverTV unit has a built-in H.264 encoder. Alas, it requires a component video input, which makes it less useful.
Quote:
Instead of using a 7200 rpm drive, I will be switching to a 10000 rpm drive to see if that makes a difference. I've just not had time to do it yet. - Lars
This is NOT the actual speed. For some reason the video is slightly accelerated. But at least I got a full quality 720p video online. :) The file is 8 GB, and took about 15 hours to upload. :o
It is almost a nightmare trying to get everything working. Either the speed goes wrong, or the video blanks, or the recording applications crash, or Windows goes to the blue screen of death. I had to format my hard drive and re-install Windows just to get this one recorded. Well, I'll keep working at it to fix the speed next.
This is NOT the actual speed. For some reason the video is slightly accelerated. But at least I got a full quality 720p video online. :) The file is 8 GB, and took about 15 hours to upload. :o
It looks much better than the last one.
Quote:
It is almost a nightmare trying to get everything working. Either the speed goes wrong, or the video blanks, or the recording applications crash, or Windows goes to the blue screen of death. I had to format my hard drive and re-install Windows just to get this one recorded. Well, I'll keep working at it to fix the speed next.
That's a bit of a pain. It is possible to record at the right speed. If not, you can always set the framerate using a video editing program.
News feed
OS4 Feedback forum
OS4Depot Feedback forum
Amigabounty forum
OpenAmiga forum
AmiCygnix forum
ABC shell forum
AmiKit forum
Cinnamon Writer forum
CodeBench forum
Digital Universe forum
Dopus 5 forum
E-UAE forum
Gnash forum
Ibrowse forum
JAmiga forum
Odyssey forum
OWB forum
Qt forum
SmartFileSystem forum
Timberwolf forum
TouchDevice forum
TuneNet forum
Unsatisfactory Software forum
Donate
