I am having a few feelings of spreading the word of some games people might not have heard of or seen played. Sooooo I was curious as to whether anyone knows of good recording software, preferably free or under $10. Anyone?
These videos would be placed up on youtube, most likely using that bloody Windows Movie Maker.
ID:253727
 Feb 5 2012, 1:14 pm
|
|
|
Feb 5 2012, 1:26 pm
|
|
Branks
 |
Fraps is the be all, end all for capturing. For editing videos, go with Adobe Premier.
|
Fraps, xsplit if you want some fancy effects.
Personally, I record with Camtasia and edit with Vegas Pro unless the game is annoying to record with Camtasia, in which case I use Fraps. I like Camtasia's ability to keep your mic audio and system audio in separate tracks for volume adjustment and noise reduction, Fraps just lumps both into one track. | |
Camtasia is laggier though. Unless you have a really awesome computer, you should go with Fraps so you record in a more decent frame rate.
Windows Movie Maker is sufficient as long as you don't want anything too flashy. There are plugins you can download to get the video to be HD when using WMV. | |
I've never had trouble with Camtasia lagging, but I have a quad core processor, so that's probably why. Fraps is fantastic if you don't need simultaneous recording from a secondary audio source.
| |
Yeah quad cores do help. But I hear duo cores do better in actual gaming since not a lot of games take advantage of quad cores. Not sure though, I know more about GPUs than CPUs. =/
But it is weird Fraps doesn't let you record audio like that. I tried to download an earlier version of it with that "Record What U Hear" feature and even that didn't work. That's pretty much the only thing missing. | |
Dual cores aren't inherently better, but they tend to be a little bit more power per core, which is better for games that don't support more than 2. Quad core is tons better for gaming if you record it, regardless of the game's support, which is the sole reason I chose the CPU I did.
Yes, that is pretty annoying. Otherwise, Fraps would be an ideal tool for recording commercial games. You can always record a secondary audio source with Audacity or some other audio recording program, but that's an additional program running in the background slowing things down, and it's harder to edit together properly. It also lacks the ability to record a screen region, which means anything that isn't OGL or DirectX can't be recorded. | |
I thought of downloading fraps.... >> Goes to the piratebay <<
| |
I wouldnt recomend Fraps for the users with slow harddrives if you whish to record in the highest quality. though, Fraps is probably the strongest recording software there is today, even with low quality.
camtasia was not designed to handle directX and OGL, which is why the lowpriced computers wouldnt handle its work. Camtasia basicly just runs tons of uneceseary process which computers would like less then just concentrating on the recording itself. To the processor part... All the games after 2005, i would say, is multicore supportive. If you have a game that doesnt support it, don't play it... And dualcores really doesn't have any more power into each core then a quad core. that is if you don't compare an dual i7 to a dual i5 of course. basicly, different serials brings different power to each core. But a quadcore would always be better then a CPU with less cores, unless they where runned on a single CPU software and the quadcore had less transistors pr. core. | |
Tafe wrote:
To the processor part... The concept of a game 'supporting' multi-cores does not apply. The operating system handles process and thread managing, which may or may not result in a performance boost in different applications. It depends on whether the game is multi-threaded or not, and if multi-threading is even a viable option and/or will actually result in a performance boost for that game. In many situations, being multi-threaded will actually make the game run slower while also needlessly complicating the work/code for the game. (Depending on what development environment is used.) But a quadcore would always be better then a CPU with less cores, unless they where runned on a single CPU software and the quadcore had less transistors pr. core. Again, you are wrong. Having a quad core is not some voodoo magic that magically makes everything run faster. Some programs do not have multiple threads, and you won't notice any boost. What is more important is cache-size, read/write speed and clock speed. (Usually more cores also have those boosts as well.) However, you will see a performance boost if you run multiple applications at once, because those can be essentially ran in parallel from the operating system. | |
Prove more right, please!
| |