Gaming Is there such a program...

[tagzard]

I am going to be emulating some games ranging from the atari to gamecube. And i am going to be recording it.

This is what i need: (It can also be multiple programs, i just want something(S) that will get the job done)

1:A program that flawlessly records my screen and it has to be able to record sound from the laptop (some friends will be talking to me on skype so i want to hear their voice as well as mine) (i want it be record a pacific screen)

2: A way that they all can see my screen without lag.

These are the specs i need:
MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps per channel, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file format

 

[MasterPenguin]

Use a Skype & Teamviewer combo. That's the only way I can think of.

 

[tagzard]

READ EDIT

 

[Rydian]

Give up, that's not happening.

"Perfect" quality of a desktop is almost a megabyte per frame. Perfect framerate is in the area of 55-60 frames per second. Unless you happen to have an internet speed that can UPLOAD 55 megabytes a second, you will not get perfect realtime display (and this is to one person, without sound).

So most streamers like teamviewer and skype and shit use compressed video because people can actually do stuff live with it, though not at "perfect" quality.

In order to share your shit with more than one person you might look into some streaming site like ustream, but again it's compressed video, so it's not perfect.




inb4 "Well I see LPs on youtube in high quality" - Those are recorded beforehand and then uploaded to youtube later.

 

[tagzard]

READ EDIT

 

[Sicklyboy]

Give up, that's not happening.

"Perfect" quality of a desktop is almost a megabyte per frame. Perfect framerate is in the area of 55-60 frames per second. Unless you happen to have an internet speed that can UPLOAD 55 megabytes a second, you will not get perfect realtime display (and this is to one person, without sound).

So most streamers like teamviewer and skype and shit use compressed video because people can actually do stuff live with it, though not at "perfect" quality.

In order to share your shit with more than one person you might look into some streaming site like ustream, but again it's compressed video, so it's not perfect.




inb4 "Well I see LPs on youtube in high quality" - Those are recorded beforehand and then uploaded to youtube later.

Ok screw perfect quality. Lets say i was watching avatar while on teamviewer conference. Would the other computures get lag?

Lots. Plus, the color will be all screwed up. (Drops it down to 256 color, iirc)

 

[sweenish]

they should just rent the movie if they want to watch it so bad. or download it, or do anything that isn't this terrible idea.

 

[Urza]

"Perfect" quality of a desktop is almost a megabyte per frame. Perfect framerate is in the area of 55-60 frames per second. Unless you happen to have an internet speed that can UPLOAD 55 megabytes a second, you will not get perfect realtime display (and this is to one person, without sound).

To correct the math, most screen sharing utilities use client-side algorithms to determine image diffs, rather than transmitting the entire display every frame (which would be silly). This make it perfectly feasible to broadcast in real-time at your native resolution without any appearance of compression-derived artifacts; frame rate might decrease during increased activity on the screen however.

 

[tagzard]

READ EDIT

 

[Tom Bombadildo]

It will lag like crazy. It would be like the people viewing would see about 5-20FPS depending on their internet speed. I've tried doing this one time with Project 64 and it lagged way to much.

 

[tagzard]

READ EDIT

 

[jargus]

It will lag like crazy. It would be like the people viewing would see about 5-20FPS depending on their internet speed. I've tried doing this one time with Project 64 and it lagged way to much.

Okay. Is there a option where it doesn't lag?
Persay a video sharring live website?

Use xsplit broadcaster to stream it to ustream, twitch, or livestream

 

[tagzard]

READ EDIT

 

[Rydian]

As stated, some streaming sites like ustream are made for this kinda' thing, Idunno' how limited they are though.

"Perfect" quality of a desktop is almost a megabyte per frame. Perfect framerate is in the area of 55-60 frames per second. Unless you happen to have an internet speed that can UPLOAD 55 megabytes a second, you will not get perfect realtime display (and this is to one person, without sound).

To correct the math, most screen sharing utilities use client-side algorithms to determine image diffs, rather than transmitting the entire display every frame (which would be silly). This make it perfectly feasible to broadcast in real-time at your native resolution without any appearance of compression-derived artifacts; frame rate might decrease during increased activity on the screen however.

How efficient are modern difference approaches, though? AFAIK almost all video compression works off of differences of some kind (with full frames stuck in), and I couldn't imagine a computer doing that quickly enough while running something like an emulator.

From the way I've seen teamviewer work it does just seem to be reduced-color images (as others stated down to 256 colors and such), I don't see the same kind of "difference artifacting" I do when video streams screw up, it's more like page tearing. I haven't used Skype's screen sharing much (and not recently), but it did seem it it was being done through compressed video instead of frames.

 

[Urza]

How efficient are modern difference approaches, though? AFAIK almost all video compression works off of differences of some kind (with full frames stuck in), and I couldn't imagine a computer doing that quickly enough while running something like an emulator.

Perhaps you should pick up some components manufactured after 2007.

 

[Rydian]

How efficient are modern difference approaches, though? AFAIK almost all video compression works off of differences of some kind (with full frames stuck in), and I couldn't imagine a computer doing that quickly enough while running something like an emulator.

Perhaps you should pick up some components manufactured after 2007.

Perhaps you should pick up some tact.

 

[Urza]

There's no reason to get so offensive over a completely innocuous statement. Any modern hardware should perform fine under the scenario you presented.

 

[Rydian]

There's no reason to get so offensive over a completely innocuous statement. Any modern hardware should perform fine under the scenario you presented.

You worded it offensively.

I'm on a Q8400 and FRAPS recording my desktop at native resolution (1680x1050) uses up 25-50% CPU depending on what else is going on. That leaves plenty of CPU power for playing a video (even with GPU acceleration turned off so the picture would display if that's an issue), but something like GC/Wii emulation (forgot which, but one was originally mentioned) is going to hurt from that... I didn't try recording with Camstudio (which will give me the option of using ffdshow to test how various other codecs work as the one FRAPS uses will likely be too bandwidth-intensive even at a low resolution), but from what I've seen and done it's not nearly as smooth a recorder as FRAPS when it comes to "3D" stuff.

The fact that you chose to down-talk the computer I just upgraded instead of continue to discuss the specs and math and power involved is why I said you need tact.

 

[Urza]

The fact that you chose to interpret the statement as offensive, immediately retorting with a direct personal attack against myself, pretty clearly shows the mindset you're in.

It would be best if you kept the discussion on topic as opposed continued statements attempting to validate your attack. You're not worth fighting with.

 

[tagzard]

Don't fight. I just want help.