Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Eyefinity capture for youtube - Help
hi looking to do a few eyefintiy videos for youtube and im kind of new at video capturing.
Ive tried a bunch of video capture software and it seems that dxtory is the most flexable, but im having problems outputting a decent fps in the file.
I can take the performance hit, and my in game fps goes down to 20-30, but file fps is locked at 10. Doing a bit of reading it seems that my hdd might be to slow to keep up with the required bitrate.
looking at a few websites the requirement calculation is as follows:
(5760 x 1080 x 3 x 20)
RGB24 YUV24:
Width x Height x 3 x fps = bitrate (byte/sec)
Using that codec works out to be 355~mb/s (if i calculated it right) which seems extreme.(my current throughput is 169mb/s)
whats the best way to go, am i limited by hardware or is there codec or scaling options?
Doing a quick youtube search, this guy is presenting a eyefinity youtube video with acceptable fps. that would be something to shoot for i guess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=863wpWypz0g
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
Comments
YouTube's aspect ratio is only 16:9. The black bars at the top and bottom of the 48:9 videos make the content so small that it doesn't seem very enjoyable to watch. As a result, I fail to see the reasoning for attempting such a capture, aside from a novelty video or tech demo.
If you really want to capture at that bit rate, you need a solid-state drive. As you pointed out, you reached the limit on mechanical drive write rates. Here is an article which compares speeds of some newer SSDs, but others have release since then which might be faster.
http://www.techradar.com/us/news/computing-components/storage/best-ssd-10-of-the-top-ssds-on-test-994095/3#articleContent
The performance numbers to look at there are the incompressible sequential write speeds.
I know how it looks on a single screen, But i can also playback that video i posted in youtube eyefinity, ie if you have a eyefinity setup you can watch it in correct fullscreen.
I am using an SSD, an intel 330 to be exact. (which is listed @ 207mb/s on the chart)
interestingly there is only 3 drives on that chart that could pull off the performance necessary.
inst there a way to compress the data so the required bandwidth is less?
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
How many people have eyefinity setups? I'm guessing not many do, so posting an eyefinity video won't be enjoyed to its fullest by most people. I'm not trying to stop you; I just want you to think about the logic behind making a video in an aspect-ratio most people can't enjoy.
When you encode an audio+video stream into a codec, you are usually compressing the data at the same time. Read a bit on MP4, h264, and a few other popular codecs to get an idea of how they work. Compressed data usually can't be compressed more. Have you ever tried to zip up a zip file? A better example might be trying to zip up a jpg image.
The Kingspec is different from the other SSDs listed in that it is using a PCIe interface instead of SATA III. It is also placing the SSDs in a RAID configuration, which is surprising that it doesn't help much. My guess is the Kingspec card has a process running on the system to compress data before it is sent to the card to be written, but this could also be done on the card itself.
Well, SSDs don't benefit from RAID0 as much, because they are essentially already RAID0 devices. There are some number of NAND chips on there, all in parallel driven by the drive controller - much in the same way you would have some number of hard drives, all in parallel, driven by the RAID controller.
So you get some benefit, but given that they are already pretty parallel devices, it's like going from a 4-drive RAID to an 8-drive RAID, rather than single drive to 2-drive RAID.
As far as compression; your just shifting the load. It's already a pretty heavy strain on your computer to just dump raw video data to the disk subsystem. If you want to encode it too - now it needs to go through your CPU, be buffered in RAM, either processed by your CPU or GPU (if you have a GPU-accelerated encoder), and then dumped to the hard drive. Not all CODECs are compressed, and most video recording software use a loose codec that includes little to no compression (otherwise everyone would complain that it drops their FPS too much to play while recording).
That will definitely impact frame rates on your game as played. Given that your already trying to play on triple-screens and pushing your GPUs fairly hard as it is, that probably isn't the best idea.
If you really want to record at that resolution, your best bet is to drop the frame rate. Do your video at 5FPS or something, rather than trying to encode it on the fly. It will look like crap, sure, but your trying to do something that can't really be done on hardware yet.
Your calculations are more or less correct, and you are also correct in noticing that it is extreme. That's one good reason why you don't see it done very often. You can get a disk drive solution to 355+ MBs (Revodrive comes to mind), but it's not going to be cheap.