Move if this is in the wrong place, Stobbo said it should be here

I've been looking around for screen recorders that actually work decently without too much lag THis is going to be recording a full-screen game, which could be windowed if necessary.

So far I've used:

Hypercam 2, Unregistered. - Never tried this actually, but what's anyone else's view on it?
Fraps, unregistered. - Awful, dropped from 21fps to 3fps while recording. 30 seconds max without registering, not good.
Camstudio, Open Source. - This was great for recording RuneScape, but it failed when I tried it with fullscreen, images blurred and fuzzed really badly.
BSR, Unregistered. - Bulent's Screen Recorder seemed decent enough, but I can't get the hotkeys to work while the game is running

They're the 4 I've tried with any decent success. Is there a fix to any of these 'problems', eg. A way of getting high quality video that's actually distinguishable?
And does anyone have any other programs that could do the job?

Ur settings are wrong then...
U should select 50fps or somethin
And get the full version Really nice I must say

I'd highly suggest Hypercam, very resource-low program which provides a very good picture with the right settings.

However it does leave a nasty watermark...

yeah fraps gets 100FPS no problem on my friends computer when we lan party CS at his house. is your video card dropping fps too? cause if your video card drops and the record video drops i blame it on your video card.

i think a keygen is against the laws for copyright and intellectual piracy!!!

You guys do know that the human eye cannot see more than 28fps, right?

yeah but everyone likes good performance!!! like 100 FPS!!!

It doesn't matter. You won't see a difference.
Infact, the ONLY reason something should record more then 50fps is for slow motion, and car crash tests. Anything in REAL TIME is 100% pointless on your computer.

Because I'm a big nub
What's the difference between that and just the game dropping fps?

And I sure notice the difference between 28 and 3 fps, thanks Fumetsu

Talk about not knowing your stuff.

28FPS in a game and 28FPS in a movie are HUGE differences. While movie lenses blend light between frames, each frame is displayed TO THE PIXEL in games (hence why motion blur, depth of field, and HDR have huge effects in how games look). It's incredibly easy to see the difference between 28FPS and 200FPS in a game. Try it in Half-Life 2 or even Quake --> use the fpslimit command to set your max FPS at 28FPS. Suddenly, it lags. It's even more noticeable when your framrate, once at 100, suddenly drops to below 50 in a high-detail scene. This is why it's recommended that you set your screen at 70 Hertz or above: the eye can tell a difference!

On a related note, I don't see where people get those "facts." Filmmakers decided on 24FPS because they determined it was the SLOWEST that fluid motion could be perceived at, not the fastest ...

Since I don't feel like explaining how clearly wrong you are in saying that 100FPS in real time doesn't mean squat, check this link out:
100FPS

And let me quote Wikipedia on the issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate#Fr..._in_video_games

All I have to say to this is... "lol"
Wikipedia is never 100% accurate sense the userbase is not anyone who has any degree in the subject.

reference to medical/md document needed

Rather, show me a medical document that shows the human eye cannot see more than 28 frames in a second. Try googling it? Come up with just what I got? Well, I guess the entire internet could be wrong and you're the only one right. That would make a lot of sense, wouldn't it.

Also, I'll give this simple fact:

I haven't seen a single PC monitor that has a refresh rate of 28 Hertz, and most LCDs don't even use a multiple of it. The fact is, human eyes don't see in frames per second. It's a matter of conveying a continuous flow of information, something that 24FPS will do well, but obviously not as well as something higher, especially in a game where pixels tend not to blend between frames.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/TempRate.mspx

I have no medical background other then my a-level for biology. I would have thought it was diffrencial according to monitor size / refresh rate etc etc?

Perhaps this article will settle this dispute?
http://www.swift.ac.uk/vision.pdf]

On topic: I personally use a free version of camtasia, however i would not recommend it for full screen recording, unless you buy the full version.

camstudio is also free, http://www.osalt.com/camstudio

Are you aware of who you're talking to? He has Windows Vista Ultimate...

@Codex_

(I'm not talking about fps in games here, I don't know much about that.)

The human eye has a limit somwhere at 20 fps. if it displays faster, like 50, the quality may improve, but you won't really notice. Thats also a reason why movies are recorded in 29 fps or 30 fps.

Not according to every source I can find on the internet, and the GIGANTIC difference between blurring and realistic light display in movies compared to the way video games are presented.

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
http://www.firingsquad.com/features/faceof...fps/default.asp
http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_5.html
http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_3.html

so what if i have windows vista ultimate? the whole point is the more FPS the better! even if it seems wasted its good performance for your computer. the MORE FPS the BETTER!

I have HyperCam 2. It works, but I don't like it. Camtasia Studio has a lot more options built into the program. It's like a version of HyperCam with better resolution and better options than Windows Movie Maker. As far as free programs go, stick with HyperCam 2.

People try to cut back on a lot of useless BS.

+1 Definition, although try not to backseat mod yourself

Closed