Heya guys!
I wanted to know if in the future, it would be possible to convert replay videos from the game in more usual formats like avi, mp4, flv etc... Quake 3 had a really good system for that. (get into the replay and use a command to start converting/exporting the sequence into a different format)
Anyway, i think the title tells everything already. ^^
I know there's some things more important than that, it was just an idea... It would avoid using fraps over the replay or in game to record an uglier version of the sequence..
Ninja! *smoke ball*
Quote from: Wh1t34Gl3(SAS) on May 18, 2015, 10:32:19 PM
It would avoid using fraps over the replay or in game to record an uglier version of the sequence..
I see the point but whatever GPB will do, it won't be any better looking (assuming the same bitrate in the final video).
Video compression is video compression, not a lot of magic around these days ...
MaX.
Screen recorders would decrease fps and quality when recording. But not this.
On q3, i could make 720p/30fps videos with this system instead of 360p/16fps with fraps over the game. It was extremely useful and i'm sure it can be for a lot of peoples here.
- Everyone will be able to make good quality videos (even low configs)
- Easier way than the replay>screen recorder + ugly quality> convert to lighter formats for the upload
Quote from: Wh1t34Gl3(SAS) on May 19, 2015, 12:19:31 PM
Screen recorders would decrease fps and quality when recording. But not this.
On q3, i could make 720p/30fps videos with this system instead of 360p/16fps with fraps over the game. It was extremely useful and i'm sure it can be for a lot of peoples here.
- Everyone will be able to make good quality videos (even low configs)
- Easier way than the replay>screen recorder + ugly quality> convert to lighter formats for the upload
Quality wise and in terms of CPU/GPU load (FPS drop) I don't think it makes a significant difference if the encoder is internal in GPB or external (like FRAPS or AfterBurner).
I don't see any reason why it should.
It all depends on the encoder used: some have good quality and good compression, but require a lot of cpu power. Some require less cpu but have less quality and/or less compression.
I don't use FRAPS but I'm farily confident AfterBurner is better (dxtory seems to be good to, bur AfterBurner is free, really free).
If you have a Intel CPU with Intel integrated graphics you can use Quicksync with AfterBurner, which make the work lighter on the CPU.
NVidia has ShadowPlay, AMD has someting similar (depending on how recent the card is).
Anyway, no matter your system no matter the software, live encoding (while gaming) will always generate some FPS loss.
Only way to encode live small impact would be a an external video recorder, something like this (check the products section) : http://gamerzone.avermedia.com/ (http://gamerzone.avermedia.com/). Even with that, it's not granted you won't have any FPS drop.
The only advantage of what you are proposing is that you would not have to re-watch the replay to encode it. But of course this comes at a price.
MaX.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-O2UYLZdzU
Config:
CPU: AMD Athlon V120 single 2.2Ghz
GPU: ATI Radeon HD4200
RAM: 3GB DDR3
Screen: 1366x768
Results:
IoQ3 convert to avi: 720p (max for the screen)/26fps
Fraps recording to avi: 360p max (half size)/ 14/19fps
________
When you usually record with a screen recorder (not on high configs), you lower the settings to not have too much fps decrease, here you don't even need to.
Max resolution, fps gain. Clearly better.
Try it on a game q3/ioq3 based.
As for dxstory, it is a bit better than fraps, but needs to be well set.
Uh, I never lower the game res, at worst I lower the recorder res/fps/ quality vs load trade off or compession vs load trade off.
If your game had a better video encoder, they could make quite a lot of money out of it, video encoding is quite a hot topic.
Unless there's some hidden trick which makes the encoder specific to that game, but that would be irrelevant for any other game.
MaX.
Sometimes it's not enough. As for the encoder, that's what i meant, having similar system as q3 so medias can be exploited at their maximum. Just a though, but it would be cool.
Oh, I may have misunderstood you.
Did you mean that in q3 you have to record a demo while playing, then(quote) "get into the replay and use a command to start converting/exporting the sequence into a different format" ?
So what's the advantage ? That the conversion of (let's say) a 10min replay (from the game internal replay format to a video like .avi/.mkv) does not oblige you to actually waych the 10min of replay (eventually taking less than 10min) ?
MaX.
Almost right. You got the principle, but for the conversion you have to wait much more than the video length.
I'll start to fully explain how it works in q3.
1. Launch game session.
2. Record with the game's recorder.
3. When you're done with your fabulous media, return to the menu and go in the replay menu to start viewing your video.
4. Just when it starts, open the console and type /video to make the game converts the video from dm_68 (q3 in-game video format) to avi. The video will still play when it converts and the conversion will end only when the video does. Since it's playing and converting at the same time, the video loose speed (to few fps) and makes the conversion pretty long. But the result is more efficient than with a classic game recorder.
5. You have your avi file in a directory of your hdd and is now ready to upload (or maybe another conversion to a more lighter format, this time with a classic converter like format factory).
Seems pretty confusing but it's millions time simpler than it looks.
Usually, you don't stay behind your screen when there's a conversion, so it's up to you to find when you do it. :)
I hope my bad English didn't strike again.. ><
Ps: q3's in-game recorder is a start/stop button like fraps etc.. but doesn't reduce fps and deliver the exact same quality as when playing. GPB records automatically and seems to be as effective as q3's.
Well, then I'm lost.
How is this more interesting than using AfterBurner ?!?
I really don't get what is the advantage.
MaX.
AfterBurner isn't really for everyone. Then as i said already, fps and quality gain. I'm sure it can have it's effect on big configs too. Real 1080p (or more) + 60fps ? (if it's for uploading on youtube, it'll be lowered to 30 fps anyway...) No needs to lower the graphic settings of the game or the recorder.
And since gpbikes is recording automaticaly, you would just have to go in the video and type the command. Done.
Quote from: Wh1t34Gl3(SAS) on May 23, 2015, 11:31:30 AM
AfterBurner isn't really for everyone.
Why ?! :o
Quote from: Wh1t34Gl3(SAS) on May 23, 2015, 11:31:30 AM
Then as i said already, fps and quality gain. I'm sure it can have it's effect on big configs too. Real 1080p (or more) + 60fps ? (if it's for uploading on youtube, it'll be lowered to 30 fps anyway...) No needs to lower the graphic settings of the game or the recorder.
And why would you care about FPS in reply mode ? It doesn't really matter unless it's falling to ridiculous levels.
Quality wise, AfterBurner and Fraps can give all the quality that you want, including lossless formats (i.e. exactly what you see in the replay), if you have enough disk space and write speed.
You can't judge quality from the video you posted: that game has prehistoric graphics, textures are extremely uniform, ...
Quote from: Wh1t34Gl3(SAS) on May 23, 2015, 11:31:30 AM
And since gpbikes is recording automaticaly, you would just have to go in the video and type the command. Done.
GPB (like any game, including q3) is recording a demo file: that's not a video file.
With AfterBurner (or Fraps) you'd just go in the replay, start it and click ctrl+whatever: how is that more complicate ?!
MaX.
QuoteWhy ?! :o
Was that what you were referring to ? http://gaming.msi.com/features/afterburner
Good luck to keep that program running and recording while playing.. :|
QuoteAnd why would you care about FPS in reply mode ? It doesn't really matter unless it's falling to ridiculous levels.
Quality wise, AfterBurner and Fraps can give all the quality that you want, including lossless formats (i.e. exactly what you see in the replay), if you have enough disk space and write speed.
You can't judge quality from the video you posted: that game has prehistoric graphics, textures are extremely uniform, ...
Think about smaller configs, not everybody have 1k$ computers.. And i'm sure there would be a gain for high config as well.
Any screen recorder can't rise the graphics better than how it is in game already, so recording with better graphics IG and without any tweaks from the recorder would be useful yea. Plus, lossless quality have a price of ressources... (and i was talking about a converter at the beginning, not a recorder..)
As for the game
1. It is from 2000
2. It wasn't an official map.
3. There can be hd textures or not, it won't be different. There's shaders used in this map btw. (i have set low mipmap and no texture filtering, so it could render more beautiful than that.)
QuoteGPB (like any game, including q3) is recording a demo file: that's not a video file.
With AfterBurner (or Fraps) you'd just go in the replay, start it and click ctrl+whatever: how is that more complicate
With fraps etc... When you can't record when playing (due to fps loss), you record the replay. But if you want to have optimal quality and fluidity, a ig converter specialized for the game would be better.
It can be a benefit for everyone, why rejecting an idea like that ? After, there's more important things like the physics completion, tools etc... But i still think it would be useful and something to think about.
Quote from: Wh1t34Gl3(SAS) on May 23, 2015, 01:25:23 PM
Was that what you were referring to ? http://gaming.msi.com/features/afterburner
Good luck to keep that program running and recording while playing.. :|
You're still missing the key point:
you don't need to use it while playing !!GPB records the replay while playing (always): after that, you go in replay mode and use AfterBurner (just like the q3 integrated thing).
Quote from: Wh1t34Gl3(SAS) on May 23, 2015, 01:25:23 PM
It can be a benefit for everyone, why rejecting an idea like that ?
Because it brings nothing, unless I'm missing something.
If your config is able to encode
while watching a q3 replay, then it is also able to use AfterBurner
while watching a q3 replay.
Same goes for GPB. The fact the capture and encoder is external has only a minimal overhead.
Integrated capture and encoding will give marginal gains (for the same encoding algorithm, of course).
MaX.
Q3 has an internal converter, which doesn't reduce quality and fluidity (with my old config, it went down to 26 fps when converting, but considering youtube limits to 30, the loss is very minor, but again, old game + old config, gpb can surelly do better), that's the point. :|
QuoteIf your config is able to encode while watching a q3 replay, then it is also able to use AfterBurner while watching a q3 replay.
Does AfterBurner encode a lossless quality without performance issues ? I doubt that.. Plus, afterburner seems to be more than a simple windows with a simple start/stop recorder.
GPB already capture the game seance, no needs to capture it once again adding recorders' problem, THEN converting it to another format.
An internal converter and maybe the possibility for few formats would be more useful and easy to use than using few others programs over and after the game.
You need a direct recorder for e.g. Onboardvideos. I am using msi afterburner because for my rig the framedrops are acceptable in comparison to fraps and bandicam.
Quote from: Wh1t34Gl3(SAS) on May 23, 2015, 03:22:45 PM
Does AfterBurner encode a lossless quality without performance issues ? I doubt that..
No, but same goes for any encoder, including the q3 one.
You seem to think the q3 encoder is easier to use (which is wrong) and more efficient (which I would be very very surprised of).
Again, if the q3 encoder was better than the currently available encoders, they would sell it for big money.
Quote from: Wh1t34Gl3(SAS) on May 23, 2015, 03:22:45 PM
Plus, afterburner seems to be more than a simple windows with a simple start/stop recorder.
Doesn't matter. I'ts ultra-lightweight (install .zip is 34 MB), you are not obliged to use all the other features, not even to pop up its fancy interface once you've configured it (once for ever).
It stays very quiet (iconified in the taskbar, unless you open it), no ads, no spam. It's free (really free), unlimited and without any registration required.
You can disable most of the features (like hardware mnitoring and logging) if you think they have a performance impact. Likely, it is not the case: install it, configure the video recording section and forget it.
You can use it a a simple start-stop recorder: while in GPB, press ctrl+R to start the recording, press ctrl+R again to stop. How hard is that ?
Quote from: Wh1t34Gl3(SAS) on May 23, 2015, 03:22:45 PM
GPB already capture the game seance, no needs to capture it once again adding recorders' problem, THEN converting it to another format.
You don't understand what AfterBurner does.
GPB/Q3 record an internal format: the "demo" or "replay" file is NOT a video, it's a data file that needs to be "rendered". This is done by their internal replay player of GPB or Q3.
AfterBurner (simplifying a lot) capture the screen every X milliseconds and pass this data flow to a video encoder to create a .mkv/avi file. The part that uses CPU resources is the encoding, just like for q3.
If you use no-encoding (e.g. saving a raw video file), the CPU usage is of course very limited, the quality is perfect but the file size is huge (and you may need a fast HDD or SSD to record at decent resolution and high frame rates).
After that it's a matter of balancing 3 things: CPU usage, output file size (average bit rate) and video quality. Pick your own sweet spot: in AfterBurner you can configure everything (including the usage of GPU-accelerated encoders, a thing I really doubt q3 is capable of).
Quote from: Wh1t34Gl3(SAS) on May 23, 2015, 03:22:45 PM
An internal converter and maybe the possibility for few formats would be more useful and easy to use than using few others programs over and after the game.
No, because with AfterBurner/FRAPS you just need to press the "record" button to start/stop: how can anything else be easier ?
MaX.
P.S.
Most recent versions are typically available here: http://www.guru3d.com/files-get/msi-afterburner-beta-download,27.html (http://www.guru3d.com/files-get/msi-afterburner-beta-download,27.html)
>JJS209
It's for the replays, as told in the title. And can't view be added into the replay already ? (depending on the bike i guess)
It would fix the problem.
>Max
QuoteNo, but same goes for any encoder, including the q3 one.
You seem to think the q3 encoder is easier to use (which is wrong) and more efficient (which I would be very very surprised of).
Again, if the q3 encoder was better than the currently available encoders, they would sell it for big money.
Q3's encoder permitted me to make videos with crazy quality and a gain of fluidity. When using fraps, i can only film in half size/30fps to keep framerate to a decent level (and it wasn't even enough on URT (the game i showed you), i could barely reach 15 fps)
But it wasn't question of q3's encoder. It's the possible one for gpb which could do a much better work. (q3 is around 15 year old..)
QuoteDoesn't matter. I'ts ultra-lightweight (install .zip is 34 MB), you are not obliged to use all the other features, not even to pop up its fancy interface once you've configured it (once for ever).http://forum.piboso.com/Themes/default/images/bbc/quote.gif
It stays very quiet (iconified in the taskbar, unless you open it), no ads, no spam. It's free (really free), unlimited and without any registration required.
You can disable most of the features (like hardware mnitoring and logging) if you think they have a performance impact. Likely, it is not the case: install it, configure the video recording section and forget it.
You can use it a a simple start-stop recorder: while in GPB, press ctrl+R to start the recording, press ctrl+R again to stop. How hard is that ?
Never said it was hard. Testing it right now though. But i don't have hopes.
QuoteGPB/Q3 record an internal format: the "demo" or "replay" file is NOT a video, it's a data file that needs to be "rendered". This is done by their internal replay player of GPB or Q3.
I know what they are, and you understood what i meant.. The internal converter, specialized for gpbikes, would complete the in game "recorder" and there wouldn't be a need of an external program to be opened/managed (depending on the situation). I never said the EXACT SAME system as q3 should be done, but a similar one or maybe a new one if it is possible (but it will surely need a lot of thinking) . I let piboso or someone else decide of how it will be.
Throw q3 out of your mind, it was an example. The subject is about an internal recorder which could be advantageous compared to other external recorders.
Quote from: Wh1t34Gl3(SAS) on May 23, 2015, 09:22:54 PM
Throw q3 out of your mind, it was an example. The subject is about an internal recorder which could be advantageous compared to other external recorders.
Advantageous how exactly ? Because there's where all the discussion lies.
You think it's possible to do better than AfterBurner with an "internal recorder", I don't think it's possible to gain a lot: Video encoding is a demanding task, no matter if integrated or external.
Best quality with smallest CPU (or FPS) hit is typically obtained encoding with no/very light compression (i.e. very large files), and then using a dedicated external encoder (like Handbrake) to re-encode in order to compress significantly preserving quality. As this last step is done offline, the CPU load doesn't really matter. But of course it is a cumbersome process (watch a replay to save into .mkv with no/light compression, re-encode using handbrake and some advanced encoder).
MaX.
QuoteYou think it's possible to do better than AfterBurner with an "internal recorder", I don't think it's possible to gain a lot: Video encoding is a demanding task, no matter if integrated or external.
A gain is still a gain.
QuoteBest quality with smallest CPU (or FPS) hit is typically obtained encoding with no/very light compression (i.e. very large files), and then using a dedicated external encoder (like Handbrake) to re-encode in order to compress significantly preserving quality. As this last step is done offline, the CPU load doesn't really matter. But of course it is a cumbersome process (watch a replay to save into .mkv with no/light compression, re-encode using handbrake and some advanced encoder).
Right there, you gave a process that could be done by the internal encoder. :)
Internal or external, the same things would be done, but it will avoid other tasks and launching everything manually.
I just give an idea, how it's made, how it works, it isn't up to me to decide that.
Not up to me neither. Just pointing out that it will require some significant development for no real gain.
If Piboso wants to do it, then why not. But I'd be very surprised if he decides to do it and even more surprised if he ends up with something be much more efficient than any other (decent) external capture software. Even just 10% more efficient (for the same level of output quality and compression) would be very surprising. And 10% for sure won't change our life.
MaX.
Depends on the configs and how it will works. Can just say good luck if it will be added. (beta 24 ? :lol: )
Quote from: Wh1t34Gl3(SAS) on May 24, 2015, 11:06:14 PM
Depends on the configs and how it will works.
No it doesn't depend on the config, that's the point. Internal or external will be as efficient.
MaX.